|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 20:41:58 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote: | 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. |
Amen. I could hug you for saying this. This is a common complain among many women in the skeptical community.
Dave wrote:
| 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? |
*sigh* Of course men are just as emotional as women. But women are encouraged to express our emotions and men are not. Are we going to pretend that there are not vast differences between men and women (in general, of course) when it comes to emotion verses logic, how they are not only expressed, but also, how they are prioritized and valued? |
"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 20:42:56 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2011 : 21:42:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Give up responding to him; it's a lost cause. |
Not my style. I'd prefer to let him dig his hole as deep as he wants.I asked the questions in order to further discussion.| Of course men are just as emotional as women. But women are encouraged to express our emotions and men are not. Are we going to pretend that there are not vast differences between men and women (in general, of course) when it comes to emotion verses logic, how they are not only expressed, but also, how they are prioritized and valued? |
Are the differences between mens' and womens' expressions of emotion due to any physiological differences, or are they primarily cultural? If the latter, we (as critical thinkers) ought to be discussing what the optimal emotional/logical ratio is for both sexes (or either sex, assuming that there are some physiological differences), and aiming for that proper mix, yes? If men are societally "trained" to be tight-asses, we should be working to make them loosen up. And if women are trained to be overly emotional, shouldn't skeptical women be working to suck it up?
Or maybe Spock-like stoicism is the best level for everyone to maintain for society as a whole. Is there research on this? |
- 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
26031 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 22:02:00 [Permalink]
|
By the way:Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Feelings do not require objective justification. |
Some do. Someone covering the roof of their home with cinder blocks to protect them from the threat they feel is posed by meteorites needs help, not acceptance. John Hinckley's emotions towards Jodi Foster definitely could have benefited from a re-examination of the objective evidence at hand.
If nobody's feelings should ever be subject to a review based on facts, then the term "over-reaction" is meaningless. But I doubt you or marf would disagree that sometimes people over-react. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 22:39:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
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.
|
My problem, which you'd understand if you had read my posts, is that Plait has descended into insanity when he characterized the EG episode as a "potential sexual assault".
Dave_W has failed to understand probability, as apparently have you, when he tries to apply group trends to individuals. As I have pointed out, this is a unit of measure error. It is like me saying gas is $4/gallon, so I'll sell you a liter for $4! The reaction should be "errrr huh??" Instead Dave_W's reaction when I point out his mistake is to say I'm making vague and unsupported accusations about him. How am I supposed to respond when, after a dozen pages, he won't admit he has made a mistake? I went with large bold letters.
Then there is the cherry picking... and red herrings, and...
Yeah, it is obviously me who has gone off the fucking deep end here. I'll jump a fucking shark next, stay tuned!
 |
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 22:47:39 [Permalink]
|
Ebone said:
| Feelings do not require objective justification. |
I have to, sadly (because I don't want to right now) agree with Dave_W a little on this. Some feelings, maybe most, do require objective justification if you intend to act on them.
Like, for example, when you feel threatened by another human being. You can ruin a person's reputation, career, and maybe their life, if you act on objectively unjustified feelings towards them. Maybe you ruin your own life in the process. How about the person in Oklahoma last week who repeatedly rammed a woman's car because she thought the woman was Casey Anthony? Or maybe like when you are a mini celeb, have a fairly large blog following, and you tell your readers that you were threatened by some guy in an elevator. Is it unreasonable to expect rational thought and objective justification here? I don't think so.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 06:12:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
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?" |
I'm not an English professor, so if there are hidden meanings in there, I'm not the best person to judge. Given Rebecca's background, I would have thought she would use words which clearly convey her message. I can't be held responsible if she expresses herself poorly enough for me to misinterpret what she has to say, especially when she's educated enough to be more precise. It is entirely possible that "threatened" was an attribute in "creeped out". But she didn't say threatened, and I can't honestly make the assumption that it was. You may think it is warranted to make this assumption, I don't.
| I have to see the fallacies for myself, they can't be communicated. |
They can be communicated. However, I'm too digusted by the dragging out of this train-wreck, I don't have the energy or stamina to follow through with yet a side track which I can foresee becoming an equally nasty business.
