New Atheism behaves like a cult - Page 14 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14798289
Dagoth Ur wrote:If you had kids you wouldn't raise them atheist? You would just let them listen to whoever came by?

I am an atheist, I have kids, and I didn't "raise them atheist," in any manner comparable to how religious parents raise their kids to follow their religion. I was simply honest about my own views and the reasons for them, and yes, I "let" them listen to whoever came by, including religious relatives. All four are highly intelligent, thoughtful, and rational atheists.
I don't think the majority of humanity tends toward absolutism but yeah pretty much all dumb people anywhere try to shut down discussion and debate regardless of ethos. Since the majority of humanity are theists I don't think what you are saying here holds water.

The theistic majority typically try to shut down discussion and debate that challenges their beliefs.
New Atheists.

Nope.
When atheists stop being a very tiny minority you will.

Nope. Has never happened. In Japan, the most atheistic country in the world, it's unknown.

Your claims are just objectively false.
Dagoth Ur wrote:Wrong. Matter is all that matters. Ideas come after decisions are already made.

OK, so in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," Indian widows decided to climb on their husbands' funeral pyres, and then tried to come up with a plausible rationalization for doing so.

Seriously, do you ever read what you have written before hitting the "Submit" button?
Dagoth Ur wrote:Convictions are only as strong as the conditions that reinforce them.

I guess that must be why Galileo defied the Catholic church....
Without coming from where you do, when you did, with whom you did, etc nothing about who you are would be the same.

Refuted by the University of Minnesota Twins Study.
You are 100% a product of the conditions of your life.

False and absurd.
These ideas you have are just your mind figuring out a framework that justifies these decisions.

Like all the suicide bombers who decide to blow themselves up, and then try to come up with a plausible reason to do it...?

It would be difficult to construct a less rational view.
Last edited by Truth To Power on 18 Apr 2017 20:19, edited 1 time in total.
#14798418
Pants-of-dog wrote:Can you please quote her exact words where she argues that, or minimally provide a link? Thank you.


"If I am right about this, there can be no superior logic that will show up the mistakes of logicians; there can be no feminist logic that exposes masculine logic as sexist or authoritarian. And this might be taken as weakness. Have I fallen into the old trap, an attentive listening woman who understands all and forgives all? If Dummett put aside Frege's fascism because it was irrelevant to logical truth, does my 'understanding' have the same effect? The experience of a lonely man, cut off from others, bitter, concentrated on one supreme intellectual task, one obsession—such an understanding makes Frege's logic intelligible but does it also make it forgivable? If a feminist reader is to remain a reader and not turn logician at the last moment and present the feminist truth by which she will judge and legislate, how can she condemn the logic of Empire, Church or State? Desperate, lonely, cut off from the human community which in many cases has ceased to exist, under the sentence of violent death, wracked by desires for intimacy that they do not know how to fulfill, at the same time tormented by the presence of women, men turn to logic. Doomed to fail in their Parmenidean flight out of the world, fated tragically never to realize their desire for permanence and purity, can they be condemned, or only pitied, or even admired for their ability?"

There, overt opposition to the entire project of logic, contrasted with her alternative of "reading". Logic is not "the feminist truth". Logic is for dorks. And so it goes. Critical feminist theory is filled with this sort of drivel. As someone who values True™ Objective™ Rational™ Logic™, doesn't that concern you? Or are you claims to being Logical™ simply rooted in having a set of "appropriate" ideological beliefs?

Pants-of-dog wrote:If someone is objectively wrong, then it can be empirically shown that their argument is inconsistent with observable reality.


Stringing together a bunch of buzzwords relating to things you don't appear to know much about doesn't let you off the hook: you were talking about "wrong" in the deontic sense earlier, not the epistemic sense. That's why you asked what it was that Rebecca Watson did that was Objectively™ Wrong™. So explain Objectively™ Wrong™ in the deontic sense.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then it should be easy for you to provide examples. Excellent.


I put "feminist" into Google News and predictably there was fodder for lulz; there always is:

http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/a2 ... mmitments/

I love watching these people trying to catch their peers out on their little shibboleths and fragmented ideological commitments.

"For instance, the essentialist idea that womanhood equates to having a vagina isn't a feminist commitment because it excludes transgender women."

