The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Postby Bella Fortuna » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:01 pm
Heya Taqiyya, welcome to Ratz by the way.

Fankies!

[Robert_S]

It's interesting-- one of the rules is something to the effect of "Don't dismiss a severe problem by conflating it with a less severe problem." Then went on to use as an example FGM versus male circumcision.

Apparently they've already decided the latter isn't severe. I think there are many progressively-minded atheists who would disagree with that assessment. Apparently the site owners consider it beyond reproach.

I was circumcised and I'm not really all that happy about it, but they left the glans. So, I consider it orders of magnitude less severe than FGM.

So, couldn't one argue that mere removal of the clitoral hood would be about the same? Why is it a matter of dogma that FGM is "worse" than MGM. It seems as if it's an enforced value judgment.

I can still have an orgasm quite easily. It wasn't done to me to prevent me from having pleasure during sex. It wasn't even set as dogma. It was an example of a rule and the discussion here illustrates some of the sense in it.

If I complain my landlord is late fixing the drippy sink, it doesn't do anyone any good to go on about the plight of the homeless or how I ought to shut up be grateful that I live in a region where indoor plumbing is taken for granted.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Jest fucking raping Christ

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6

Yeah.

Don't conflate social awkwardness with obnoxiousness: Having poor social skills and behaving like a jerk are completely different things. The former can sometimes inadvertently lead to the latter, but the two are not intrinsically linked. Someone can be kind and considerate, but at the same time be poor at picking up social cues and appear shy and awkward in conversation.

Doesn't this describe the fabled "elevator guy" to a "T"?

Doesn't this describe precisely what the FTBSCs did to him?

And btw, has anyone heard from this guy at all? Did he even ever exist, and if so, was he actually a member/participant of the conference in question?

[Coito ergo sum]

@Robert

And, by the same token, if someone is complaining about fake parody jewelry and swinger cards, one ought not "conflate" that with violence against women....

But, the point is, that while clitoridectomies are extreme and perhaps the argument that male circumcision is just as bad as female circumcisions -- the fact that an argument is weak shouldn't make that argument "against the rules." Where else other than in the context of sexism do we get this kind of rule? Is global warming off the table because the evidence is overwhelming? Is the Big Bang theory off the table? Can I argue that one race has higher average IQ's than another race? Why is it that in the case of women's issues, nobody gets to advance weak arguments, when in every other area of discussion, politics, religion, etc., the substance of the argument is freely discussed?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

It's interesting-- one of the rules is something to the effect of "Don't dismiss a severe problem by conflating it with a less severe problem." Then went on to use as an example FGM versus male circumcision.

Apparently they've already decided the latter isn't severe. I think there are many progressively-minded atheists who would disagree with that assessment. Apparently the site owners consider it beyond reproach.

<looks down>

....b-b-b-but....isn't it RAMPANT in the atheist community...?

[Robert_S]

@Robert

And, by the same token, if someone is complaining about fake parody jewelry and swinger cards, one ought not "conflate" that with violence against women....

But, the point is, that while clitoridectomies are extreme and perhaps the argument that male circumcision is just as bad as female circumcisions -- the fact that an argument is weak shouldn't make that argument "against the rules." Where else other than in the context of sexism do we get this kind of rule? Is global warming off the table because the evidence is overwhelming? Is the Big Bang theory off the table? Can I argue that one race has higher average IQ's than another race? Why is it that in the case of women's issues, nobody gets to advance weak arguments, when in every other area of discussion, politics, religion, etc., the substance of the argument is freely discussed?

No, it is using one problem to DISMISS another. The fact female cliteroctomies happen should not be used to dismiss me being pissed off that I don't have a foreskin. That females are more likely to get raped should not be used to dismiss males nervous about getting raped.

It seems a fair rule to me.

[borealis]

It's interesting-- one of the rules is something to the effect of "Don't dismiss a severe problem by conflating it with a less severe problem." Then went on to use as an example FGM versus male circumcision.

Apparently they've already decided the latter isn't severe. I think there are many progressively-minded atheists who would disagree with that assessment. Apparently the site owners consider it beyond reproach.

I was circumcised and I'm not really all that happy about it, but they left the glans. So, I consider it orders of magnitude less severe than FGM.

So, couldn't one argue that mere removal of the clitoral hood would be about the same? Why is it a matter of dogma that FGM is "worse" than MGM. It seems as if it's an enforced value judgment.

Luckily radical FGM is rare. Removal of the clitoral hood is more common and there are also illegal types of FGM that don't remove any tissue, like type IV pricking.

[Coito ergo sum]

@Robert

And, by the same token, if someone is complaining about fake parody jewelry and swinger cards, one ought not "conflate" that with violence against women....

