Scar wrote:Sad, but she is indeed real.

Send from my z10 via Tapatalk and magic

How do you know, what kind of evidence is there of this?

You should be skeptical without more verification. I disagree that there are not people like this if that is your insinuation. If you bet on this you are basically flipping a coin. That is, with the supposition that they are all actors and not just one antagonist which may lower the odds. Obvious asserts certainty. Lay me 20 to 1 odds and I would take that bet, provided that by staged you mean scripted. This obviously would not be practical to bet with on for real.If the suggestion is that she dyed her hair for this and purposely created a scene that is possible but not a certainty. I'd want hard evidence of course being a true skeptic.

orpheus wrote:

Fallible wrote:I don't wish to cause a ruckus here, but it actually does induce a real feeling of dread in some people when they imagine losing a loved one with whom they have spent many years and having to grow old alone. I don't find anything particularly strange about considering that to be a disadvantage. The dead person is gone, they don't feel anything. The one left behind is the one suffering.

I see your point, Fallible, and I certainly sympathize. It's very hard for the one who must face going on alone, especially late in one's years.

But I only make two points:

1) it's wrong for people to minimize the disadvantage for the one who dies. Sure, they can't feel anything when they're dead. But what about before that? How does it feel to look ahead and know you're likely to have less time alive? Becausenits a disadvantage for the woman doesn't mean it's not also a disadvantage for the man. It's not a zero-sum game. The disparity is not a good thing for either partner.

2) turn it around. What would women say if they were the ones with shorter lifespans? Wouldn't they raise a hue and cry about what a disadvantage it is to die earlier?

Who is minimising the disadvantage of the one who dies? I'm not looking at this as an either-or, or from the sole perspective of women, orph. The tone of your original post (which by the way I think turned the actual argument into it being about the defenceless woman being left to fend for herself in a scary world rather than her simply losing a longtime companion and having to soldier on through the grief and the new reality alone) suggested that you were incredulous at the notion that women being left alone and grieving when their partner dies might count as a disadvantage. Of course it counts. This doesn't mean that dying earlier is not a disadvantage as well. Both situations are, for different reasons. The same would be true if it were the men who were left alone more. Surely it can't be hard to see that being alone and grief-stricken is a disadvantage to a person, whatever sex they are. This has nothing to do with gender beyond the simple fact that men on average die sooner, and so it's the women who find themselves alone. I hate the contest atmosphere that seems inevitable in this kind of discussion. Surely we can agree that suffering is disadvantageous in whatever form it occurs, and one party's suffering doesn't automatically take away from another's lot.

Thommo wrote:

orpheus wrote:

Fallible wrote:I don't wish to cause a ruckus here, but it actually does induce a real feeling of dread in some people when they imagine losing a loved one with whom they have spent many years and having to grow old alone. I don't find anything particularly strange about considering that to be a disadvantage. The dead person is gone, they don't feel anything. The one left behind is the one suffering.

I see your point, Fallible, and I certainly sympathize. It's very hard for the one who must face going on alone, especially late in one's years.

But I only make two points:

1) it's wrong for people to minimize the disadvantage for the one who dies. Sure, they can't feel anything when they're dead. But what about before that? How does it feel to look ahead and know you're likely to have less time alive? Becausenits a disadvantage for the woman doesn't mean it's not also a disadvantage for the man. It's not a zero-sum game. The disparity is not a good thing for either partner.

2) turn it around. What would women say if they were the ones with shorter lifespans? Wouldn't they raise a hue and cry about what a disadvantage it is to die earlier?

I get what you're both saying, but I think a third path is available to us here, which is to ask whether it really matters from an equal rights perspective who has the worst deal. If I've learned anything from this thread it's how ugly the contest for "privilege" or "who has it worst" can look. Family and loved ones dying is tragic for everyone involved, but sadly we can't prevent death from old age and I think reasonable folks have enough empathy to go around. I'd like to think that we can avoid turning bereavement into a political struggle (ok yes, in the week Thatcher died that might sound a bit thin, but I can dream, right?)

Absolutely my point. As I just said, this is not a gender issue or a suffering contest.

Fallible wrote:Absolutely my point. As I just said, this is not a gender issue or a suffering contest.

Very much, I'm in agreement with you on this.

Thommo wrote:

Fallible wrote:Absolutely my point. As I just said, this is not a gender issue or a suffering contest.

Very much, I'm in agreement with you on this.

I agree also - wholeheartedly. And I'm sorry, Fallible - I can see how my original post wasn't clear. Of course there's suffering for both the one who dies earlier and the one who is left behind. Enormous suffering - of different kinds. I don't think it should be a competition. My point (unclear as it may have been) was that the women I was referring to did try to paint a picture of only women suffering. They were the ones who dismissed the idea that mens' shorter average lifespan is in any way a disadvantage. They insisted on seeing it as a zero-sum game; not me.

