FireShield

Script from video description: Actress and UN Women Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson spoke at the United Nations in New York on Friday, stating that she believes feminism has too often become synonymous with "man-hating." The Harry Potter actress' words came as she introduced the "HeForShe" gender equality campaign, which campaigns for men to speak up against manifestations of gender inequality. Watson said that for there to be true equality between the sexes, men and boys must also advocate for the rights of women and girls.

.

.

I'm not here to debate (I'm thinking even making another post is a bad idea) but I just wanted to share a short video on the topic... PURELY for the sake of anyone who is interested. If you don't want to watch it, don't. If you have objections to what is said, bring it up to the guy who made the video, not to me. I have no wish to re-engange on the forum, I just thought this might be of interest to some of you.

First of all, welcome to the forums, though I will likely not hang around here any more for reasons in another thread. My main reason for posting however, is that I want to simply express my disgust for the people on this forum who simply downvote people they disagree with rather than giving any arguments against what they say, as is the case with the OP's second post on this thread. It's intellectually lazy and contributes to the mob mentality that evidently exists in this community.

Well it's like this: I watch these videos, and in the videos and/or the comments section, I see people making fun of the economically conservative position, saying we're stupid or lack empathy (and always associating anyone with this position with Republicans), and I want to defend that position to show them that they're wrong (because whenever I see people making fun of others, even if I'm on the same side as the ones who are making fun of the other group, I feel the need to defend them because I just feel that they're being unnecessarily mean; as an example of me defending people I disagree with, a lot of times I see atheists - often the same type of liberals I argue with - making fun of religious people, mainly Christians, saying they're stupid for believing what they believe. While I may agree that no god exists and that it's irrational to believe in one, I never make fun of religious people because: 1. I used to be a Christian/deist, until I was exposed to atheist arguments, 2. many of my friends and family members are Christians, and I know they're not stupid - they just don't think about it because it's not important enough to them to analyze it, and 3. if people really are stupid, then you shouldn't make fun of them, since they can't help it). But you might be right. Maybe I am subconsciously trying to invite the attacks. I'll have to think about it some more. You're probably right. It's just so annoying because these types of liberals are so arrogant and condescending all the time, talking about how smart and rational they are, and how everyone else is stupid and ignorant (which is why I almost never debate conservatives - they don't tend to have personalities that infuriate me like liberals do), so I want to prove them wrong. I understand that consciously, but subconsciously they hurt me so much. That's my main problem with my emotions: I consciously understand that they're often irrational (like my social anxiety), but they still have a really strong effect on me.

Does anyone have any advice on easy ways to avoid taking ad hominem attacks personally? Whenever I watch YouTube videos by liberals, or read the comments section of those videos and see what people are saying, I often make a comment with logical arguments for the libertarian/anarchist position hoping to change people's minds, and usually I just get responses saying I'm stupid or lack empathy, with very few actual arguments against what I say, and I try to respond to explain my position further, but because I'm "outnumbered" and am constantly being insulted by others, I end up getting overwhelmed and feel like I'm a bad person - in other words, I end up subconsciously taking the ad hominem attacks personally, even though I consciously know that they're not true. Is there any good way for me to avoid doing this? I've basically been avoiding debating with people to stay away from this, but I want to be able to debate anyway, for the sake of potentially changing people's minds.

The iTunes Podcast app lets you listen to podcasts at 1.5x and 2x speed. They used to let you listen at 3x speed, but now that's been removed...

My English class is focusing on the topic "the ridiculous," and we're going to be discussing and writing about this debate.

I just listened to a podcast in which Stefan gives his definition of free will as the ability to compare our actions to a higher ideal, so by that definition (I'm not debating, I am merely explaining my position, as I think I have the right to do) I would consider myself a compatabilist. My view is that doing that (comparing our actions to a higher ideal) is simply part of the natural, deterministic process of our brains, and as a result, determinism would still be true. Just thought I'd say that for clarification.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VUXQatryNw

Very much so, and I agree with it too so... yeah, that's pretty good I'd say. Different uses of terms caused this confusion then, so it's good that I actually agree.

Thanks for the clarification Can you explain what you mean when you say "the part of ethics that makes it binding on people"? I don't identify with the rest of the description, but I might agree with that part, if my interpretation of it is correct. My interpretation is that that would mean that people should behave ethically, or that they're objectively bad if they behave unethically. I disagree with that, thinking that they will simply be perceived as bad by others (and would likely feel bad by their conscience, which, I agree with Stef, operates on UPB), but ultimately aren't doing anything other than creating a disadvantageous situation for another person and, in doing so, are permitting others to do the same to them. Yes, I'm aware of that (the multiple types of nihilism), I should have said moral nihilism from the beginning (for me, I always assume moral/existential nihilism is what is being referred to when people say nihilism). Yes, that would fit (the aesthetics part), though those could potentially be considered ethics too (perhaps less important ethics). I think then, for a rational, non-religious type of morality, it should consist of ethical rules (which are rational in nature), as well as empathy (which is not as objective or rational, but still important to the survival of humans and most other animals).

This is why I have never understood why Stef has had such a strong dislike of nihilism. From what he said in one series of podcasts, I think about the meaning of life, he said that there was no inherent morality in the universe, but then later goes on to say that nihilism is some evil, destructive position. But moral nihilism is simply that: there is no morality inherent to the universe. It's true that there are people who then think this means that anything is permissible, and act on that belief, or try to tear down ethical theories because of it, which could give a bad reputation to nihilism, but by its strict definition, I'd say almost everyone here (including Stef) is a moral nihilist, as should anyone who has no spiritual beliefs. I think it's important to distinguish between morality, ethics, and values. I view morality as spiritual/religious in nature, and does not always involve multiple people (for example, in Christianity it is immoral to masturbate). Ethics deals with interactions between people (morality can overlap with it: for example, I'm sure you agree that it's unethical to murder, and in Christianity it is also immoral to murder). Values are subjective to individuals, and can also include personality morality (I can't think of any examples of personal morality at the moment - most if not all of my values are objective ethics).

I would just like to say, for the sake of clarity, that when I say I'm a nihilist, I mean that there is no morality inherent to the universe. I view ethics as a useful tool for getting along well with other people (especially if everyone adheres to the same ethical standards) and UPB as a useful tool for creating universal, consistent, rational ethical rules (and, where it has more power, showing people's hypocrisy when they make ethical claims that they don't follow, or to show problems that would arise from certain ethical theories). I would also explain what I mean when I say I'm a determinist, but as has been noted in this thread, that topic is off limits.