A+ Examination: Day 1.

It turns out that A+ fora are more active than I expected.  So I'm not going to be able to examine each one.  They don't have a sort by thread start date feature, which would have made what I originally intended to do easier.  So I'll just root around the threads that are on the front pages of the sub-fora.

Some of what I found:

Under Atheism and skepticism was the thread: Why Are Women More Religious Than Men?
    The initial post refers to an article in Psychology Today, but it's not reportage.  It's an editorial.  It offers no research primary research or data.  This is fine, but it is also fine to dismiss it.
    The last paragraph is the most interesting.  It makes an argument from Evolutionary Psychology.  Unfortunately, in EvoPsych, one doesn't have the luxury of doing controlled experiments, leaving one with data that is all kinds of noisy, so their conclusions are always going to be more speculative than those of a chemist or physicist.  So what.  Geologist and astronomers suffer this, only to a lesser degree.
    A lot of the arguments made in the thread are valid.  That makes them uninteresting.  Let's get to the bad ones.
    Andrew G. — "Kanazawa. 'nuff said."  That's about as definitive as an ad homenim can get.
    NMLevesque — "Battered-wife syndrome, but with religion instead of a husband?"  It's the partriarchies fault.
    Stephen T — He points to a Rationalwiki page that trashes the guy.  But since Rationalwiki isn't a real wiki, edits only being allowed by select insiders, I have no idea how valid the trashing is.
    RINCF — "I'm not comfortable with the term crackpot because of its relationship with mental illness.", referring to someone earlier calling the guy one.  What is is with these people and whining about terms?  This one actually generated a follow-up discussion which lead someone to start a new thread, which I haven't read.

The next thread I read was started by Greta Christina.  She wants people to sing a petition to remove someone called Justin Vacula from the Secular Coalition of America (Does she spend her spare time knitting little red toques?). She claims that he is an MRA and has done some doc dropping.  Apparently he did post Surly Amy's address.  It also appears that it is public information, which mitigates it.  But it was still a mistake and he has apologized for it.

She claims that he wrote for A Voice for Men.  I guess in her mind, ones opinions on one subject taint all all that persons opinions on every other subject.  What's worse, it isn't even true.  AVM reposted a blog post of his that was falsely DMCAed. 

What did A+ mods when this information was put forth?  They banned the user.

That's an example of their tolerance of dissent.

That's enough for one day.