This challenge relates to my blog and video:
My blog: Interview with David Silverman, a reversal of my video that speaks against him and now shows my support
This challenge below was from Facebook Messager …
"Because of your maximum allowable list, I can not send you a friend request." "I've been associated with the atheist movement for some time, and you and David Silverman as long as he's connected to the atheist movement through American atheists." Madalyn O & hair was my girlfriend watched and even promoted David's rise through the ranks, some of the things he did – like billboards – were my ideas AA got from me, Camp Quest was my idea, etc. (but that was before David's time) David has grown too big for his Britons, seems to have lost the ability to accept positive criticism, and continues to use his "power" to abuse bed partners and groups with whom he joins forces to strengthen his own ego. You were fooled. "- challenger
My answer, Thank you for your opinion.
"Much more than just opinion. I accepted David's recent friend request to offer him the benefit of the doubt, because I also know from previous experience what unreasonable gaps some AA leaders may be. AA quickly went downhill after Madalyn, Jon and Robin were abducted, tortured and murdered. When it comes to being friendly and creative people, atheists pass the test no less than theists. The only real advantage, if one does not believe in myths, is that one is able to live out his transient life span and experience reality as it is. "- challenger
My answer, Would you consider what you said to be specific facts about David or opinions about David? If you want me to look differently, please provide specific facts.
"I know, I know, all too often the obvious is almost impossible to see. If you share David's bedroom wish to sadistically dominate bed-partners (as he revealed in recent video interviews), you'll never understand what I'm saying. But if you do not share these attributes, you should eventually start to understand what I am saying. David has approached you because you are influencing a large number of people and he is desperate not only to survive as a living being, but as one who has the power over others. David is not just about liberating the planet from the myth, but doing it in a way that suits his perverted desires. He primarily thinks with his penis and his activities in the bedroom show that he is not a friendly and gentle person. But if you're like him, you'll never understand what I'm saying. By the way, I was once like you – a strong theist on the way to a ministry – until I realized that I was a jerk for fairytales that had no scientific foundation. To see reality as it is and to live accordingly is the difference between eating a fish meal and swallowing the bones and learning to spit out the bones. Obviously (or at least it should be obvious). It is not rocket science and does not require impressive degrees. " – challenger
My Answer, I have a degree in psychology and am a rationalist. They associate BDSM with the ability to practice pro-social behavior. That is not true. One is a sexual play with consenting adults and the other is their social life. It reminds me of the idea that some people say that gay men are more likely to be sexual predators of children, so they should not be able to be around them. This is emotional thinking, not rational thinking. The truth is that heterosexuals are more common than children's sexual abusers. I think you need to think about what an emotional or rational argument is. How do you know what I like about David? I like his Brandatheism, as I said in the video. If you've seen it and then put it another way, add your opinion or feelings, no fact.
My Answer, "BDSM Are you sick? For Freud, the answer was a resounding yes: anyone who was interested in S & M needed a treatment – a treatment for which he and his contemporaries were by accident qualified. However, recent research tells a different story.
Pamela Connolly compared BDSM practitioners with published standards on 10 mental disorders. Compared to the normative samples BDSM practitioners had a "LOWER" level of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), psychological sadism, psychological masochism, borderline pathology and paranoia. (They showed the same degree of obsessive-compulsive disorder and a higher level of dissociation and narcissism.) Similarly, Andreas Wismeijer and Marcel van Assen compared BDSM practitioners to non-BDSM practitioners in terms of important personality traits. Their results showed that compared to non-practitioners BDSM practitioners showed a higher degree of extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and subjective well-being. Practitioners also showed a lower level of neuroticism and rejection sensitivity. The one negative feature that emerged? BDSM practitioners showed less acceptance than non-practitioners. – facts, " https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-wide-wide-world-psychology/201502/the-surprising-psychology-bdsm?fbclid=IwAR23H0WnNUaBSTumSg5c7cL73azFLqLGfYxgd6tTCMN2K1QX6D6
My Answer, If you want to make allegations about something, first learn more about it or just have an uninformed opinion.
"Psychology was also my bag until I realized that some naturally unsafe people with very low self-esteem are working to find ways to control and control others. They are easy to recognize in their attempts to dominate by being overwhelmed with repeated comments and texts / pastes. Who are the best rationalizers on the planet? Psychologists can be. " – challenger
My Answer, So they offer more opportunities for psychology again. It seems that you do not get what you need to convince a rationalist thinker like me. I will tell you that I am best motivated by facts and least by opinions.
"You consider yourself" rational. " But is it you? " – challenger
My Answer, Yes, I am a rationalist and strive to think rationally.
"We'll see, was your original opinion on David's situation rational, or is your current opinion about him based on rationality? Something has changed." – challenger
My Answer, So will you deliver facts or talk about me now? Do you think that makes me more confident or less confident that your arguments are worth thinking about? My first thought was that America atheists removed him from him because of sexual assertions. I did not see that they later stated that this is not the reason. In addition, David did not defend himself at first, so I kept his guilt. He has not only gone against them now, but has others who have stated in written statements that they have seen that it does not agree with what the women have claimed. I had previously thought the women had gone to the police when they went on the news. I was wrong, they never went to the police. In addition, I trusted someone, the famous atheist Matt Dillahunty, who said he knew things that helped make David a bad person. But David picked up Matt and said he still thought David was a person he would be proud to share the stage with. I am convinced of known facts and like science when new facts change old thinking. A sensible person should update their thinking as I did. But it is not up to me to prove my rational thinking, but to justify your claims to you, the burden of proof. Please provide facts as I will change them for good cause only.