Again, my apologies for being unclear.

orpheus wrote:

TMB wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

orpheus wrote:

(bold mine)

An excellent way of phrasing it. I may borrow this in the future, if it's ok with you. (Giving credit, of course.)

Yes of course, feel free to use it. You don't need to give me any credit.  :cheers:

Surely the difference is simpler than this. the fact that women tend to live longer than men is an advantage, while the fact that womens only events have been created to allow women to compete as elite athletes in the Olympics and similar events is benevolent sexism.

I have actually heard women say that womens' average longer lifespan is a disadvantage - as just one more unfair problem that women face. The "reasoning" goes like this: because men die earlier, older women are left alone, abandoned, having to fend for themselves in a hostile world.

Granted, I haven't heard this often, but I have heard it. No kidding. 

This raises a fundamental question about the value of life itself and how it is valued against the quality of that life. Its an exceptionally difficult conversation because we have been programmed to maintain life almost regardless of the quality of the life. We confront these issues around euthanasia where we attempt to maintain life even though it is simply maintaining a short period of intense and pointless suffering.

If we are trying to decide if to live in misery is better than dying, we might simply point to the fact that if a persons life is that miserable then they end it, and we do see instances where people make a choice to die as the alternative of life seems to be worse. I still think that life is something we value more than being dead, and only in extreme cases do we make decisions to choose death. This does not mean that life is free of suffering and pain, clearly it is not, and we all suffer to different degrees depending upon many variables. It must be worth asking if there are fundamental differences between men and women in the way they experience life innately such that you can compare which gender has a less miserable life. Despite my arguments I have posted about men being at a disadvantage compared to women due to shorter life, higher suicide rate, higher homelessness, I think men might need less than women and still be relatively satisfied with life. I think women place higher demands upon life and set a higher standard to be satisfied with life than men do.

TMB wrote: I still think that life is something we value more than being dead, and only in extreme cases do we make decisions to choose death.

Oh, this hand-wringing, again. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Cito di Pense wrote:

TMB wrote: I still think that life is something we value more than being dead, and only in extreme cases do we make decisions to choose death.

Oh, this hand-wringing, again. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

To be fair, the notion that someone contemplates (or even acts upon) the idea of suicide is indicative of some deeper issue.

No healthy mind faces its own demise with equanimity.

Source: me

Cito di Pense wrote:

TMB wrote:
I still think that life is something we value more than being dead

and only in extreme cases do we make decisions to choose death

Oh this hand wringing again . Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem

When every last one of us has entered that state of eternal non consciousness shall the human race then be at peace

Just A Theory wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

TMB wrote: I still think that life is something we value more than being dead, and only in extreme cases do we make decisions to choose death.

Oh, this hand-wringing, again. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

To be fair, the notion that someone contemplates (or even acts upon) the idea of suicide is indicative of some deeper issue.

No healthy mind faces its own demise with equanimity.

Source: me

I have to ask how one defines a healthy mind. We might be tempted to equate this to a rational mind, however there is not much evidence to suggest that many or most humans are capable of sustained rational thinking. While I accept that there are many pathologies, however poorly defined that lead people to making 'unhealthy' decisions, yet our inclination to stay alive is simply an adaption that is self sustaining. I imagine that many suicide 'decisions' are taken due to temporary circumstances that might not seem so bad with hindsight, but there are also cases where its clear the quality of life for a terminally ill person with chronic pain does not want their last moments to be insufferable and death must surely be the logically better option.

TMB wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

TMB wrote: I still think that life is something we value more than being dead, and only in extreme cases do we make decisions to choose death.

Oh, this hand-wringing, again. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

To be fair, the notion that someone contemplates (or even acts upon) the idea of suicide is indicative of some deeper issue.

No healthy mind faces its own demise with equanimity.

Source: me

I have to ask how one defines a healthy mind.

I think it's possible with little risk to say that if it's dead, it isn't healthy. Dead things are dead. If its on its way to becoming dead, then it's dying, which is not usually considered very healthy either. It's been pointed out that perfect health is simply the slowest possible rate at which to die.

When my gall bladder was trying to kill me, it was unhealthy. That's not too difficult to understand. The word "healthy" does mean something. When my brain was trying to kill me, it was unhealthy, too. (I got better).

We might be tempted to equate this to a rational mind, however there is not much evidence to suggest that many or most humans are capable of sustained rational thinking. While I accept that there are many pathologies, however poorly defined that lead people to making 'unhealthy' decisions, yet our inclination to stay alive is simply an adaption that is self sustaining.

Yeah. It's called "health." Mirabile dictu.

