Blasphemy - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

12/12/2008 03:56:35 PM · #351

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Mousie:
Except for genuinely deriving pleasure?

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Is not the deriving pleasure for the selfless deed the definition of altruism?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think some people are saying a truly altruistic act cannot benefit you at all, or at the least the cost is greater than the benefit.

So.....even if the deed is selfless, and it's a good thing whereby you gain nothing, if you are happy that you did something nice for someone else, then it's not altruism?

Well, I guess under than definition maybe not. You are gaining the happiness so you are benefitted. Really the definition is probably so strict that it makes it a useless word. But, for example, what does "selfless" mean? How strict do you have to be with that definition?

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/12/2008 03:57:16 PM · #352

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Except for genuinely deriving pleasure?

Is not the deriving pleasure for the selfless deed the definition of altruism?

I think some people are saying a truly altruistic act cannot benefit you at all, or at the least the cost is greater than the benefit.

Some might, but I can't say that I would agree with that definition. Benefit comes in different forms and sometimes the mere fact that you helped is a reward onto itself. Having lived in an orphanage I always get a sense of worth whenever I can provide solace and assistance to the downtrodden.

An act of altruism is not undertaken with the hope of compensation, but rather out of a feeling of sharing the wealth, grateful that one has had the good fortune to occupy a place in society where such actions are a possibility.

Ray

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/12/2008 04:03:45 PM · #353

Originally posted by RayEthier:

An act of altruism is not undertaken with the hope of compensation, but rather out of a feeling of sharing the wealth, grateful that one has had the good fortune to occupy a place in society where such actions are a possibility.

Ray

Out of curiosity, and not to resurrect the argument, but with this definition in mind, would you consider an animal capable of altruism?

Louis

Nikon D800

12/12/2008 04:05:55 PM · #354

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The essay was asking for reasons we should sacrifice.

The #1 answer on his list was an appeal to authority. I believe I should sacrifice because someone who knows more than me says it's the right thing to do.

Questioning that authority, while completely valid, does not abrogate the logic of the argument, it just questions whether the person is trusting the correct authority (or whether the auhority figure even exists). Can you see the difference? The appeal to authority remains a logical, rational reason to sacrifice. The question becomes whether the authority know's what he's talking about or whether he's even there.

Which makes the appeal moot, and which is the reason, in its entirety, why an appeal to authority is a fallacy in formal logic. You can never do it. In informal arguments you can, when you say, "Let's suppose expert A knows what he's talking about," and go from there. But if you switch to formal arguing, you could never say, "Expert A's opinion is the ultimate authority and can never be changed," because anything that Expert A says, no matter how illogical, must therefore be true, even if under any other syllogism, Expert A's statement would be shown to be illogical. Appeals to authority must always fail tests of logic for this reason.

I think you have some valid points, but I don't think it is complete. His quote, "Just because some preacher or some book makes a claim does not mean that the claim is true." True. But it doesn't make it false either. It just makes it a claim. "I sacrifice because God tells me to and I trust God understands why I should sacrifice." is rational and good enough for some people (but not everybody of course). The author claims that line of argument "involves a logical fallacy" but I disagree at least on practical grounds. I understand, I think, what you mean in formal grounds. We are basically accepting "Sacrifice is good" as an axiom. That's not very exciting in the realm of logic because you are merely defining it as true. But on practical grounds we do this all the time because "authorities" tell us to. If your doctor tells you not to mix your viagra with your nitro, you don't need to understand the reason for it to be good for you to follow. If you trust your doctor, you do it anyway.

Maybe at the end of the day there are just some "why" questions I'm satisfied not to ask. (However, I did mention the "growth" reason so this may not completely be one of those times.)

You can't have a formal argument when you say, "It doesn't make it false either." All logic stops at that point. Something that is not provable as true or false as you put it, or is a contentious postulate, is useless, and necessarily fails in the syllogistic form, in fact, can't be included in a syllogism. (We get into orbiting teapots and purple elephants and so on.) That's the reason the author's correct about the logical fallacy part, because he's insinuating that the appeal to authority is illegitimate in the way I've described. You personally can accept any postulate you like, such as, "There is a God and he commands me to sacrifice," but as I'm sure you'd agree, that doesn't make it a sound argument of any kind.

When talking about informal arguments, it's the appeal to authority that's allowed in a limited way, not simply making statements that might seem practical, like, "Sacrifice is good." We don't have to agree on that -- and the author hasn't. The doctor example is not an appeal to authority in the logical sense. We don't examine authority in an everyday sense like this. But when having a discussion where not everyone accepts your postulate, you have to start fresh with formal discourse, or else risk an impasse. You can't have a discussion when the people involved don't even agree on the terms, and the only way to agree on the terms is to find some postulate everyone can begin with. In our case, it might be something like, "All organisms suffer." You might be able to discover what it is about sacrifice and altruism that seems to make it universal when you start with something wholly generic like this, but you can't immediately start postulating Gods and so on when nobody's got there yet.

