Parenting is not the be-all and end-all...

[STer]

 

well, do you have any other statistic that correlates another type of cause to becoming aggresive?

 

I just pointed out that if Stefan is making the claim I stated above (and I'm not sure he is, I'm still waiting for him to clarify) then the burden of proof is on him to back it up.

The fact you respond to that by again asking me for proof goes against the entire point of burden of proof. I am not claiming he's right or wrong. I'm claiming we don't know the answer to this. He appears at times to be saying we do know the answer and that the answer is that child abuse is the primary cause of violence and aggression. If so, that requires proof. You should be asking him to provide that proof, not asking me to prove it's wrong. That's what burden of proof is all about.

[TheRobin]

yes, well, as Kyle stated, I too think it would be much more productive to call in and ask directly, all that waiting for it to happen on the boards... you could have your answer in under a minute and I'd love to hear the debate for what consists as sufficient proof or not and what kind of evidence one would need etc.So, please do call in at some point, I do think a lot of people would be intersted in that.

[godwin_anarchism]

Since Stefan seems to want the BIB series to speak for his views, I am posting where in this series I am getting the impressions of his viewpoint on this subject:

Part3: 02:00 

"infancy and brain development.  The mind and emotional content of the brain are created in the first few years ... created ... we are not born violent, we are not born warlike, we are not born aggressive... the mind and emotional content of the brain are created"
the emphasis are his

Part4: 03:37

"you have to know this stuff if you want to change the world ... you have to study how the brain processes beliefs"

I think the titles themselves also say a lot about where he stands:

The Bomb in the Brain Part 3 - The Biology of Violence: The Effects of Child Abuse
The Bomb in the Brain Part 1 - The True Roots of Human Violence .
The Bomb in the Brain Part 4 - The Death of Reason - The Effects of Child Abuse

[TronCat]

 

Since Stefan seems to want the BIB series to speak for his views, I am posting where in this series I am getting the impressions of his viewpoint on this subject:

Part3: 02:00 

"infancy and brain development.  The mind and emotional content of the brain are created in the first few years ... created ... we are not born violent, we are not born warlike, we are not born aggressive... the mind and emotional content of the brain are created"
the emphasis are his

Part4: 03:37

"you have to know this stuff if you want to change the world ... you have to study how the brain processes beliefs"

I think the titles themselves also say a lot about where he stands:

The Bomb in the Brain Part 3 - The Biology of Violence: The Effects of Child Abuse
The Bomb in the Brain Part 1 - The True Roots of Human Violence .
The Bomb in the Brain Part 4 - The Death of Reason - The Effects of Child Abuse

 

 

"infancy and brain development.  The mind and emotional content of the brain are created in the first few years ... created ... we are not born violent, we are not born warlike, we are not born aggressive..."

- Suggesting that the "mind and emotional content" of the brain is 'created' in the first few years is just pure ignorance

- If we aren't born violent or aggressive, how are we born? Are we born peaceful? Or are we just a piece of putty that is to be molded by its environment?

 

Yeah, it seems like Stefan subscribes to the "blank slate" theory...

[STer]

 

Since Stefan seems to want the BIB series to speak for his views, I am posting where in this series I am getting the impressions of his viewpoint on this subject:

Part3: 02:00 

"infancy and brain development.  The mind and emotional content of the brain are created in the first few years ... created ... we are not born violent, we are not born warlike, we are not born aggressive... the mind and emotional content of the brain are created"
the emphasis are his

Part4: 03:37

"you have to know this stuff if you want to change the world ... you have to study how the brain processes beliefs"

I think the titles themselves also say a lot about where he stands:

The Bomb in the Brain Part 3 - The Biology of Violence: The Effects of Child Abuse
The Bomb in the Brain Part 1 - The True Roots of Human Violence .
The Bomb in the Brain Part 4 - The Death of Reason - The Effects of Child Abuse

 

Now contrast all of that with the statement in The Fascists that Surround you where he says "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment."

That should give you a sense of why I'm still so confused about what his actual view is and keep asking him to just clarify once and for all. The views in BIB don't seem to reflect agnosticism, but rather a lot more certainty than just "tending toward environment."

[KyleG]

 

Now contrast all of that with the statement in The Fascists that Surround you where he says "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment."

That should give you a sense of why I'm still so confused about what his actual view is and keep asking him to just clarify once and for all. The views in BIB don't seem to reflect agnosticism, but rather a lot more certainty than just "tending toward environment."

