If you are a man and you use intimidation techniques to win arguments/debates with women, I cannot and will not trust you. Yes, even without you realizing you’re doing it.
Are you a male? Are you winning the debate? I’ll accuse you of using intimidating tactics and shut down the conversation. No, I don’t have to actually prove you were using intimidating tactics. In fact, I could just say I perceive you were doing so, Mind you, *I* can use intimidating tactics all I like, and that’s okay. But not you. That power is reserved for me. Also, if I hit you repeatedly and you call the cops you’ll go to jail. Not me. Because my feminist sisters ensured all the criteria that determines who the police take away are male oriented. So it’s okay if I hit you. But you can’t hit me. That power is reserved for me.
You privileged and oppressive fucking male.
See mr-cappadocia in action. Notice how he puts words in her mouth, with a sweeping generalized point that to criticize male intimidation techniques must mean she wants to hog intimidation techniques for the female gender’s exclusive use. Let’s not even consider the possibility that to engage in debate without any party having to feel intimidated might be an aspiration of the OP’s. No, when mr-cappadocia finds your posts in the feminism tag, he gets to invent all kinds of ulterior motives for you and still call you unreasonable.
What exactly is mr-cappadocia’s objection here? A blogger in the feminism tag is frank about a bias of hers, and—rather than live with his privileged position over those who would hold such a bias and be content with the fact that most folks in and out of these debates will never critically examine whether or not this bias is justified—he has to bully her and make the conversation about the legal ramifications the poor oppressed men must face when they hit women. (And prove her point in the process with no irony intended. Wow!!)
We can deduce that his aim here derailing her post is not to posit any sort of challenge to the OP’s argument itself. Actually, his aim is to discredit specifically her experience. This is not for her benefit or his own, so much as reinforcing the patriarchal dynamic of debate in general, to keep women silent about their experiences. This is implied gaslighting on an epic scale, to the effect of: “Do you feel intimidated ladies? Well too bad, I’ve got debates to ‘win!’”
How exactly does one “win” a debate?
I mean, sure, in school they have debate teams, and one team “wins” based on how well they present their arguments according to a classroom’s criteria of what constitutes skillful debating. But when you win according to that curriculum, you only prove that you know how to pass a class. And on the internet when you “win” a debate, that just proves you know your audience and you know how to milk them for approval. And in politics when you win a debate, it means you know how to get your way.
But isn’t there a point to debate beyond getting your way? Isn’t that kinda what the OP is trying to get at here? The function of debate beyond “winning” and “losing,” to actually convince folks to rethink things, and get each other to question things?
You’d think mr-cappadocia, a self-styled skeptic, would’ve worked this out for himself by now, and moved past the idea that debates are for “winning” and “losing.”
But of course, as dearly as mr-cappadocia holds skepticism and the importance of questioning everything, there is one thing he will always refuse to question: his own misogyny.
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out “Don’t you believe in anything?”
“Yes”, I said. “I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."
Isaac Asimov (1997) The Roving Mind. Prometheus Books. p.349
I feel the same way.
Feel like you need to make serious distinctions within the language of science? Maybe brush up on a few key concepts of the subject? Perhaps you feel an article is using word tactics to get people to believe in something false. Scientific American (originally on LiveScience) has a great article highlighting 7 misused science words that are sure to put things into perspective for the public:
The general public so widely misuses the words hypothesis, theory and law that scientists should stop using these terms, writes physicist Rhett Allain of Southeastern Louisiana University, in a blog post on Wired Science.
“I don’t think at this point it’s worth saving those words,” Allain told LiveScience.
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for something that can actually be tested. But “if you just ask anyone what a hypothesis is, they just immediately say ‘educated guess,’” Allain said.
2. Just a theory?
Climate-change deniers and creationists have deployed the word “theory” to cast doubt on climate change and evolution.
“It’s as though it weren’t true because it’s just a theory,” Allain said.
That’s despite the fact that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports both human-caused climate change and Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Part of the problem is that the word “theory” means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone’s head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.
However, theory isn’t the only science phrase that causes trouble. Even Allain’s preferred term to replace hypothesis, theory and law — “model” — has its troubles. The word not only refers to toy cars and runway walkers, but also means different things in different scientific fields. A climate model is very different from a mathematical model, for instance.