This means that we can look forward to these people going at each other's throats over the issue of whether pre-op MTF trans individuals are let into women's bathrooms and locker rooms, the battle of True™ Intersectional™ Social Justice™ vs. EWWWWW! (I found it telling that a local college here has gender-neutral bathrooms but also has preserved women's bathrooms, perhaps anticipating this fight.)

Pants-of-dog wrote:So, she does not say that the Principia is a rape manual.


She calls Newton's laws "Newton's rape manual". Newton's laws are embodied by Principia Mathematica. "Rape manual" (rather than, say, "rape guidelines") makes the most sense if the comparison is with a full treatise and not three laws that can be stated in just a few paragraphs. If all you have as a counterargument is picking on minor trivia, your case is pretty weak. You said "I highly doubt she says this" and were wrong. Come to terms with it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:She, instead, argues that metaphors about nature as a woman who welcomes rape


Contradiction in terms. One cannot "welcome" rape.

Pants-of-dog wrote:were perhaps as fundamental as the metaphors of nature as machinery in terms of popular acceptance of scientific thought during Newton's time.


It's still an utterly retarded thesis, one for which there is no Objective™ Rational™ Logical™ Ebuhdins™. "In an inertial frame of reference, the net force on an object is equal to the product of its mass and acceleration" is not part of a "rape manual".

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes. But a lot of people think that


That doesn't surprise me one bit.

Pants-of-dog wrote:and it does not affect the truth of my statements. Even if I were a troll, my argument would still be just as correct or incorrect.


Well I guess it's too bad that your arguments aren't correct.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So, you are offended that discussions about rape took place between atheists after a woman described her discomfort in an elevator? This is fine, but you may wish to focus less on talking about your feelings


You seem to be think that Rebecca Watson and her defenders are better actors than I am. And, with them, it's all pathos, all the time. So, to the extent I am "talking about my feelings", I am simply emulating the superior party.

Pants-of-dog wrote:In terms of how much it actually benefits society, discussions about sexual assault and how to minimise it are far nore important than discussing arguments about the existence of god.


Those are just your Subjective™ Personal™ Feelings™ about the issue, man.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you have no opinion on the social or political impact of religion?


I want it to go away, like I want other systems of false beliefs to go away. That includes ones held by feminists.
#14798562
Perkwunos wrote:"If I am right about this, there can be no superior logic that will show up the mistakes of logicians; there can be no feminist logic that exposes masculine logic as sexist or authoritarian. And this might be taken as weakness. Have I fallen into the old trap, an attentive listening woman who understands all and forgives all? If Dummett put aside Frege's fascism because it was irrelevant to logical truth, does my 'understanding' have the same effect? The experience of a lonely man, cut off from others, bitter, concentrated on one supreme intellectual task, one obsession—such an understanding makes Frege's logic intelligible but does it also make it forgivable? If a feminist reader is to remain a reader and not turn logician at the last moment and present the feminist truth by which she will judge and legislate, how can she condemn the logic of Empire, Church or State? Desperate, lonely, cut off from the human community which in many cases has ceased to exist, under the sentence of violent death, wracked by desires for intimacy that they do not know how to fulfill, at the same time tormented by the presence of women, men turn to logic. Doomed to fail in their Parmenidean flight out of the world, fated tragically never to realize their desire for permanence and purity, can they be condemned, or only pitied, or even admired for their ability?"

There, overt opposition to the entire project of logic, contrasted with her alternative of "reading". Logic is not "the feminist truth". Logic is for dorks. And so it goes. Critical feminist theory is filled with this sort of drivel. As someone who values True™ Objective™ Rational™ Logic™, doesn't that concern you? Or are you claims to being Logical™ simply rooted in having a set of "appropriate" ideological beliefs?


Wow, you are sensitive. So, when a woman discusses how logic is unable to formulate an intelligent criticism against Frege's fascism, you decide that the big mean feminists are attacking your precious snowflake logic and being "anti-logic".

Does pointing out that men cannot bear children equal some sort of misandrist statement in your mind? Lol.

Stringing together a bunch of buzzwords relating to things you don't appear to know much about doesn't let you off the hook: you were talking about "wrong" in the deontic sense earlier, not the epistemic sense. That's why you asked what it was that Rebecca Watson did that was Objectively™ Wrong™. So explain Objectively™ Wrong™ in the deontic sense.


