Total Posts:149|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Flaming Homophobe

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2013 2:09:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is an abstract from an article in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology called "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?":

"The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."

Here is the link: http://psycnet.apa.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:37:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/21/2013 3:19:14 PM, YYW wrote:
Oh this is quite good.

The Fool: No, it's horrible. and as immoral as social science can get.

There are certain conscious states, that are incorrigible. That is, they could never be corrected from an outside observer. Which includes all direct sensations, or feelings, or beliefs, or attitudes.

And similarly, propositional attitudes, like "I like this," "I don't like that," or "I'm feeling happy", or "I think this sucks", or "I believe this or that". I'm seeing red, I'm seeing blue. Etc. when "spoken sincerely", and correctly labeled could NEVER be wrong.

For example let's say you are in pain and you say this sincerely to a neuroscientist. Not just any neuroscientist, but the best damn neuroscientist who ever existed, and knows everything there is to know about neuroscience.

And he or she says, "no you're not really in pain, because this technology has a track record of 100% in predicting every sensation". Then follows that, it is now 99.99999"% on all past predictions..as it would be the disconfirming incident.

There has been really horrible and unethical studies, in social psychology which are Buried deep, in the archives. And most failed experiments, and many studies deemed unethical do not get published..

The big problem though is "deemed" unethical. That is the ethics board of social science, does not consist of people who "reason", ethics, but people were following a set of rules they are given by the state. And these very rules, for good or for worse, of course reflect the reigning ideological regimes of the times.

The very system, which did not protect the intentional abuse, and unfalsifiable theoretical framework, which accentuated, the demoralizing of homosexuality, only 50 years ago, is simply reconfigured, to do the very same thing to those unpopular to the normative fad of the time.

Oh yeah and this is besides the fact that like 000ike and S-anthony knows absolutely NOTHING about the philosophy of science..

http://www.debate.org...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 4:22:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You can't be that na"ve..

The Fool: So let me get this straight, no pun intended. They were assigned homophobic and not homophobic groups in 1980. by a very, awkward and mysterious test.
Crash!
<(86)

And it was not till 12 years later the very same group, till they filled out an aggression questionnaire by completely different scientists (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992)
And BURNED!!!

<(8D)

And QED.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 5:05:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
How it all went down;

Social scientist: Hey there, random sample stranger. Are you a homophobe?

Random sample stranger 1: Who me? homophobe, no way.

Social scientist: Oh really, therefore you must be a non-homophobic. And objectively so.. would you be up for watching, some erotic videos with different combination of sexual partners, while we stare at your penis, and pay you.

Random sample stranger 1: Hey wait a minute what is this about?

Social scientists: we can't really tell you as that would adulterate the sample.

Random sample stranger 1: Did you say money, wow I am really not a homophobe now.

Social scientist: Hey there, random sample stranger. Are you a homophobe?

Random sample strange 2: Why yes I am a homophobe! Glad you asked. sign me up, to this non-circus like experiment, were you play videos, which are called erotic, whether or not they are in fact erotic to me, and have complete strangers stare at my penis circumference, consistently and diligently, every single millisecond of the way, with measuring tools. Except for homosexuals, because that's gay, and I'm a homophobe.

I just want a normal and completely non-strange and non-weird natural environment with all the intention of faithfully representing those whom they themselves call "homophobic", and use the sample of 29 coincidental volunteers, who freely proclaim themselves homophobes, to generalized on the billions, and billions of people, who have now and in the past felt uncomfortable toward homosexual situation.

I'm sure it was completely out of the randomness, and unbiased science of your loving heart that you even thought to think that homophobes ,that is, the intentional and completely evaluative reference to people as mentally ill and synonymously cowardice, by virtue of admitting, negative affect towards Homosexuality. In that very ambiguous relation.

It must be because all homophobes are really homosexual, and synonymously, homosexual homophobes.. So they must be aroused and afraid of themselves at the same time all the time. And it is "apparently" true.. No sarcasm implied.

