Debate Conditions

[LMU]

There was a discussion in the PToS about the conditions on debate proposed by Lee and Svan. It was suggested by Mykeru ( viewtopic.php?f=31&t=243&start=2775#p58385 ) that we propose our own counter conditions. There were three so far ( viewtopic.php?f=31&t=243&start=2775#p58397 )

1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).

2. Abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses/theories and discontinue the use of "studies" and "scholarly papers", which assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise, as evidence.

3. It could be helpful to require that they define some of their terms. For example feminism (A radical notion... or ?), misogyny (Hatred of all women, or ?), patriarchy (A nation or group whose leaders are a majority male, or ?) etc. Choosing whatever terms are relevant to the topic of the discussion.

My caveat is that #3 should be applicable where they claim that someone is "anti". That is to say, in order to claim somone is "anti-feminist" they have to provide a clear definition of feminism where that claim is applicable.

What would you propose as a condition to a debate with a member of the FC(n) or a baboon?

[LMU]

viewtopic.php?f=31&p=58404#p58400

Ok, serious contribution: Addendum to 2 - *require* actual studies and scholarly papers which do not assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise.

[d4m10n]

Renounce any and all attempts to hinder free speech and free thought. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden in his digital book-burning campaign against SlimePit 1.0

[LMU]

viewtopic.php?f=31&p=58404#p58403

2. Renounce any and all attempts to hinder free speech and free thought. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden in his digital book-burning campaign against SlimePit 1.0

[LMU]

Thanks damion!

viewtopic.php?f=31&p=58404#p58408

3. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden when he threatened to punch one of his commenters, Becca, in the face, and told her to "get off the rag and kiss my ass".

[Metalogic42]

On second thought, I'm not so sure about 2. Whether their claims are unfalsifiable might be the very subject of the debate, and we don't want to pull a "I'll debate a slymepitter only if he's not a slymepitter" move.

[Mykeru]

Renounce any and all attempts to hinder free speech and free thought. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden in his digital book-burning campaign against SlimePit 1.0

I like that. That should be right at the top.

[Submariner]

4. Cease and desist in all efforts to "blacklist", ban, or otherwise harm economically, people for simply having different opinions on politics or gender issues.

5. Stop creationist style quote mining of people with different opinions on societal issues.

[LMU]

On second thought, I'm not so sure about 2. Whether their claims are unfalsifiable might be the very subject of the debate, and we don't want to pull a "I'll debate a slymepitter only if he's not a slymepitter" move.

If they're going to require a non-slymepitter (which is funny because anyone who disagrees with them is a slymepitter), then why not require them to abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses? If you can get them to negotiate on terms you're already interacting.

[Submariner]

On second thought, I'm not so sure about 2. Whether their claims are unfalsifiable might be the very subject of the debate, and we don't want to pull a "I'll debate a slymepitter only if he's not a slymepitter" move.

That's fine if the topic of unfalsifiability of those theories is put on the table for debate.

[Submariner]

On second thought, I'm not so sure about 2. Whether their claims are unfalsifiable might be the very subject of the debate, and we don't want to pull a "I'll debate a slymepitter only if he's not a slymepitter" move.

If they're going to require a non-slymepitter (which is funny because anyone who disagrees with them is a slymepitter), then why not require them to abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses? If you can get them to negotiate on terms you're already interacting.

Asking for a prediction of said theory that even in principle could cause it to be falsified would suffice for me.

[Metalogic42]

In order to get them to abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses, we'd have to allow them to attempt defense of said hypotheses as falsifiable (i.e. by letting them make "rabbits in the precambrian"-type moves). This in itself is a discussion. We can't declare certain hypotheses unfalsifiable by fiat.

[Mykeru]

In order to get them to abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses, we'd have to allow them to attempt defense of said hypotheses as falsifiable (i.e. by letting them make "rabbits in the precambrian"-type moves). This in itself is a discussion. We can't declare certain hypotheses unfalsifiable by fiat.