Hey, if you think I am stupid, feel free not to reply to my posts.

Still does not change the fact that you are getting upset just becuase Ms. watsom dare to talk about women's rights.

I put "feminist" into Google News and predictably there was fodder for lulz; there always is:

http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/a2 ... mmitments/

I love watching these people trying to catch their peers out on their little shibboleths and fragmented ideological commitments.

"For instance, the essentialist idea that womanhood equates to having a vagina isn't a feminist commitment because it excludes transgender women."

This means that we can look forward to these people going at each other's throats over the issue of whether pre-op MTF trans individuals are let into women's bathrooms and locker rooms, the battle of True™ Intersectional™ Social Justice™ vs. EWWWWW! (I found it telling that a local college here has gender-neutral bathrooms but also has preserved women's bathrooms, perhaps anticipating this fight.)


The fact that you also feel this is "pants-on-head retarded" does not convince me that it is. It just convinces me that you get emotional about unimportant stuff.

She calls Newton's laws "Newton's rape manual". Newton's laws are embodied by Principia Mathematica. "Rape manual" (rather than, say, "rape guidelines") makes the most sense if the comparison is with a full treatise and not three laws that can be stated in just a few paragraphs. If all you have as a counterargument is picking on minor trivia, your case is pretty weak. You said "I highly doubt she says this" and were wrong. Come to terms with it.

It's still an utterly retarded thesis, one for which there is no Objective™ Rational™ Logical™ Ebuhdins™. "In an inertial frame of reference, the net force on an object is equal to the product of its mass and acceleration" is not part of a "rape manual".


No, it was pretty clear she was discussing how rape metaphors helped men accept Newton's laws.

You want to believe that the mean lady is being awful to the poor scientists.

Contradiction in terms. One cannot "welcome" rape.


I completely agree, yet many men believe this..

You seem to be think that Rebecca Watson and her defenders are better actors than I am. And, with them, it's all pathos, all the time. So, to the extent I am "talking about my feelings", I am simply emulating the superior party.

Those are just your Subjective™ Personal™ Feelings™ about the issue, man.


I have no idea if they are actors.

I know wmone do not welcome rape, so it makes sense for women to discuss rape and how to minimise it. Avoiding sexual assault is about more than just feelings.

So your comparison if your precious feelings against discussions about rape is dismissive of the problems associated with sexual assault. Pretending that the harm caused by rape is just my feelings is also dismissive.

I want it to go away, like I want other systems of false beliefs to go away. That includes ones held by feminists.


That is not what I asked. Please answer the question. Thanks.
#14798610
Pants-of-dog wrote:Wow, you are sensitive. So, when a woman discusses how logic is unable to formulate an intelligent criticism against Frege's fascism, you decide that the big mean feminists are attacking your precious snowflake logic and being "anti-logic".


You have asked for ebuhdins that Nye is opposed to logic. You have been given this ebuhdins. Here is more ebuhdins. This is the Amazon blurb for her book:

"Is logic masculine? Is women's lack of interest in the "hard core" philosophical disciplines of formal logic and semantics symptomatic of an inadequacy linked to sex? Is the failure of women to excel in pure mathematics and mathematical science a function of their inability to think rationally?

Andrea Nye undermines the assumptions that inform these questions, assumptions such as: logic is unitary, logic is independenet of concrete human relations, and logic transcends historical circumstances as well as gender. In a series of studies of the logics of historical figures--Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Abelard, Ockham, and Frege--she traces the changing interrelationships between logical innovation and oppressive speech strategies, showing that logic is not transcendent truth but abstract forms of language spoken by men, whether Greek ruling citizens, or scientists."

Now, you have two mutually exclusive choices here:

  1. Live up to your pretensions to having a worldview centered around Objective™ Rational™ Logical™ Ebuhdins™ and dismiss Nye's thesis as foolish or...
  2. Abandon all pretense of being committed to the idea of objectivity and continue defending her thesis

Pants-of-dog wrote:Does pointing out that men cannot bear children equal some sort of misandrist statement in your mind? Lol.


That's a bigoted trans-exclusionary statement.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Still does not change the fact that you are getting upset just becuase Ms. watsom dare to talk about women's rights.


That's not what I got upset about.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that you also feel this is "pants-on-head retarded" does not convince me that it is. It just convinces me that you get emotional about unimportant stuff.


