Total posts: 399
Posted in:
Do you think that the political polarization within the US has reached the point where compromise between even the average left-wing person and average right-wing person on key political issues is unimaginable or do you think that it is still possible for the two sides to come together?
Do you think that a "peaceful divorce" could solve the political tensions within the US?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
iirc you are a moral relativist, right? Which metaethical theory do you subscribe to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
You are absolutely correct. A common misconception with inns in the past was that you rented a room, much like you do today or you see within fantasy games. In fact, you rented space on a bed and would tend to share this bed with another person staying in the inn. Often times people would get to know each other and would even 'cuddle' while sleeping, but none of this was seen as anything but normal interaction.
Even more recently you will find many progressives trying to read homoromantic (if not full blown homosexual) undertones in the relationship between Sam and Frodo in Lord of the Rings, but this is due to modern conceptions and not how things were then. The close friendship between Frodo and Sam was based on the close friendships shared between officers and their batman during WWI. Again, nothing gay just a close friendship.
This isn't to say that it isn't wrong to sometimes read gay undertones in places, as there are legitimate areas where it could be seen as appropriate (like with Aran and Asmund from the Norse sagas), but it is done too often as we have shifted away from such closeness with others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Lucky. Sadly, despite it having started warming up where I live, the weather decided to be a dick and so it snowed all day today. I hate the long winters and just want to enjoy a nice day outside, but I probably have to wait a few more weeks for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Is the basis for racism derived from an evolutionary safety mechanism of imprinting?
iirc, yes, actually. I would have to find the study again but I remember once reading a study that babies show racial preference based on the characteristics of their surroundings, primarily their mother. Babies with a white mother feel safer around white people, babies with black mothers feel safer around black people, etc.
This is why so many studies show that babies have a self-race preference at such a young age, because most babies are raised by members of the same race. However, if a white baby is adopted by a black family and grows up in a predominantly black neighborhood and were given the same test they would not have a self-race preference.
I actually forgot about this study and am now wanting to find it again as it was quite the interesting read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
And I believe the only reason the pagan community does that is because politically pagans tend to be more like atheists than monotheists.
Won't completely deny that. Too many pagans are either far-left progressives or are racist nationalists. Hardly any are moderates or centrists (and that makes it hard for centrists, like me, to find groups to join and get along with).
I do think, however, that there is some pessimism here. I think most atheists are more apatheistic, it is just that the vocal ones tend to spoil the perception of the whole group (what I suspect to be a vocal minority). Maybe it is moreso the live and let live culture of where I am from though and that in other places it really is as bad as you say, I don't know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Gender nonconformity can appear as young as two or three years of age, when children become aware of the notion of gender and they may assert, “No, I’m a boy,” or “No, I’m a girl.”
Why do you think that a boy so young would say that they are a girl or a girl so young would say they are a boy?
It is obvious, stereotypes.
A tomboy would now be seen as trans. In fact, this even was a topic of a NYTimes article before:
It once was the case that we argued that there were many ways you could be a boy or be a girl, that you didn't have to follow these gender norms and stereotypes. Now we look at children that don't follow these norms or stereotypes and go "look, they must be trans or non-binary!" The same thing that was once called sexist by the progressives and feminists is now the very thinking employed in order to indoctrinate children into believing that they aren't a boy/girl because they don't fit the stereotype.
And yes, I do mean indoctrinate. It once was that a great number of children (the majority) that thought they were trans would desist after a few years and go on to live happy lives. Recent studies show that those pushed into gender-affirming therapy at a very young age nowadays almost never desist (and we know from other studies that these people are not as happy as the average population).
And yes, I do mean indoctrinate. It once was that a great number of children (the majority) that thought they were trans would desist after a few years and go on to live happy lives. Recent studies show that those pushed into gender-affirming therapy at a very young age nowadays almost never desist (and we know from other studies that these people are not as happy as the average population).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I do find it interesting how many prominent polytheist academics (Dillon for example) and prominent pagan voices online (like Ocean Keltoi) are trying to create bridges with the atheist community while you seem to hold the opposite view of things. Personally, my best friend is an atheist and I have more experience getting along with atheists irl than theists (though I also find I get along with certain theists than atheists in certain forums).
Just an interesting observation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Which would mean the 'scientific survey' would have to have some way of ensuring that participants would be anonymous. Of course, the issue would then be finding out how to reach out to the closeted atheists for the survey (same exact issue exists with pagans).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Masked debates.Unmasked after voting period has expired.Pure genius.