“Scientists in different fields use these terms differently from each other,” John Hawks, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, wrote in an email to LiveScience. “I don’t think that ‘model’ improves matters. It has an appearance of solidity in physics right now mainly because of the Standard Model. By contrast, in genetics and evolution, ‘models’ are used very differently.” (The Standard Model is the dominant theory governing particle physics.)
When people don’t accept human-caused climate change, the media often describes those individuals as “climate skeptics.” But that may give them too much credit, Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, wrote in an email.
“Simply denying mainstream science based on flimsy, invalid and too-often agenda-driven critiques of science is not skepticism at all. It is contrarianism … or denial,” Mann told LiveScience.
Instead, true skeptics are open to scientific evidence and are willing to evenly assess it.
“All scientists should be skeptics. True skepticism is, as [Carl] Sagan described it, the ‘self-correcting machinery’ of science,” Mann said.
5. Nature vs. nurture
The phrase “nature versus nurture” also gives scientists a headache, because it radically simplifies a very complicated process, said Dan Kruger, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan.
“This is something that modern evolutionists cringe at,” Kruger told LiveScience.
Genes may influence human beings, but so, too, do epigenetic changes. These modifications alter which genes get turned on, and are both heritable and easily influenced by the environment. The environment that shapes human behavior can be anything from the chemicals a fetus is exposed to in the womb to the block a person grew up on to the type of food they ate as a child, Kruger said. All these factors interact in a messy, unpredictable way.
Another word that sets scientists’ teeth on edge is “significant.”
“That’s a huge weasel word. Does it mean statistically significant, or does it mean important?” said Michael O’Brien, the dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Missouri.
In statistics, something is significant if a difference is unlikely to be due to random chance. But that may not translate into a meaningful difference, in, say, headache symptoms or IQ.
“Natural” is another bugaboo for scientists. The term has become synonymous with being virtuous, healthy or good. But not everything artificial is unhealthy, and not everything that’s natural is good for you.
“Uranium is natural, and if you inject enough of it, you’re going to die,” Kruger said.
Natural’s sibling “organic” also has a problematic meaning, he said. While organic simply means “carbon-based” to scientists, the term is now used to describe pesticide-free peaches and high-end cotton sheets, as well.
A Christian pastor wrote an article for CNN’s “Belief Blog” about God’s absence at the recent Aurora shootings. This is the fist comment under that piece. It’s brilliant.
I found this a little hard to read so I typed it out for better legibility.
God here. I thought I would take the time to personally explain my absence in the Aurora shootings. While I was at it, I thought I would also explain my absence during every murder, massacre and crime that has ever taken place in World history, and in every war, in every famine, drought and flood.
You see, I do not exist. I never have. Did it really make sense to you that I would create an entire Universe with billions and billions of planets and wait about 13,700,000,000 years just so I could focus on a few Jews from Palestine about 2,000 years ago while ignoring the rest of the 200,000,000 people on the planet at the time? Did I make those few Jews or did those few Jews make me?
Further, do you really think I would sit back and do nothing while Nazis killed 6 million of my “chosen people”, but find it important enough to intervene and turn water into wine to stop some hosts being embarrassed at a wedding in Cana? Why did I seem to be so active in the Middle East for a brief period abou 2,000 years ago, but totally absent everywhere else on the planet and for the rest of recorded history? Did I make the Jews or did the Jews make me?
So, you really think my periodic miracles prove my existence, hey? Then why not something inarguable and unambiguous, like a huge crucifix in the sky, or my face on the moon? Why is it always that believers have to construct my miracles out of perfectly explicable natural events?
This happens every time there is a tragedy or near tragedy of any kind, anywhere in the world and in all cultures. Captain “Sully” Sullenberger pilots a distressed plane to land safely on the Hudson River in New York City with no deaths, and it’s a miracle from God; a young girl is found in India, totally terrorized, but alive after being abducted and raped for a week, and it’s a miracle from my competitor Rama (or Vishnu or Shiva) that she is returned to her parents; or a family in Northern Pakistan survives an errant American missile attack, and it’s a miracle from Allah.
What all these self-serving proclamations of miraculous intervention always ignore is the downsides of the incidents. The fact that the passengers and crew of Flight 1549 were terrorized and the plane destroyed, that 11 innocent people are dead in Aurora, that the girl was held for seven days, raped and sodomized and will be traumatized for the rest of her life, or that a number of innocent civilians were killed by the missile.
