Yeah, I guess it is hard. And I agree that empathy is neccessary. Maybe we should hold a “deconvert a christian” competition. Everyone goes out and finds christians, tries to deconvert them in a reproducible way, and then submits some evidence that they succeeded.
I’ve heard that the easiest way to do this is to be very attractive, and then pick a member of the opposite sex and then … well you get the idea. We’d have to ban that.
Even deconverting a global warming skeptic or a creationist would be something of an achievement.
Well, I did once deconvert an ID proponent, though I strongly suspect I was just the final straw between his humps.
But I did it by establishing a social relationship first and then trading on social capital, not by appealing solely to his rationality, which might be the sort of thing you meant to ban despite your exclusively heterosexual wording.
seems like enough qualifiers to avoid being called ‘exclusively heterosexual wording’.
Mm? That’s interesting.
Just to be clear:
I’ve heard that the easiest way to do this is to be very attractive, and then pick a member of the opposite sex and then … well you get the idea. We’d have to ban that.
You understand that to be proposing banning picking members of the same sex as well? Neat… I don’t think I’ve ever run into that convention before.
I’m not trying to get up on a queer-inclusivity soapbox or anything: you’re perfectly free to use “member of the opposite sex” to refer to a person who might find one sexually attractive if you wish.
But yeah, I often interpret “member of the opposite sex” to refer instead to a member of the opposite sex.
Oh, there’s no doubt it’s heterosexual. He is informally quoting someone; “I’ve heard”. I don’t think it’s fair to accuse him of being ‘exclusively heterosexual’ in his wording. I mean, true on point of fact, but the phrase connotes negatively, it implies the author is deliberate in his use of heterosexual wording. I think he put enough qualifiers in front of the sentence to not deserve that implication.
As for the idea: I got “be attractive, find someone who is attracted to you, get involved in an intense physical relationship, then make the relationship conditional on them deconverting”.
It’s clear from the very fact of this conversation that I came off, at least to some of my audience, as more accusatory than I’d meant to be, and I apologize for that.
I’ll try to be more aware of my connotations in the future.
Everyone goes out and finds christians, tries to deconvert them in a reproducible way, and then submits some evidence that they succeeded.
That might not be sufficient. The amount of effort to change a believe is often proportional to the strength of the belief after the change.
You do not want someone to react to your statements with ‘yes, you are right, whatever you say honey’.
Also it is not particularly rational to have more people following beliefs that are currently in fashion.
Communist countries had high numbers of atheists, but for what prize.
Yeah, I guess it is hard. And I agree that empathy is neccessary. Maybe we should hold a “deconvert a christian” competition. Everyone goes out and finds christians, tries to deconvert them in a reproducible way, and then submits some evidence that they succeeded.
I’ve heard that the easiest way to do this is to be very attractive, and then pick a member of the opposite sex and then … well you get the idea. We’d have to ban that.
Even deconverting a global warming skeptic or a creationist would be something of an achievement.
Well, I did once deconvert an ID proponent, though I strongly suspect I was just the final straw between his humps.
But I did it by establishing a social relationship first and then trading on social capital, not by appealing solely to his rationality, which might be the sort of thing you meant to ban despite your exclusively heterosexual wording.
Eh,
seems like enough qualifiers to avoid being called ‘exclusively heterosexual wording’.
Sounds suspiciously like exactly the kind of behaviour being banned ;)
Mm? That’s interesting.
Just to be clear:
You understand that to be proposing banning picking members of the same sex as well? Neat… I don’t think I’ve ever run into that convention before.
I’m not trying to get up on a queer-inclusivity soapbox or anything: you’re perfectly free to use “member of the opposite sex” to refer to a person who might find one sexually attractive if you wish.
But yeah, I often interpret “member of the opposite sex” to refer instead to a member of the opposite sex.
Oh, there’s no doubt it’s heterosexual. He is informally quoting someone; “I’ve heard”. I don’t think it’s fair to accuse him of being ‘exclusively heterosexual’ in his wording. I mean, true on point of fact, but the phrase connotes negatively, it implies the author is deliberate in his use of heterosexual wording. I think he put enough qualifiers in front of the sentence to not deserve that implication.
As for the idea: I got “be attractive, find someone who is attracted to you, get involved in an intense physical relationship, then make the relationship conditional on them deconverting”.
It’s clear from the very fact of this conversation that I came off, at least to some of my audience, as more accusatory than I’d meant to be, and I apologize for that.
I’ll try to be more aware of my connotations in the future.
That might not be sufficient. The amount of effort to change a believe is often proportional to the strength of the belief after the change.
You do not want someone to react to your statements with ‘yes, you are right, whatever you say honey’.
Also it is not particularly rational to have more people following beliefs that are currently in fashion. Communist countries had high numbers of atheists, but for what prize.