STer

So as I asked before, if a child is bullying then you are comfortable without any other evidence condemning the parents as having abused them? And what actions would you be comfortable with being taken as a result, if you have seen the children bullying but no other evidence of abuse? I think it's bullshit for anybody to point fingers at parents prematurely without having all parties involved, and a thourough examination. There is no, no, no smoking gun in these cases, even if there are strong tendencies. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the parents are abusive in one way or another, but certainly there are degrees in everything and I know "I'M" not going to judge without a WHOLE lot more information, facts, interviews, etc... I agree. I understand a lot of people on this forum have very strong feelings about child abuse and I do too. But when that flows over into being willing to make accusations without enough evidence, I think that's very dangerous. If there is any reason to suspect abuse, then a thorough investigation should be done. But to accuse someone of child abuse simply because their child is bullying is extremely irresponsible. And when I read claims like "children bully because they are bullied" I find it very speculative. I have no doubt many bullies do result from poor parenting or abuse. But I find it unfounded at this point in time to claim that explains 100% of the cases. And as I've pointed out before, if there is a caring, loving parent whose child turns out this way despite that and then without evidence you label them an abuser, you've heaped insult upon injury. I think it's important to try to avoid an injustice on either side of this as much as possible and that requires gathering all of the facts, not jumping to conclusions. Anyhow, We all mostly know, especially us philosophy lovers that it would be really useless to interview the kids about bullying without their parents being interviewed as well. Not to blame them, but to find out what they might think is wrong too. And if somehow they expose abusive tendencies you could take it from there, but NOT without first talking to the parents. Kids say the damndest things, for the damndest reasons, and even the most direct statements from children can have pretty esoteric roots. You have to decypher what kids say in many cases because they don't even want to talk, or are afraid. They could not only be afraid of the parents, but also feel coerced by the interviewer to give answers that lean ways that are very distorted so it's better to have EVERYBODY involved before crucifying ANYBODY. Good researchers who are trained in working with kids know all this and have methods for helping draw things out. This is really a research task for technically proficient investigators and I believe there are some people out there doing research on bullying. I would like to see more of it done to decipher more of what's going on and see it done in an unbiased manner. Until then it's irresponsible to make broad blanket statements that end up accusing people without enough evidence.

When children demonstrate that sort of behavior, it indicates that someone who the child believes should be modeled is behaving badly. If not parents, then someone very close to the child in social terms. Perhaps an aunt, uncle, or grandparents. I'd be inclined to believe it was the child's primary (or immediate secondary) caregiver. Regardless, the behavior indicates the presence of some kind of close-to-home abuse. Not necessarily physical abuse. Not all bullies are beaten. Lots of bullying revolves around humiliation, shame, and guilt. As far as I know, our society doesn't recognize a parent humiliating, shaming, or blaming a child as abusive. Though, a husband humiliating his wife would be considered abusive. There are lots of double standards. I can't speak on appropriate actions, that's more of a theory-of-justice question. I'm only pointing out that children report what they perceive as abuse in weird ways; primarily by persistently modeling the behavior. My point is purely observational. Without even going into the possibilities for a child to be innately aggressive (something apparently considered impossible by many on this board), and even allowing for the possibility bullies are all abused, for all we know it could be someone on a vacation that the family took that the parents didn't even know or find out about and now the child is acting out. Also, why could it not be a child imitating friends? Are you saying children don't do things to gain status with their friends, often things their parents wouldn't approve of? The question here isn't "Do children sometimes act out as a form of communicating silent abuse?" The question is "Is all acting out a commuication of silent abuse?" You seem willing to say it always is. I find that a speculative statement that requires a ton of empirical support, especially given the massive implications it would have for many many people. I know child abuse holds a special place on this forum as an important issue and rightfully so. But I am really uncomfortable with the way that people who are usually so skeptical and questioning and make every attempt to gather the facts and be rational will throw all of that out the window when it comes to this issue. In fact, it's such an important issue that we should be even more insistent on facts instead of speculation, not less.