 

I know you said this was in part 3 a few comments back, but could you tell me at what time in part 3 Stefan says this? I'm not doubting you, I just don't want to search for it if you already know the position.

[KyleG]

 

Now contrast all of that with the statement in The Fascists that Surround you where he says "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment."

That should give you a sense of why I'm still so confused about what his actual view is and keep asking him to just clarify once and for all. The views in BIB don't seem to reflect agnosticism, but rather a lot more certainty than just "tending toward environment."

 

I know you said this was in part 3 a few comments back, but could you tell me at what time in part 3 Stefan says this? I'm not doubting you, I just don't want to search for it if you already know the position.

[STer]

 

 

Now contrast all of that with the statement in The Fascists that Surround you where he says "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment."

That should give you a sense of why I'm still so confused about what his actual view is and keep asking him to just clarify once and for all. The views in BIB don't seem to reflect agnosticism, but rather a lot more certainty than just "tending toward environment."

 

I know you said this was in part 3 a few comments back, but could you tell me at what time in part 3 Stefan says this? I'm not doubting you, I just don't want to search for it if you already know the position.

 

- Stefan Molyneux, The Fascists that Surround You, Part 3: Statists, 9 minutes, 13 seconds

The whole first 10 minutes of that video is interesting because he goes over the whole evolutionary viewpoint of psychopathy/sociopathy which is really what I think this is about. And if this was all I had heard from him, I'd think his position is quite reasonable. But it's confusing because it seems like in other places, such as in the BIB quotes Godwin posted, he takes different stances.

[godwin_anarchism]

Fascist P2:

10:00  "... nature v. nurture, so there do seem to be some genetic predispositions towards sociopathy, but of course the epigenics argument is that genes determine nothing,  the genes plus environment plus some choice determine nothing (I think that he misspoke there),   the evidence that it's environmental is very strong, very strong ..."

he then uses fluctuating percentages of sociopathy as proof that it is the environment that's influencing the changes.

 

Fascist P3:

02:00  "... nature v. nurture, there's no clear answer"03:56  "as to why there are these people, ... theories around social reproductive strategies ..."

05:00  paraphrasing:  He says if this sociopathy was kept at a low rate in a population, they'd be neutralized because they'd be at a social disadvantage.   (I completely disagree here.  Sociopaths are very adaptable and would thrive in a population that's accomodating and cooperative, because few people will have their guard up.)08:56:  "mildly agnostic tending towards environment"

[STer]

 

05:00  paraphrasing:  He says if this sociopathy was kept at a low rate in a population, they'd be neutralized because they'd be at a social disadvantage.   (I completely disagree here.  Sociopaths are very adaptable and would thrive in a population that's accomodating and cooperative, because few people will have their guard up.)

 

Humans have survived on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years. There were tribes that lived quite sustainably for many thousands of years. Surely these groups, if it is an evolutionary strategy alongside the usual human strategy, would have sociopaths/psychopaths pop up many times over those thousands of years. Yet they were able to withstand their influence.

The kunlangeta story is relevant here. Often, it seems, these groups were NOT accomodating and cooperative to the psychopaths/sociopaths among them (or you could say they did what Evolution of Cooperation says is necessary to remain generally cooperative in the face of such forces.)

I think the real trouble has arisen due to increased hierarchy and technological leverage. Now it only takes a couple psychopaths/sociopaths in key positions in a hierarchy or with access to enough technology to greatly magnify their influence far beyond what was ever possible before.

[kalmia]

Sociopaths only have any place of power if those they control do not recognize them as sociopaths. 

[kalmia]

A flaw in the thinking about how people are violent if they are becoming less violent is that there is often the Out of Eden myth playing under the surface. We assume people all started out peaceful and got violent, when the opposite is more liekly reality. Think about where violent heirarchy in the form of tribalism, abusive parenting and ultimately statism were useful. Prior to human civilazation where resources were much scarcer, those who were aggressive in taking what they wanted would be the ones to survive. Civilization is an acceptance of mutually beneficial exchange. But the class of people who forcibly take what they want continues because those they take from have been conditioned to accept and even identify with them. This conditioning is passed on by parents even though there is an understanding that mutually beneficial interactions are preferable and therefore we do tend to move away from the violence.

[Mister Mister]

I think this argument can be cleared up if we distinguish what Stef is saying with the BiB series: that people who are violent toward other humans TEND to have violent childhoods. I think the evidence he presents supports this very well.

