|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2011 : 13:12:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
And skipps telling exactly what Rebecca "outlined" (not that she felt physically threatened by EG but found his sexual objectifying creepy). |
You're seriously saying that again, after I quoted Watson saying otherwise on the same day she posted the video? Come on, Mab: face the facts.| Then she sides with the feminist mafia. |
No emotionally-laden terms in that sentence, no.  | Sigh. Yet another clueless blogger. I don't know why I'm waisting my time. |
If you're going to ignore reality, I don't know why you'd waste your time, either. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 13:14:43 [Permalink]
|
PZ Myers on Abbie Smith:I like Abbie; her whole attitude is one of raving enthusiasm for everything, and she simply doesn’t have an idle position — it’s 100% for or 100% against. This is just a case where she has gone full throttle for what I think is the wrong position. Other commenters respond by noting that using base insults like "Twatson" is a little more than just maintaining a poorly though-out position. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 14:32:51 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
Thanks for your response. This thing seems to have acquired a life of it's own.
Kil wrote:| This debate arrived here rather late. It had been going on full tilt for a week before it hit SFN. I'm sure it's still going on here and there, but I don't think any of the main players are commenting anymore |
I spent a little time following up on the various links and references provided by Dave and others, and it is truly amazing what a hot topic this "elevatorgate" has become and currently still is in the skepticsphere.
Sexism and feminism certainly join the rather short list of incandescent topics certain to immediately ignite name calling, inordinate insult and extraordinary hyperbole among serious skeptics - irrespective of whatever position the protaganists favor.
UFO and assorted "Alien" subject matter, faith in supernatural dieties, and right-wing political views all are explosive tinder for skeptical conflagration. These topics share a valid challenge status to "promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact".
I have difficulty in relating high-fever opinion on what is the appropriate social behavior for a person of one gender to pursue a sexual encounter with one of another gender - with the paradigms of skepticism, CT, science or logic.
What is appropriate (and effective) behavior for hitting on women has been a matter of high concern for young men since antiquity. Mores being what they are, these techniques change radically from one era to another, and from one society to another society. And it is overwhelmingly evident that drunken(?), Irish(?), young(?) wolves are looking for love in all the wrong places as far as four AM elevator liasons are concerned. However, it also appears to me (strictly my OPINION) that Ms. Watson is a touch paranoid; or, at the very least, extremely protective of her undoubtedly preciously rare and unusual feminine anatomical charms
Irrespective of these opinions, I am amazed at the furor this rather minor event has caused in the skeptical community, comme un tout tout. And accusations are being thrown around on the Internet that Skeptics in general are significantly male pigs or female feminazis.
In your view, what is the connection, (if there is one) between skepicism and opinions of social propriety? Critical Thinking? Science? Logic?
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 14:39:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
And skipps telling exactly what Rebecca "outlined" (not that she felt physically threatened by EG but found his sexual objectifying creepy). |
You're seriously saying that again, after I quoted Watson saying otherwise on the same day she posted the video? |
From the elevator incident to when the video was finished and uploaded to her blog, what stayed in her mind was that she felt creepy about being sexually objectified. How important a threat could that potential assault be if she couldn't bother to mention it in the video when she had ample time to think about it first, but had to add it later in the blog as an afterthought?
The crap-fest that is her "privilage"-piece is an other matter I won't even bother about anymore. If you can't see the fallacies she employs there, then I seriously doubt my words can make any difference.
| Then she sides with the feminist mafia. |
No emotionally-laden terms in that sentence, no. | Sigh. Yet another clueless blogger. I don't know why I'm waisting my time. |
If you're going to ignore reality, I don't know why you'd waste your time, either.
|
I'm not ignoring reality. My perception filter obviously functions and filters differently from yours, and we can't agree on what we see. That's one of the reasons I feel we've reached the end of this train-wreck. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 14:40:26 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
But this is a debate about objective reality, too. Dude was (at one point) claiming that Rebecca Watson had no objective basis to feel threatened. He's also claiming that there's no objective reason to call what happened a "potential sexual assault." He's wrong on both counts, which is why he's having to concede some ground while continuing to fling vague and unsupportable accusations of improper skepticism my way.
|
Yeah, because your failure to understand probability, your refusal to admit you don't understand probability, and your continued misuse of probability to defend the hysterical position of "potential sexual assault", after I have explained why you are wrong, is totally me flinging "vague and unsupportable accusations of improper skepticism" your way.