12/12/2008 04:16:31 PM · #355

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
An act of altruism is not undertaken with the hope of compensation, but rather out of a feeling of sharing the wealth, grateful that one has had the good fortune to occupy a place in society where such actions are a possibility.

Ray

Out of curiosity, and not to resurrect the argument, but with this definition in mind, would you consider an animal capable of altruism?

Have you not seen Flipper?

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

12/12/2008 04:33:08 PM · #356

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The essay was asking for reasons we should sacrifice.

The #1 answer on his list was an appeal to authority. I believe I should sacrifice because someone who knows more than me says it's the right thing to do.

Questioning that authority, while completely valid, does not abrogate the logic of the argument, it just questions whether the person is trusting the correct authority (or whether the auhority figure even exists). Can you see the difference? The appeal to authority remains a logical, rational reason to sacrifice. The question becomes whether the authority know's what he's talking about or whether he's even there.

Which makes the appeal moot, and which is the reason, in its entirety, why an appeal to authority is a fallacy in formal logic. You can never do it. In informal arguments you can, when you say, "Let's suppose expert A knows what he's talking about," and go from there. But if you switch to formal arguing, you could never say, "Expert A's opinion is the ultimate authority and can never be changed," because anything that Expert A says, no matter how illogical, must therefore be true, even if under any other syllogism, Expert A's statement would be shown to be illogical. Appeals to authority must always fail tests of logic for this reason.

I think you have some valid points, but I don't think it is complete. His quote, "Just because some preacher or some book makes a claim does not mean that the claim is true." True. But it doesn't make it false either. It just makes it a claim. "I sacrifice because God tells me to and I trust God understands why I should sacrifice." is rational and good enough for some people (but not everybody of course). The author claims that line of argument "involves a logical fallacy" but I disagree at least on practical grounds. I understand, I think, what you mean in formal grounds. We are basically accepting "Sacrifice is good" as an axiom. That's not very exciting in the realm of logic because you are merely defining it as true. But on practical grounds we do this all the time because "authorities" tell us to. If your doctor tells you not to mix your viagra with your nitro, you don't need to understand the reason for it to be good for you to follow. If you trust your doctor, you do it anyway.

Maybe at the end of the day there are just some "why" questions I'm satisfied not to ask. (However, I did mention the "growth" reason so this may not completely be one of those times.)

You can't have a formal argument when you say, "It doesn't make it false either." All logic stops at that point. Something that is not provable as true or false as you put it, or is a contentious postulate, is useless, and necessarily fails in the syllogistic form, in fact, can't be included in a syllogism. (We get into orbiting teapots and purple elephants and so on.) That's the reason the author's correct about the logical fallacy part, because he's insinuating that the appeal to authority is illegitimate in the way I've described. You personally can accept any postulate you like, such as, "There is a God and he commands me to sacrifice," but as I'm sure you'd agree, that doesn't make it a sound argument of any kind.

When talking about informal arguments, it's the appeal to authority that's allowed in a limited way, not simply making statements that might seem practical, like, "Sacrifice is good." We don't have to agree on that -- and the author hasn't. The doctor example is not an appeal to authority in the logical sense. We don't examine authority in an everyday sense like this. But when having a discussion where not everyone accepts your postulate, you have to start fresh with formal discourse, or else risk an impasse. You can't have a discussion when the people involved don't even agree on the terms, and the only way to agree on the terms is to find some postulate everyone can begin with. In our case, it might be something like, "All organisms suffer." You might be able to discover what it is about sacrifice and altruism that seems to make it universal when you start with something wholly generic like this, but you can't immediately start postulating Gods and so on when nobody's got there yet.

You are honestly scaring me with the big words. I'm going to back away slowly....

tnun

Ricoh GR III

12/13/2008 04:05:04 PM · #357

Ah. The power of the authority of big words.

12/13/2008 05:27:42 PM · #358

Originally posted by The Seattle Times:

This week, the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church applied for permission to put up a "Santa Claus Will Take You to Hell" sign, which includes lines such as "Santa's to blame for the dead soldier's fate."

I guess now we can really find out which views about religion are acceptable to the government and which are not.

//seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008507757_displays13m.html

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

12/13/2008 07:21:59 PM · #359

Originally posted by JMart:

So, now the Washington capitol has put a temporary moratorium on putting up displays in the capitol building (currently approved ones will stay). Didn't someone bring up Westboro Baptist Church earlier in this thread? Well, they're part of the issue now:

Originally posted by The Seattle Times:
This week, the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church applied for permission to put up a "Santa Claus Will Take You to Hell" sign, which includes lines such as "Santa's to blame for the dead soldier's fate."