 

As far as the question "How much do Nurture or Nature influence a person's behavior/character?" that is a different and more vague matter.

[STer]

 

A flaw in the thinking about how people are violent if they are becoming less violent is that there is often the Out of Eden myth playing under the surface. We assume people all started out peaceful and got violent, when the opposite is more liekly reality. Think about where violent heirarchy in the form of tribalism, abusive parenting and ultimately statism were useful. Prior to human civilazation where resources were much scarcer, those who were aggressive in taking what they wanted would be the ones to survive. Civilization is an acceptance of mutually beneficial exchange. But the class of people who forcibly take what they want continues because those they take from have been conditioned to accept and even identify with them. This conditioning is passed on by parents even though there is an understanding that mutually beneficial interactions are preferable and therefore we do tend to move away from the violence.

 

I think of it more that out in the wild, human beings simply cannot survive without great cooperation. The evolution of cooperation is really the reason humans thrived on this planet. One on one, we fare very poorly in the wild. As cooperative groups, we do extremely well.

Thus, prior to civilization, there was a massive incentive to watch for and keep in check rogue people who would exploit the rest of the group - as in the kunlangeta story I mentioned a few posts ago. Those who were overly aggressive in taking what they wanted, at the expense of the group, posed an immediate and mortal threat to the group.

Civilization itself stemmed from a systematic violent movement, forcing pre-civilized groups to accept this way of life. We still see, to this day, indigenous groups willing to fight to the death or even commit suicide to avoid being assimilated into civilization.

[STer]

I think this argument can be cleared up if we distinguish what Stef is saying with the BiB series: that people who are violent toward other humans TEND to have violent childhoods. I think the evidence he presents supports this very well.
As far as the question "How much do Nurture or Nature influence a person's behavior/character?" that is a different and more vague matter.

 

Correlation does not equal causation. So the fact that violent people tend to have violent childhoods, even if true, wouldn't tell us what's really going on. It could be that the violence is genetic, and, thus, you'd expect violent children to have violent parents. I've made this point before. Whether violence/aggression are caused by nature or nurture, you'd expect the same thing in either case - to see violent children coming from violent families.

The problem Godwin and I and, to some extent TronCat, I believe, have is that he doesn't stick to simply pointing out this correlation and then say "And that's all we can say. Much more will be needed to make any solid claims beyond that." Nor does he simply say "This is horrific and we should reduce child abuse because it will help people."

He has gone way beyond that to build an entire political philosophy around the idea that childhood abuse is the crux of the issue and that promoting peaceful parenting is not only noble and worthwhile, but would lead to a peaceful world full of freedom. He apparently seems to say (and I still await clarification) that reducing child abuse is the #1 most important thing we can do to bring about a peaceful world. Even though I fully support reducing child abuse as much as possible, I don't know if that statement can be supported. It may be that something else is needed just as much to bring about a more peaceful world.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

"I felt that way reading the original text I quoted from your post which
seems to accuse those that support some genetic explanations and
research as motivated by their own participation in child abuse:"

No,
I said some people, not all, which I think you may have been confused
on. The rest of my comment is applicable to any position anyone holds.
In other words... we should all question our own motivations and find
out whether or not they are informed by irrational biases we developed
throughout our history.

"I also engaged in some speculation that FDR does not want to dicuss this
topic because it relies on the narrative that abused children turn out
stupid and violent in order to scare parents to be non violent because
it was more effective than convincing people all initiation of violence
is wrong."

 

By FDR I assume you mean Stef? Or the community writ large? I don't know how much of the podast series you've consumed, so you may not know this. Stef was raised in a violent and abusive home and I don't think anyone would argue that he is stupid and violent. Least of all, himself. Thus, it would be hard for him to take that position in light of the fact that it is completely contradictory to his own life history.

 

The argument regarding the lowering of IQ is not that child abuse necessarily causes a lowering of the IQ but rather that child abuse can cause a lowering of the IQ. My position on that topic is that even if abusing a child who has an IQ of 100 doesn't make it 90, it certainly hinders the child from reaching an IQ of 120. Therefore, from a lifelong standpoint, child abuse does indeed cause a lower IQ.

[godwin_anarchism]

"I also engaged in some speculation that FDR does not want to dicuss this topic because it relies on the narrative that abused children turn out stupid and violent in order to scare parents to be non violent because it was more effective than convincing people all initiation of violence is wrong."