Is "getting emotional" supposed to be some kind of rebuttal?

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it was pretty clear she was discussing how rape metaphors helped men accept Newton's laws.


Where is duh Objective™ Logical™ Rational™ Ebuhdins™ for this claim?

Pants-of-dog wrote:You want to believe that the mean lady is being awful to the poor scientists.


I don't know about "mean". But she is being stupid.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I completely agree, yet many men believe this..


So where is the Objective™ Logical™ Rational™ Ebuhdins™ that nature is a woman who welcomes rape was the thought process going through the heads of 17th century scientists?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I have no idea if they are actors.


?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I know wmone do not welcome rape, so it makes sense for women to discuss rape and how to minimise it.


And I don't welcome the skeptic community getting bogged down in lots of off-topic personal bullshit, so it makes sense for me to discuss it and how to minimize it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:That is not what I asked. Please answer the question. Thanks.


The social and political impact of religion includes adherence to and enforcement of falsehoods. I want those to go away.
#14798625
Perkwunos wrote:You have asked for ebuhdins that Nye is opposed to logic. You have been given this ebuhdins. Here is more ebuhdins. This is the Amazon blurb for her book:

"Is logic masculine? Is women's lack of interest in the "hard core" philosophical disciplines of formal logic and semantics symptomatic of an inadequacy linked to sex? Is the failure of women to excel in pure mathematics and mathematical science a function of their inability to think rationally?

Andrea Nye undermines the assumptions that inform these questions, assumptions such as: logic is unitary, logic is independenet of concrete human relations, and logic transcends historical circumstances as well as gender. In a series of studies of the logics of historical figures--Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Abelard, Ockham, and Frege--she traces the changing interrelationships between logical innovation and oppressive speech strategies, showing that logic is not transcendent truth but abstract forms of language spoken by men, whether Greek ruling citizens, or scientists."

Now, you have two mutually exclusive choices here:

  1. Live up to your pretensions to having a worldview centered around Objective™ Rational™ Logical™ Ebuhdins™ and dismiss Nye's thesis as foolish or...
  2. Abandon all pretense of being committed to the idea of objectivity and continue defending her thesis


Logic, as we know it and understand it, is an attempt at regulating language so that certain attributes (almost always, truth) are consistent throughout the communication.

It is a very powerful tool because it allows us to effectively communicate and analyse rational and correct ideas. It is not, unfortunately, a transcendent truth.

The logic we use (as compared to some perfect ideal logic) is a human construct, and therefore is influenced by culture. This means that cultures have used different logics (some of which are better than others), logic is influenced by concrete human relations, and logic does not necessarily transcend history or gender (or class, or race, etc).

If we are discussing how humans actually use logic (instead of some ideal perfect logic that we attempt to attain but rarely reach), then there is nothing incorrect in saying that the imperfect and human attempts we make to attain this perfect ideal are diverse, and are influnced by our historical contexts.

That's not what I got upset about.


As far as I can tell, Ms. Watson began a dialogue on sexual assault within the skeptic community. You feel this detracts from other, more important conversations.

Since I think discussions about minimising sexual assault are far more important than discussing if god exists, I have a different opinion.

Is "getting emotional" supposed to be some kind of rebuttal?


It is more like an indication that I am going to drop this particular tangent. I am not here to discuss emotions and opinions.

Where is duh Objective™ Logical™ Rational™ Ebuhdins™ for this claim?


How do you do that little TM thing? As for your question, it seemed clear from the excerpt you showed us.

So where is the Objective™ Logical™ Rational™ Ebuhdins™ that nature is a woman who welcomes rape was the thought process going through the heads of 17th century scientists?


I have no idea. Probably in the same paper that this woman wrote, earlier on.

And I don't welcome the skeptic community getting bogged down in lots of off-topic personal bullshit, so it makes sense for me to discuss it and how to minimize it.


I do not consider discussions about sexual assault and how to minimise it to be off topic or personal for any community.

The social and political impact of religion includes adherence to and enforcement of falsehoods. I want those to go away.


So, is that the only social and political impact you want to discuss about religion?
#14798711
Pants-of-dog wrote:Logic, as we know it and understand it, is an attempt at regulating language so that certain attributes (almost always, truth) are consistent throughout the communication.