Well, you can if there is no way to test them or they contain ad hoc rationalizations to work around cases where they are proven to be false.

Freudian Psychoanalysis does both, for example.

How do you test the "Oepidal Complex"?

If you make claims about the Oedipal Complex, like someone marries a woman who looks like his mother, and then when he doesn't, claim that's "reaction formation" against the Oedipal Complex, you've just ad hoced yourself into non-falsifiability.

So, the question is, what are some of the non-falsifiable claims/sources of which you speak? I vaguely remember cases where something, and its opposite was attributable to "The Patriarchy".

[Metalogic42]

In order to get them to abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses, we'd have to allow them to attempt defense of said hypotheses as falsifiable (i.e. by letting them make "rabbits in the precambrian"-type moves). This in itself is a discussion. We can't declare certain hypotheses unfalsifiable by fiat.

Well, you can if there is no way to test them or they contain ad hoc rationalizations to work around cases where they are proven to be false.

Freudian Psychoanalysis does both, for example.

How do you test the "Oepidal Complex"?

If you make claims about the Oedipal Complex, like someone marries a woman who looks like his mother, and then when he doesn't, claim that's "reaction formation" against the Oedipal Complex, you've just ad hoced yourself into non-falsifiability.

So, the question is, what are some of the non-falsifiable claims/sources of which you speak? I vaguely remember cases where something, and its opposite was attributable to "The Patriarchy".

Rule 3 (the definitions) comes into play here. If we're going to have this discussion with them, I think rule 3 should be rule 1. Let them define, for example, "rape culture", then ask them how it could be falsified. If they can't provide a way, or they go ad-hoccing, only then can we say "you have to abandon this as evidence of anything in order for us to continue discussion".

[Submariner]

So, the question is, what are some of the non-falsifiable claims/sources of which you speak? I vaguely remember cases where something, and its opposite was attributable to "The Patriarchy".

First we need a clear definition of Patriarchy. If it's " the societal system whereby men are predominantly in positions of power in order to subjugate women to the express benefit of men", then we should have a prediction that could falsify it. (an example of female privilege would do).

A condition and it's opposite both attributed to patriarchy:

Men were formerly given custody of minor children and mothers are predominantly given custody of minors today.

[Mykeru]

In order to get them to abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses, we'd have to allow them to attempt defense of said hypotheses as falsifiable (i.e. by letting them make "rabbits in the precambrian"-type moves). This in itself is a discussion. We can't declare certain hypotheses unfalsifiable by fiat.

Well, you can if there is no way to test them or they contain ad hoc rationalizations to work around cases where they are proven to be false.

Freudian Psychoanalysis does both, for example.

How do you test the "Oepidal Complex"?

If you make claims about the Oedipal Complex, like someone marries a woman who looks like his mother, and then when he doesn't, claim that's "reaction formation" against the Oedipal Complex, you've just ad hoced yourself into non-falsifiability.

So, the question is, what are some of the non-falsifiable claims/sources of which you speak? I vaguely remember cases where something, and its opposite was attributable to "The Patriarchy".

Rule 3 (the definitions) comes into play here. If we're going to have this discussion with them, I think rule 3 should be rule 1. Let them define, for example, "rape culture", then ask them how it could be falsified. If they can't provide a way, or they go ad-hoccing, only then can we say "you have to abandon this as evidence of anything in order for us to continue discussion".

Right, one of the claims made about "rape culture" is that rape is tolerated, even encouraged. Allusions are even made of it being a male bonding ritual. The claims are so bizarre that it doesn't mesh with reality, the criminal justice system, the differential in sentencing between male and female statutory rape perpetrators and the fact that of the 300 men exonerated by the Innocent Project, a majority of them were men who spent decades incarcerated on the basis of mistaken identification alone. That is to say, if there is "rape culture" how is it that often the only proof needed is a woman's say so?