By FDR I assume you mean Stef? Or the community writ large? I don't know how much of the podast series you've consumed, so you may not know this. Stef was raised in a violent and abusive home and I don't think anyone would argue that he is stupid and violent. Least of all, himself. Thus, it would be hard for him to take that position in light of the fact that it is completely contradictory to his own life history.

The argument regarding the lowering of IQ is not that child abuse necessarily causes a lowering of the IQ but rather that child abuse can cause a lowering of the IQ. My position on that topic is that even if abusing a child who has an IQ of 100 doesn't make it 90, it certainly hinders the child from reaching an IQ of 120. Therefore, from a lifelong standpoint, child abuse does indeed cause a lower IQ.

 

Well, now we are in agreement, but you are writing as if we are not   We're both saying that early violence doesn't lead to kids growing into stupid violent adults; Stefan and many others are living examples.  However, BIB uses that argument to scare parents to not abuse children.

It feels like the film "Reefer Madness" applied to child abuse instead of smoking pot.  In Reefer Madness the film's intent was to curb pot smoking.   It showed that pot smoking would result in becoming a junkie criminal psycho.  While wanting to prevent drug use is a good thing, the film attempts this by exaggerating the truth in order to scare people into doing the preferred behavior.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

"Well, now we are in agreement, but you are writing as if we are not"

 

I don't know that we are in agreement. My position is that abuse does cause stunted intelligence and violence in adulthood. But, I can't prove stunted intelligence (no one can) and I know that not all abused kids become violent adults. Although, more often than not, that is the case. We may agree with that but from what I've read in this thread, it seems as though you're arguing that genetics plays a larger role than environment and I firmly disagree with that notion.

 

Also, I don't take the BiB series as being even remotely comparable to Reefer Madness. To me, that would be akin to conflating Mad Max movies with actual anarchism.

 

For instance, the information in the BiB series is drawn from actual scientific studies that have been conducted in congruence with the scientific method. The information in the Reefer Madness skit was pure, unadulterated lies with absolutely no roots in science.

 

I wonder though, why do you think it is that you got the message you did from the series?

[godwin_anarchism]

I wonder though, why do you think it is that you got the message you did from the series?

 

 I felt it was emotionally manipulative.  It felt like propaganda, for a good cause.

 

I do think abuse does result in higher possibility of violence and other problems.  No I don't think genetics matters more.  I never said that.  I think genetics plays a role though.   However, the BIB series denies the role of genetics completely (in the BIB quotes I posted previously)  I think that is misleading.  It also suggested heavily that peaceful parenting will result in a peaceful society, which I don't think BIB could prove.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

Thanks for answering my question! The hard question to answer now is why did it feel emotionally manipulative?

[godwin_anarchism]

Sociopaths only have any place of power if those they control do not recognize them as sociopaths. 

 

 Yes.  The first episodes of "The Fascists..." series goes into how the clever ones are able to camouflage themselves.  So, I think they will have the edge even if they exist in small numbers. 

I don't know if Bernie Madoff was abused as a child, but I am sure that he was able to swindle so many people for so long because he used philanthropic circles he was a part of to find unsuspecting victims.

[godwin_anarchism]

 

Thanks for answering my question! The hard question to answer now is why did it feel emotionally manipulative?

 

 

... because it was deliberately misleading [ignoring the role of genetics, promising results like a peaceful society] so that it could achieve its primary objective (convincing people to stop child abuse).  That's the definition of manipulation.

[PatrickC]

... because it was deliberately misleading [ignoring the role of genetics, promising results like a peaceful society] so that it could achieve its primary objective (convincing people to stop child abuse).  That's the definition of manipulation.

Those are pretty bold (moral) assertions to make..

Not to mention the possible implication your statement (convincing people to stop child abuse) may have on those children being abused now. What exactly are you saying?

[godwin_anarchism]

 

... because it was deliberately misleading [ignoring the role of genetics, promising results like a peaceful society] so that it could achieve its primary objective (convincing people to stop child abuse).  That's the definition of manipulation.

Those are pretty bold (moral) assertions to make..

Not to mention the possible implication your statement (convincing people to stop child abuse) may have on those children being abused now. What exactly are you saying?

 

 

 I've stated what I meant in detail in preceding posts.  I'll restate it again in a way less offensive to FDRers.