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.
|
I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but then too many of her supporters jumped on the rape-train and by then it was too late.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
For a sane article there is this:Is It Cold in Here?
by Jennifer Ouellette for Scientific American.| ...an intoxicated Irish guy... |
|
I wonder where those two adjectives came from. Perhaps Watson has gone into more detail somewhere else. |
That is curious, isn't it? Where did this information come from, Ouellette could have linked to it instead of leaving us wondering if Rebecca said so, or Oullette pulled it out of her ass. Making stuff up about what Rebecca thought, felt, or otherwise experienced, seems to be a pastime.
If it is true that it was a drunk Irishman, then the incident was even totally predictable. It wouldn't matter if the guy had been listening to her all evening, we know that alcohol impairs judgement, and the second it overpowers the frontal lobe, biological imperative will kick in and guide his dick, and he'll start walking and talking in the direction it's pointing. If Ouellette is correct, it's even more surprising that Rebecca was shocked by the advances... But we don't know if her information can be trusted, because she hasn't given us any means of verifying. In my opinion, Ouellette tried a quick-draw and managed to shoot her credibility in the foot.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 06:31:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
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? |
No, but its existence shouldn't be unexpected. She seemed surprised that it happened at CERN. But it is a part of human nature, group dynamics, and herd mentality/psychology. It is undesireable, absolutely, but unfortunately inevitable even if the CERN crew's intelligence and education is higher than average. They are still human beings.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 06:48:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Dave_W has failed to understand probability, as apparently have you, when he tries to apply group trends to individuals. As I have pointed out, this is a unit of measure error. It is like me saying gas is $4/gallon, so I'll sell you a liter for $4! The reaction should be "errrr huh??" |
 Indeed, the reaction is just like that because I haven't said, suggested or even hinted at anything even close to that. You seem to have invented a stupid argument (that isn't even an argument) for me. You certainly cannot quote me saying anything remotely analogous to what you've said there.| Instead Dave_W's reaction when I point out his mistake is to say I'm making vague and unsupported accusations about him. |
As I said, you certainly cannot support your latest allegation. And you've been unable to explain the other charges you've leveled.| How am I supposed to respond when, after a dozen pages, he won't admit he has made a mistake? |
Well, your characterization of what I've said is completely wrong. I'm not going to admit to a mistake that you fabricated.| I went with large bold letters. |
Like that is a rational decision.
And now it seems that you won't respond to my direct questions.
Is it true, Dude, if I have a bag with 90 green marbles and ten blue marbles in it, and I reach in and grab one blindly without removing it, that I can reasonably estimate that the marble in my hand has a 10% chance of being blue? Or is that an inappropriate application of group trends to an individual? |
- 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 - 07/22/2011 : 07:05:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
It is undesireable, absolutely, but unfortunately inevitable even if the CERN crew's intelligence and education is higher than average. They are still human beings.
|
Women are human beings too. It seems you are willing to accept that the men can act out because they are human beings but then the women must remain silent and not react because of that fact. Double standard.
edited because I have a strange aversion to spell check |
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 |
| Edited by - Ebone4rock on 07/22/2011 07:08:23 |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 07:16:16 [Permalink]
|
BNGBuck said
Ms. Watson is a touch paranoid; or, at the very least, extremely protective of her undoubtedly preciously rare and unusual feminine anatomical charms
That is the most obnoxious, asshole statement I have seen so far
Moving on....
I am always amazed when some men try to minimize sexism. Actually, I shouldn't be amazed. Sexism in the US more subtle just as racism has become more subtle.
There are more women than men in med school now. A colleague of mine then said that there will be fewer available doctors around because women don't work long hours or full-time like men do. I am not saying he is right or wrong, but that he made a knee jerk assumption without thinking about other factors. There is a shortage of doctors because there are not enough med schools and enough people going to med school. Why should any doctor, male or female, have to compensate for this by having to work long hours.
