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.

What did I accuse him of doing that is not true? That doesn't contradict it at all. He said I should have contacted Stef privately rather than publicly accuse him like I did, and I agreed that that would have probably been a better idea. I then asked him to consider this: why is it bad for me to publicly accuse Stef of being arrogant, irrational, etc. instead of privately contacting him and asking him to clarify his positions, when Stef, in many of his podcasts, publicly talks about how irrational certain claims that people make are, and accusing other people of being corrupt, rather than privately asking those people to clarify their positions? Why is it okay for Stef to do this to others but not okay for others to do this to Stef? You then said that he invites - oh wait, I see, I misread your post. I read it as him inviting people to publicly call him out on things, then I said that by posting here publicly, I am too. But even if I misread it, how did that contradict me saying that privately contacting him would have been a better idea?

And by posting here publicly, so am I. But anyway, I will make a thread to help me gain self knowledge since I know I need clarity on at least one issue in my life. Yes, I know, I mentioned this, if you read my first post. I mentioned that I was a determinist, and dsayers started the discussion about it. I don't see how this is relevant at all.

That is a good point, and I probably should have done that, but I just didn't consider it.I might ask though, just for consideration: why does Stef publicly talk about how wrong other beliefs are, and accuse others of being corrupt, assuming the worst, etc. rather than address them personally and ask them to clarify their positions? Yes, but you can't test for these things in the real worldOnce again, those conclusions come from misunderstandings of determinism and nihilism.Okay, then forgive me for my use of the word "believe" and substitute it with "think" or "convinced".

I agree, but you're making the assumption that you have a better grasp on reality or are able to think more logically than they are. Perhaps you are being less rational or have an emotional block. If there is no evidence either way, as is the case with topics such as determinism and nihilism, and the truth is to be determined purely by logic, then if you have a flaw in your logic, you are wrong. If you see a flaw in their logic that they do not see, and they see a flaw in your logic that you do not see, then both sides will believe they are right. It would take an objective, impartial third party to see which side is correct, but since both sides believe they are being completely rational and objective, they see their position as being correct.I agree, but we're not talking about describing the real world in ways that can be proven true or false by testing it - we're talking about abstract philosophical theories that need to be solved by logic.I don't quite agree there. I accept that 2 + 2 = 4. I also believe that 2 + 2 = 4 because it does. There is a difference between "believing in" something and "having faith in" something. For example, the theory of evolution is not a fact. I believe that it is true, because there is evidence and logic to support it. That is different than having faith in it.As I said, that conclusion comes from a misunderstanding of determinism. But, as I said, I will not debate that at this time. Also, I was just using the language (or similar language) to what Stef was using in the podcast.

I just listened to the podcast I mentioned in the title and I have a bit of a problem with it... Stef says that FDR has "beaten" certain philosophical positions such as nihilism, agnosticism, determinism, etc. He mentioned how every now and then nihilists would come and debate on the forum, but would eventually give up and leave it alone. However, I'm also aware that people who continue to have the views that are in opposition to Stef's tend to get banned if they continue to argue for their position and are viewed as just being trolls, or having an emotional block, or are just irrational. So here's my problem with it: what Stef is essentially saying is that if someone ends the debate on their own by leaving, then they're wrong, and if they continue debating until they get banned, then they're wrong. But who's to say that their reason for leaving the debate is not for the same reason why they get banned: that they view Stef or others on the forum as having an emotional block or being irrational? And then if they continue arguing until they get banned, would they not view it as Stef giving up? (You especially can't say that you've won on the issue of determinism if you don't even allow it to be debated on the forum.) If you successfully change the opposition's mind, then you can say that you've "beaten" those topics, but if not, I don't think you can rationally say you've won. To do so would be to assume that you are inherently more rational than the other person. It's like when Stef said a few times that before debating with people he would sometimes tell them the following condition: of you don't convince me that you're right, then you have to change your mind. I found that to be extraordinarily arrogant, assuming that he is more rational than they are. If that is not what he is implying by saying that, then logically he would have to agree to change his mind if he is unsuccessful in changing the other person's mind. Not being convinced by the other person's argument does not mean that your argument is correct - maybe it is, maybe the other person is right, or maybe neither one is right. But you shouldn't assume that the other person is wrong, irrational, or emotionally blocked just because they haven't convinced you of their position. Now, I'm not saying that you should believe that they're right, or be neutral on the issue - of course you should continue to believe what you actually think is correct, but again, to say all the things that Stef says about people who have opposing views is to assume that you are inherently more rational than them. As for me, I'm a nihilist and a determinist/compatabilist (I will not debate these at the moment - since Stef says that they're caused by a lack of self knowledge, I plan on making a new thread to help me gain more self knowledge, even though I've been told by many people that I seem to be very introspective, which I would agree with - and then re-examine these topics), and from all the arguments that Stef has made, I have not been convinced, and think that Stef has a misunderstanding of these positions, or deliberately misrepresents them because he dislikes them (he has said that he emotionally dislikes determinism; I have nothing emotionally against free will, I simply don't find any of the arguments for it to be rationally convincing - in fact, before listening to FDR, I was neutral on this, but then became a determinist when listening to the debates about it because I found those arguments to be more rational). That doesn't mean that I think those who disagree with me are irrational or are emotionally blocked - I'm perfectly willing to accept that I might be wrong, but I need to be convinced otherwise in order to have my mind changed. All I'm saying is, consider what I said earlier about seeing what you're doing from the other position's side, and you'll see that it's irrational and arrogant to say that you've "beaten" these topics simply because you haven't been convinced by their arguments. Your mind is not that standard for what is true and what is false.