I support peaceful parenting and support promoting it.  Independent of that, I support striving for an extremely reduced, or non existent government apparatus, in a method that doesn't employ violence.  BIB connects the two objectives using arguments that I disagree with.  I'm concerned that by drawing the conclusions he did in BIB4, he proposed an ineffective, incomplete strategy for accomplishing statelessness.  Once again, I support the independant objectives, but I'm not convinced they relate to each other the way he portrays it.  And I don't think people have to believe his conclusions to support both goals independently.

Details are all in previous posts, said in many ways.

[PatrickC]

I was specifically referring to your previous accusation that Stef was being "deliberately misleading" and being manipulative.

[godwin_anarchism]

 

I was specifically referring to your previous accusation that Stef was being "deliberately misleading" and being manipulative.

 

 

... and I said those reasons have been gone over many times all throughout the thread.   Basically, I feel the logic he uses to tie the two issues trying to make them reinforce each other in BIB4 are flawed and deliberately misleading.  You most likely disagree with what I've said, and it won't make any difference if I re-type it again.  We disagree.

[PatrickC]

You most likely disagree with what I've said, and it won't make any difference if I re-type it again.  We disagree.

My agreeing with your conclusions is irrelevent in this case.. You made a moral claim about his intentions, I was wondering how you could possibly stand by that claim, since it's a very bold statement.. So far I 'm experiencing deflection, which is fine, you don't have to answer me ofc.

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

 

Thanks for answering my question! The hard question to answer now is why did it feel emotionally manipulative?

 

 

... because it was deliberately misleading [ignoring the role of genetics, promising results like a peaceful society] so that it could achieve its primary objective (convincing people to stop child abuse).  That's the definition of manipulation.

 

You've inverted the motives here. The objective is to achieve a free and peaceful society. Stopping child abuse is, according to the theory, the path to achieve that objective. Other proposed theories to achieve that objective include voting, violent revolution, and going on strike from the world.

This is why I asked the question "what is the purpose of proving that violence is caused only by genetic factors?" How do you intend to put such a proof into action to achieve the primary objective of a free and peaceful society? TronCat proposes a eugenics program based on skin color.

[TronCat]

This is why I asked the question "what is the purpose of proving that violence is caused only by genetic factors?" How do you intend to put such a proof into action to achieve the primary objective of a free and peaceful society? TronCat proposes a eugenics program based on skin color.

Firstly, I have said numerous times throughout this thread that I am not arguing genetic determinism here, but rather that genes have a significant effect on the behavioral traits of an individual, over environment and social factors, and that Stefan seems to refuse to acknowledge that.

I am not excusing child abuse in this thread. I simply think Stefan's suggestion of the origin of violence is naive.

 

[godwin_anarchism]

 

You most likely disagree with what I've said, and it won't make any difference if I re-type it again.  We disagree.

My agreeing with your conclusions is irrelevent in this case.. You made a moral claim about his intentions, I was wondering how you could possibly stand by that claim, since it's a very bold statement.. So far I 'm experiencing deflection, which is fine, you don't have to answer me ofc.

 

 

 Yes.  My claim is based on my opinion that, after listening and watching a great deal of his material, I see that he is able to recognize, deconstruct and criticize other political propaganda and the methods used, yet is willing to employ those methods himself to advance his (moral) causes.

[godwin_anarchism]

 After watching the BIB series twice, this is what I am perceiving to be the argument to tie together the issues of child abuse and anarchy in BIB Part 4:

1.  most people cannot process reason2.  if they could process reason, they would be able to see that the state is initiation of violence3.  initiation of violence is immoral4.  people want to be moral.  they are not able to use reason to process that there is a contradiction in wanting to be moral and wanting the state.5.  so why can't they process reason? people cannot process reason because their brain is damaged6.  the damage is cause by early childhood trauma7.  therefore, if we stop child abuse, people's brains won't be damaged, will be able to reason and recognize that the state is immoral and unnecessary.8.  if we accomplish (7) we will be able to eliminate the need for the state.9. therefore, if we want (8) our priorities and energies should be focused on stopping early childhood trauma.

Before discussing this topic further, it would help if we confirm whether on not we see the same thing in BIB. Then, we can discuss where it is someone might have a problem with any of it.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

That's a good assessment of the argument but it still doesn't address why you think it is that you perceived the series as emotionally manipulative.

 

For instance, am I and the others who disagree with your original claim not smart enough to see it? Are we too biased? Have we not studied enough evidence? Has Stef not studdied enough? Have we studied too much?  More importantly, are you reacting to something in this presentation that causes an uncomfortable feeling? Are you more prone to such feelings and if so, why? Have you studied enough information? etc...