But, the point is, that while clitoridectomies are extreme and perhaps the argument that male circumcision is just as bad as female circumcisions -- the fact that an argument is weak shouldn't make that argument "against the rules." Where else other than in the context of sexism do we get this kind of rule? Is global warming off the table because the evidence is overwhelming? Is the Big Bang theory off the table? Can I argue that one race has higher average IQ's than another race? Why is it that in the case of women's issues, nobody gets to advance weak arguments, when in every other area of discussion, politics, religion, etc., the substance of the argument is freely discussed?

No, it is using one problem to DISMISS another. The fact female cliteroctomies happen should not be used to dismiss me being pissed off that I don't have a foreskin. That females are more likely to get raped should not be used to dismiss males nervous about getting raped.

It seems a fair rule to me.

That isn't what they're saying. They're saying that you shouldn't be advancing male circumcision as "just as bad" as female circumcision. That is different than what you just said. Why in the world should it be against the rules to take the position that male circumcision is just as bad, or that black is white?

Further, since when are people to be prohibited (in a free and open debating environment) from "dismissing" the arguments or complaints of another? Everybody gets to advance their own arguments. If your argument is weak, and you're being dismissive or "hand waving" the other person's argument away, then their response ought to be to skewer your argument. How in the world is it reasonable to ban, in advance, certain arguments just because some people think it's a bad argument?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's interesting-- one of the rules is something to the effect of "Don't dismiss a severe problem by conflating it with a less severe problem." Then went on to use as an example FGM versus male circumcision.

Apparently they've already decided the latter isn't severe. I think there are many progressively-minded atheists who would disagree with that assessment. Apparently the site owners consider it beyond reproach.

I was circumcised and I'm not really all that happy about it, but they left the glans. So, I consider it orders of magnitude less severe than FGM.

So, couldn't one argue that mere removal of the clitoral hood would be about the same? Why is it a matter of dogma that FGM is "worse" than MGM. It seems as if it's an enforced value judgment.

Luckily radical FGM is rare. Removal of the clitoral hood is more common and there are also illegal types of FGM that don't remove any tissue, like type IV pricking.

Precisely. This is what I was trying to get at. I mean -- if you advance that argument there, then I guess you're "conflating" male circumcision with FGM....?

[Drewish]

I'm starting a new group call "Atheism-" that's dedicated to trolling Atheism+ Applications for the 'unclean' among us are available upon request

[Bella Fortuna]

I'm starting a new group call "Atheism-" that's dedicated to trolling Atheism+ Applications for the 'unclean' among us are available upon request

[Robert_S]

@Robert

And, by the same token, if someone is complaining about fake parody jewelry and swinger cards, one ought not "conflate" that with violence against women....

But, the point is, that while clitoridectomies are extreme and perhaps the argument that male circumcision is just as bad as female circumcisions -- the fact that an argument is weak shouldn't make that argument "against the rules." Where else other than in the context of sexism do we get this kind of rule? Is global warming off the table because the evidence is overwhelming? Is the Big Bang theory off the table? Can I argue that one race has higher average IQ's than another race? Why is it that in the case of women's issues, nobody gets to advance weak arguments, when in every other area of discussion, politics, religion, etc., the substance of the argument is freely discussed?

No, it is using one problem to DISMISS another. The fact female cliteroctomies happen should not be used to dismiss me being pissed off that I don't have a foreskin. That females are more likely to get raped should not be used to dismiss males nervous about getting raped.

It seems a fair rule to me.

That isn't what they're saying. They're saying that you shouldn't be advancing male circumcision as "just as bad" as female circumcision. That is different than what you just said. Why in the world should it be against the rules to take the position that male circumcision is just as bad, or that black is white?

Further, since when are people to be prohibited (in a free and open debating environment) from "dismissing" the arguments or complaints of another? Everybody gets to advance their own arguments. If your argument is weak, and you're being dismissive or "hand waving" the other person's argument away, then their response ought to be to skewer your argument. How in the world is it reasonable to ban, in advance, certain arguments just because some people think it's a bad argument?

Oops

I must have lost my place:

Don't dismiss people's problems by appealing to greater problems: For almost every problem, it is possible to find a substantially worse problem. This should not be used, however, to dismiss the original problem. For example, the plight of women under the Taliban is absolutely dreadful, but this doesn't mean that any problem faced by a western woman is trivial

Don't change the topic to less severe problems: If a particular problem is being discussed, it is dismissive to generalise this into a conversation about less severe problems. Such problems may also be very important, but they should be discussed elsewhere. For example, a discussion about female genital mutilation should not degenerate into a debate about the morality of male circumcision.

I was reading the mutilation of naughty bits as an example from the top rule.

It is a shit example, but a decent enough principle.

[orpheus]

How long has their site been in existence? They already have their first locked thread: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=900#p900

[cowiz]

How long has their site been in existence? They already have their first locked thread: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=900#p900

Some crazy mansplainin' going on

[orpheus]

Aaaaaand another one. This time without a notification post: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=111