Here is my video with Matt: Damien Marie AtHope talks with Matt Dillahunty about atheism and philosophy
"YOU have asked for your own authority by pointing out that you have a degree and consider yourself rational." – challenger
My Answer, Wrong, I explained that I have a degree in psychology because you made psychological statements without facts. Then I offered facts.
"My old and dear friend Madalyn Murray O & # 39; Hair had a small sign on the wall just opposite her desk labeled" Question Authority. " – challenger
My Answer, Again, you are not providing facts for your claims against David, just opinions and alternative ideas.
"Well, you have expressed the opinion of a psychologist." – challenger
My Answer, Wrong, they were not opinions, it was research by experts in the field. And again, as I told you, you must present facts against David to make your claims worthwhile.
Here is some helpful information from RationalWiki:
"On Argument from the authority refers to two types of arguments:
- A non-deceptive argument of authority justifies an assertion in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source (s)whose opinion on the topic is likely to apply. In particular, if the authorities in question are indeed experts, their opinion strongly supports the conclusion: it draws the conclusion probably to be true, not Necessary true. As such, an authority's argument can only strongly indicate what is true – not prove.
- ON logically deceptive Argument from the authority justifies an assertion in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources may not be relevant, as they do not agree with the consensus on the issue, have no expertise in the relevant issue, or a range of other issues. " ref
"The correct use of authority arguments requires a belated justification: if your claim matches what experts believe in this area, your claim will also be supported proofs The experts rely on it, even if you are unaware of what this evidence really is. " ref
"What" facts "did you have when you rejected David for the first time, and what" facts "do you have now? I only see your acceptance of the opinions of others. " – challenger
My Answer, You want to waste my time or provide facts for your arguments against David? They make everything but your burden of proof to deliver facts.
"The burden of proof Is the obligation of a party to the dispute to deliver sufficiently justify for her position. The burden of proof is an important concept in the public arena of ideas, Once participants establish in discourse together assumptionsThe burden of proof mechanism helps ensure that all stakeholders make a productive contribution using relevant arguments. " ref
"Ahh … you see Psychology Today as a base for well-founded research, I like this magazine – it's always been – so I've read it a lot, and I've seen many changes in attitudes." – challenger
My Answer, There is a name for the behavior you do by not dealing with your burden of proof and trying to consider anything else. It is called logical error.
"Avoid the problem. Description: When an argumenter responds to an argument by not addressing the argument points. Unlike the Strawman fallacy, avoiding the problem does not lead to an independent argument to distract attention, but simply bypasses the argument. " ref
"Did I ever say that I have" facts "? I support my opinion about David on his admitted behavior and the fact that he did not have the balls to talk to me about it, although he knew me from earlier when I was known as PeskyAtheist and was in the fight to correct the mistake that were committed by theists long before their birth against atheists. " – challenger
My Answer, You said you had more than one opinion. What else is there for you if what you offer is not an option? Again and again, I asked you for facts you did not say anything about so as not to have any facts or the like but avoided them by turning the argument over to me.
"I said that my opinion is more than just an opinion. You have adopted something else." – challenger
My Answer, This means the option: "On opinion is a judgment, opinion or statement that is inconclusive. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being put forward. It may be justified This one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analyzing the supporting arguments. Collective opinions or professional opinions, while not a hard fact, are defined to meet a higher standard in order to substantiate the opinion. differential fact According to the experts, the facts are verifiable, d. H. can be agreed by consensus of the experts. Different persons can draw contradictory conclusions (opinions), even if they agree on the same facts. " ref
My Answer, If you know that you have no facts and you should be intellectually honest, then you have no facts.
My Answer, Here is what intellectual honesty means: "Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "core" of intellectual honesty as a "virtuous tendency to avoid deception when an incentive to deceive is given." Intellectual honesty is an applied method of solve problemscharacterized by an unbiased, honest attitude that can be demonstrated in various ways:
- Personal beliefs, beliefs or individual politics do not affect the pursuit of truth.
- Relevant facts and information are not purposely omitted, even if such things contradict their own hypothesis;
- Facts are presented impartially and are not distorted to convey misleading impressions or support one viewpoint over another.
- References or previous work will be recognized as far as possible plagiarism is avoided.
- Intentionally committed errors In debates and reflections is called intellectual dishonesty, " ref
My Answer, What is an option more than an opinion, but not a fact? If there is no evidence, it is not a matter of fact, but an opinion.
"I do not believe that a quote from Psychology Today" research "in court would be considered a" fact ". – challenger
My Answer, Now you have returned to the logical errors. Psychology Today has not researched the research information it publishes. Thank you for your factual opinions, but I am ready to waste my time as you show the lack of reactions that are worth changing my mind and refused to stop the unworthy arguments. Watch out.
"David might not have thought that he – the then president of AA – was exploiting a drunken friend, but the courts may not see it that way. I am not a fan of AA these days, but the AA Board has the right to dismiss anyone for any reason. That David is now trying to sue AA is silly. AA has an image that needs to be maintained in the community. Even Madalyn O'Hair was checked by the board for her behavior before she was killed. " – challenger
My Answer, I hope that the person claiming to be exploited when she is drunk will go to court and we will then have more information and a reasonable judgment on both sides. As far as you do not like AA, okay, but I still like it because it's still good for atheists. David, who then goes to court, is on him and we'll see what happens.
"As you said, AA did not fire him, neither that nor the money, do you know why they did it, I do, but I gave my word, which I would not repeat, David knows …" – challenger
My Answer, They have only factually supported opinions, opinions and nothing but opinions. S Just a waste of time. Come back, if you have facts.
He finally blocked me after he first searched my site!
Note: We are not the author of this content. For the Authentic and complete version,
Check its Original Source