<(8D)

Apparently!

"Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.""

The Fool: That's right, an abstract from the 1980s which asked the question, which itself answers to itself, for itself, for its own self-refutation, in the very abstract by conflating completely different studies, which are also apart by 12 years. And the use of the term "apparently" , in a way that can only be overlooked by the most na"ve and or biased observers.

<(8D)

Apparently..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 6:20:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well Fool, while I agree with you that there is much carried out by social scientists that is unscrupulous and bad, I must say that I do think you're going over the top with this one. I mean, if you think about, this can only lead to mitigation. Who's gonna stone the homophobes, Fool? The Homophobes? Or perhaps the Homophobephobes?

One thing I will give you, though, is "apparently." I do not believe this test was really conclusive at all, and, in fact, there have been other such tests carried out that would suggest as such. All the same, though, it is information gained that is not really harmful, in a manner that wasn't really harmful. I mean how can information on its own be harmful?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 6:31:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I mean, we could go down the road of comparing this to the splitting of the atom, no; if we are to take people's interpretations of such happenings as evidence for its badness?

Truth is Absolute.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 7:01:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of course I am hypocritical in my dealings here, having entered only thinking of medic shutting up, but my fault does not render this information, in and of itself, harmful.

My apologies to the world.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 7:11:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 1:37:09 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/21/2013 3:19:14 PM, YYW wrote:
Oh this is quite good.

The Fool: No, it's horrible. and as immoral as social science can get.

There are certain conscious states, that are incorrigible. That is, they could never be corrected from an outside observer. Which includes all direct sensations, or feelings, or beliefs, or attitudes.

And similarly, propositional attitudes, like "I like this," "I don't like that," or "I'm feeling happy", or "I think this sucks", or "I believe this or that". I'm seeing red, I'm seeing blue. Etc. when "spoken sincerely", and correctly labeled could NEVER be wrong.

I think you're playing with about two, possibly three meanings of the word "wrong" here.

For example let's say you are in pain and you say this sincerely to a neuroscientist. Not just any neuroscientist, but the best damn neuroscientist who ever existed, and knows everything there is to know about neuroscience.

Pain and prejudice are not tantamount to one another in any way. I grasp what you're saying but reject your point.

And he or she says, "no you're not really in pain, because this technology has a track record of 100% in predicting every sensation". Then follows that, it is now 99.99999"% on all past predictions..as it would be the disconfirming incident.

That's not what happened here.

There has been really horrible and unethical studies, in social psychology which are Buried deep, in the archives. And most failed experiments, and many studies deemed unethical do not get published..

My dear Fool, I sympathize with your suspicion of social science. I am acutely suspicious of sociology, sexology, psychology (and mental health studies generally), behavioral studies, etc. But, I see nothing pronouncedly unethical about this experiment. Precariously close to unethical? Perhaps. Outrightly unethical? No.

The big problem though is "deemed" unethical. That is the ethics board of social science, does not consist of people who "reason", ethics, but people were following a set of rules they are given by the state. And these very rules, for good or for worse, of course reflect the reigning ideological regimes of the times.

Mmmhmmm.

The very system, which did not protect the intentional abuse, and unfalsifiable theoretical framework, which accentuated, the demoralizing of homosexuality, only 50 years ago, is simply reconfigured, to do the very same thing to those unpopular to the normative fad of the time.

In principle, I agree. But, there is a difference here, though. Homosexuals of yesteryear were subject to all kinds of "treatment." Homophobes are just left to be.
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 12:36:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

YYW: I think you're playing with about two, possibly three meanings of the word "wrong" here.

The Fool: then ask for clarification..

By Wrong I mean speak or believe Falsely. Done. It's that easy.


Argument from incorrigibility


That is, If you do like something or believe something and you say. "I like that" or "I believe that" and do so "Sincerely", AKA "Are speaking honestly." AKA TRULY then you cannot be over ridden by someone else who believes you don't really like that or believes, that you don't really believe, your own believe.