So as I asked before, if a child is bullying then you are comfortable without any other evidence condemning the parents as having abused them? And what actions would you be comfortable with being taken as a result, if you have seen the children bullying but no other evidence of abuse? I think it's bullshit for anybody to point fingers at parents prematurely without having all parties involved, and a thourough examination. There is no, no, no smoking gun in these cases, even if there are strong tendencies. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the parents are abusive in one way or another, but certainly there are degrees in everything and I know "I'M" not going to judge without a WHOLE lot more information, facts, interviews, etc... I agree. I understand a lot of people on this forum have very strong feelings about child abuse and I do too. But when that flows over into being willing to make accusations without enough evidence, I think that's very dangerous. If there is any reason to suspect abuse, then a thorough investigation should be done. But to accuse someone of child abuse simply because their child is bullying is extremely irresponsible. And when I read claims like "children bully because they are bullied" I find it very speculative. I have no doubt many bullies do result from poor parenting or abuse. But I find it unfounded at this point in time to claim that explains 100% of the cases. And as I've pointed out before, if there is a caring, loving parent whose child turns out this way despite that and then without evidence you label them an abuser, you've heaped insult upon injury. I think it's important to try to avoid an injustice on either side of this as much as possible and that requires gathering all of the facts, not jumping to conclusions.

So as I asked before, if a child is bullying then you are comfortable without any other evidence condemning the parents as having abused them? And what actions would you be comfortable with being taken as a result, if you have seen the children bullying but no other evidence of abuse?

It would be strange if people could just point out their abusers. Sorry I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Please explain.

So any child who bullies, you can automatically condemn his or her parents as having abused them? No further evidence needed? Kind of uncomfortable with that.

Hey Jonny. Fallon's work has been discussed here a lot. If you do a search for Fallon on the site search you'll see. It's pretty interesting stuff and has led to some debates on the forums. I know from those threads that Stefan is very aware of his work.

By the way, the implications of this work are so important on so many levels. Perhaps the professor running these studies would be worth interviewing. On that page there are some videos of an interview with him about this clinical trial. But there are a lot more questions he could be asked about how much and with what methods we can heal people with serious personality disorders and empathy-reducing conditions.

There has been a clinical trial going on in the Netherlands for several years now studying whether this unique form of therapy can help psychopaths, who are usually thought to be untreatable. Very interesting study to keep an eye on. Read more: http://www.ponerologynews.com/david-p-bernstein-psychopaths-reparented-schema-therapy/

Well, the whole of a debate is decided in the set of definitions and assumptions used. Perhaps they're just a hyper-strategic debaters. Alternatively, there could be a goal conflict. Some people debate to be right, rather than to discover what is true. I don't agree that the whole debate is decided there. Even once you come to an agreement on definitions and assumptions, people can just have very different values or views of data and so on. There is still plenty to debate even after definitions and assumptions are clarified. I don't even mind someone debating to be right so much as long as they actually are trying to have the debate, not prevent the debate.

What is your solution to people using words in vauge ways? What do you do when the speaker is using words to straddle several, mutually exclusive, meanings? If there is true misunderstanding, by all means clarify for the purpose of reaching a level of understanding necessary to continue toward the ultimate goal of the conversation. My point is that there are those people that will continue nitpicking at these things even after they really do get the jist of what is being said simply for the purpose of obstructing the progress of the conversation. They aren't really engaging in good faith and have no interest in helping get to the ultimate goal of the conversation. It's almost a form of trolling. I think this is what empyblessing was getting frustrated with that made him say this is the kind of discussion that makes people hate philosophy.