Some people like to point out that sexism in other countries is worse so why should be worry about it in the US. Just because it is worse elsewhere, doesn't any other sexism right. Just because we fight sexism here doesn't mean we can't fight sexism in other countries.
OFFC said: why is it okay to make fun of penises
You have to admit penises are just funny. Why do you think there are more jokes about penises than vaginas.
|
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 07:19:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I'm not an English professor, so if there are hidden meanings in there, I'm not the best person to judge. Given Rebecca's background, I would have thought she would use words which clearly convey her message. I can't be held responsible if she expresses herself poorly enough for me to misinterpret what she has to say, especially when she's educated enough to be more precise. It is entirely possible that "threatened" was an attribute in "creeped out". But she didn't say threatened, and I can't honestly make the assumption that it was. You may think it is warranted to make this assumption, I don't. |
You can be held responsible for ignoring the fact that when she said she'd felt threatened later on the same day as she posted the video, she did so in such a matter-of-fact fashion that it was obviously always how she'd perceived things, and not some radical change to her story.| They can be communicated. However, I'm too digusted by the dragging out of this train-wreck, I don't have the energy or stamina to follow through with yet a side track which I can foresee becoming an equally nasty business. |
If you don't want to do the work to support your claims, don't ask me to do it. Instead, assume that your claims will be viewed as unsupported.| I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but then too many of her supporters jumped on the rape-train and by then it was too late. |
Ah, guilt by association. I see.| That is curious, isn't it? Where did this information come from, Ouellette could have linked to it instead of leaving us wondering if Rebecca said so, or Oullette pulled it out of her ass. Making stuff up about what Rebecca thought, felt, or otherwise experienced, seems to be a pastime. |
Her detractors are particularly good at it. See, for example, this comment, in which some idiot suggests that Watson equates being hit on with rape.| If it is true that it was a drunk Irishman, then the incident was even totally predictable. It wouldn't matter if the guy had been listening to her all evening, we know that alcohol impairs judgement, and the second it overpowers the frontal lobe, biological imperative will kick in and guide his dick, and he'll start walking and talking in the direction it's pointing. |
That would have made him more of a threat, of course.| If Ouellette is correct, it's even more surprising that Rebecca was shocked by the advances... |
Shocked? Why are you making up stuff about how Watson felt? If we assume that Ouellette is wrong (as in mistaken, not maliciously lying), then it has no bearing on what Watson should have felt. If we assume Ouellette is right, then you need to further assume that Watson could have detected his drunkenness before he opened his mouth in order for this to have any bearing on how she should have felt.| But we don't know if her information can be trusted, because she hasn't given us any means of verifying. In my opinion, Ouellette tried a quick-draw and managed to shoot her credibility in the foot. |
Wow, so quick to judge, based on no information at all. If this is so tiring to you that you'll come to a conclusion based on sheer speculation, perhaps you should just bow out completely. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 09:27:30 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
…Ms. Watson is a touch paranoid; or, at the very least, extremely protective of her undoubtedly preciously rare and unusual feminine anatomical charms |
See. That reminds me of Dawkins assessment. It’s probably coming from the same place. Maybe it’s an age thing. While old male liberals may not condone sexism, and will fight for equal pay in the marketplace for woman, just as they fought for their right to vote, subtleties seem to elude them. My father, who was most certainly a liberal and would side with woman on all issues of concern to their political march towered equality, used to joke that rape is an assault with a friendly weapon. He didn’t get how outrageously sexist a joke that was. Just like Dawkins, and you, Bill, my Dad grew up at a time when our culture was even more profoundly patriarchal than it is now. I think you guys carry that baggage, and are blind to it. Clueless is how I describe Dawkins reaction. Not misogynistic or consciously sexist. Just blind to some sexist attitudes that persist.