Or be thinking or feeling falsely as it is your thinking or feeling which constitutes what IT IS to like or belief something.

E.g You could not believe, and at the same time not really believe.. That you believe that you are in fact believing..

Do you or do you not disagree with this?

It is completely, dehumanize to say something like "You don't really believe in God you just believe you believe in God. But not really" As a way to override somebody's actual belief itself. Not what it asserts to be true, but the very fact that someone's believing it.

Do you or do you not disagree with?

Synonymously, it is completely dehumanizing to say, you are really enjoying this, you're just in denial and think you're not but you really secretly are..

Do you or do you not disagree with this?

For example let's say you are in pain and you say this sincerely to a neuroscientist. Not just any neuroscientist, but the best damn neuroscientist who ever existed, and knows everything there is to know about neuroscience.

YYW: Pain and prejudice are not tantamount to one another in any way.

The Fool: I think anybody, even the most foolish, confuse the sensation of pain with an expectation. So It Is Fair to Say You're Not Cutting Any Slack. And I understand, because I am intentionally pushing buttons. But I don't want to push to the point which makes somebody irrational against it, which is often the case. Or I have failed in some sense. but just enough to get them involved in committed, so that when the get it they will really get.

YYW: I grasp what you're saying but reject your point.

The Fool: I have no way of telling grasp it to know well enough to have a justified rejection if you do not give a demonstration.. I want nothing more, then to be refuted.
But you have to actually refute me, fairly and squarely. Not talk over what I'm saying, or attribute different meanings than what I mean, or rally up mob of opinions. All these block the possibility of getting what I'm saying.

I am confident enough, about my full argument to be justified to think that if you grasp it and synonymously reject it, that you fall into absurdity, immorality, and hypocrisy.. Or I myself, am mistaken somewhere.

And perhaps I am but you have to demonstrate.. Demonstration is everything.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 12:46:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That Argument from Incorrigibility is complete bullsh*t, not dehumanizing at all, but the opposite in my opinion.

Basically, you're decrying those who have suffered hardships in certain areas getting into areas of help which revolve around those hardships and saying, "I understand what you're going through..."

Why is it dehumanizing? Because people do not like to be wrong? Why is it dehumanizing to be wrong, even about oneself?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 12:50:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So Fool, you do not think that people lie to themselves?

Sexual attraction is a very malleable thing, in my opinion.. but people see it as set in stone, and it's therefore very affected by their subconscious. Combine that with anger, and you get a very unhealthy view on sexuality..
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:51:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 1:37:09 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/21/2013 3:19:14 PM, YYW wrote:
Oh this is quite good.

The Fool: No, it's horrible. and as immoral as social science can get.

Please, tell me how it is this study is unethical. First of all, the study deals with consensual adults; who consented to the use of devices' measuring penile circumference. Secondly, they were given the opportunity to view heteroerotic and homoerotic material; to which there was no objection.


There are certain conscious states, that are incorrigible. That is, they could never be corrected from an outside observer. Which includes all direct sensations, or feelings, or beliefs, or attitudes.

No where in the study does it say the objective of the researchers was to correct anything. That's not the role of the researcher; the researcher's role is merely to observe, as objectively as possible. In every study there's bias; that's unavoidable; the objective of the study is to minimize bias, as much as humanly possible.


And similarly, propositional attitudes, like "I like this," "I don't like that," or "I'm feeling happy", or "I think this sucks", or "I believe this or that". I'm seeing red, I'm seeing blue. Etc. when "spoken sincerely", and correctly labeled could NEVER be wrong.

Again, adding moral judgement where there is none. Please, tell me where it was in the study the researchers concluded the homophobe was morally inferior.


For example let's say you are in pain and you say this sincerely to a neuroscientist. Not just any neuroscientist, but the best damn neuroscientist who ever existed, and knows everything there is to know about neuroscience.

