The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

Now that's a strawman.

Concerned about what?



Which point do you believe required a counter-argument? As I stated, I addressed all of your points. If you had said anything of substance which required more than a simple dismissal, you can be assured I would have provided substance of my own.



I ridiculed your suggestion that it was my "Western Propaganda" and that it was somehow obfuscating the 'real' China from my view. Your conclusion is based on a flawed premise.



Relevance?

Wasn't it more of a theory rather than ad hominien. I mean she was just raising it as a very possibility that is all. How is it a personal attack explain please?

Forget it being directed towards you how was it a personal attack against the hypothetical person you claim it was?

Well being doesn't anti women's autonomy match up to a level, since they do not favor a woman having a right to an abortion. She did not say these people were anti women she just stated they disagreed with the notion that a woman should have full autonomy.

Isn't using the word advantage statistically proven as well remember the 2016 election, those of high income tend to back more conservative policies and vote republican.

Well does privilege influence their decision making?

A rich person may look at their own living standards and think that abortion is wrong because a child could eventually live a life like them. Wouldn't someone feel guilty over them having a good life but their society denying other people that chance. Its the same way we feel guilty that a homeless man doesn't have what he needs.

Last edited by Shahunshah on 27 Nov 2016, 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How is what Androbot said a false representation for others?

It must feel nice for some people.

Once again, I defined it as "a strawman in ad hominem clothing aimed at hypothetical people". A logical absurdity if you will.



Do you mean either:

A: how was it a personal attack against a hypothetical person?
or
B: how is it an ad hominem?

If you're asking A, then you're still missing the point. If you're asking B, I already explained that to you.



They're hypothetical people, Shahunshah. They don't exist and therefore have no agency with which to disagree.



What statistical data do you have regarding hypothetical people?



Hypothetical people don't make decisions. Unless you're talking about "high income republican voters", in which case this will become even more odious than it presently is.



How many rich anti-abortioners hold that viewpoint? Are you now contending that there are significant numbers of actual people who are financially advantaged, that have simplistic foundations for their moral leanings and whose motivations are a desire to deny autonomy to women and the need to assuage guilt at being successful? Do you believe this is an appropriate representation of your average person who is anti-abortion? How many of them can you justifiably label as "anti-women's autonomy enthusiasts"?



How many someone's? Are they statistically relevant if they exist? Do they fit the hypothetical profile being suggested? My contention is not "there is no person who might fit some of the traits in androbot01's hypothetical profile". This line of speculation is both ridiculous and pointless.



"We" who? What role did you play in the homeless man's downfall? Most people who offer aid or charity to the homeless do so out of sympathy and empathy, not guilt. Philanthropy that is motivated primarily by self-service is not charity.

Well let's think about this, the majority of White Middle Class voters judging from the voter demographic pick the socially conservative Republican party over the more liberal Democratic party. These people fit the profile deescription that you adammantly claim does not exist.

Republicans like Newt Gingrich who came into sway in the 1990s also emphasize this as people voted for him. He is a social conservative who disagrees strongly with abortion but was also backed by people who are Middle class and hold a position of great wealth in society.

Gult may actually be a factor not just empathy. When someone does not give money to a homeless person the person may feel like they are not doing enough to help. When people oppose abortion this may be a feeling they have.

And yes privellege may be a factor in the pro life position. People of high income tend to vote Republican and identify with conservatism.

Sometimes poor trailer trash vote Republican and sometimes middle class people from the coasts vote Democrat.

I don't see abortion as an issue of class, I see it as an issue of religion. It's usually the religious people who are against abortion. Some of them think people suffering in this life is justified if they get infinite reward in Heaven.

However, it was not always a religious issue going back to the beginning of the church. The Bible is pro-abortion. The linkage between Christianity and being against abortion goes back only as far as the late 70s.

Writing gobbledygook is counter-productive.
The hypothetical I think you are referring to, "...guilt because of their advantaged experience," is a question not a claim.

The part you ignored, "anti-women's autonomy enthusiasts assume is that their life being something they value means that every life will have the same value or desirability," I really wish you would address. Previously you have stated that my claim comes from negativity, but I think it's realistic to assume that not all lives will be worth living. What I don't understand about your perspective is that life is worth living even when it's not, just because life of any human composition is better existing than not. Is this because the suffering in life is supposed to get you to heaven? If not, then why? Why is human existence so important?

So we finally have an assertion. Let's examine that profile description, as provided by androbot01.

- Is enthusiastically against women's autonomy
- Incapable of realising that outcomes vary from person to person
- Despite this, feels guilty at having an outcome that is 'better' than another person.
- Is motivated against abortion due to this cognitive dissonance.

So you're claiming that these characteristics are applicable to "the majority of White Middle Class voters"?