For the life of me, I can’t see anything paranoid in Watson’s assessment of her situation on the elevator. Being propositioned in an elevator at four AM in the morning, after saying she wanted to go to sleep, and after talking about the problems woman have with being sexually objectified at a conference talk, and then discussing it at the bar, meant that from her point of view, the guy was at the very least, clueless. What else could he be? Well, creepy. And maybe something worse? Creepy is not a paranoid assessment. He was being creepy. Perhaps he is socially inept. That doesn’t change the fact that from Watson’s point of view, he was being creepy. The data that she had was that she was being propositioned in an elevator at four in the morning by a stranger who said he found her interesting, which one would assume meant that he heard what she had to say earlier in the evening. He invited her back to HIS room for coffee? Well, maybe. But if you could put yourself in RW’s shoes, it was a creepy proposition. “Paranoia” suggests that she had no reason to feel any unease in her situation beyond the unease it takes to turn someone down. In order to come to that conclusion, I think you would have to go out of your way to ignore the back-story.
Bill:
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? |
Sexism is a social and cultural construct. It’s not exclusive to our community, but at least our community is talking about it, and even doing something about it. That was clearly evident at this year’s TAM where half of the speakers were woman. But you know, considering old attitudes, and the suggestion that we pay more attention to the concerns of woman, as though they aren’t equal in our community, because we are too rational to let that happen, flies in the face of how some people see themselves as rational thinkers. A part of the community is offended by the notion that we are subject to the same prejudices that the larger culture that we spring from is. And they are pushing back. After all, aren’t we the good guys?
So there is this rift. Both sides think they are being rational. Both sides think they are using logic, science, and critical thinking to arrive at a conclusion, and they are fighting for it. I’m on the side of the rift that says Rebecca’s concerns were justified. I’m not busy vilifying any of the players on either side because to me, doing that is just a way to get around what is really at issue here.
But look. We are just a microcosm of the debate that is going on out there beyond our community. Again, sexism is a social construct. It’s much harder to quantify than the reliability of a homeopathic remedy. And were kind of stuck with that.
While I find the debate tiresome, I do see its value. And again, at least we're talking about it. Yelling sometimes…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 10:15:35 [Permalink]
|
Thanks Kil for those comments.
People keep forgetting the context of the incident with EG. In her talk, Watson used being hit on at meetings as an example of sexism. EG was an example of how some men at these meetings are still not listening to women.
Many people are saying she is calling him a rapist, which of course is not true. The chances of any men in an elevator is of course very small but not impossible. The point is women still have to think about the dangers they may be in because that possibility of harm is there. Would you tell a woman to not be alert to possiblilities of danger just because the probability is low. I would tell anyone walking in certain cities to be cautious even if the probability of attack or robbery is very low.
in terms of EG, I would worry about this guy following me to my room or knowing where my room is. Most women will base their reaction on how much danger they are in. I would move closer to elevator doors and make sure the man doesn't follow me. However, I would not starting yelling rape because he has not done anything to warrant that reaction. |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 12:13:19 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| What was it that prompted you to form that opinion? |
Seventy plus years of observing, listening to, dealing with, watching the posturing of, lying to, and being lied to by tens of thousands of people. After enough years of interaction with enough crosssection of humanity, one gains enough experience to know a heart from a diamond, and ace from a joker. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 12:38:44 [Permalink]
|
alienist
bngbuck
Ms. Watson is a touch paranoid; or, at the very least, extremely protective of her undoubtedly preciously rare and unusual feminine anatomical charms |
alienist
That is the most obnoxious, asshole statement I have seen so far
|
|
Thanks. Sorry to not have a compensatory obscenity for you, however I regret your nunnery existence and hope you become better read. Experiencing assholes in print or in person, is helpful to one's survival. However, stick around, and you undoubtedly will see a few that will dwarf my feeble efforts at asshole expression.
Your thread comment was sensible, reasoned, and admirably oral in nature.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I do not like Rebecca Watson (aka skepchick)