Of course, none of these incidents really are “miracles”. When the totality of facts are taken into account, “miracles” turn out to be nothing more than believers who are desperate for some sign of my existence ignoring the downside of a set of facts, focusing solely on the upside and calling the quarantined “good” a miracle from me or one of the other sky-fairies. A CEO might as well ignore the liability side of his balance sheet and declare it a “miracle” that his company just doubled in value.
Another annoying habit my “miracles” seem to have is that they always seem to tag along, just behind medical science, like an annoying kid brother who won’t go away. Until the mid nineties, those with AIDS who prayed for a miracle were never granted one. Medical science finds a way to permanently suppress the disease, and all of a sudden I start to perform miracles with AIDS patients. No polio patient ever received a miracle until the Salk vaccine and I routinely ignored cancer patients until chemotherapy and radiation treatments were developed. Suddenly, prayers to me from cancer patients are regularly “answered”.
Why is it that I still seem deaf to the pleadings of amputees who would like their fingers, arms or legs back, to those who have physically lost eyes or ears, to the horribly burned and to all others who ail from patently visible and currently incurable maladies? Why is it that, at the very same time, I am very receptive to the prayers of those whose condition is uncertain, internal and vulnerable to miraculous claims?
Take five minutes to make two lists; one of those ailments I will miraculously cure and the other of those I will not. You will quickly find it coincides perfectly with those conditions medical science (or the human body itself) can defeat and those we cannot. Why do you think that is? It is almost as if my miracles are created out of medical ambiguity isn’t it?
No, my human friends. I am afraid I do not exist. I do not read your minds (or “hear your prayers” as you like to call it) and you are not going to achieve immortality (or “eternal life” as you like to call it) no matter how many commandments from Iron Age Palestine you choose to “keep”. Move on and enjoy the few years you have. You were all dead for the last 13,700,000,000 years and it wasn’t that least bit uncomfortable now, was it?
“Why take drugs when herbs can solve it?
Why use chemicals when homeopathic solvents can resolve it?
I think it’s time we all return-to-live with natural medical alternatives.”
WHOA HOLD THE FUCK UP HERE
This did-you-kno reads “Video games work better at battling depression than counselling does”.
But the article is titled “A Video Game Designed to Treat Depression Worked Better Than Counseling”
Those are two completely separate things! The article is talking about a specific video game they made, whereas this did-you-kno is claiming that video games in general work better than counselling!
Do people even read the fucking source? How many people are going to reblog this and think “phew, all those hours gaming are actually HELPING my depression, a did-you-kno told me so!”
I CALL BULLSHIT.
Provenance: there is no sign that this object existed before the 14th century;
Art history: the Shroud fits into art history as part of a genre of artistic depictions and recreations of burial cloths of Christ;
Style: the image upon the shroud looks like a manufactured illustration consistent with 14th century religious iconography, not like a real human being;
Circumstance: a 14th century Catholic bishop determined that the Shroud was a “cunningly painted” fraud—and discovered the artist who confessed to creating it;
Chemistry: the Shroud contains red ochre and other paint pigments;
Radiometric dating: carbon-14 dating tests showed in 1988 that the Shroud was likely created between 1260 and 1390 CE. In 2008, the hypothesis that this date was distorted by carbon monoxide contamination was tested—and results of the original tests confirmed.
Overturning the robustly supported conclusion that the Shroud was manufactured by a medieval artist would take extraordinary levels of evidence in favor of some alternate explanation.
(Nickell, Joe. Looking for a Miracle. (Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 1998.) pp. 22–29)
To me it was never a question of it was a fraud. It was just the details of the fraud that were interesting.
For fuck’s sake this infuriates me so much because we spent so many Religious Education classes learning the story of the Shroud, and finally at the end when everyone asked him what the conclusion was, he said it still wasn’t sure. FUCKING HELL. How is it okay to blatantly LIE to a whole class and call it education? Why did we spend like 5 days on this? Fucking private Christian schools.
God is a buffoon.
Maybe if you spent as much time researching and learning about your religion rather than blindly defending it you wouldn’t feel so compelled to defend it because you’d realize what bullshit it was lol just a thought
50 Popular Beliefs That People Think are True, by Guy P. Harrison