If you keep saing Atheism is a belief, expect to be corrected. You're using the word wrongly. That has everything to do with definition of terms (what do certain words mean) and nothing to do whatsoever with linguistics (the study of human language), you know it, and that's why I think it's intellectually dishonest and frankly insulting to call it linguistics again and again and over again. In any serious discussion among adults, definition of terms has to be agreed upon. You can't have a grown-up discussion with vague wishy washy terms that you can define at will and then expect a meaningful result, or expect not to be called on it. How this conversation looks to me so far: you: "Unicorns exist, they are regular horses. I was riding one last week." me: "But horses don't have horns, they aren't Unicorns" you: "They are just the same, only except for the missing horn! The horn is not essential." me: "Those are just horses. Uni- meaning one, "corn" meaning "horn" (I'm guessing) you: "Linguistics, linguistics, linguistics. Let's keep talking about how I was riding a unicorn last week." Can you see the source of my frustration? Any mention of the word "atheism" I have even made has only been in passing in order to make the point that it is a distraction to keep focusing on the terminology. In response, you prove my point by spending all this time hung up on it and focusing on the terminology. I couldn't ask for a better example to support my reasoning for why it's better to skip the labels and go right to the rough data. I could sit here and defend my usage of it but it would completely go against my point which is that whether any one person uses it accurately or inaccurately it is a widely confused term and thus very unhelpful in trying to get accurate information from people. It is clear to me that your priority here is linguistics and talking about the correct vs. incorrect definition, as you see it, of the word "atheism." As I mentioned, this is a valid topic, just not the topic I was talking about or am interested in. A linguistic discussion of the meaning of "atheism" is precisely what I am arguing is a counterproductive waste of time for those whose main goal is to do useful investigation of people's beliefs and try to improve the world rather than to have semantic discussions. So I leave you to your debate about the word's meaning. My suggestion is that it's a better use of time to just try to use more descriptive phrases, rather than using these loaded terms, as people will be more clear on what you're asking of them. If you prefer to keep using the loaded terminology, I would predict you will end up bogged down in inaccurate responses and the types of pointless neverending debates we're seeing in this thread every time the word is so much as mentioned - even, ironically enough, if it's mentioned precisely to say it's a term that will lead to more semantic debates than answers about actual beliefs. You seem to be missing the point that I'm not saying to use the word "atheism" and then define it. I'm saying to not use the word when investigating other people's beliefs and simply skip to describing what you mean and use those words instead. You seem to be mixing up discussion on this forum with what I'm talking about which is how to talk to other people when asking about their beliefs. This thread has been, for me, a chance to offer suggestions about how to communicate with other people in other settings when you want to understand their beliefs more clearly.

Very interesting study. When I wrote my huge page about ponerology I spent a lot of time making this point that any ideology or religion can be hi-jacked by pathological people to cloak their malicious activity. Nice to see some research on the subject.

As with most things I don't think there is just one answer to this. Different people do it for different reasons. And not everyone does do it. One level to look at is personality types. Some of the types are more freewheeling and actually support people going out of the box. Others are very traditional and conventional. Another aspect is projection. That's where what Cher said comes in. If the person themselves is angry for conforming but represses it, then they may project that onto you. Another aspect is simply honest fear for the other person. Many parents, for instance, realize that we really do live in a world full of consequences for not conforming and don't wish their child to suffer those consequences. Some may realize that a certain percentage who take risks succeed in doing something out of the ordinary, but also realize many fail and don't want their child to take that risk. Then there are those who directly benefit from people staying in the box, such as traditional employers that need a conventional workforce to run their businesses. Biology may even come into play here. I just saw another study yesterday on the differences in brain function during risk assessment in people of different political stripes. So some people may even be wired to find unconventional things threatening or scary. And I bet there are even more perpsectives involved. Since social order depends on most people staying in line, you can bet there are many many layers that go into how that is reinforced.

Could you elaborate? I'd be very interest to read your thoughts on the matter. The topic was supposed to be about the minimum wage. Instead it digressed into a conversation about the meaning of words and the efficacy of raising the minmum wage lost. If there's confusion over a word than define it. No one owns the language. It's a tool used to communicate. Define exactly how you use the word in that sentence. I think you misunderstood what happened. The minimum wage issue just happened to be the vehicle for the OP to express frustration with a bigger issue - the failure of explicit logical argument to convince people. When I pointed that out, the original poster agreed that I had brought more focus to what he was trying to say in the first place. In fact, it became about the topic OP had intended all along. But where I agree is the fact that a few people are being absurdly nitpicky about definitions even when I am quite confident they understand what is being said. I think it's just a distraction mechanism from the main point. I am all for getting clear on definitions, but only to the point where people understand the speaker's intended use. Once the meaning is understood by the people involved in the conversation, there shouldn't be any more need to keep poking at every word. But I've noticed a few people do that incessantly. Nonetheless in the end I think the answer came to the forefront. Most people here prefer to use explicit verbal logical argument, even if most people don't respond to it as intended. I think the person who said the quality of person reached is more important to them than the quantity probably spoke for many. I myself am more open to a range of approaches, as long as they are used ethically.

Exactly my point. All of this tedious nitpicking of every detail, no matter how logical, turns many people off. They don't enjoy that kind of argumentative approach. For better or worse, they respond more to a commercial with some athlete making jokes than to reasoned argument. So the question is, given that, how should those hoping to make change in the world approach doing so? What I'm gathering is that the few people responding in this thread prefer to continue using explicit reasoned verbal argument regardless of whether most people appreciate or respond to it as intended.