It is a very powerful tool because it allows us to effectively communicate and analyse rational and correct ideas. It is not, unfortunately, a transcendent truth.

The logic we use (as compared to some perfect ideal logic) is a human construct, and therefore is influenced by culture. This means that cultures have used different logics (some of which are better than others), logic is influenced by concrete human relations, and logic does not necessarily transcend history or gender (or class, or race, etc).

If we are discussing how humans actually use logic (instead of some ideal perfect logic that we attempt to attain but rarely reach), then there is nothing incorrect in saying that the imperfect and human attempts we make to attain this perfect ideal are diverse, and are influnced by our historical contexts.


Here again I am still wondering, dealing in all these vague generalities such as you are, what you actually know about the subject matter of logic. For example, which logics are better than others? Why? How does logic not transcend gender, class or race? Why no examples?

I notice you have also sidestepped admitting that you were wrong about Andrea Nye wanting to dismantle the entire project of logic. You're making it look like the real meaning of her work is that we should be striving towards an ideal form of logic rather than just doing away with it. You were wrong. You are wrong now. Why not just admit fault?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since I think discussions about minimising sexual assault are far more important than discussing if god exists, I have a different opinion.


OK but that's just your Subjective™ Personal™ Opinion™.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is more like an indication that I am going to drop this particular tangent. I am not here to discuss emotions and opinions.


Yes you are. You just did it. In fact, you are primarily discussing emotions and opinions.

Pants-of-dog wrote:How do you do that little TM thing?


Code: Select allsetxkbmap -model pc105 -layout us -option compose:lwin


Then hit the left Windows key and then "t"-"m".

Pants-of-dog wrote:As for your question, it seemed clear from the excerpt you showed us.


That is not Objective™ Rational™ Logical™ Ebuhdins. Please provide Ebuhdins™.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I have no idea. Probably in the same paper that this woman wrote, earlier on.


You seem so certain. Find it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not consider discussions about sexual assault and how to minimise it to be off topic or personal for any community.


So, the following conversation is quite alright for you?

A: "To begin with this addition puzzle, we first note that the leftmost digit of the sum is the result of a carryover from the second leftmost column, and so H can only be equal to one."
B: "Yes, I see."
A: "Now, to have resulted in that carryover, the second leftmost column in turn must ha—"

[C bursts in]

C: "I WAS INVITED FOR COFFEE ON AN ELEVATOR AND I DIDN'T LIKE IT!"
A: "What?"
B: "Excuse me? This isn't relevant to our discu—"
C: "BUT RAAAAAPE!!! RAAAAAPE!!!"

There are already enough places where people like Twatson can vent their spleens about their imagined problems. They shouldn't be wasting time for the few venues where more intellectual discussions can be had.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So, is that the only social and political impact you want to discuss about religion?


Yeah. I don't care about any of the other shit. You or others may care but remember: that's just your Subjective™ Personal™ Opinion™.
Last edited by Perkwunos on 20 Apr 2017 21:07, edited 1 time in total.
#14798820
Perkwunos wrote:Here again I am still wondering, dealing in all these vague generalities such as you are, what you actually know about the subject matter of logic. For example, which logics are better than others? Why? How does logic not transcend gender, class or race? Why no examples?

I notice you have also sidestepped admitting that you were wrong about Andrea Nye wanting to dismantle the entire project of logic. You're making it look like the real meaning of her work is that we should be striving towards an ideal form of logic rather than just doing away with it. You were wrong. You are wrong now. Why not just admit fault?


You seem to have misunderstood both me and Ms. Nye. Please reread my previous post and ask me what you did not understand, thanks.

OK but that's just your Subjective™ Personal™ Opinion™.


Yes, which is why I dropped the discussion at that point. Please note that you derailed the discussion on atheism to tell us all your opinion about the subject and went on about it for pages.

That is not Objective™ Rational™ Logical™ Ebuhdins. Please provide Ebuhdins™.


So now you are saying that the excerpt you presented is not evidence for what she wrote?

So, the following conversation is quite alright for you?