I imagine that many suicide 'decisions' are taken due to temporary circumstances that might not seem so bad with hindsight, but there are also cases where its clear the quality of life for a terminally ill person with chronic pain does not want their last moments to be insufferable and death must surely be the logically better option.

Gee, I wonder if someone with chronic pain and a terminal illness can be called unhealthy. Ya think, maybe?

I wonder if all this nonsense may be based on some residual conviction, amongst people who should know better, that the mind is somehow magically different from the brain which is somehow magically different from the other organs.

epepke wrote:

TMB wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Oh, this hand-wringing, again. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

To be fair, the notion that someone contemplates (or even acts upon) the idea of suicide is indicative of some deeper issue.

No healthy mind faces its own demise with equanimity.

Source: me

I have to ask how one defines a healthy mind.

I think it's possible with little risk to say that if it's dead, it isn't healthy. Dead things are dead. If its on its way to becoming dead, then it's dying, which is not usually considered very healthy either. It's been pointed out that perfect health is simply the slowest possible rate at which to die.

When my gall bladder was trying to kill me, it was unhealthy. That's not too difficult to understand. The word "healthy" does mean something. When my brain was trying to kill me, it was unhealthy, too. (I got better).

We might be tempted to equate this to a rational mind, however there is not much evidence to suggest that many or most humans are capable of sustained rational thinking. While I accept that there are many pathologies, however poorly defined that lead people to making 'unhealthy' decisions, yet our inclination to stay alive is simply an adaption that is self sustaining.

Yeah. It's called "health." Mirabile dictu.

I imagine that many suicide 'decisions' are taken due to temporary circumstances that might not seem so bad with hindsight, but there are also cases where its clear the quality of life for a terminally ill person with chronic pain does not want their last moments to be insufferable and death must surely be the logically better option.

Gee, I wonder if someone with chronic pain and a terminal illness can be called unhealthy. Ya think, maybe?

I wonder if all this nonsense may be based on some residual conviction, amongst people who should know better, that the mind is somehow magically different from the brain which is somehow magically different from the other organs.

Epepke, what are you hoping to achieve with this post?

If this forum is about rational scepticism, would we see posts that are clearly aimed at trying to advance everyones understanding of reality, through a cooperative process while still ensuring a sceptical approach through rational reduction of peoples assertions and assumptions, something I am not seeing in your post. However, there are many uncountable things people try and achieve with their posts, so what is behind your last post?

Cito di Pense wrote:

TMB wrote: I still think that life is something we value more than being dead, and only in extreme cases do we make decisions to choose death.

Oh, this hand-wringing, again. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Really? You are going to post a cliche. And you know what they say about cliches...

More great thoughts from the {fill in the blank} scholar of Internet wisdom.

Skinny Puppy wrote:More great thoughts from the {fill in the blank} scholar of Internet wisdom.

The funniest thing about that is that this was her introduction for a video to raise money for blood cancer research. Who the hell starts a charity video like that !?!

Here's Thunderf00t's reaction:

Sheesh. Rebecca Watson seems like a bit of a dork.

Interestingly, the wiki page cited above seems to have been 'cleaned up' now.

Help Cancer Research by insulting every single male on YouTube!

Now she’ll be able to cherry pick some nasty comments and get invited to a bunch of “Skeptic Conferences” (the last thing those conferences are is skeptical with RW as a speaker) and she’ll have a cute and amusing talk about the rampant misogyny on YouTube and the audience (with piss running down their legs in righteous indignation) will give her a standing ovation and (the audience) will get the prize for the most dull-headed group of dimwits ever in one audience, at one time, west of the Pecos.

Those conferences charge for admission... I won’t attend one of those wank fests if they paid me to go.

Skinny Puppy wrote:Help Cancer Research by insulting every single male on YouTube!

Now she’ll be able to cherry pick some nasty comments and get invited to a bunch of “Skeptic Conferences” (the last thing those conferences are is skeptical with RW as a speaker) and she’ll have a cute and amusing talk about the rampant misogyny on YouTube and the audience (with piss running down their legs in righteous indignation) will give her a standing ovation and (the audience) will get the prize for the most dull-headed group of dimwits ever in one audience, at one time, west of the Pecos.

Those conferences charge for admission... I won’t attend one of those wank fests if they paid me to go.

Totally agree. I read some of the blogs about it all and I thought "surely they can't be that bad, they're meant to be rational after all". But they are. It's basically agree with every single thing they say or get banned, or you are a MRA, or you hate women (obviously), or you're a rape apologist (I've got no fucking idea what that even means). Either way it's a good place to avoid.

Feminism is an ideology that no right minded skeptic should touch, though we all know atheists are gullible fools. I don't care about debating it on this thread as I just want to get the ideologues away from my MGTOW discussion.