That actually seems like a good idea. It would help with minimizing bias in regards to voting based on familiarity with the debaters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Oh, I agree that most atheists wouldn't speak the way many here do, but I wonder if it is moreso that atheists that are more likely to speak in such a way are the types to seek online forums rather than it being that most atheists just don't speak their mind. I actually think it would be an interesting study if someone could figure out how to objectively do one on the topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Would it be possible to add a History section to the forum? The category exists for debates but not for forum discussions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I disagree with that characterization. The majority of PhD ethicists are atheists (only 17% are theists) and yet moral realism is the consensus (65% are moral-realists). Maybe it is the case that the majority of non-academic atheists just aren't as honest as the atheists on forums like these, but I really have to express skepticism to that idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It's like talking to a brick wall...
This statement of yours,
The word wrong can only be used subjectively.
presupposes moral relativism. The fact that you can't see that is a problem.
I'm done. This conversation is pointless at this moment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
All standards, not just moral stabdards, are subjective.
Under moral naturalism "murder is wrong" is just as much a fact as "gravity exists", and so if you are trying to equate these as equally subjective and not being objective statements of reality then that would be quite the claim that you would need to support. To me, it just seems increasingly the case that you are trying to talk about a subject you don't know about. Hell, I will admit that ethics is one of the weaker areas for me in philosophy (trying to save money to buy two of the most influencing books in recent times and am going to be taking a dedicated class soon), but this is actually kinda sad.
If this wasn't a debate website then it would be more understandable, but to go to a website dedicated to debate and talk so confidently about a subject you know this little about? I have serious doubts on whether it is worth engaging in further discussion at this point as it seems like this is a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Any standard is necessarily subjective
So you claim. You seem to be constantly presupposing moral relativism despite having no justification for it.
Your moral intuition is an emotion.
You do realize it is actually a prominent debate on whether moral realism is intuition or not, right?
Furthermore, you seem to be assuming I am an emotivist, but I cannot stress it enough that I don't subscribe to moral relativism.
You seem to be making unfounded assumption after unfounded assumption so far. I, at first, assumed you at least understood metaethics at least a decent amount and so was curious why you held the view you did (as it seems you were explicitly arguing that what is rational or not didn't matter), now it seems more like you don't understand the field too much and are making unfounded assumptions (which is, itself, not something a rational agent should do).
Have to say, very disappointing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Soft solipsism is not something that you can resolve.
Which axioms one makes use of is, however, important. Which view requires more axioms? Which view requires more wild/complex axioms? etc. Are your views consistent when holding to your set of axioms? All of these determine which viewpoint is preferred, and I am skeptical that your set of axioms leads you to consistent standards if you are rejecting P1, P2, or P3 from my OP. Maybe you have an extra axiom that makes it so that the argument still doesn't work somehow, but then it would be a question on what said axiom is and if it is a necessary or justifiable one to hold to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
as your subjective standard
I'm not a moral relativist as it isn't a sound view to hold to, so it isn't "my subjective standard".
I intend to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health DESPITE the moral implications not BECAUSE of them.
And that is why I asked the questions I did.
It seems, to me, like this would then be you admitting that you do not prioritize being rational but instead put something else before that. This is why I was curious on your justification for putting them first.
This becomes important when it comes to discussion and debate because if there isn't a consistent standard then it raises doubts on all your views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
People disagree about what moral standard to use.
Okay, and?
I merely want to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health.
So, assuming that promotion of human wellbeing and protection of public health was not objectively moral (I mean, they are, but let's roll with it), you are saying that you would explicitly choose to not be a good person? Why? Do you think others should also make that choice?
It is well understood by metaethicists that being good would be a rational choice, and thus you are saying that you would choose to not be rational for some reason. It seems quite strange to be steadfast in that view without some justification (but also seems like one wouldn't be able to justify it).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Rational beliefs are based upon reasonable expectations based on independently corroborated evidence
Now we are certainly having a communication breakdown. How, without making use of the standards presented in the OP, can you rationally hold that there exists 'independently corroborated evidence' for, basically, anything?
It seems to me like your definition of a rational belief has the logical end, when pushed, of solipsism.
I hold that a rational belief is one that is not internally contradictory and is the best explanation of the evidence that one is aware of with justification requiring one to seek evidence for and against said belief (as it is unreasonable to expect someone to be aware of all possible evidence or expect people to suspend judgement until they have access to all possible evidence).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Morality is subjective
That is quite the claim, especially given that it is well understood within the field of metaethics that moral realism is the default position (even anti-realists acknowledge this, see Dr. John Mackie).
I find it really strange how popular moral relativism is in online forums when it is so unpopular outside of them (both the general public and the academics have majority view of moral realism). I mean, just because it is the majority view doesn't make it true, I know that, but just the fact that relativism is popular in online forums like this and basically nowhere else is just strange to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Please detail how you would convince me of each proposition and I will tell you if I am convinced.1. I do not choose whether or not you have convincing evidence you either do or do not.2. I do not need to meet any burden of proof to remain unconvinced by your claim.
Again, convincing is not the same thing as making a rational case. You can be convinced of whatever you want, what matters to me is what is rational and likely.
