Is 'I feel' a good argument?

[TheresaMayIsATory]

"No philosopher should care how you feel about the existence of God, freedom, abortion or anything else, presented merely as your feelings. Your feelings have no claim to universality and do not automatically transfer to your audience. You might feel that God exists but that is no reason why anyone else should."

A.P.Martinich
Prof Philosophy
Uni Texas

This is an example of how weak the trans ideology argument is and you can quote the above to your MP (PPE) who should have some understanding of philosophy. It doesn't invalidate the feelings of others, it simply says their feelings have no application towards others. Trans ideology debating doesn't presenting a winning rational logical argument which is why #NoDebate.

sorry if I sounded short earlier re plains speak. My brain was hurting but i wanted to join in blush

I haven't posted all of this on my own, it's been a two heads better than one, job. Anyone can help with this collaboration. Ideas, spotting flaws, grammatical checks. If you check out the philosophical definitions that should make things more accessible for you.

People used to talk about what they think in the fifties and sixties. Except in the mental health arena where they made a point to speak in terms of feelings or beliefs so the patients wouldn't challenged.

Then in the eighties the media adopted the strategy of talking about what they believe instead of what they think. Same thoughts but framed to prevent contradiction or dispute.
Now people talk about what they feel and what they believe. No thinking necessary or even encouraged.

So in answer to your question, 'I feel" is not an argument at all.
It is a strategy to avoid argument, disputation, or even discussion.

The thing about ‘I feel’ is that it can’t be denied. A person is the only authoritative source about how they feel - you can’t argue that they don’t feel that way.

I think you can if they claim they feel like something which objectively they are not. If someone says they feel like they're a dog, you can certainly argue they're barking they have no way of knowing what it feels like to be a dog. You're on even firmer ground if they say they feel like they're something that they aren't but you, objectively, are.

This is such a good read it's worth posting again
www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/14/the-death-of-truth-how-we-gave-up-on-facts-and-ended-up-with-trump

The whole argument that people ‘perform’ gender is based on the feelings of a few gender non conforming feminist, though.

Most people of both sex want to mark their sex by gendered behaviour. The fact that silly things like colours change with fashion and place does not mean that there is not a deep biological imperative for gendered behaviour (remember, biology is not bigotry). Cordelia Fine is not the last word on this and it is still actively debated in academia. Anyone who states that ‘gender’ as in gendered behaviour is societally or patriarchally imposes is really relying on their feelings and biases.

Sex is multi faceted according to the definition I found: chromosomally, hormonally and genitally. Chromosomes will (probably) never be changed, hormone profiles are relatively easy to change and genitals can be partially changed. Can a man ‘become’ a woman? Probably not (at least not yet). Is a man with breasts, low testosterone and high oestrogen still a man? Most would not think so.

Should natal women have their own spaces, yes, absolutely as I see little cost to the trans community. However this does lead to the logical position that men should also be permitted their own spaces (such as gentlemen’s clubs). Arguing against this would again be based on feelings and not logic.

So when an abusive man says he's feel hurt when he's murdered his partner because she provoked him, are you saying we're supposed to accept his feelings and assertions as fact?

He probably dies feel and think that but that doesn't make him any less of a murdering criminal.

Last comment is referring to this:

The thing about ‘I feel’ is that it can’t be denied. A person is the only authoritative source about how they feel - you can’t argue that they don’t feel that way.

Just pointing out the flaws in the argument that feelings is fact unconditionally ;)

I think you have two separate issues there woman.

1. could he be lying about how he feels? Very difficult to show that - what can we say to show that he feels something else?

1. Whether it matters in any respect what he feels. So in your example if murder it is tolerably clear we just aren’t interested in his feelings. But when what people do is less drastic, then we do show an interest.

Interesting, Errol. I’m reflecting on whether you really need the ‘even firmer ground’ part of the argument. It might be just as strong without it?

"Whether it matters in any respect what he feels."

That's the crux for me, so many people think feelings matter. Well yes, but only so much and certainly not to the effect that they necessarily should have 'human rights' as they like to claim so much.

Last comment is referring to this:

The thing about ‘I feel’ is that it can’t be denied. A person is the only authoritative source about how they feel - you can’t argue that they don’t feel that way.

Just pointing out the flaws in the argument that feelings is fact unconditionally ;)

Interesting, Errol. I’m reflecting on whether you really need the ‘even firmer ground’ part of the argument. It might be just as strong without it?

I am a bit lost about the critiques and flaws you're mentioning?

How can a personal subjective feeling be an objective verifiable fact?

I am not denying that a person feels may be true and important to them. I am asking why it must be true and important to others?

I am not denying that what a person feels may be true and important to them.

Whether it matters in any respect what he feels

Exactly - I'm not responsible for anyone else's' feelings, they are.

However what I was trying to illuminate, if anyone needs it, is how abusive men manipulate the "I feel" to control and undermine others, often very effectively. Because so many will stop a conversation and think they have said something offensive when someone says "I feel hurt". Abusive men know that and use it to do a DARVO.

DARVO

Deny
Attack
Reverse
Victim
Offender

All the current sexism, racism and sexual harassment legislation is at least somewhat based on the subjective feelings of the victim.