You claimed it was paradoxically illogical to keep using logic to persuade. I put forward the proposition that, excepting for style, all attempts to persuade (intentional or not) were logic and reason based. In other words, I believe I was supporting your proposition. I'm talking about the explicit verbal appeal to another person's logic as a tactic, in contrast to other approaches, regardless if they involve reason in some other way. And all of those approaches (if they impart virtue) are anchored in logic and reason. Hence the contradiciton. I'm only saying it one more time. I'm not pointing out what they're "anchored in." I'm focused on the strategy involved which differs. If you want to focus on what they are anchored in feel free. That's a different topic.

I defined what I was asking for, just like you said. "What % likelihood do you believe there is that X, defined as [here you define what you're asking about], exists?" If you can't see the similarity, i'll reformat more precisely: What % likelihood do you believe there is that X, defined as an all-powerful, all-loving, infinite, invisible, and unknowable, exists? Exactly, that's how I recommend asking it. And the point of the thread for me was getting across that that is how I would recommend asking others about this. I'm not going to turn this thread into a discussion of my personal beliefs on the matter by laying out my own answer to the question as that's rather irrelevant to the point. If you're really interested in my own personal views on the matter, let me know why and maybe it can be discussed in another thread? Maybe you'd like to start a thread where you simply ask that question and ask people to respond to it. It would be interesting to see the answers given by people on this forum. If you do so you might want to make clear that that thread is not about debating anything else about the question, just about seeing what people's honest answers to it are. I'd be curious whether this board is full of 0%'ers or if there is actually more diversity even among the many self-proclaimed atheists here. We've already seen at least one person in this thread mention that depending on how you describe what you ask about, he is not a 0%'er.

You claimed it was paradoxically illogical to keep using logic to persuade. I put forward the proposition that, excepting for style, all attempts to persuade (intentional or not) were logic and reason based. In other words, I believe I was supporting your proposition. I meant if people do not respond to explicit verbal appeals to logic, then it might be illogical to keep trying to use it at a certain point. I am not commenting on whether something is "logic and reason based." I'm talking about the explicit verbal appeal to another person's logic as a tactic, in contrast to other approaches, regardless if they involve reason in some other way.

Ok, let's start with you then. I believe there is a __ % chance that ___________ exists. I define ___________ as ________________________________________________________________. I describe myself as a _____________. Cleansed of all those defined words, we have a madlib. I don't know what there is for me to disagree with, frankly. If you think the above madlib style produces anything like meaningful "data," then you will have to define what you mean by "meaningful data." But, I know how you feel about definitions. I made clear around a dozen times that you must first define what you're asking about. The question you ask is "What % likelihood do you believe there is that X, defined as [here you define what you're asking about], exists?" It is the questioner who defines what they're asking about to make sure that the answer they get is actually what they're after. Rather than just asking someone "Are you an atheist?" or "Do you believe in God?" you ask it the way I said there and you are going to get more precise answers. Do you believe in an omniscient, all-loving, all-powerful, invisible, unknowable being in the universe? If so, what is your certainty of this thing? In either case, what do you call yourself, based on this belief (or lack there of)? First you didn't ask it the way I stated. Second, why on earth woud you go back to the labels when the entire point of it was to get away from the labels? Are you just playing around?

I don't see a fundamental diffirence between these three examples. Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument and telling a moral story are essentially one in the say, you have examples of virtue and not-virtue and in either case they can be literally true or not. They are simply there as a device to convey meaning. Similarly, leading by example is essentially acting out the former two or doing one's best to emulate the qualities one would present as reasonable. In either case there is a rational motive, to supply some instruction on reason and virtue, but the two examples you gave don't necessarily require one to be acting in a persuasive manner. A story might be interesting and circumstantially reasonable. A parent being watched by a child may have no idea he or she is being watched and simply impart virtue unknowingly. Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument is explicitly giving someone the premises and conclusion. Telling a moral story or role modeling involves demonstration without necessarily explicitly revealing premises and conclusions. Thus they are different and affect people in different ways. In certain situations one may be more effective than the other. I don't think I commented on the effect of stylistic diffirences. All I meant to point out was that your examples were all fundamentally intentional or unintentional use of reason. We've already covered here the difference behind reason being involved in the actor's motivation vs. reason as the explicit verbal method of communication in an attempt to persuade. Or reason, as in, logic and reason. Not necessarily persuasive. This thread was about the original poster's frustration that people are not persuaded by logic and facts to what he sees as truth. So the entire thread has been a discussion of methods of persuasion.