It seems that is the disconnect here, you want my arguments to be convincing while I just want them to be sound.
You can be unconvinced and irrational for all I care, but if the discussion is on what is true or not then whether an argument is convincing or not is immaterial, what matters is if it is sound or not. If one side provides evidence/argumentation then it tilts the scales.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You could present me with any given peice of evidence and I will either be convinced by it or not
I mean, ya, obviously.
I do not need to meet any burden of proof to remain unconvinced
I didn't say otherwise. You are making the mistake that one is always convinced of that which is rational though.
You can be unconvinced of something rational, you can be convinced by irrational argumentation as well. The Burden of Proof is a tool for rational discourse, and whether you are convinced by something or not does not determine where the Burden of Proof in a rational discourse lies.
Just like someone can be given the world's best education on evolution, constructed to be thorough and easily understandable and yet remain steadfast in their view that they have not been convinced that evolution is true. Does that mean that they are rational in their view? No. Does that mean that the BoP hasn't been met? Again, not at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
But we can agree that the moderator intervening like she did wasn't appropriate at all, I can understand why republicans got mad.
Even if Obama was 100%, undeniably correct it wasn't right for the moderator to do so. That is what commentary on the debates is for, the job of the media.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I think what secularmerlin is saying is that Anecdotal Evidence does not stand up to Direct Evidence
Do you mean that verifiable evidence is better than testimonial evidence? If so, then I agree. I disagree that that would mean that claims would now necessarily require verifiable evidence, as that would essentially mean the entire field of history would have to be abandoned (plus that is usually the standard of logical positivists, and logical positivism has been abandoned for decades within academia).
If the argument isn't that we should only use verifiable evidence then I do not know what, precisely, the argument is at this point, because even if testimonial evidence isn't as good it is still evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That depends entirely upon the evidence itself.
Can you elaborate? If the argument is that the evidence needs to be sound then it would still mean that once evidence is presented that it means that the other side now has a BoP, just that they can meet their BoP by tearing down the other side's evidence instead of presenting their own. If you mean something else then I would love to know what, precisely, that is.
No amount of insufficient evidence will EVER add up to sufficient evidence.
This absolutely needs elaboration.
Often times in court it is the body of evidence that creates a convincing case, even if no single piece of evidence is enough alone to lead to a conviction.
Are you saying that this is flawed or are you using a different understanding of 'insufficient' and 'sufficient' evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This is nonsensical if only one "side" is making a claim.
So, it is rational to not accept evolution even after being presented with the evidence (so long as you aren't yourself making a claim)? If this is your standard then you have a very different standard than basically every academic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the claimant.
The burden of proof is always on the side with the least evidence. Sure, we might say that absent any evidence that the claimant has the BoP, but the moment only one side has provided evidence is the moment that that side has become the rational conclusion and thus the other side needs to make an argument if they wish to disagree.
It is like a balance scale, put weight on one side and the scales tilt.
What the argument in the OP outlines is that anecdotal evidence is sufficient enough to create that tilt and thus shift the BoP.
People do not need to be dishonest to be incorrect.
Don't disagree, don't see how that is necessarily relevant.
Anecdotal evidence is weak evidence.
Weak evidence is still evidence, and if it is the only evidence then it can be sufficient enough to tilt the scales.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
are refusing to debate Republicans in the primaries
That isn't happening. The RNC is seeking alternatives and requiring candidates to sign a pledge to participate in the RNC approved debates. To jump from that to "they don't even want Republicans to debate in the primaries" is a giant leap. As I said, stop just reading left-wing news and actually fact check things for yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I think think it's a biological fact that men can't have babies
Correct.
but I respect opposition too much to say it's a sociological fact
I mean, sociology is a politically biased field that completely lacks objectivity at the moment, and so I would say that we should be skeptical on anything deemed a 'sociological fact'.
Created:
Posted in:
but until recently if you Googled something like “abortion debate” something from ddo would come up
Change that to "kalam debate" and that is exactly how I discovered DDO to begin with.
Created:
Posted in:
The RNC has made it clear that they are open for debating still, but that the debates must be neutral and held at an appropriate time.
They didn't like that half the country had early voting before the first debate even occurred, they didn't like how many people in the CPD had openly expressed negative feelings for the Republican nominee, etc.
It has gotten to the point where the RNC feels as if the debates are no longer neutral and when they requested for changes to be made in an effort to make them more neutral they were denied, so they said "fuck it, we're out". It isn't 'chickening out of debates', that is a very uncharitable interpretation. You don't even need to like the Republican party to see just how uncharitable you have to be to reach that conclusion. The debates have become much less neutral over the years, and this is undeniable by anyone paying attention.
Seriously, stop just reading left-wing news and actually fact check things for yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Really, this has to be the dumbest thing I have read on this site from any user, and I have been here a long time.