I guess now we can really find out which views about religion are acceptable to the government and which are not.

//seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008507757_displays13m.html

There goes Reverend Phelps showing us what religion is all about...

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/13/2008 10:08:44 PM · #360

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Were I in a position to have a meaningful discussion with an animal relative to the intents of its' actions, it is conceivable that I might arrive at such a conclusion. However, until such time as this occurs, I am left with mere speculation as to what drives an animal to perform acts that we would ascribe a human characteristic to, such as altruism.

Ray

david_c

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/13/2008 10:45:17 PM · #361

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

//seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008507757_displays13m.html

There goes Reverend Phelps showing us what religion is all about...

That's not really fair, Spaz. It's more like Phelps is showing us what religion can turn in to through years of selective inbreeding and cult-mentality. I hardly think his views are mainstream. It's clear the guy is off his rocker.

Message edited by author 2008-12-13 22:46:35.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/14/2008 12:02:23 AM · #362

"Members of the church are known for protesting at the funerals of Iraq war soldiers because they believe the war and the deaths are God's punishment for the U.S. condoning homosexuality."
When they give a 21 gun salute at the funerals, maybe they should aim at these nuts. I mean really... have some respect for the families! :-(

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

12/14/2008 07:50:30 AM · #363

Originally posted by scalvert:

Yeah well, thanks to the good folks here in central Pa, that sh*t got them a $11 million judgement for their actions at Matthew Snyder's funeral.

Though obviously the scumbags will never pay it, this is an established precedent that these little hate sorties won't be tolerated.

USA today wrote in the article I read that 40 states have enacted laws to prevent this kind of thing, some openly acknowledging that they were aiming their laws at Phelps and his parade of wackos. (The last wording is mine.)

The Silent Witnesses were wholly created for this kind of people.

12/14/2008 09:00:43 AM · #364

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by scalvert:
"Members of the church are known for protesting at the funerals of Iraq war soldiers because they believe the war and the deaths are God's punishment for the U.S. condoning homosexuality."
When they give a 21 gun salute at the funerals, maybe they should aim at these nuts. I mean really... have some respect for the families! :-(

Yeah well, thanks to the good folks here in central Pa, that sh*t got them a $11 million judgement for their actions at Matthew Snyder's funeral.

Though obviously the scumbags will never pay it, this is an established precedent that these little hate sorties won't be tolerated.

USA today wrote in the article I read that 40 states have enacted laws to prevent this kind of thing, some openly acknowledging that they were aiming their laws at Phelps and his parade of wackos. (The last wording is mine.)

The Silent Witnesses were wholly created for this kind of people.

Now I know I'm going to push some buttons, but that case is a terrible precedent that should be overturned. I'll agree with anybody about how incredibly offensive and inappropriate the Westboro bunch are to 99.99% of the rest of us. The trouble is, their speech is both political and religious in nature, there is no clear & present danger (fire in a theater), they are peaceful in their protest, and they are very careful to follow laws regarding where they can be and how far away from a funeral they must be. For that matter, they don't even protest during the funerals, they protest before them, well out of ear and eye shot of the funeral site.

The plaintiff in the case against them won based on the idea that he suffered too much emotional anguish from even the existence of Westboro's protest. Essentially, they are being penalized because their speech is extremely unpopular. If you don't care about that then just ask yourself if you're happy with a precedent that opens you up to financial ruin if something you say is deemed by a jury to be "too offensive". That's a pretty low constitutional bar to pass.

I also find such "emotional harm" damages dubious in the first place. How did they demonstrate in a court of law that millions of dollars of damage was done to the plaintiff's psyche just from knowing such a protest was occurring? How did they monetize the damages? I'd argue that real damages have nothing to do with it. People just want to shut these people up and are willing to look the other way when it comes to the constitution. Unfortunately, the precedent has a chance of standing for a while since the lawyer for Westboro is a church member who's probably too inept to get the ruling overturned. They need a real lawyer.

ETA: Here's how I think Westboro type protests should be dealt with:
The states shoud pass laws that allow protests to occur while allowing other citizens freedom from the protest. Let the protest occurr, but require that they be held in places where an alternative route may be chosen by people who wish to avoid the protest.

Message edited by author 2008-12-14 09:09:13.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

12/15/2008 01:03:32 AM · #365

Originally posted by JMart:

The trouble is, their speech is both political and religious in nature, there is no clear & present danger (fire in a theater), they are peaceful in their protest, and they are very careful to follow laws regarding where they can be and how far away from a funeral they must be. For that matter, they don't even protest during the funerals, they protest before them, well out of ear and eye shot of the funeral site.

While they may follow some laws, they do not respect them, and make blatant attempts to circumvent them...
Working link

edit: fix link

Message edited by author 2008-12-15 01:04:14.