And he or she says, "no you're not really in pain, because this technology has a track record of 100% in predicting every sensation". Then follows that, it is now 99.99999"% on all past predictions..as it would be the disconfirming incident.

Is pain not a biological response to stimuli?


There has been really horrible and unethical studies, in social psychology which are Buried deep, in the archives. And most failed experiments, and many studies deemed unethical do not get published..

The big problem though is "deemed" unethical. That is the ethics board of social science, does not consist of people who "reason", ethics, but people were following a set of rules they are given by the state. And these very rules, for good or for worse, of course reflect the reigning ideological regimes of the times.

The very system, which did not protect the intentional abuse, and unfalsifiable theoretical framework, which accentuated, the demoralizing of homosexuality, only 50 years ago, is simply reconfigured, to do the very same thing to those unpopular to the normative fad of the time.

Oh yeah and this is besides the fact that like 000ike and S-anthony knows absolutely NOTHING about the philosophy of science..

http://www.debate.org...

This statement alone makes me wary of everything you've said, previously. I have been in debate forums, for years, and have never made such a statement about anybody, regardless of how uneducated they appeared to me. It shows a lack open-mindedness and maturity.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 3:02:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 4:22:54 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
You can't be that na"ve..

The Fool: So let me get this straight, no pun intended. They were assigned homophobic and not homophobic groups in 1980. by a very, awkward and mysterious test.
Crash!

If you even read the abstract I posted, you would see the study did not take place in 1980. The test the researchers used to determine if a participant had homophobic tendencies, titled the Index of Homophobia, was authored by W. W. Hudson and W. A. Rickettes, in 1980.

<(86)

And it was not till 12 years later the very same group, till they filled out an aggression questionnaire by completely different scientists (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992)
And BURNED!!!

<(8D)

And QED.

The study, itself, occurred in 1996.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 3:30:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 5:05:33 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
How it all went down;

Social scientist: Hey there, random sample stranger. Are you a homophobe?

Random sample stranger 1: Who me? homophobe, no way.

No serious study would approach participants in this manner. They never asked participants if they were homophobic? They administered a test to assess their tendencies. Asking any Bible thumper if he, or she, is a homophobe is futile, in most cases. Giving someone a test that assesses their likes and dislikes about groups of people is more productive. For example, ask my father if he's a racist, and he will emphatically tell you "No." Ask him what he thought of segregated schools and private businesses and black people's being required to sit at the back of the bus and you're more likely to get an honest answer.


Social scientist: Oh really, therefore you must be a non-homophobic. And objectively so.. would you be up for watching, some erotic videos with different combination of sexual partners, while we stare at your penis, and pay you.

Random sample stranger 1: Hey wait a minute what is this about?

Social scientists: we can't really tell you as that would adulterate the sample.

Random sample stranger 1: Did you say money, wow I am really not a homophobe now.

Social scientist: Hey there, random sample stranger. Are you a homophobe?

Random sample strange 2: Why yes I am a homophobe! Glad you asked. sign me up, to this non-circus like experiment, were you play videos, which are called erotic, whether or not they are in fact erotic to me, and have complete strangers stare at my penis circumference, consistently and diligently, every single millisecond of the way, with measuring tools. Except for homosexuals, because that's gay, and I'm a homophobe.

I just want a normal and completely non-strange and non-weird natural environment with all the intention of faithfully representing those whom they themselves call "homophobic", and use the sample of 29 coincidental volunteers, who freely proclaim themselves homophobes, to generalized on the billions, and billions of people, who have now and in the past felt uncomfortable toward homosexual situation.

I'm sure it was completely out of the randomness, and unbiased science of your loving heart that you even thought to think that homophobes ,that is, the intentional and completely evaluative reference to people as mentally ill and synonymously cowardice, by virtue of admitting, negative affect towards Homosexuality. In that very ambiguous relation.

It must be because all homophobes are really homosexual, and synonymously, homosexual homophobes.. So they must be aroused and afraid of themselves at the same time all the time. And it is "apparently" true.. No sarcasm implied.