Poor legislation?

You are right, the behaviour of emotionally abusive males is relevant to this discussion.

All the current sexism, racism and sexual harassment legislation is at least somewhat based on the subjective feelings of the victim.

Poor legislation?

The legislation is also based on quantifiable and observable things like physical abuse, indecent photographs, financial records and the lack of members of marginalised groups in leadership/STEM roles and so on. The evidence for the creation of those laws exists in a far greater scale and from more reputable sources than the evidence TRAs provide.

The key difference is when those laws were created they expanded the rights and protection of the vulnerable without infringing upon others rights.

I am not denying that a person feels may be true and important to them. I am asking why it must be true and important to others?

Isn't it odd that we are having to ask this in 2018? Humans ahve regressed so much in recent years.

To have a good society we have to be able to engage in rational analysis to balance the feeling and regard for ourselves with the feeling and regard for/ of others. Too little regard for other's feelings and we are too harsh and too many peole are harmed, too much we risk debasing ourselves for people who do not return any regard. Most people know this and do this.

Where we can see that what hurts others would hurt us (there by the grace of god etc) we usually want to protect in the common interest.

It seems that it is being able to balance complex scenarios and needs that people often strugle with. Either through laziness, busy, having different priorties, feeling things are futile, being poorly or inadequately skilled, selfish, having certain beliefs, being emotionally damaged, having black and white thinking etc.

People who are unable to bear or manage their own feelings will often struggle to relate to others and may be consciously or unconsciously unstably manipulative or self serving and are liekly to not really in the right mental state to be calling the shots. Its OK to be unwell and have difficulty but you need to have an awareness of the effects of that on your judgement and decision making otherwise your life is not rational or under control and this can become unsafe - for yourself and others.

It does take a certain level of emotional intelligence and education (and effot and giving a shit) to produce 'good' decisions in a complex situation and to cope with the consequences, ie ones that are beneficial by most people's standards, but we have a society now where everyone can (quite rightly) have an opinion and can apsire to influential positions, but our society is also one that has come to believe that all opinions are equally valid - which snobbish or elitist as it might seem, it simply not obejectively true.

But you know lets be kind to people who have no clue what they are talking about and give them an equal seat at the table. It is like mass suicide. Maybe it is an unconscious means of population control.

Perhaps it comes from having a lack of genuinely good people to look up to.

I mean all opinions are not equally valid in terms of being based on education and science and skilled rational analysis.

The key difference is when those laws were created they expanded the rights and protection of the vulnerable without infringing upon others rights.

YY - and the bait and switch tactics used in some so-called hate crimes can be disingenuous - yes very poor legislation that can't discern the victim from the offender - and worse - enable abuse by proxy as well as directly.

Abusive men know how to work the system, as judged by the weaponisation of SM complaints systems, for example against WPUK on FB recently. Abusers know how to make themselves look the victim - many abusive partners do that - hence why the police should video any visitations and should be trained to recognise the behavioural patterns of abuse.

Dominators abuse the process to make false accusations and blame the victim. Often pre-emptively when they are losing. All of this is further obfuscated when the offender claims they bully and abuse others because they were provoked/ they snapped/acted in defence etc - it's just another variation of the abusive tactics many here recognise and that the police should realise in a different context to domestic violence. But they've been hamstrung by some claiming protected minority status - noticeably many men. That again layers the obfuscation - like an abuser blaming his childhood etc - it's no excuse - he's an adult and responsible for his behaviour, irrespective of his childhood unless he's diagnosed mentally ill.

The truth is the majority of the population (women) are under-represented both in legislation and in government, and routinely stalked, silenced and threatened when they speak out about the abuse they experience from men in different guises and their proxies.

seafret
Two basic ideologies come to mind inspired by your balancing post.

I'm OK you're OK - Berne
Love others as you love yourself - Jesus

TRAs expect us to treat them as if they are OK - whilst they treat us like we are not OK - and expect us to treat ourselves as we are not OK.

TRAs expect us to love them - whilst they expect us not to love ourselves as much as them - and they don't love us as much as they love themselves.

-------

As someone who has studied philosophy and philosophical logic and reasoning it does make me smile when people describe poor arguments or opinions as "valid". In philosophy valid means an argument with a conclusion that must be true if the premises are true.

For example:
All squirrels are blue
Donald Trump is a squirrel
Therefore Donald Trump is blue

Is a valid argument

A sound argument however is a valid argument with true premises.
All bachelors are unmarried men
Jack is an unmarried man
Therefore Jack is a bachelors.

TRAs don't produce a valid argument.

Being a scientist rather than a philosopher, I'd never realised that the latter had that meaning of 'valid'. So, it's where the logic works but the 'facts' aren't true? Do philosophers have technical terms for arguments where (a)premises are true but the logic is faulty and (b) both the premises and the logic are flawed?

They aren't arguments, at most they are described as weak.

Ohh forgot

a)premises are true but the logic is faulty = logical fallacies

All laws infringe upon freedoms (rights are more subjective).

Framing racism in law as ‘if you feel a comment was racist, it was racist’ infringes upon the rights of the accused person to defend themselves on the basis of the true meaning of their comment.