A: "To begin with this addition puzzle, we first note that the leftmost digit of the sum is the result of a carryover from the second leftmost column, and so H can only be equal to one."
B: "Yes, I see."
A: "Now, to have resulted in that carryover, the second leftmost column in turn must ha—"

[C bursts in]

C: "I WAS INVITED FOR COFFEE ON AN ELEVATOR AND I DIDN'T LIKE IT!"
A: "What?"
B: "Excuse me? This isn't relevant to our discu—"
C: "BUT RAAAAAPE!!! RAAAAAPE!!!"

There are already enough places where people like Twatson can vent their spleens about their imagined problems. They shouldn't be wasting time for the few venues where more intellectual discussions can be had.


I am tempted to say yes it is fine, just to see your emotional reaction.

But instead I will point out that this is a caricature of actual discussions about minimising rape.

Yeah. I don't care about any of the other shit. You or others may care but remember: that's just your Subjective™ Personal™ Opinion™.


This is a politics discussion board. If you do not want to discuss political subjects, please stop posting.

Unless you wish to continue to tell us how you feel about those mean women...
#14798877
Pants-of-dog wrote:You seem to have misunderstood both me and Ms. Nye.


No I didn't. Nye is explicitly opposed to logic. I read the entire book. That's what it says. That's what the blurb says. You are wrong. And you still need to make good on your vague generalities like how logic doesn't transcend gender and how there are better and worse logics and what they are. Hop to it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, which is why I dropped the discussion at that point. Please note that you derailed the discussion on atheism to tell us all your opinion about the subject and went on about it for pages.


I wish I could have Objective™ Opinions™ like you.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So now you are saying that the excerpt you presented is not evidence for what she wrote?


Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Nothing in the writings of Isaac Newton warrants anything resembling "rape manual".

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am tempted to say yes it is fine, just to see your emotional reaction.


Thanks for admitting how vacuous your posts are.

Pants-of-dog wrote:But instead I will point out that this is a caricature of actual discussions about minimising rape.


Not if "I was invited for coffee, I said 'no' and then he accepted my answer" somehow leads to shrieking RAAAAAPE!!! RAAAAAPE!!!

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is a politics discussion board.


Yeah and what I have to say here is consistent with my political views, namely noocratic technofascism.
#14798897
Perkwunos wrote:No I didn't. Nye is explicitly opposed to logic. I read the entire book. That's what it says. That's what the blurb says. You are wrong. And you still need to make good on your vague generalities like how logic doesn't transcend gender and how there are better and worse logics and what they are. Hop to it.


First of all, the excerpt you showed was not at all anti-logic.

Secondly, I explained how we use logic in ways that aare influenced by our cultural context.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Nothing in the writings of Isaac Newton warrants anything resembling "rape manual".


So you are saying that the evidence you presented for your claim is not evidence for your claim. Got it.

Not if "I was invited for coffee, I said 'no' and then he accepted my answer" somehow leads to shrieking RAAAAAPE!!! RAAAAAPE!!!


Since Ms. Watson did not shriek anything, I am wondering why you have been shrieking about her for pages now.

Yeah and what I have to say here is consistent with my political views, namely noocratic technofascism.


Then get a blog. But your ideology sounds just as irrational as religion.
#14798962
Pants-of-dog wrote:First of all, the excerpt you showed was not at all anti-logic.


And I suppose you mean to tell me that "I attempt here a different kind of validation of the feminist indictment of logic" isn't anti-logic either.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Secondly, I explained how we use logic in ways that aare influenced by our cultural context.


You talked in circles like a lazy student trying to pad an essay at the last minute. I asked you very specific questions, and I'm going to do it again:

For example, which logics are better than others? Why? How does logic not transcend gender, class or race? Why no examples?

Answer the fucking questions.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you are saying that the evidence you presented for your claim is not evidence for your claim. Got it.


No, don't put words in my mouth. Ask me what I mean. Or, alternatively, don't construe what I say dishonestly.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since Ms. Watson did not shriek anything, I am wondering why you have been shrieking about her for pages now.


You are using a literal reading of "shriek" in the first clause of this sentence and a figurative reading in the second clause of the very same sentence.

Make up your mind.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then get a blog. But your ideology sounds just as irrational as religion.


I don't see why a society guided by knowledge would be "just as irrational" as a theocratic one guided by faith.

To clarify, my ideas are somewhat like those presented in Plato's Republic. But there are more severe penalties for bad behavior. And there are lots of machines everywhere.

Image
#14799142
Perkwunos wrote:And I suppose you mean to tell me that "I attempt here a different kind of validation of the feminist indictment of logic" isn't anti-logic either.