<(8D)

Apparently!

"Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.""

The Fool: That's right, an abstract from the 1980s which asked the question, which itself answers to itself, for itself, for its own self-refutation, in the very abstract by conflating completely different studies, which are also apart by 12 years. And the use of the term "apparently" , in a way that can only be overlooked by the most na"ve and or biased observers.

<(8D)

Apparently..
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 4:16:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 12:46:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
That Argument from Incorrigibility is complete bullsh*t, not dehumanizing at all, but the opposite in my opinion.

Basically, you're decrying those who have suffered hardships in certain areas getting into areas of help which revolve around those hardships and saying, "I understand what you're going through..."

Why is it dehumanizing? Because people do not like to be wrong? Why is it dehumanizing to be wrong, even about oneself?

The Fool: Then I will Make IT CLEARER!

Argument from incorrigibility"

That is, If you do like something or believe something and you say. "I like that" or "I believe that" and do so "Sincerely", AKA "Are speaking honestly." AKA TRULY then you cannot be over ridden by someone else who believes you don't really "like that" or Really have "that belief,"

e.g. for example let's say you believe in God, and you are expressing your belief, SINCERLY, and honestly.

It is dehumanizing for someone else to declare over you that you don't really believe that. But just believe you believe that.

Synonymously, it is completely dehumanizing to say, you are really enjoying this, you're just in denial and think you're not but you really secretly are..

Do you or do you not disagree with this?

Example:
Woman: Please stop raping me, I am not liking it now. I am serious.

Sophist: You just believe you are not liking it you are Really Loving it. Look you nipple are Hard. And there is N=2

Rapist 2: Yeah there is numbers, so its scientifically valid.

Rapist3 I support that.

The Fool: yes apparently many do.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

YOU ARE WRONG!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 4:25:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 4:16:43 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/22/2013 12:46:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
That Argument from Incorrigibility is complete bullsh*t, not dehumanizing at all, but the opposite in my opinion.

Basically, you're decrying those who have suffered hardships in certain areas getting into areas of help which revolve around those hardships and saying, "I understand what you're going through..."

Why is it dehumanizing? Because people do not like to be wrong? Why is it dehumanizing to be wrong, even about oneself?

The Fool: Then I will Make IT CLEARER!

Argument from incorrigibility"

That is, If you do like something or believe something and you say. "I like that" or "I believe that" and do so "Sincerely", AKA "Are speaking honestly." AKA TRULY then you cannot be over ridden by someone else who believes you don't really "like that" or Really have "that belief,"

e.g. for example let's say you believe in God, and you are expressing your belief, SINCERLY, and honestly.

It is dehumanizing for someone else to declare over you that you don't really believe that. But just believe you believe that.

Synonymously, it is completely dehumanizing to say, you are really enjoying this, you're just in denial and think you're not but you really secretly are..

Do you or do you not disagree with this?


Example:
Woman: Please stop raping me, I am not liking it now. I am serious.

Sophist: You just believe you are not liking it you are Really Loving it. Look you nipple are Hard. And there is N=2

Rapist 2: Yeah there is numbers, so its scientifically valid.

Rapist3 I support that.

The Fool: yes apparently many do.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

YOU ARE WRONG!

Are you sure that's not just Appeal to Emotion? I mean, what of the rapist, then? what if he thinks rape is right? Is it dehumanizing to think otherwise, that he's just compensating really, if there is evidence to suggest that he is?

And so you're saying that truth is not in fact absolute, Fool, but subject to personal belief?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 4:26:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
THE SLIP UP.

YYW: Pain and prejudice are not tantamount to one another in any way.

The Fool: I think anybody, even the most foolish, **DON"T*** confuse the sensation of pain with an expectation. So It Is Fair to Say You're Not Cutting Any Slack. And I understand, because I am intentionally pushing buttons. But I don't want to push to the point which makes somebody irrational against it, which is often the case. Or I have failed in some sense. but just enough to get them involved in committed, so that when the get it they will really get.