 

It's hard to answer those questions about ourselves but the degree of difficulty is the degree of importance of the task as it relates to making a truth claim about another person's motivations or appeals.

[STer]

 

That's a good assessment of the argument but it still doesn't address why you think it is that you perceived the series as emotionally manipulative.

 

For instance, am I and the others who disagree with your original claim not smart enough to see it? Are we too biased? Have we not studied enough evidence? Has Stef not studdied enough? Have we studied too much?  More importantly, are you reacting to something in this presentation that causes an uncomfortable feeling? Are you more prone to such feelings and if so, why? Have you studied enough information? etc...

 

It's hard to answer those questions about ourselves but the degree of difficulty is the degree of importance of the task as it relates to making a truth claim about another person's motivations or appeals.

 

I'm finding this kind of distraction frustrating. Godwin has put forth a very straightforward explanation of Stef's argument in BIB and made a claim that that argument is faulty. As empiricists, at that point, we should be having a discussion about:

1) Is that an accurate account of Stefan's argument? (which would be greatly assisted if Stefan would finally lay out if that is indeed his argument or not)

2) If that is Stefan's argument, is it logically valid and supported by evidence?

That's really it. There is no reason for Godwin to be questioned on "What is your motivation for raising this point?" or "Why did you notice this and not us?" Those may be interesting discussions, but are unrelated to the topic at hand and I think they are used to continue not to face the crux of the issue.

I personally agree that it is a leap to say that because many statists are unreasonable and child abuse is one cause of being unreasonable, therefore the main way to bring about a peaceful society is by reducing child abuse.

Also I like very much how Godwin stated this. You can support either or both of the ideas of reducing child abuse and bringing about a more peaceful world and still not agree that child abuse is the PRIMARY cause in why we have violence and aggression. I think Stefan is doing some conflating that isn't merited. And pointing out and questioning that conflation does not tell you anything about someone's views on either of the issues being conflated - only on their view of how they relate to each other.

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

 After watching the BIB series twice, this is what I am perceiving to be the argument to tie together the issues of child abuse and anarchy in BIB Part 4:

1.  most people cannot process reason
2.  if they could process reason, they would be able to see that the state is initiation of violence
3.  initiation of violence is immoral
4.  people want to be moral.  they are not able to use reason to process that there is a contradiction in wanting to be moral and wanting the state.
5.  so why can't they process reason? people cannot process reason because their brain is damaged
6.  the damage is cause by early childhood trauma
7.  therefore, if we stop child abuse, people's brains won't be damaged, will be able to reason and recognize that the state is immoral and unnecessary.
8.  if we accomplish (7) we will be able to eliminate the need for the state.
9. therefore, if we want (8) our priorities and energies should be focused on stopping early childhood trauma.

Before discussing this topic further, it would help if we confirm whether on not we see the same thing in BIB. Then, we can discuss where it is someone might have a problem with any of it.

 

Your transition from 5 to 7 is a bit abbreviated. Childhood trauma is not the only cause of brain damage. It is the most pervasive and least understood. Child abuse is not the only form of trauma. If you examine the ACE survey, you'll see that the death of a parent, divorce and witness to spousal abuse are clearly listed. http://www.acestudy.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/ACE_Calculator-English.127143712.pdf

 

Godwin has put forth a very straightforward explanation of Stef's argument in BIB and made a claim that that argument is faulty. As empiricists, at that point, we should be having a discussion about:

 

For someone that continually self-describes as an empiricist, you certainly aren't very good at it. Godwin has inquired about whether his explanation of Stef's argument is accurate, and has made NO CLAIM that the argument is faulty yet conversant to that explanation. You have a serious problem with confirmation bias.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

I don't agree that her explanation was straight forward. We have discussed her comparison of BiB with Reefer Madness and she did not refute what I said. Xelent also commented that her claims of emotional manipulation were extraordinary and yes, it is an important part of the conversation. It is especially important given that one can not be rational and empirical without knowledge of why he/she reacts to something in a given way.

 

For instance, if I've had a child who was killed by a drunk driver, it would be hard for me to approach the topic of drunk driving legislation rationally. In fact, that sort of emotional reaction is arguably at the root of the draconian laws most of the world suffers.

 

I'm not asserting that Godwin suffers from this sort of reaction. I'm merely asking if she has asked herself those questions. And it's not me who needs those answers, it is she.