You talked in circles like a lazy student trying to pad an essay at the last minute. I asked you very specific questions, and I'm going to do it again:

For example, which logics are better than others? Why? How does logic not transcend gender, class or race? Why no examples?

Answer the fucking questions.


Ooooh, swearing! Someone is getting emotional! I thought you were extremely rational and looked down on irrational people who made emotional arguments. Guess not.

And I already answered these questions.

Most importantly, these questions have nothing to do with your claim that she is somehow anti-logic.

No, don't put words in my mouth. Ask me what I mean. Or, alternatively, don't construe what I say dishonestly.


You presented the excerpt as evidence that this woman claimed Newton's writings were a rape manual. I read the given text and interpreted it to mean something else. You then claimed the text I used was not ecidence, despite the fact that you just showed it as evidence.

You are using a literal reading of "shriek" in the first clause of this sentence and a figurative reading in the second clause of the very same sentence.

Make up your mind.


In my opinion, you are actually shrieking while Ms. Watson was not.

Now, if you think that religions are sexist, why are you supporting the same sexism as religion?

Also, please familiarise yourself with the rules concerning double posting.
#14799247
Pants-of-dog wrote:Ooooh, swearing! Someone is getting emotional! I thought you were extremely rational and looked down on irrational people who made emotional arguments. Guess not.


My use of F-word does not make a bit of difference here, nor does it make me any less rational. Also:

Image

Aim higher than the third level next time.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And I already answered these questions.


No you fucking didn't.

"For example, which logics are better than others? Why? How does logic not transcend gender, class or race? Why no examples?"

To answer these questions, you need to name at least one pair of logics where one is superior and the other inferior and provide a justification. You also need to say something along the lines of "the law of non-contradiction doesn't transcend gender, class or race because [fill in the blank]".

Of course you keep stalling and stalling on this issue because you don't really know anything about logic.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Most importantly, these questions have nothing to do with your claim that she is somehow anti-logic.


But they have everything to do with your claims about logic.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You presented the excerpt as evidence that this woman claimed Newton's writings were a rape manual.


OK. So why does her explicit description of Newton's laws as "Newton's rape manual" not support that claim?

Pants-of-dog wrote:In my opinion, you are actually shrieking while Ms. Watson was not.


So the arguments of SJWs aren't "shrieking" even though they're based pretty much entirely on appeals to pathos?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, if you think that religions are sexist


I don't care whether religions are sexist.

Pants-of-dog wrote:why are you supporting the same sexism as religion?


I don't care whether you perceive my beliefs as sexist either.
#14799264
Perkwunos wrote:No you fucking didn't.

"For example, which logics are better than others? Why? How does logic not transcend gender, class or race? Why no examples?"

To answer these questions, you need to name at least one pair of logics where one is superior and the other inferior and provide a justification. You also need to say something along the lines of "the law of non-contradiction doesn't transcend gender, class or race because [fill in the blank]".

Of course you keep stalling and stalling on this issue because you don't really know anything about logic.

But they have everything to do with your claims about logic.


I do not care if you think I am bad at logic or that you found my answers insufficient.

You have not shown how she is anti-logic. At best, you have shown that she is aware of how human imperfections cloud our use of logic.

Do you think all people use logic correctly, or that humans use it imperfectly?

OK. So why does her explicit description of Newton's laws as "Newton's rape manual" not support that claim?


I explained that. Please see my previous replies.

So the arguments of SJWs aren't "shrieking" even though they're based pretty much entirely on appeals to pathos?


Actually, arguments concerning sexual assault are based on the fact that people get raped. This is more than mere pathos. Pathos would be complaining about women because they want to talk about things that you don't.

I don't care whether religions are sexist.

I don't care whether you perceive my beliefs as sexist either.


Then get a blog. This is a discussion forum. Or ignore me.
#14799271
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not care if you think I am bad at logic or that you found my answers insufficient.


Your answers are insufficient.

Which logics are better than others? Why? How does logic not transcend gender, class or race? Why no examples?

I'm not letting this go. You should probably just bite the bullet and try to give an actual answer, no matter how pathetic it might be.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You have not shown how she is anti-logic.


I have.

Pants-of-dog wrote:At best, you have shown that she is aware of how human imperfections cloud our use of logic.


