The steelman challenge

Challenge: a poster posits a position, someone who is opposed to that position attempt to steelman it.

Steelman=To refute a stronger version of an argument than what was actually given; to repair flaws in an argument before refuting it. quotations

Label the argument and poster you're addressing, then go to town. (This is for organizational purposes and if there's a better way then do that)

This is opposite to a straw man.

Another form of argument construction is put forth by Daniel dennett, as follows:

1.) You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
2.) You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3.) You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4.) Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Some arguments I have.

Empathy is largely misunderstood and most often not a good thing.

There is no evidence for a creator deity, irreducible complexity is not an argument.

Sex is determined by chromosomes, gender reflects this to a large degree.

The state is a predatory entity.

Spanking is disgusting and child abuse.

1. Please elaborate on the empathy argument.

2. I agree

3. I think our understanding of how gene expression works is at an equivalent stage of when we first postulated the atom. I.e there will be a deeper level to it that we will discover down the line in much the same way that we subsequently learned about protons, neutrons and electrons then onto quarks, gluons, leptons, bosons.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
1. Please elaborate on the empathy argument.

2. I agree

3. I think our understanding of how gene expression works is at an equivalent stage of when we first postulated the atom. I.e there will be a deeper level to it that we will discover down the line in much the same way that we subsequently learned about protons, neutrons and electrons then onto quarks, gluons, leptons, bosons.

Empathy is sympathy + ego centrism/narcissism.
Paul bloom wrote a book on it called against emapthy and I follow his line of thinking.

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-compassion-paul-bloom

I agree with what you say on genes, more nuanced than the cultural marxist b.s. and the more traditional based view. Both are dogmatic and don't allow the scientific method to do it's work aka updating bad info with better info.

Empathy is not sympathy+ego. It's trying to understand another person's predicament.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Empathy is sympathy + ego centrism/narcissism.

that's some psychopathic algebra

Originally posted by Blakemore
Empathy is not sympathy+ego. It's trying to understand another person's predicament.

Did you read the article I posted ? I could post a video of Paul bloom if video is more digestable

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Empathy is sympathy + ego centrism/narcissism.
Paul bloom wrote a book on it called against emapthy and I follow his line of thinking.

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-compassion-paul-bloom

I agree with what you say on genes, more nuanced than the cultural marxist b.s. and the more traditional based view. Both are dogmatic and don't allow the scientific method to do it's work aka updating bad info with better info.

I've only read some of the interview so far and some of it certainly is factually noticeable. It also feeds in to what I mean about consumers disconnect from the actions of corporations in places where they don't live.

He seems to see empathy as something entirely reactive though. Rather than something that can be proactively engaged. So rather than "feeling" someone else's pain you can help to prevent it in the first place.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I've only read some of the interview so far and some of it certainly is factually noticeable. It also feeds in to what I mean about consumers disconnect from the actions of corporations in places where they don't live.

He seems to see empathy as something entirely reactive though. Rather than something that can be proactively engaged. So rather than "feeling" someone else's pain you can help to prevent it in the first place.

You're right on that bit, which is why I like local business.

You're right on that bit too, but you'd want to use compassion, not empathy.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Did you read the article I posted ? I could post a video of Paul bloom if video is more digestable

Originally posted by Blakemore
I skimmed over the article you posted and I got the impression he's trying to redefine empathy. I'm sorry, but I feel I may have to address this later

Looking forward to chatting with you about it !

Sorry to be a burden 😸

Originally posted by Blakemore
Sorry to be a burden 😸

Don't be, you slap. I think you're a good faith actor.

Thaaaaaaaaanks!

Originally posted by Blakemore
Thaaaaaaaaanks!

donatello

I'd respond with michelangelo

I'll try to come up with some good arguments for the points you made, regardless of whether I agree with them.

"Empathy is largely misunderstood and most often not a good thing."

Empathy is the ability to understand or mirror what another person feels, that by itself is not necessarily a good thing, if someone has ill intentions they can use the understanding of the other persons feelings to their own advantage, while potentially hurting the person in the process. Similarly mirroring emotions might not be positive either, a lack of understanding of the emotions that are mirrored may lead to suffering and anger escalating to even worse situations than if the person had not felt empathy in the first place. So empathy by itself is not a good thing, and can lead to bad outcomes unless it is coupled with other emotions and tendencies like generosity, sympathy and solidarity

"There is no evidence for a creator deity, irreducible complexity is not an argument."

I completely agree with that one personally. Occam's razor and the lack of necessity of a creator god in explaining things are probably some of the best arguments, paired with the thorough lack of evidence for them. I think in terms of the opposite argument the perhaps best one is the world we live in is so perfectly adjusted to support human life that it is unfathomable that there isn't a creator having adjusted it that way, and it is not very convincing.

"Sex is determined by chromosomes, gender reflects this to a large degree."

Well, I disagree with the second part a lot, the first one on the other hand is just more or less the definition of sex. I guess for the second one the "best" arguments are the one that gender identities that don't align with the sex of a person are mental illnesses and should be disregarded, you could say that it is a small number of people (depends on your definition of small, and of course if you can make it seem smaller it's more effective) and you can make a historical argument that there were much fewer known cases in the past, so there must be something wrong with it being more prevalent now. All of those have relatively easy and, imo, correct rebuttals though.

"The state is a predatory entity."

States use their power to force people to do their bidding, like for example pay taxes. Many states have no legitimization by the people that live under them, but even in Democracies the actual influence of voters is limited, and powerful and wealthy interest can take control the state to give themselves many unfair advantages.