Honestly, I have to agree. Should schools teach facts? Sure. Is that what they do? Not at all.
And determining what is a fact and which facts should be part of the school's job to teach is another issue altogether. There are numerous facts and entire fields of study that schools don't teach, and so to default to defending a school teaching something as "well, it is a fact" is insufficient.
Even if it is a fact, something that hasn't been established in the least, that does not make it something a school should teach.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Seriously, science is provisional. If you think a scientific conclusion is wrong, get to work! ;-)
I'm sorry, but this statement makes it clear that you do not understand the state of sociology within academia at the moment. Journals do not look for good papers, they look for papers that fit the narrative they want to push. This is why the Sokal Squared Hoax was possible. While hoax papers can make it into any field, sociology has the worst ability to discern hoax from legitimate and is the only field to give an award to a hoax paper.
In the 2018 paper "The Social and Political Views of American Professors" we see that 43% of academics in the social sciences and humanities self identify as marxists, radical leftists or left-wing activists. Only 3-5% identified themselves as conservative. This is a drastic change from 60 years ago. In the late 60's a study was conducted that was published in the 1975 book "The Divided Academy". The conclusions from this book, 46% of professors described themselves as liberal, 27% described themselves as moderates, and 28% described themselves as conservative.
I want you to look at this. In the 60's it was 46% that identified themselves as being on the left at all, now it is almost that amount (43%) that identify themselves as far-left. There is a large political bias within the field.
The 2020 paper "A Model of Political Bias in Social Science Research" points out how the left-wing bias in the field can influence bias in not only what theories and papers are accepted, but in what questions even get asked, and even in how likely conservatives are to actually pursue a degree in the field. Essentially, the political bias of the field has infected it so much so that certain questions cannot even be asked, let alone any hope of papers that disagree with the political narrative finding publication on anything close to the same level as those that fall in-line with the narrative. This bias has also lead to what a number of surveys, cited by the paper, point out, that conservative students report greater experiences of hostility from instructors than liberal students, so much so that even liberal students have stated that "conservative and religious students are the disproportionate recipients of hostility from university faculty" when asked.
I could go on and on, but the point is that the field of sociology has become so politicized that it isn't an objective field anymore. No one should be surprised about this considering the papers on "fat studies" that are coming out that are in direct conflict with the understanding by the hard sciences yet are accepted and are increasingly part of the mainstream of sociology.
You say that if the field is wrong that we should "get to work", but without a massive change forced upon the field such a thing is almost certainly impossible, and not because the conclusion is sound. The field is not objective, they are one of the most politically biased fields out there, they have the worst track record at preventing hoax papers (and even have given one an award), etc. You do not understand what is going on within the field of sociology and instead are just treating it the same as any other field when it isn't comparable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
The present accepted understanding of gender has not occurred without substantiation.
And do you hold this view merely because it has become the consensus among sociologists? Or do you have some other justification for this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I disagree. There is a huge movement supporting fat people so that they can be comfortable in their own bodies. Society is forced to redefine a fat person as a healthy person regardless of the science.
I think this is very important to keep in mind. There is a movement by people within the same ideological sphere as those pushing gender-affirming therapies and treatments to switch how we categorize obesity despite the years of scientific evidence on the subject. There are now entire academic journals dedicated to this that are treated as proper and respected journals within sociology.
Sure, it isn't to the point where if you go to the doctor with an obesity problem that you will be told that there is nothing unhealthy about it, but there is growing advocacy for just that.
The fact that any rational person can point this out as absurd is a good thing, but then the same people that point out the absurdity of this movement don't go "maybe there is a problem with this academic field, maybe we need to be more skeptical of their claims".
We look at one scenario that has had decades (more like centuries if not millennia) of unbiased research on the topic and can easy point out that it is absurd what is coming out of academia, that these new papers are clearly awful, etc. and don't go, "Well, what about this other subject that has only had research done very recently, about the same time that academia started shifting to create the absurdity around BMI?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
But a lot of people, myself included, don't think that gender is fluid.
I think that something important to consider is that what people point to in children to determine if they are trans relies a bit on sexism. I am sure that most people in their mid 20s and older remember growing up with tomboys being a thing. These were girls that did not fall within the stereotype of what it meant to be a girl, instead doing things that were "what boys do". I have actually seen numerous people that would have been called a tomboy when I was growing up being called trans by those around them now.
There is this movement that if a boy wants to do something stereotypical of girls (or girls doing something stereotypical of boys) that their parents, teachers, etc. will identify them as trans, but this is not the case.
There is not just one way to be a boy or be a girl. Boys can wear pink, have long hair, etc. Girls can want to roughhouse, have short hair, etc. That does not make them not a boy or not a girl, yet this is being used as an indicator in many circumstances today. It once was that the left wanted to break down gender roles, show that women don't have to act in the way society defined them to act. Now, it is breaking these gender roles and expectations that causes people to go "you must be trans, non-binary, etc."