I would love to hear the definition of rape culture and evidence that is not selection bias up the wazoo.

[Mykeru]

So, the question is, what are some of the non-falsifiable claims/sources of which you speak? I vaguely remember cases where something, and its opposite was attributable to "The Patriarchy".

First we need a clear definition of Patriarchy. If it's " the societal system whereby men are predominantly in positions of power in order to subjugate women to the express benefit of men", then we should have a prediction that could falsify it. (an example of female privilege would do).

A condition and it's opposite both attributed to patriarchy:

Men were formerly given custody of minor children and mothers are predominantly given custody of minors today.

That's the kicker in bold: "the societal system whereby men are predominantly in positions of power in order to subjugate women to the express benefit of men"

Here's the problem though.

They want you to get bogged down in this stuff like a Creationist wants you to get bogged down discussing the minutae of the flagellum so you ignore the vagueness of their use of irreducible complexity.

The key is to formulate general guidelines of skeptical thought, approaching evidence, without getting dragged into this value-laden stuff. It's by dragging people into this that they get people to forget that they haven't defined anything and that they are breaking the most basic tenents of skeptical thought and approaching evidence and, in fact, skepticism is the first thing they toss out.

[Dick Strawkins]

I remember watching a radical feminist on youtube talking about rape culture and was surprised that she made a good point that made me realize that there is a widespread acceptance of rape as a tool of control - but only as applied to one particular subject.

That subject is, of course, male prisons.

The threat of prison rape (don't drop the soap!) is used as a deterrent by society to turn penal servitude into a very serious consequence when someone is convicted of a crime.
That rapes occur in these settings, and in high numbers, is widely known, and there is little if any effort to deal with the situation.
I don't know of any similar situation occurring regarding rapes against women - at least not in western society.

OK, probably a derail from the subject at hand, but perhaps worth noting if the subject of 'rape-culture' comes up.

[Submariner]

So, the question is, what are some of the non-falsifiable claims/sources of which you speak? I vaguely remember cases where something, and its opposite was attributable to "The Patriarchy".

First we need a clear definition of Patriarchy. If it's " the societal system whereby men are predominantly in positions of power in order to subjugate women to the express benefit of men", then we should have a prediction that could falsify it. (an example of female privilege would do).

A condition and it's opposite both attributed to patriarchy:

Men were formerly given custody of minor children and mothers are predominantly given custody of minors today.

That's the kicker in bold: "the societal system whereby men are predominantly in positions of power in order to subjugate women to the express benefit of men"

Here's the problem though.

They want you to get bogged down in this stuff like a Creationist wants you to get bogged down discussing the minutae of the flagellum so you ignore the vagueness of their use of irreducible complexity.

The key is to formulate general guidelines of skeptical thought, approaching evidence, without getting dragged into this value-laden stuff. It's by dragging people into this that they get people to forget that they haven't defined anything and that they are breaking the most basic tenents of skeptical thought and approaching evidence and, in fact, skepticism is the first thing they toss out.

My point is still valid about needing clear definitions, though. Like any formal debate, clear definitions prevent equivocation.

[LMU]

I remember watching a radical feminist on youtube talking about rape culture and was surprised that she made a good point that made me realize that there is a widespread acceptance of rape as a tool of control - but only as applied to one particular subject.

That subject is, of course, male prisons.

The threat of prison rape (don't drop the soap!) is used as a deterrent by society to turn penal servitude into a very serious consequence when someone is convicted of a crime.
That rapes occur in these settings, and in high numbers, is widely known, and there is little if any effort to deal with the situation.
I don't know of any similar situation occurring regarding rapes against women - at least not in western society.

OK, probably a derail from the subject at hand, but perhaps worth noting if the subject of 'rape-culture' comes up.

That's what I always think of when someone mentions rape culture. It's used as a deterrent and viewed as a joke (for example in the 2012 movie Hit and Run).