"Spanking is disgusting and child abuse."

Spanking negatively affects the development of children and teaches them to be distrustful of people stunting their emotional growth, they can lack a feeling of safety that is very important for children in particular. It perpetuates a cycle of abuse, creating children that later as adults view violence as acceptable options. Adults should not have the arbitrary power to physically harm children as they can not be trusted to not abuse said power.

I like the idea of this thread. Sometimes playing devil's advocate helps strengthen your understanding of the other side and can lead to more nuanced discussion.

My problem is when I see these types of things in reality they are more often used by one side to lend credence to their flawed arguments or understanding of things.

Playing true devil's advocate only works when you present well thought out logical instances of arguments but some stances don't have that foundation or are so crude. After all the "better" argument for a stance will only look better by comparison but will still have the same illogical foundations.

For instance people who advocate against LGBTQ rights. Their foundation has always been illogical but they continuously try to update their arguments with "better" versions. For instance they went from it's a sin to LGBTQ people shouldn't be allowed to use the word marriage because that's a religious thing. Or they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because children of LGBTQ people are "more" likely to get into trouble or are more open to experimentation with homosexual activities.

Ultimately these arguments only exist to move goal posts but are still embedded in the foundation of bigotry.

Now a good example would be conservative issues with Obama's economy and recovery.

The truth is rural Americans did often see much slower recovery from the recession compared to more urban areas. There is a foundation there of truth for people to play devil's advocacy with. Something that can lead to a more nuanced discussion about how to take care of rural America so it doesn't lag behind.

Originally posted by Artol
I'll try to come up with some good arguments for the points you made, regardless of whether I agree with them.

[b]"Empathy is largely misunderstood and most often not a good thing."

Empathy is the ability to understand or mirror what another person feels, that by itself is not necessarily a good thing, if someone has ill intentions they can use the understanding of the other persons feelings to their own advantage, while potentially hurting the person in the process. Similarly mirroring emotions might not be positive either, a lack of understanding of the emotions that are mirrored may lead to suffering and anger escalating to even worse situations than if the person had not felt empathy in the first place. So empathy by itself is not a good thing, and can lead to bad outcomes unless it is coupled with other emotions and tendencies like generosity, sympathy and solidarity

"There is no evidence for a creator deity, irreducible complexity is not an argument."

I completely agree with that one personally. Occam's razor and the lack of necessity of a creator god in explaining things are probably some of the best arguments, paired with the thorough lack of evidence for them. I think in terms of the opposite argument the perhaps best one is the world we live in is so perfectly adjusted to support human life that it is unfathomable that there isn't a creator having adjusted it that way, and it is not very convincing.

"Sex is determined by chromosomes, gender reflects this to a large degree."

Well, I disagree with the second part a lot, the first one on the other hand is just more or less the definition of sex. I guess for the second one the "best" arguments are the one that gender identities that don't align with the sex of a person are mental illnesses and should be disregarded, you could say that it is a small number of people (depends on your definition of small, and of course if you can make it seem smaller it's more effective) and you can make a historical argument that there were much fewer known cases in the past, so there must be something wrong with it being more prevalent now. All of those have relatively easy and, imo, correct rebuttals though.

"The state is a predatory entity."

States use their power to force people to do their bidding, like for example pay taxes. Many states have no legitimization by the people that live under them, but even in Democracies the actual influence of voters is limited, and powerful and wealthy interest can take control the state to give themselves many unfair advantages.

"Spanking is disgusting and child abuse."

Spanking negatively affects the development of children and teaches them to be distrustful of people stunting their emotional growth, they can lack a feeling of safety that is very important for children in particular. It perpetuates a cycle of abuse, creating children that later as adults view violence as acceptable options. Adults should not have the arbitrary power to physically harm children as they can not be trusted to not abuse said power. [/B]

Wow, this is very impressive impressive steel Manning.

You list some disagreeable points you have and I'll try yours.

Originally posted by Newjak
I like the idea of this thread. Sometimes playing devil's advocate helps strengthen your understanding of the other side and can lead to more nuanced discussion.

My problem is when I see these types of things in reality they are more often used by one side to lend credence to their flawed arguments or understanding of things.

Playing true devil's advocate only works when you present well thought out logical instances of arguments but some stances don't have that foundation or are so crude. After all the "better" argument for a stance will only look better by comparison but will still have the same illogical foundations.

For instance people who advocate against LGBTQ rights. Their foundation has always been illogical but they continuously try to update their arguments with "better" versions. For instance they went from it's a sin to LGBTQ people shouldn't be allowed to use the word marriage because that's a religious thing. Or they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because children of LGBTQ people are "more" likely to get into trouble or are more open to experimentation with homosexual activities.

Ultimately these arguments only exist to move goal posts but are still embedded in the foundation of bigotry.

Now a good example would be conservative issues with Obama's economy and recovery.

The truth is rural Americans did often see much slower recovery from the recession compared to more urban areas. There is a foundation there of truth for people to play devil's advocacy with. Something that can lead to a more nuanced discussion about how to take care of rural America so it doesn't lag behind.

Are you saying that playing devil's advocate leads to bad faith actors sharpening their sophistry via modernizing bad arguments with updated terminology ?

My problem with gay marriage is the same problem I have with regular marriage, which is that it looks to a centralized authority to give a relationship merit or legitimacy. But I get it in terms of wanting tax breaks like het people.

I like spanking ermm