YYW: I grasp what you're saying but reject your point.

The Fool: I have no way of telling grasp it to know well enough to have a justified rejection if you do not give a demonstration.. I want nothing more, then to be refuted.
But you have to actually refute me, fairly and squarely. Not talk over what I'm saying, or attribute different meanings than what I mean, or rally up mob of opinions. All these block the possibility of getting what I'm saying.

I am confident enough, about my full argument to be justified to think that if you grasp it and synonymously reject it, that you fall into absurdity, immorality, and hypocrisy.. Or I myself, am mistaken somewhere.

And perhaps I am but you have to demonstrate.. Demonstration is everything.

From <http://www.debate.org...;
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 4:35:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And so you're saying it would be dehumanizing to be more lenient on those who have gone through dark times with the passing of a loved one and regained themselves? Consideration of extenuating circumstances, say, are dehumanizing?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 4:42:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't believe I'm wrong, dude, but if I am I would only be too happy to learn of my being so.

Maybe be even clearer again.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 5:11:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Interesting. You know I think we've actually touched upon a bias of your own here, Fool. Just so you know, I hold inherent humanity to a much higher regard than most social scientists. I think there are many conclusions drawn far too soon, for example, where I would delve much deeper.

You seem to be setting yourself very much apart.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 5:17:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think the Bystander Effect and the Milgram experiment are to document inherent humanity, for example. Nor this test either. Again, I would delve much deeper, and towards the depths I see the potential for real beauty in humanity. I don't think scientific evaluation of the psyche is necessarily dehumanizing at all at all actually, but I can understand why one might be frustrated by it, it being as it currently is.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 5:37:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Example:
Woman: Please stop raping me, I am not liking it now. I am serious.

Sophist: You just believe you are not liking it you are Really Loving it. Look you nipple are Hard. And there is N=2

Rapist 2: Yeah there is numbers, so its scientifically valid.

Rapist3 I support that.

The Fool: yes apparently many do.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

YOU ARE WRONG!

Are you sure that's not just Appeal to Emotion? I mean, what of the rapist, then? what if he thinks rape is right? Is it dehumanizing to think otherwise, that he's just compensating really, if there is evidence to suggest that he is?

And so you're saying that truth is not in fact absolute, Fool, but subject to personal belief?

Are you sure that's not just Appeal to Emotion?

Appeal to Emotion

Sophist: 1+1=5

The Fool: why is that?

Sophist: Because I am angry!!

Argument from Incorrigible.

If somebody is being "Honest", about what the sense or feel. They can't be Corrected. Because only they know exactly what they are sensing or feeling.

AnDoctuir: I mean, what of the rapist, then?

The Rapist can only INFER (INDIRECT Reference) what the Woman is feeling.
He may be right or wrong.
AKA Proposition which can be True or False.

But she is the one Actually Feeling(DIRECT Reference),
She is actively feeling the sensation.
A Fact. Not a proposition.

Here is the TRICKY part. Don't get confused!.
She doesn't need to say or claim anything to be feeling something.
It has nothing to do with Propositions or language. it's not a CLAIM it"s a FEELING .

But IF she does claim it and she is Speaking SINCERELY, she is RIGHT.

She could Lie, an if she DID LIE she would be speaking falsely.

AnDoctuir:Is it dehumanizing to think otherwise, that he's just compensating really, if there is evidence to suggest that he is?

The Fool: here actual Sensation is the PERFECT evidence. Everybody else IS using INDUCTION and MAY BE WRONG. But she can use DEDUCTION. Only she know FOR Sure.

And so you're saying that truth is not in fact absolute, Fool, but subject to personal belief?

The Fool: Don't Create for ME what I AM saying. I hate that. That is the very point I am making. Ask me what I mean, don't TELL ME WHAT I MEAN. I know what I mean, already.

That is 90% of the problem.