It is also undeniable that gender and sex are tied together, and so we must ask how it is that gender can be a spectrum or fluid when sex isn't. What, precisely, makes it so? I would argue that there isn't an actual way to show that gender is fluid without either presupposing it is or using sexist thinking about gender roles.
I also think it is important to note that the scientific field (sociology) that has made this move towards further separating sex and gender, pushing that gender is fluid, etc. is also the field that has the worst standards when it comes to vetting scientific papers, that has some of the most political bias within the field, etc. It is not as clear cut within academia as people would normally expect from a scientific field because the field is, itself, flawed at this point. It has become more and more a pseudoscience, where a paper was accepted in a journal that was literally a chapter from Main Kampf with the buzzwords changed.
We don't have a neutral field reaching this conclusion, we have a field that has become so politically infected that the works coming out of it are all suspect creating waves, and from that we have different academics forced to adhere to those ideals or be found to be some kind of 'phobic' and lose their position. One cannot simply point to an academic field without also understanding the state of said field, and when you do that when it comes to gender studies and sociology you will find that it is all highly suspect.
Created:
-->
@thett3
any idea why this happened to you, and what might be the cause in others? Any tips for how to prevent it?
I do think that with a lot of people today it is influenced by the overly pro-lgbt movement, as there are record numbers of people coming out as trans and they usually have someone they know that has come out as well (or frequent websites that push any sort of discomfort with one's body, which is normal during puberty, as a sign of being trans).
As for me, no idea. I never even heard of the idea that you could have been born in the wrong body and I felt that way. I have no idea what might have been the trigger. I was bullied as a child because I was naturally a pacifist and so was an 'easy target' (that pacifism stopped after one incident in the 8th grade that forced me to either take anger management or go to juvie), but I don't think that is what would have triggered it.
you’re one of the only people who got ACTUAL gender affirming care
The frustrating thing was how difficult it was to seek out a therapist willing to do said therapy. The trans-rights movement is one that is trying to make said therapy illegal, which will only make it more difficult.
It wasn't even necessarily that I was against affirming therapy when I started (I was an adult by then, my family has never been informed of my dysphoria). I just figured that I needed help as I was at a really low point (fiancé miscarried our child and then called it off with me) and figured that if I didn't seek help I wasn't going to be around much longer. I figured that my grandmother, whom I am close to, is both pretty religious and conservative and that if I was to do affirming therapy that I should wait as to not strain that relationship. Sought and started non-affirming therapy, found it worked great. Then I started wondering why the trans-rights movement viewed it so negatively and started looking into the issue more and ended up becoming more and more against affirming therapy.
I know that non-affirming therapy is what most people need. Sure, there are some people that affirming therapy might work for, won't deny that, but I don't think it is the answer. I find it sad just how much more difficult non-affirming therapy is becoming and how easy it is becoming for people to be diagnosed and given affirming therapy.
Seriously, desistance is a thing, but the numbers of people that desist is significantly lower for those going through affirmation therapy.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Based upon the above, one might therefore conclude that a moderate democracy in which administrative power is not allowed become permanently established is the favourable option.
I won't deny that, but I think that it is also important to stress that the executive and legislature should be controlled by the same party (though, only a slight majority of the legislature) while the judiciary controlled by the other.
If the parties are different then it can lead to deadlocks on important issues, which can cause more problems to arise. I also think that which party is the one in control of the branches needs to switch occasionally. 10-15 years ago I would say a Democrat controlled executive and legislature with a Republican controlled judiciary would have been better, not I feel the opposite.
There is a sort of pendulum that swings back and forth, with the left ending up going too far before the culture shifts to one where the right is better. Eventually the right will go too far and it shifts to where the left is better. Whichever side it has shifted too far on is the one that should not be in control of the executive and legislature. It is when the pendulum doesn't start swinging back that the chance of civil war increases and the country collapses.
Never should a party get too much power established, but so too should it not be at a deadlock when it comes to the importance of responding to issues (which is ultimately the legislature and executive working together). Enough power of the minority party to prevent chaos, not enough to cause deadlocks.
That balance is what I find important.
Created:
I don't think it is that simple as which party. Either party with full control would be disastrous. I think that the ideal would be the Supreme Court having a majority of 'Democrats' (by 1) with at least one of those being very moderate, the president a Republican (preferably one similar to how DeSantis is as a governor), and about an even split within Congress (with enough Democrats and moderate Republicans that the Republican party can't just do anything it wants).