Except she didn't say, for example, "I attempt here a different kind of validation of the feminist indictment of the misuse of logic", she said that she wanted to validate "the feminist indictment of logic", period. Nor at any point in her treatise did she offer any suggestions about how logic could be improved, nor did she ever attempt to embrace it. The tone taken towards the entire project of logic was consistently negative throughout.

If you think my description of her work is faulty—and I've now given you multiple excerpts to support my view—why don't you get yourself a copy and show me why I'm wrong?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you think all people use logic correctly, or that humans use it imperfectly?


No. You're not using it correctly right now. But that's immaterial to what Nye was saying.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I explained that. Please see my previous replies.


So are you now going to recant "I highly doubt she says this"? Because you should.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, arguments concerning sexual assault are based on the fact that people get raped.


That doesn't make "if you don't bend over backwards for me because RAAAAAPE!!! even though I didn't get raped then you're a bad, bad person" any less pure pathos.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then get a blog. This is a discussion forum. Or ignore me.


I think I'll continue exposing your ignorance.
#14799407
Perkwunos wrote: :( Your answers are insufficient.

Which logics are better than others? Why? How does logic not transcend gender, class or race? Why no examples?

I'm not letting this go. You should probably just bite the bullet and try to give an actual answer, no matter how pathetic it might be.

I have.


Sure.

Except she didn't say, for example, "I attempt here a different kind of validation of the feminist indictment of the misuse of logic", she said that she wanted to validate "the feminist indictment of logic", period. Nor at any point in her treatise did she offer any suggestions about how logic could be improved, nor did she ever attempt to embrace it. The tone taken towards the entire project of logic was consistently negative throughout.

If you think my description of her work is faulty—and I've now given you multiple excerpts to support my view—why don't you get yourself a copy and show me why I'm wrong?

No. You're not using it correctly right now. But that's immaterial to what Nye was saying.


So, if you believe I am misusing it now because of my bias, it is also logical to assume that sexist men have also misused logic according to their biases.

That doesn't make "if you don't bend over backwards for me because RAAAAAPE!!! even though I didn't get raped then you're a bad, bad person" any less pure pathos.


Okay. Since that is not what happened, I do not see it as a big deal.

I think I'll continue exposing your ignorance.


Okay. Now, how do you know that sexism based in religious mores is somehow more irrational or false than secular sexism?
#14799604
Perkwunos wrote:That's not an answer. I'm going to focus only on this until I get one:

Which logics are better than others? Why? How does logic not transcend gender, class or race? Why no examples?


Pants-of-dog wrote:
Logic, as we know it and understand it, is an attempt at regulating language so that certain attributes (almost always, truth) are consistent throughout the communication.

It is a very powerful tool because it allows us to effectively communicate and analyse rational and correct ideas. It is not, unfortunately, a transcendent truth.

The logic we use (as compared to some perfect ideal logic) is a human construct, and therefore is influenced by culture. This means that cultures have used different logics (some of which are better than others), logic is influenced by concrete human relations, and logic does not necessarily transcend history or gender (or class, or race, etc).

If we are discussing how humans actually use logic (instead of some ideal perfect logic that we attempt to attain but rarely reach), then there is nothing incorrect in saying that the imperfect and human attempts we make to attain this perfect ideal are diverse, and are influnced by our historical contexts.

So, if you believe I am misusing it now because of my bias, it is also logical to assume that sexist men have also misused logic according to their biases.
#14800660
Perkwunos wrote:Can we put the "Japan is atheist" meme to rest please?
It's not a meme, it's a fact.
https://blog.gaijinpot.com/japan-religious-atheist-country/

Your source makes the absurd claim that there must a God for atheists not to believe in. Such obvious irrationality and dishonesty can be dismissed with no further argumentation. It also claims that affiliation with a religious group, participation in religious ceremonies, etc. show religious belief, which is false. Much of what the Japanese do for religious ceremonies is equivalent to people in Western countries decorating their Christmas trees. It is just a societal tradition, and does not in the least measure indicate actual belief.

The typical Japanese attitude to religion was illustrated by a young Japanese lady I met and had a conversation with. At one point she claimed to be a Christian, but when I told her I wasn't, she replied, "I'll quit." That's how deep religious belief typically goes in Japan.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]