Actually, I said (in the post above) "I don't support public education, because obviously I'm against forcibly taking people's money to fund it even if they don't go there" But anyway, I won't talk about it any more. My main reason for bringing it up is that I get annoyed when people make generalizations about certain things and imply that it's true for all instances of that, when I had a completely different experience.

I know this is from a few months ago, but I didn't want to create another thread on the same topic. Listening to some later podcasts, Stef says that in public schools, questions are discouraged, it's all about memorization, no critical thinking involved, it's boring and too easy, and teachers would make fun of students. Well, my experience was different. Questions were actively encouraged. They always told us "there's no such thing as a dumb question," that if we didn't understand something, we should ask. History, government, and English classes always involved arguing for our perspectives on issues. Memorization was really only for vocabulary words in elementary school, biology class (because that's inherent to parts of biology), and for the names of places, people, treaties, and laws in AP US History and AP US Government (because they would be on the AP test). Otherwise teachers always preferred to teach us to understand the topics, and look at things in history conceptually (we NEVER had to memorize dates). As for critical thinking, they specifically taught us how to think critically since the early years of elementary school. As I said, we would always analyze and debate in history class, English essays were all about writing critically about topics, and math usually involved us figuring things out for ourselves, with guidance from the teachers if we couldn't. I agree that topics that I had no interest in but were forced to take anyway were boring, but as for easy, that's why there are honors and AP classes starting in high school. Core level classes are for people who have a hard time understanding the material, and just cover the basics, academic level classes are for the average student, honors level classes are for the smarter students (or the ones who study to get good grades), and AP level classes are college level courses. I never heard anyone complain about classes being too easy, only too hard. And if teachers made fun of students, they would be fired immediately, The idea of a teacher making fun of a student is inconceivable to me, seeing as teachers would always stop students from making fun of other students. Some teachers would be sarcastic (usually science teachers) and would have inside jokes with the class, poking fun at other students, but never in a mean spirited way. And they always said that if you don't want them to do that to you, to speak with them after class and tell them (and shy kids like me were almost never "made fun of" by the teachers because they knew how sensitive we were - it was almost always the extroverts, the cool kids, that were "made fun of," and they enjoyed it, "making fun" of the teacher right back at them; it was all light-hearted fun, and many teachers even become Facebook friends with students after they graduate). Now, I don't support public education, because obviously I'm against forcibly taking people's money to fund it even if they don't go there, but to say that it doesn't provide good education, that it's simply there to "indoctrinate children" and make them obedient to the state completely contradicts all the evidence that I have about public schools. If Stef wants to say that that was HIS experience, then by all means, he can do so, but unless he goes to at least half of the public schools in the world, he can't justly say that the majority of the schools are like that. I bring this up because if someone who wasn't an anarchist or libertarian heard the things Stef says about public schools, they'd probably think, "wow, what a bunch of nonsense propaganda," and be more turned off from libertarianism. To see some of what my high school was like, here are some videos made by people in my high school (all were made my junior year, the first three were made by seniors, the fourth one was made by juniors, and the rest were made by people in one of our school newspapers): The one on the right in the last video was my AP US History and AP US Government teacher that I mentioned earlier. Also, I am currently a freshman at a state university (because it's super cheap and is around the 50th best university in the country, and I'm in the honors program), and so far, the things Stef has said about professors being super pro-government and anti-capitalist is completely false.

MBTI is the type of personality test, JSYK. This is a better test to determine your type: http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm I'm also an INTJ (the "Scientist," "Mastermind," "Strategist," "Free-thinker"). For anyone who's familiar with enneagram, I'm a 1w9. Edit: Famous INTJs include Aristotle, Augustus Caesar, Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, Christopher Hitchens, etc.

I'm not trying to defend public schools, I'm just saying that my experience was different, so he knows that not all public schools were like that. I pretended to say the pledge because: 1. I knew it didn't mean anything (I never really meant what I was saying back when I actually spoke the words, which I presume is the case with most people) 2. Most said it, so I didn't want to stand out. Nobody ridiculed or commented on the people who didn't say it, but it's not like they didn't notice them. And I don't want to be noticed. Yes, I would "prefer to be a ghost" in public.

I'm not saying that all public schools were like mine, but Stef seemed to imply that ALL public schools were like the way he described it (by saying things like "you were attacked for not saying the pledge of allegiance," not referring to any specific cases, trying to universalize select cases). My other teachers were pretty good too. I can't think of one teacher I disliked. A few were boring (my physics teacher was a genius and a millionaire, and was extremely entertaining when going off on tangents, but everyone wanted to fall asleep when he was actually teaching) and some weren't good at teaching (mainly English teachers, and my AP chemistry teacher), but the rest were likable, entertaining, friendly, helpful, and good at teaching. I'm just saying: so often when people (not just Stefan) make claims about things, they talk as if it's true for all cases - if there are exceptions (which clearly there are in this case), I would have no problem with them doing that if they added the word "most" to avoid sounding as if they're talking about all cases. Another oddity about my school system is that everyone in the two towns that it was composed of got to vote on its budget, rather than having it be determined by the government (of course, everyone had to pay for it regardless of whether they had kids going there or not, so it's not voluntary by any means).