That is, of course, if we are limiting it to the two parties (which is, sadly, the realistic way of viewing things). I believe that this would allow for even some Democratic policies to be implemented, just with real compromise taking place. If the Republicans try something crazy then there would be some more moderate ones that join with the Democrats to stop it. If something goes entirely out of control then there is the Supreme Court to deal with it.
It forces compromise while allowing for progress, just that said progress needs to be in check to make sure it is actually a good thing.
Created:
-->
@coal
I am now 26, why?
Created:
-->
@coal
No, but I suffer from gender dysphoria.
I was born a man and still am one. Just as a person dying from malnutrition that thinks they are fat is not fat, my thoughts that I should have been born female does not make me one.
Suffered from this dysphoria since the 5th grade, never even heard about transgenderism until a few years later. I sought non-affirming therapy (in contrast to the affirming therapy the trans rights movement advocates) and my life has improved quite a bit. Does that mean I don't still have dysphoric thoughts? Of course not, I still have them. Not as often and I don't let them control me anymore, but people with such mental health issues never really get rid of them permanently.
Created:
-->
@coal
So called "gender affirming care" is a conversion therapy more egregious than that practiced by "psychiatrists" before homosexuality was removed from the DSM-IV.
Have to agree. Gender dysphoria is the only body dysphoria treated by telling people their self-perceptions are valid. Every other one is non-affirming, and they work. It took me forever to find a therapist willing to do non-affirming therapy, and it absolutely helped me out. I honestly feel like if I had gone through an affirming therapy that I would have likely offed myself as I would never have felt right in my body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
You are not arguing it
Do you not know what "I would argue" means or are you just here to play word games? Because if it is the latter then this entire discussion is a waste of time.
No, you haven't emphasized it. I haven't even noticed you say that because there could be evidence one is not aware of, a claim is tentatively true.
I used the term tentatively three times in the OP in places that would make it clear what is being argued.
"It helps with establishing the position that one should tentatively hold to."
"If none can be provided then the logical conclusion is that we should tentatively hold to theism as true."
"Counter-evidence needs to be provided or else theism is rationally concluded as true (tentatively)."
That is just where the term was explicit. It really should not have been difficult for someone to see it but yet you somehow missed it?
[12] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
Because that is how it works. Are you denying it? Because, if so, welcome to solipsism. I can walk you through the steps on how that is reached, but it really shouldn't be necessary.
The problem is that the personal case is irrelevant. It are the claims of others that matter.
Sure, but so what? Having part of the argument be more personalized before moving to more general is not uncommon, the fact that you are emphasizing this point is weird.
So, in both P1 and P2 you mean there is a more than 70% chance. The problem is that you supported those premises under the assumption that 'tend to' means more than 50% chance. So you will need to amend that.
Tend to literally means more often than not. Absent any definitive numbers on how much it 'tends to' (which would take further arguments) we have to take an a priori position, and as I already showed, mathematically the average of all the 'tends to' is 75% (which is greater than 70%). So, the safe assumption is, based on the math, exactly what I was arguing. Unless you can justify that the 'tends to' should be based on a value between 50-70% then your objection is not all that great.
You have yet to explain or demonstrate how they are tied together. In your argument you merely jumped from senses to experiences
I have no intention in going into detail on something like that when it is pointless to do so. They are inherently tied together in such a way that these lines of objections constitute a pointless waste of time and the same exact line of reasoning, when applies consistently, will force you into solipsism. You are obviously not interested in an honest discussion, which is fine, but it means that there is no reason to continue the discussion with you.
Indeed. I distinguish evidence from background knowledge because I want to believe in reality.
You say that as if I don't want to believe in reality. There is no real merit in distinguishing background knowledge from evidence. Background knowledge can constitute a type of evidence.
People who prefer to believe some fantasy over reality often try to sell their fantasy as reality. For that they deceive.
Have to agree with Polytheist-Witch on this part of your comment. This is absolutely uncharitable and is so egotistical as well that it makes it clear that you are not open to honest discussions on theism. This is the last comment I am making in response to you because even if you might make a good point or two, you clearly are not here for honest discourse and thus it is a waste of time to talk to you when I can spend such time on any number of other things.
[19] That is not a feature, but a limitation, one that is easy to overlook.
Semantic word games that ignores what the phrase "it's a feature not a bug" means. Pointless comments like this are pointless.
First, it is the side making a claim that has the burden of proof.
Okay, and? The argument outlines that people claiming to have witnessed something is evidence that satisfies said burden. Discourse is like a balance scale. One side puts forward an argument/evidence and the balance shifts, even if not by much. Sure, one side might have the burden, but as soon as they provide something and that balance shifts it means that their side is now more likely. They can further support their arguments, shifting the balance more in their favor, but that is ultimately unnecessary. If the other side wishes to be the correct/rational side then they need to shift the balance back (either by adding weight to their own side, provide arguments/evidence, or removing weight from the other side, show the arguments/evidence of the other side are faulty).