Let me see if I can clarify, I'll use big letters to help you avoid the feeling I am being vague:
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND PROBABILITY, AS EVIDENCED BY YOUR CONTINUED APPLICATION OF STATISTICS THAT DESCRIBE GROUPS TO ANALYZE THE THREAT POSED BY AN INDIVIDUAL. YOU ARE MAKING A UNIT OF MEASURE ERROR. I HAVE EXPLAINED THIS MORE THAN ONCE. STATISTICS THAT DESCRIBE "ALL MEN" ARE NOT USEFUL WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO PREDICT THE BEHAVIOR OF "A MAN" OR "A RANDOM MAN". IN ORDER TO USE YOUR THREAT ANALYSIS YOU HAVE TO PUT WATSON IN AN ELEVATOR WITH 10 MEN, THEN YOU CAN SAY THERE IS, ON AVERAGE, A 10% CHANCE ONE FO THOSE MEN WOULD COMMIT A SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND ONLY A 2% CHANCE ONE OF THEM WOULD DO IT AGAINST A STRANGER. HOWEVER, SINCE THERE IS ONLY ONE MAN IN THE ELEVATOR, YOU CAN'T USE ANY OF THOSE PROBABILITIES TO ASSESS THREAT.
IN ORDER TO MAKE YOUR POINT, YOU ARE CHERRY PICKING BOTH MY ARGUMENTS AND ELEVATOR GUY'S BEHAVIOR. THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY. YOU ARE DOING IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T MAKE YOUR POINT ANY OTHER WAY.
If that is too vague for you, or if you think it is unsupportable, then I suggest you seek a second opinion.
I'm done going round and round with you here. Done putting out your flaming strawmen, done chasing your red herrings. Done trying to communicate with you when you are having this level of stubborness cloud your ability to think. You just don't like the fact that I don't like Watson and I think Plait is a (hysterical idiot) dick, so you sunk your teeth into an indefensible position, now you are committed to it and refuse to admit your errors.
So. I'm done. Get back to me when you have something other than cherry picking and misuse of probability.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 14:42:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
However, it also appears to me (strictly my OPINION) that Ms. Watson is a touch paranoid; or, at the very least, extremely protective of her undoubtedly preciously rare and unusual feminine anatomical charms |
What was it that prompted you to form that opinion? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 14:49:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
From the elevator incident to when the video was finished and uploaded to her blog, what stayed in her mind was that she felt creepy about being sexually objectified. How important a threat could that potential assault be if she couldn't bother to mention it in the video when she had ample time to think about it first, but had to add it later in the blog as an afterthought? |
Oh, forcryingoutloud. Do you think it might be possible that "threatened" was an attribute included in "creeped out?"| The crap-fest that is her "privilage"-piece is an other matter I won't even bother about anymore. If you can't see the fallacies she employs there, then I seriously doubt my words can make any difference. |
Ah, a sacred cow, not to be explained or questioned. I have to see the fallacies for myself, they can't be communicated.| I'm not ignoring reality. My perception filter obviously functions and filters differently from yours, and we can't agree on what we see. That's one of the reasons I feel we've reached the end of this train-wreck. |
I think it's clear that you're unwilling to give Watson the benefit of a doubt that perhaps she didn't use precise language in her video (it was obviously off-the-cuff) and clarified later in text. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 14:55:01 [Permalink]
|
Wha, I find it totally amazing that such smart, educated fellas cannot understand that this is not about statistics and probabilities. This is about women's emotions. Statistics and probabilities are completely irrelevent. You keep on arguing about it as if you are trying to decide on the safety of a new nuclear powerplant or something.
You guys are too smart for your own good. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 15:00:59 [Permalink]
|
I'd like to see how home life must be.
Wife: I really want a new hairstyle.
Husband: Well honey, you last had your hair done on May 27. Your normal time between hairstyles is 3 months. According to the statistics you should not need another style for another 5 weeks. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 15:10:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Yeah, because your failure to understand probability, your refusal to admit you don't understand probability, and your continued misuse of probability to defend the hysterical position of "potential sexual assault", after I have explained why you are wrong, is totally me flinging "vague and unsupportable accusations of improper skepticism" your way. |
You haven't explained anything. Let's see:Let me see if I can clarify, I'll use big letters to help you avoid the feeling I am being vague:
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND PROBABILITY, AS EVIDENCED BY YOUR CONTINUED APPLICATION OF STATISTICS THAT DESCRIBE GROUPS TO ANALYZE THE THREAT POSED BY AN INDIVIDUAL. YOU ARE MAKING A UNIT OF MEASURE ERROR. I HAVE EXPLAINED THIS MORE THAN ONCE. STATISTICS THAT DESCRIBE "ALL MEN" ARE NOT USEFUL WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO PREDICT THE BEHAVIOR OF "A MAN" OR "A RANDOM MAN". IN ORDER TO USE YOUR THREAT ANALYSIS YOU HAVE TO PUT WATSON IN AN ELEVATOR WITH 10 MEN, THEN YOU CAN SAY THERE IS, ON AVERAGE, A 10% CHANCE ONE FO THOSE MEN WOULD COMMIT A SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND ONLY A 2% CHANCE ONE OF THEM WOULD DO IT AGAINST A STRANGER. HOWEVER, SINCE THERE IS ONLY ONE MAN IN THE ELEVATOR, YOU CAN'T USE ANY OF THOSE PROBABILITIES TO ASSESS THREAT. |
See, there's no explanation there, just an assertion that something is verboten.