People Create for themselves what the other person is saying. Blocking the actual message, confusing themselves with their own self Projection. But they think they are arguing with the other. Get it NOW.

People create most of the Story they think they are SEEING, but they are the Creators.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 5:44:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes, but I'm not denying what a person is feeling, just positing that there might be something beneath that feeling. I don't think it's at all dehumanizing to explore that possibility. And yes I know you hate that :3
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 5:50:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Feelings, Fool, are not absolute, and there is nothing dehumanizing about regarding them as such.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 6:48:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: No offense but this was for YYW. or somebody who know something about moral reasoning. You are still in the behaviorism frame of mind.

At 9/22/2013 1:51:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/22/2013 1:37:09 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/21/2013 3:19:14 PM, YYW wrote:
Oh this is quite good.

The Fool: No, it's horrible. and as immoral as social science can get.

Please, tell me how it is this study is unethical. First of all, the study deals with consensual adults; who consented to the use of devices' measuring penile circumference. Secondly, they were given the opportunity to view heteroerotic and homoerotic material; to which there was no objection.


There are certain conscious states, that are incorrigible. That is, they could never be corrected from an outside observer. Which includes all direct sensations, or feelings, or beliefs, or attitudes.

No where in the study does it say the objective of the researchers was to correct anything. That's not the role of the researcher; the researcher's role is merely to observe, as objectively as possible. In every study there's bias; that's unavoidable; the objective of the study is to minimize bias, as much as humanly possible.


And similarly, propositional attitudes, like "I like this," "I don't like that," or "I'm feeling happy", or "I think this sucks", or "I believe this or that". I'm seeing red, I'm seeing blue. Etc. when "spoken sincerely", and correctly labeled could NEVER be wrong.

Again, adding moral judgement where there is none. Please, tell me where it was in the study the researchers concluded the homophobe was morally inferior.


For example let's say you are in pain and you say this sincerely to a neuroscientist. Not just any neuroscientist, but the best damn neuroscientist who ever existed, and knows everything there is to know about neuroscience.

And he or she says, "no you're not really in pain, because this technology has a track record of 100% in predicting every sensation". Then follows that, it is now 99.99999"% on all past predictions..as it would be the disconfirming incident.

Is pain not a biological response to stimuli?


There has been really horrible and unethical studies, in social psychology which are Buried deep, in the archives. And most failed experiments, and many studies deemed unethical do not get published..

The big problem though is "deemed" unethical. That is the ethics board of social science, does not consist of people who "reason", ethics, but people were following a set of rules they are given by the state. And these very rules, for good or for worse, of course reflect the reigning ideological regimes of the times.

The very system, which did not protect the intentional abuse, and unfalsifiable theoretical framework, which accentuated, the demoralizing of homosexuality, only 50 years ago, is simply reconfigured, to do the very same thing to those unpopular to the normative fad of the time.

Oh yeah and this is besides the fact that like 000ike and S-anthony knows absolutely NOTHING about the philosophy of science..

http://www.debate.org...

This statement alone makes me wary of everything you've said, previously. I have been in debate forums, for years, and have never made such a statement about anybody, regardless of how uneducated they appeared to me. It shows a lack open-mindedness and maturity.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 7:04:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sorry, The_Fool_on_the_hill, but it's a tad bit more complicated than that. An alcoholic can say he, or she, hates the addiction; and, I know, from personal experience, many of them do yet are still alcoholics. They may even refuse to call themselves alcoholics and berate and belittle other alcoholics; yet, they are still alcoholics. My brother is morbidly obese. Do you think he likes his addiction? He's constantly putting down other morbidly obese people; yet, he's still morbidly obese. Just because you say you're merely an occasional drinker or you don't eat very much doesn't make it true. Before I came out, I hated myself and other homosexuals; if you had asked me, "Are you gay?" not only would I have said "no", I would've hated you for asking me such a question; for, in my mind, I thought as long as I did not except my homosexuality, it wasn't so.