So, making the who "the side making a claim has the burden" is an absolutely pointless statement in light of me providing an argument.
How would you view or address someone's claim to have been abducted by aliens ?
I would point out various reasons why such is unlikely to be true.
Gods one expects no evidence of
What type of evidence do you expect though? How do you rationally back up your "if X, then evidence of X"? How do you know there isn't evidence that you are just unaware of?
Honestly, a proper modus tollens argues that if X then Y and then shows that there isn't Y as a matter of fact, not just that you don't see evidence of Y.
For example, if there is a bottle of water on the table next to me then I should be able to see it, I should knock it down if I clear the table off, etc. These are specific, clearly tied to the nature of a bottle of water on the table, etc. You cannot just go all vague with a modus tollens.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Be honest, you are essentially saying adult males and females would be the most male and female, correct? Due to development/size.
No, not within either a binary or bimodal model would that make sense because certain traits (secondary sex characteristics, as an example) wouldn't become relevant until certain times and certain traits are relative to one's age (someone that is tall for their age might still be short).
Have you seriously not understood anything I have said so far?
Created:
-->
@Reece101
You were using size and development as your strawman weren’t you?
It literally isn't a strawman, it is how the bimodal model works if it is to be coherent. Just because you don't like the consequences of the position you favor doesn't mean those consequences are fallacious. You also seemed to miss the point about how various traits about size relate to the bimodal model, which is strange as it isn't something difficult to understand with a close reading of what I said.
Honestly, the fact that I have had to repeat myself as often as I have without you even attempting to make your own case makes this discussion a waste of time at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
“An appearance is probably true, unless there is good reason to doubt it.”Key here is that ‘good reason to doubt’ is more general than 'counter-evidence'.
I would argue that "good reason to doubt" would constitute counter-evidence, but I guess it is just how each phrase is interpreted by different people.
A problem with relying on the absense of counter-evidence is : how does one establish that there isn’t any ? The problem with people is that they tend to be foolish : “I don’t know of any counter-evidence. Therefore, there is no counter-evidence.”
I agree, but I emphasized that theism would be held tentatively for that very reason. If I am not aware of counter-evidence then I am justified in holding to a view of something and am rational in doing so. It isn't that "there is no counter-evidence anywhere", that isn't a premise in the argument (otherwise the conclusion wouldn't be to hold onto theism tentatively).
A good reason to doubt could be : There could be counter-evidence I don’t know about.
I disagree. You do not form views based on what could be but what is (or, at least, what appears to be what is). I feel like this line of reasoning could end up with you going straight back into solipsism. After all, there might be counter evidence you aren't aware about that the external world exists, so let's use that as a reason to doubt there is an external world.
I wondered why you started from personal observations (P1 and P2) to general observations (P3) i.s.o. starting with general observations. The reason turns out to be that the personal observations are easier to support.
I mean, yes it is easier to support, but it also personalizes it and makes it so that it is easier to see what denying the premise would lead to.
C1 does not follow from the premises. 60% likely times 60% likely = 36% likely = 64% unlikely.
This is, admittedly, the weakest part of the argument, as it is an attempt to go from "I experienced X and, as I'm unaware of anything that prevents X from being real, I am justified in believing X" and trying to reach "People have said they experienced X and, as I'm unaware of anything that prevents X from being real, I am justified in believing X" (well, the argument focuses on one person rather than people, but the intent of the phrase should be obvious).
70% and lower in both categories leads to the unlikely category being ~50% or higher.
I think, however, that if we define 'tend to' in the loosest sense then that would mean some value greater than 50 but less than 100 (as if it was 50% it doesn't tend to and if it was 100% it is always the case). The average of this is 75%, which is greater than the 70% necessary to reach above 50%. This means that it isn't unreasonable to say that from a more "agnostic" perspective of 'tends to' then the conclusion follows from the premise more often than not and, thus, is more likely to be true than not.
I think this is also where the argument could be expanded for multiple attestations increasing the odds (multiple accounts is used to increase the odds in both criminal trials, historical studies, etc.), which I think it is undeniable that multiple accounts exist. I just don't think it is absolutely necessary to include it in the argument, and thus I left it out.
But I do expect that most pushback would come from this part of the argument.
Morever, you have yet to establish a relation between senses and experience.
They are inherently tied together.
If my sense of sight tends to be accurate then that means if I see something that said experience tends to be a true experience.
I figured that I didn't have a need to go into detail considering the line of argument including solipsism, I figured most people would be able to infer this connection.
I have an alternative to P3, namely P3’ : There is no justification that the above is universal.
I mean, I rushed through that section as it seemed, to me, like a waste of time to go into detail on it. To try and hold that it does not generally hold true to all people requires special pleading while arguing that it does generally hold true for all people does not require use of a fallacy. It gives more weight to presuming P3 is true rather than P3'.
