Phi for All

You are, but I blame Mr Spock from Star Trek. He never used formal logic, but he became synonymous with the word "logical", and now whole generations are using a bad definition.

The OP wants to discuss formal logic. What you're commenting on is more like "reasonableness", or "things that make sense to me".

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please.

Overgeneralization is the simple part. Assertions like this need more though, otherwise you're just soapboxing. Do you have any evidence to support them?

! Moderator Note You can only have one of these accounts. Sockpuppets are against the rules. Which one would you like to keep?

The long-time members have all been through the process of learning to avoid behavior that hampers discussion, but we still see a lot of posts that attack people instead of ideas, and fallacious logic being used as arguments. It's always good to remind ourselves that having peers to discuss things with is a very valuable tool, and it needs to be cared for respectfully. You lot are often the sanest part of my day, and it's really appreciated. Many of the newbies don't understand discussion, and tend towards blogging or making over-generalized statements. There was a recent one where the poster claimed something universal about all vegetarians, and when called out on it, they dialed it back to "many may feel this way". How can they know they're likely to be downvoted or chastised if they jump on a soapbox right away? It's obvious a lot of new joins aren't reading the rules first.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. It's not a pulpit or a soapbox for your grievances. Pick part of this rant and decide what you want others to join you in discussing. And please avoid generalizations and assertions you can't support, like your last sentence. Do better, please.

Cultsmash has been banned for confusing their soapboxy ranting for interesting discussion, and other abuses nobody here deserves. Hopefully, we're really the last forum that has to deal with them.

! Moderator Note OK, that's all for you here.

! Moderator Note Let's have NO MORE of that, please. Use the words that are written.

And you've distilled them all down to a few remarks that fit your worldview, yes, we get it. You so great. Discussion should be interesting, though. Do you think this prejudice of yours is interesting?

I'm sure she and other women feel safer knowing you're out there trying to fix their lives via internet photographs.

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please.

So you're slow to realize that the words you use in this context are important. I'll repeat it again, it's easier to commoditize slaves in our minds than it is to think about keeping enslaved humans, because you're removing their humanity. I feel similarly about torture.

OK, but I didn't mention slavery itself. I mentioned how we still justify the past kidnapping and enslaving real people by thinking of them as "slaves", like a commodity bought and sold, and are only now coming to realize how harmful even that thinking was. A slave just isn't the same thing as an enslaved human. I think there must be similar nuance wrt torture for our modern times, or we're not progressing.

I hope it's been shown that you can devise a scenario in which people are painted into a corner that makes torture seem like a valid solution to the problem. Considering how many hoops you need to jump through to make it seem justified, perhaps this is a signal that torture doesn't align itself well with modern humanity. After all, we're slowly realizing that slaves were actually people who were kidnapped and enslaved, so maybe there's something undeniably wrong about torturing another person that we're not realizing... yet.

I don't agree at all. The only way, imo, that you make torture effective even in the extreme scenarios we've been talking about is to have a professional torturer, someone who could be effective (if that's possible) and still retain their sanity, if such a "person" exists. How can the choice of torturers be irrelevant when you then assert that the father would be "a poor choice for a number of different reasons"?

Then this is probably where we differ. I think you're assuming the father can make do with a few broken fingers, and enough blood to make the perp say he's sorry while he's telling him where the child can be found. You know, manly macho tough guy stuff. I think you're forgetting that the father may have to pay a much steeper price if he has to use some acid, flay some skin, and pull some teeth and fingernails to get information, even if it's accurate. I hope the state that sent this father into the kidnapper's cell will pay for therapy for the rest of his life. It was a criminal burden they put on that father.

Absolutely. And almost all of them are better than this one. Not my argument at all. In fact, in your scenario, I had already assumed the kidnapper in custody was guilty. My argument is that it would NEVER be right for the authorities to allow the father to torture the kidnapper. You replied, "Agreed". Aren't you assuming that there's nothing worse for this father than having their child kidnapped? Aren't you assuming all it will take is some pleading, or threatening, or beating the shit out of the kidnapper to make him divulge the location of the child? Aren't you assuming the father will be able to justify whatever he did every time he sees his child safe and sound? Much of this sounds like macho bullshit, a simple kneejerk reaction to an intensely complicated scenario. In real life, if the kidnapper won't tell, how far do you go? While I'm sure my child would be grateful to be alive, would they recognize me if I could justify the evil things I did to a human bound to a chair?

I don't think it would EVER be right for the authorities to put a father alone in a jail cell with the kidnapper of his child.

Have you tried searching with your computer?

Frankly, I'm appalled at the suggestion that a father torture a kidnapper for information about the location of his child. I might be interested in discussing the effects of torture on the torturer (especially in the case of the father pressing the kidnapper on the whereabouts of his child). The assumption is that there's nothing worse than losing your child, coupled with the assumption that recovering the child should be done at any cost. But you've reduced my interest in your OP by insisting on the parameters you have. The way you're approaching this, anyone who answers "no" has to argue against an unlimited amount of scenarios you can dream up. It feels cherry-picked and designed to appeal to emotion.

Are the feminists threatening the lives of the trans-females with beatings and guns and violent overthrow? Is there a feminist Jordan Peterson out there claiming you can't fully respect anyone you could easily beat up? I thought the women who feel their territory is being invaded by trans-females were working intellectually to change rules and laws, rather than physically bullying those they oppose.

Perhaps important enough for its own thread, but many downvotes seem aimed at repeated fallacies (mostly strawman and ad hom) where exactly this happens. There is a heavy tendency (especially in Politics) to use the argument that if you don't support x, it must mean you support y, and I think folks get tired of correcting such misrepresentations only in rebuttal. Repeated use of fallacies is against the rules but probably one of the hardest to be strict about. It's frustrating to discuss anything when you feel your points are misrepresented. Do we need to have some meta-threads about discussion among peers? I think no system is worse than this system, but no system is more honest than a like-only system. I didn't mean to suggest it's predominantly those not involved in the discussion, just that not all the votes are eligible for the "petty weapon" category.

I'll dig a bit deeper today, but many of the red & green points given in recent politics threads aren't from participants in the thread. To me, these represent the "Hear, hear!" and "Boo!" votes from folks who don't really have much to add to what's been said. I'm not sure these are the votes you're concerned about. Also, I'm watching at least one new person who seems to have a grudge against a long-time member and regularly downvotes them, but the rest of the members have been correcting it with upvotes, so it fell off my radar. This part of the system seems to clean itself fairly well. For the rest of it, I dislike the idea of a like-only system on a science forum. I know this is social media for lots of members, and the value of positivity in discourse is important, but I don't think any science discussions will be improved by removing any of the tools we use for measurement. I'd rather do away with all reputation if you don't like any part of it. It seems wrong to only allow the "Hear, hear!" and not the "Boo!" votes. It wouldn't hurt me or most long-time members. It removes a way for inquisitive newbies to gauge replies from some of our members who've been less than civil but not blatantly so, or who're repeatedly wrong (which isn't against the rules as long as you don't preach), or who argue using any of the annoying habits people regularly get downvoted for.