The point I had always been making, of course, is that the justifiably perceived threat is never zero, and rises with certain conditions. You've never addressed that argument. The fact that you recently thought it necessary to announce to everyone that Watson was never in any "real" danger signifies that you're willfully ignoring the whole point of what she and Plait both were saying.| IN ORDER TO MAKE YOUR POINT, YOU ARE CHERRY PICKING BOTH MY ARGUMENTS AND ELEVATOR GUY'S BEHAVIOR. THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY. YOU ARE DOING IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T MAKE YOUR POINT ANY OTHER WAY. |
Again, just a couple of assertions without any real counter-argument. I've asked you plainly to clarify your position, but you seem to refuse to do so.| If that is too vague for you, or if you think it is unsupportable, then I suggest you seek a second opinion. |
Everyone else here is free to offer their opinions of your nonsense.| I'm done going round and round with you here. Done putting out your flaming strawmen, done chasing your red herrings. Done trying to communicate with you when you are having this level of stubborness cloud your ability to think. |
Projection. Massive projection.| You just don't like the fact that I don't like Watson and I think Plait is a (hysterical idiot) dick, so you sunk your teeth into an indefensible position, now you are committed to it and refuse to admit your errors. |
Bwahahahahahaha! No, I've told you plainly why I think you are wrong. That you think I just don't like your position is a clear dodge of the issues.| So. I'm done. Get back to me when you have something other than cherry picking and misuse of probability. |
If you refuse to clarify your argument, don't let the door hit you on your way out. [Shrug] What else can I do? I've explained why I think you're wrong, I've asked you for clarification, and all you can do now is scream at me in all-caps, large-font text and then go sulk. Poor baby.
I'm unwilling to allow communications to cease, so I will try again:
Is it true or false that if 5% of a population has some trait, then if we know nothing else about an individual in that population, we can justifiably estimate the odds of that individual having that trait at 1 chance in 20? We can always learn more about the individual later and refine our estimate based on other traits, but we're talking about first impressions here, where we know very little and need to make an educated guess.
Is it true or false that your argument is that it is irrational to feel threatened while something is occurring if it later turns out to have a happy ending?
Do you think that my argument rests upon certain specific percentages? Or do you think that I have been arguing for a differential approach to assess threats? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 15:11:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Wha, I find it totally amazing that such smart, educated fellas cannot understand that this is not about statistics and probabilities. This is about women's emotions. Statistics and probabilities are completely irrelevent. You keep on arguing about it as if you are trying to decide on the safety of a new nuclear powerplant or something.
You guys are too smart for your own good. |
Dude is saying that Watson's emotions were objectively unjustifiable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 15:33:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Wha, I find it totally amazing that such smart, educated fellas cannot understand that this is not about statistics and probabilities. This is about women's emotions. Statistics and probabilities are completely irrelevent. You keep on arguing about it as if you are trying to decide on the safety of a new nuclear powerplant or something.
You guys are too smart for your own good. |
Dude is saying that Watson's emotions were objectively unjustifiable.
|
No shit. Feelings do not require objective justification. That's my whole point. There needs to be a balance between critical thinking and emotions otherwise the skeptical community will forever be a sausage-fest. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 16:51:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
No shit. Feelings do not require objective justification. That's my whole point. There needs to be a balance between critical thinking and emotions otherwise the skeptical community will forever be a sausage-fest. |
Well, men have emotions, too. Dude doesn't seem to be saying that Watson's emotions were unjustifiable because she is a woman, so if being anti-emotions will drive people away, then why would the skeptical community remain male-only? Shouldn't everyone be repulsed by a Spock-like commitment to logic? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 20:27:43 [Permalink]
|
Mab wrote: | I challenge you to find any heavily male-dominated work place where this doesn't happen. Like the military (been there, seen it), heavy manufacturing (been there, seen it), mining... (never did mining but I saw the movie...). |
Yeah, so the problem is widespread. Does this fact make this treatment of women any less problematic?
| And skipps telling exactly what Rebecca "outlined" (not that she felt physically threatened by EG but found his sexual objectifying creepy). Then she sides with the feminist mafia. |
What do you think "creepy" means? Things are creepy if they seem like they might be dangerous. Can you please QUOTE Watson being hysterical about her experience in the elevator? Or at least can you please quote where Watson explicitly sides with statements which could be characterized as hysterical? I keep seeing all this name calling of Watson, but I have yet to see her quoted as saying anything that warrants such harsh criticism. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 20:32:07 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Dude is saying that Watson's emotions were objectively unjustifiable. |
Yeah, Dude has obviously gone off the deep end on this topic. For crap's sake, he just wrote a big, fat, chunk of a post in giant, bold, all caps. He can't see the hilarious irony of his own criticisms combined with the tone and rhetoric with which he presents them. As smart as he is in many threads on this forum, on this one he's behaving mostly like a troll, starting from how he decided to title the thread. He's obviously not even looking for any kind of civil debate and he came into this not willing to listen to anyone whose opinion clashes with his intense feelings on the topic. Give up responding to him; it's a lost cause. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/21/2011 20:33:21 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I do not like Rebecca Watson (aka skepchick)