The reason to doubt needs to be good and good reason to doubt is not the same as counter-evidence.
I mean, this just goes into how we define counter-evidence, doesn't it?
[4] Reid’s Principle of Credulity is not evidence. It is a guideline on how to draw conclusions from evidence.
It is clear that you are being much more semantic on the points when the intent of what is being said is not difficult to tell. I shortened the point and used language that, while on its face is not wholly accurate, isn't difficult to interpret the intent of. Can we leave these pointless objections out as they only serve to distract from the actual point.
Background knowledge can make a claim extraordinary. If you place that in the evidence category then Reids Principle rarely applies
The point is that you cannot merely assert that a claim is extraordinary, you need to back up that categorization. You call that 'backing up' background knowledge. Then you need to provide that exact knowledge. Sure, this means that Reid's Principle of Credulity does not apply as often, sure, that is a feature though, not a bug.
The point of the argument is that it shifts the onus onto the atheist or agnostic to give an argument, any argument. That very well could be to provide that 'background knowledge' and show how it works against the god claim. The argument is, in a way, a counter to the null hypothesis of the god claim line of argumentation.
The kind of god that is being argued about is often the kind one would expect more evidence of.
That is something you need to demonstrate though. Your P1 needs justification, and I find that people rarely can justify that premise when dealing with a non-Abrahamic conception of god(s). Swinburne also argues that said P1 would never be able to be justified with god, but I don't really agree with him on that one.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I’ll strawman your strawman to see if you’re actually principled. Wouldn’t obese people be the most man and woman?
No, and there is no possible method for that to be interpreted based on the definitions I am using. You also once again failed to address the question on 'What the traits that are on a spectrum (of sexual identity)' are. At this point I am convinced that you don't actually know how to argue for a bimodal model without creating the issues that you claim are a strawman of the position.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
You’re placing pre-existing insecurities people have onto a system that you’re making a strawman out of.
How is it a strawman?
A bimodal model is inherently a spectrum. Bimodal sexual identity is a spectrum of men on one end and women on the other, with most people falling on the two ends of the spectrum.
But just because most people fall on the two ends does not mean that everyone does.
Let's visualize this a bit
F - - - - - - - - - - M
Let this represent the spectrum of sexual identity. Women (F) are the left, men (M) are the right. Most people fall right where the F and the M are, but what about someone that falls here (at the 'X'):
F - - - - - - - - - x M
Such a person would be less of a man than someone that falls directly on the M, this is necessary by definition when you want to use a bimodal model of sexual identity.
So, you must ask what is it that constitutes where on the spectrum you fall. That would necessarily have to be traits associated with one's sex (as if it was primarily based around gametes then there is no spectrum).
So, what are some traits associated with one's sex? Secondary sex characteristics are among them, like breast size. So, a woman that has an extremely flat chest would now be further to the right than the F, even if not by much, and thus they are less of a woman than someone with larger breasts.
Height is one, so a really short man would be further to the left than the M and would then be less of a man as a result.
This is a natural consequence of the bimodal model, the fact that you are taking issue with this and trying to call it a strawman (when it isn't) should be enough to see why putting sex itself (rather than just traits associated with sex) on a spectrum, even if it is a spectrum with bimodal distribution.
I feel like the reason you didn't answer my question on 'What are the traits that are on a spectrum (of sexual identity)' might very well be because you can't answer it without the exact issue I am pointing out coming up.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Because there are traits that are more central to defining what the 'kind' (man/woman) is. Gametes, for example, don't exist on a spectrum from one gamete to another while height does, but height is still a trait associated with men and women (as the average height is different between the two sexes).
But even with certain traits existing on a spectrum there is still a particular common pattern which can be used to define men and women, but variation/atypical traits within a member is not enough to say said member is of a different kind or any less of said kind than any other member.
The moment you place the entirety of man and woman as a spectrum the concept of atypical traits becomes an issue of where on the spectrum you fall as a man or woman. Even if you can still try to use the concept of 'kinds' it would be different because men can be more of a man than other or less of a man than others based on their 'atypical' traits.
A taller man would not just have a trait that is on a spectrum that is more on the "masculine" side than an average man (while both would still be equally a man), they are now more of a man than the average heighted man (even if they are both still men).
The smaller the breasts of a woman the less of a woman she now is based on the bimodal model, because these traits are now inherently tied to what sex category you are (thus the smaller your breasts the more you shift towards the male side of the spectrum).
Atypical traits do not cause an issue with the sex binary, they do if sex is defined as bimodal.
Binary - traits can fall on a spectrum but atypical traits don't change your categorization as a man or woman
Bimodal - your sex is on a spectrum and your traits determine where on said spectrum you fall as a man or woman (with atypical traits potentially meaning you are more/less of a man/woman than another).
Created: