Fide sparks anger for ‘misogynistic’ deal

No. these women have a legitimate argument, one that I don't particularly agree with but legitimate just the same.  It should be addressed, not dismissed. 

I was a little worried about IMBacon and thought maybe I saw shallowness but now I see we think very much alike. People, including Soyaesthetics, ought to do their own research and if they aren't capable of it, find out how. Do not rely on others even if it is convenient to claim that they are making a claim and so they should back it up. Because you're making a claim too.

I dislike FIDE too but the second part is very negative in the sense that it shows lack of thoughtfulness.

It seems to me that greed alters our rational judgement, which should be combined with sympathy for those who will be harmed. If this were not chess, we'd be able to think it through better. But it's chess, so apparent self-interest or allegiance to our own interests intervenes with our desire to prevent businesses harming people in exactly the same way that the tobacco industry did. I noticed that llama brought up the issue of superficiality and addiction to useless ideals and harmful addictions. That's what it's all about and that's what FIDE's promoting.

I am not here to discuss/debate/argue (online passion for many).  I just post my opinion.  It makes no difference if people agree, or disagree.  The only thing i hope is that it causes people to think.

Bully for you ... my opinion is that you can be very shallow but this time you got it right. However, you didn't when you agreed with a person who accused those expressing disquiet of being crybabies. Firstly, if it's an opinion, it's ridiculous. And secondly, it's an attempt to kill off disagreement. Maybe we should also make the chess moves we're told to make.

Wait a minute .... 

I actually did think about it. I thought "What could possibly be mysogonistic about a company manufacturing reconstructive materials for survivors of breast cancer??"

And when I couldn't come up with an answer, that was as far as that thought went.

"Soyasthetics".  I did my own research. 

And I provided the results of it.

I'm asking for yours, and you're not providing it. Your arguments are weak, you use generalised instances of Breast Implants not working to justify saying that Motiva harms women, and hence this deal with Motiva FIDE has made is sexist, misogynist or whatever. 

It's the dumbest argument i've seen for a long time. 

You resort to insulting people and trying to make witty remarks instead of answering a very simple request. 

I'm not sure how you can know what you do for a living is irrelevant without knowing why I asked. I work with people's thinking for a living myself and, in my experience, people almost universally struggle distinguishing what they want to be true from what is true. My impression is that people generally overestimate their natural critical thinking skills, and need all the training in thinking they can get. So I was asking what you did for a living in an attempt to evaluate what expertise you may have to claim that there is "no need" for training in thinking. What evidence do you have to support that claim, other than just saying it is so?

How do you know you are correct?

@Ilama47, I don’t know what would be a serious line of questioning for you, but I asked specific questions that they have clear answers to, e.g. how did you count the majority? You can say here are some statistics that support my claim, or you can say it was just a bluff. The answers to my questions from your side should be very simple and straightforward.

It seems that you want to insist to talk about a specific topic that you trained for it (corona), somehow sounds like a straw man fallacy. The tragic fact is that even in that case you are full of wrong information. You try to oversimplify the ideas that you don’t like to hear, thus you like to keep your firm belief and you repeat your wrong claims over and over to stay in your comfort zone. This problem is not specific to you, most people nowadays are puppets and follow the herd.


About correctness and wrongness of claims, yes majority or minority is not showing something is correct or wrong. Then what’s the point of referring to sth as a minority opinion? In first place you did not provide any source to justify your claim, but suppose it is justified, then why it should be relevant to any discussion if it’s minority opinion or majority? This is just one of many biases you and those supporting similar view points had during discussion on this topic. Another bias is that you think you can think and others can’t, this is another wrong bias and common among those who have similar opinions as you.

My in a nutshell answer...

Again what I do job wise has nothing to do with my critical thinking skills. 

So...how do I decide what is true when i watch the news?  Easy!

I watch fox and i watch cnn.  I know that the truth is somewhere in the middle.  So if a story interests me or something doesn't seem right about what is being reported?  I do my own research.  As someone with conservative leanings i would love to just be able to trust whatever fox news tells me, but i know better than that. 

Its like believing what a study/survey/poll states.  The first 2 things i want to know is:

1. Who paid for it/supported it?

2. What were the demographics? 

You can find plenty of "studies" that "prove" soda is not unhealthy.  The problem is that those studies are paid by the same people that make soda. 

"Well, yes they should but that isn't made any easier when they're brainwashed. "

The biggest thing people can do to avoid this is turn off the TV, and stay off the internet until you can function for yourself.

Har har... you watch fox news? Of course your IMfallacon... and CNN isn't so reliable either... your faulty mechanism needs help so do your "sources"

How so with the shoulders? hmm

I didn't ask you how you determine what's true. You do seem to enjoy talking about yourself. I presented my own evidence supportive of the idea that critical thinking requires training to become proficient in, and asked  you your evidence in support of your position. All you have given is your assertions about things, as if that is what "evidence" means.

Large number of problems there, but how many implant surgeries were done, in comparison, to the problem cases would give context.

One might find that it is more risky to drive to the store than have implants done?

AGP seems correct. Fifteen years ago the internet was, indeed, a superb research tool. Nowadays, it isn't. You can use it to find genuine research papers but even they can be weirdly geared to the internet .... or some of them. And the amount of stuff written by vested interests is gigantic, so the difference is massive between 15 years ago and now, especially over the past two years, because the commercialisation is now all-pervasive and it takes skill to avoid. Also and with all due respect, the standard of debate here tends to be not too high, with people using rather primitive tactics rather than debating skills, genuine research, relevant information and logical skills.

In order to do proper research, it's really important to continue until you uncover studies which are weighted towards both sides of a debate. General (anecdotal) opinion also shouldn't be discounted, since all research results are, in their way, anecdotal, so avoiding opinion because it's anecdotal will give a skewed result. Very often, this last safeguard is ignored by people who discount the relevance of views opposed to their own.

I think the most important part of research is having your methodology peer reviewed.

What if you have no peers?