Define "great wealth". Trying to justify your claim by adding "Voted for Newt Gingrich" to the profile is actually a weakening of your model which is already based on someone else's logically absurd musings rather than on, for example, demographic data.



In how many instances? What are the stats? What observations do psychologists or sociologists make?



And they may feel nauseous, angry, amused or any one of the entire spectrum of irrational human emotions. What evidence do you have that a: your chosen emotion is common and b: a significant factor in defining one's moral position on the subject of abortion?



When people are pro abortion, they may be feeling gleeful at the thought of another life being snuffed out. They may be motivated by a desire to see harm befall others. They may get a sense of smug superiority at the thought that someone was somehow weaker or less capable than they are, that they're too stupid to make sensible decisions and they gain affirmation through viewing the face of every tortured woman who walks through the surgery door.

Or they may just be among the majority of people who don't fit into convenient narratives which are designed to bypass the requirement that you perceive the people whose views oppose your own as human beings, rather than as avatars upon which you paint your subjective moral negatives.



How? Demonstrate the process of cause and effect.



Again, what do you mean by "high income". What's your threshold? Are you making the mistake of calling the American working class "privileged"?

By way of an FYI. I believe I've been very accommodating here by taking time to respond to your posts. If you continue to ignore the multitude of questions and points I'm raising, and persist in throwing out a stream of unfounded hypothetical "x may y" statements, I'll consider it an imposition.

In this example, the person would feel that their good quality of life is something that is natural. That it is right that they should enjoy a positive experience of existence. When they see a woman aborting possible offspring, it is a slap in the face to their belief in the pleasantness, desirability and deservedness of existence. They believe that everyone can share in their positive experience, which is a nice thought. But the reality doesn't work out that way.

But claiming something is gobbledygook is not? Your lack of comprehension is not evidence of incomprehensibility. If you require an explanation by all means ask for one - though you should be able to glean that from my exchanges with Shahunshah.



It was pondering, abstract thought, not a question. The hypothetical people I'm referring to are the ones which you have manufactured. Unless, of course, you are referring to actual people, in which case I'd need to see some examples that fit the profile before passing further comment.



Why should I address it? It's not my position, it's your imaginary position as applied to hypothetical people.



That's not your decision to make. What you deem worthy or worthwhile is not universal, it's your subjective opinion. To demonstrate this, if faced with the choice, which of the following would you prefer to suffer (or, if you prefer, which would impact the quality of your life the least?):

1: blindness
2: deafness
3: paralysis from the waist down
4: severe autism



The reason you don't understand my perspective is that you insist on fabricating it rather than listening to what it actually is. Like the above example.



1: I'm an atheist.
2: You'd have to ask someone whose views resemble those you've falsely attributed to myself.



How would you feel if someone murdered your family, your friends and anyone else who is close to you? Human existence is the foundation upon which all our values are based. Without human existence, none of your opinions have value. It's interesting that you objected to the idea that your position is negative, yet you're now making a nihilistic argument.

Guys, isn't it about time we stopped feeding this troll? He only wants to get a reaction from us. Life's too short to waste time on him

Can you present someone who fits the profile? Do you know anyone who does? This is precisely why I objected to your hypothetical profile as a logical absurdity. It doesn't serve to advance the conversation. The question then becomes one of your own motivation. Despite my dislike of speculation on the motivation of others, perhaps this can serve as an example of why I avoid doing so:

Are you advancing the hypothesis in the knowledge that it will frustrate the progress of the discussion? Do you mean to suggest that your hypothetical profile actually represents a significant number of people who hold an opposing viewpoint to yourself (i.e. a general strawman)? Or are you confused that numerous people have moral principles that are not in alignment with your own, and need to manufacture a mental shortcut in order to dismiss opposing views without confronting the possibility that your own position is built on flimsier foundations than you believed?

I'd lean towards that latter simply on the basis that this seems to be something of a trend - you've certainly misrepresented my own position many times. Of course, I'm not privy to all available information, so, as I stated, I'm confined to speculation. It might simply be that this is just another example of people on the spectrum who have a spectacularly difficult time understanding the motivations of other people, and with ToM in general. If so, then I hope you'll understand why I typically refrain from offering my perception of other people's motives, emotional states, mental limitations, moralistic leanings, etc and why I expect the same from others.

Incidentally, this is also why I ask numerous questions when such are not offered. My motivation for doing so is the seeking of clarity, as I cannot discuss your opinions if you do not offer them.

On the subject of not making a constructive contribution to the discussion:

How I would feel is not relevant to the value of their lives. Are you suggesting that abortions should be prohibited because it makes people feel bad?


I'm not sure his motivation is "to get a reaction;" it could be that he needs to put others down in order to secure his idea of himself as superior.


I'm wondering why people want to interfere in a woman's reproductive rights. Obviously some people feel passionately about this; I don't like not understanding why.