Ok, let's start with you then. I believe there is a __ % chance that ___________ exists. I define ___________ as ________________________________________________________________. I describe myself as a _____________. Cleansed of all those defined words, we have a madlib. I don't know what there is for me to disagree with, frankly. If you think the above madlib style produces anything like meaningful "data," then you will have to define what you mean by "meaningful data." But, I know how you feel about definitions. I made clear around a dozen times that you must first define what you're asking about. The question you ask is "What % likelihood do you believe there is that X, defined as [here you define what you're asking about], exists?" Or you can skip the X altogether if you wish and just ask "What % likelihood do you believe there is that [describe exactly what you're asking about], exists?" It is the questioner who describes precisely what they're asking about to make sure that the answer they get is actually what they're after. Rather than just asking someone "Are you an atheist?" or "Do you believe in God?" you ask it the way I said there and you are going to get more pinpointed answers.

Did you check the Videos that were posted on this thread recently. They touched the issue with labels pretty well. I especially liked the examples with fairies. The court example didnt really open up to me. I'm painfully aware of the problem misunderstood labels pose in this situation. What I'm trying to do is offer an alternative. Not much interest in it here though But that's ok.

I don't see a fundamental diffirence between these three examples. Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument and telling a moral story are essentially one in the say, you have examples of virtue and not-virtue and in either case they can be literally true or not. They are simply there as a device to convey meaning. Similarly, leading by example is essentially acting out the former two or doing one's best to emulate the qualities one would present as reasonable. In either case there is a rational motive, to supply some instruction on reason and virtue, but the two examples you gave don't necessarily require one to be acting in a persuasive manner. A story might be interesting and circumstantially reasonable. A parent being watched by a child may have no idea he or she is being watched and simply impart virtue unknowingly. Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument is explicitly giving someone the premises and conclusion. Telling a moral story or role modeling involves demonstration without necessarily explicitly revealing premises and conclusions. Thus they are different and affect people in different ways. In certain situations one may be more effective than the other. I don't think I commented on the effect of stylistic diffirences. All I meant to point out was that your examples were all fundamentally intentional or unintentional use of reason. We've already covered here the difference behind reason being involved in the actor's motivation vs. reason as the explicit verbal method of communication in an attempt to persuade.

Actually i'm just evaluating statements rationally based on literal definitions. If you, as you have, want to insist on changing definitions or not being concerned with them, you are free to argue about super-human things and what percentage we believe in our own idea of super-human-things. I simply ask that you stop misusing words for which we already have definitions. But many - even most people out there - do NOT evaluate statements rationally based on literal definitions. So if you want to know what they believe you cannot just assume what they mean by a word is the same as you mean when you use it. I get the idea that you have little interest in knowing what those people believe. I and some others do. So if you are not interested in accurately assessing their beliefs, this discussion really isn't very relevant for you. If you are then it will be crucial to work as hard as you can to clarify what people mean rather than simply focus on being frustrated that they are using words in ways you deem incorrect. You make a strong case that most people are ignorant of the definitions; however, that's clearly not the case on this forum so I don't believe that's a fair point. I want as much to understand their meaning as you; however, you are repeatedly coming back to your mis-use of words (like atheist) and follow with complaints related to being called on that mis-use of the word. If you want to clarify what you mean, or simply make up a term for it, by all means do so. Just stop taking words we do know and re-tooling them to fit your arguments. It's not very relevant to me what the case is on this forum since this forum contains about 1 millionth of the atheists out there, hardly a representative sample. I repeatedly say let's get past the words and stop debating the words and here you are again complaining of my "mis-use" of the words. I'm arguing for not using the words when investigating people's beliefs if you want to be more effective. They are loaded words and they obscure getting accurate data from people. That's my message here. If you want to keep focusing on proper vs. incorrect use of the words I'm not interested in that discussion. I'm interested in the discussion of the most effective method of ascertaining a given person's views in the public at large. I believe that is more effectively done by asking things the way I've been mentioning than by using the poorly understood labels involved here. That's really all I have to say about it. If you disagree, feel free to continue talking to people using the labels. I predict it will get you confusing data that will not accurately reflect what many people actually believe. At some point you might test out using the other method and see if it helps. It's really your choice at this point.