12/15/2008 01:20:33 AM · #366

Originally posted by JMart:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by scalvert:
"Members of the church are known for protesting at the funerals of Iraq war soldiers because they believe the war and the deaths are God's punishment for the U.S. condoning homosexuality."
When they give a 21 gun salute at the funerals, maybe they should aim at these nuts. I mean really... have some respect for the families! :-(

Yeah well, thanks to the good folks here in central Pa, that sh*t got them a $11 million judgement for their actions at Matthew Snyder's funeral.

Though obviously the scumbags will never pay it, this is an established precedent that these little hate sorties won't be tolerated.

USA today wrote in the article I read that 40 states have enacted laws to prevent this kind of thing, some openly acknowledging that they were aiming their laws at Phelps and his parade of wackos. (The last wording is mine.)

The Silent Witnesses were wholly created for this kind of people.

Now I know I'm going to push some buttons, but that case is a terrible precedent that should be overturned. I'll agree with anybody about how incredibly offensive and inappropriate the Westboro bunch are to 99.99% of the rest of us. The trouble is, their speech is both political and religious in nature, there is no clear & present danger (fire in a theater), they are peaceful in their protest, and they are very careful to follow laws regarding where they can be and how far away from a funeral they must be. For that matter, they don't even protest during the funerals, they protest before them, well out of ear and eye shot of the funeral site.

The plaintiff in the case against them won based on the idea that he suffered too much emotional anguish from even the existence of Westboro's protest. Essentially, they are being penalized because their speech is extremely unpopular. If you don't care about that then just ask yourself if you're happy with a precedent that opens you up to financial ruin if something you say is deemed by a jury to be "too offensive". That's a pretty low constitutional bar to pass.

I also find such "emotional harm" damages dubious in the first place. How did they demonstrate in a court of law that millions of dollars of damage was done to the plaintiff's psyche just from knowing such a protest was occurring? How did they monetize the damages? I'd argue that real damages have nothing to do with it. People just want to shut these people up and are willing to look the other way when it comes to the constitution. Unfortunately, the precedent has a chance of standing for a while since the lawyer for Westboro is a church member who's probably too inept to get the ruling overturned. They need a real lawyer.

ETA: Here's how I think Westboro type protests should be dealt with:
The states shoud pass laws that allow protests to occur while allowing other citizens freedom from the protest. Let the protest occurr, but require that they be held in places where an alternative route may be chosen by people who wish to avoid the protest.

Two things, if you look closely, the DO NOT protest out of sight of the funeral, they try to get as close as possible.

Also, most of the members of this "church" are members of the Phelps clan and many of them are skilled lawyers specializing in constitutional issues to defend their "church" in these cases.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/15/2008 06:02:30 AM · #367

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I'm not sure that's generally true that they're usually in sight of the funeral but I know they often are kept out of sight, and yes, they do TRY to get as close as possible. You know who decides how close they can get? The government agents on the scene. So, if they're too close for some people then those people should be filing suit against the government agencies who are letting them protest too close. None of the arguments I tend to hear against them actually get to free speech, freedom of religion, and what the damages really were. I can point to damage done to the constitution by ignoring it, and that seems much more sever to me than someone being pissed of at the ideas of a fringe group.

I know they're a bunch of lawyers, but they're also nut cases and that has shown in their inability to properly defend themselves. These are people who can not look objectively at themselves and then say to a jury, "This group is nuts to me too, but here's why it matters to the core principles of the US constitution that we grant them free speech rights and, if anything, focus our energies on ways to give them their free speech such that those who don't want to hear it can also freely get around them. But that last part is the job of the government, not the people exercising their freedoms."

Originally posted by pidge:

While they may follow some laws, they do not respect them, and make blatant attempts to circumvent them...
Working link

Don't get your point here. There are laws I don't respect but you can't find me guilty for lack of respect unless I actually break a law.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

12/15/2008 12:25:20 PM · #368

Originally posted by JMart:

Don't get your point here. There are laws I don't respect but you can't find me guilty for lack of respect unless I actually break a law.

I'm not a lawyer, but if a country's government says don't come here because we have a law here that you would violate by doing whatever you do, and then you intentionally circumvent government border authorities so you can do what you wanted to do which is in violation of laws.... Well nevermind. The Phelps group thought it was legal since they did it anyways, so you must be right.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

12/15/2008 12:34:41 PM · #369

Originally posted by JMart:

Don't get your point here. There are laws I don't respect but you can't find me guilty for lack of respect unless I actually break a law.

But they do....for the shock value and publicity.

And as far as the free speech thing goes, where does it say that anyone has the right to intentionally disrupt a private service for reasons understood by very few, questionable at best, and held in contempt by most of the rest of society?

One of the most stringent parts of Silent Witness training is the education on how NOT to engage the street preachers who intentionally provoke people attending events. What the protesters and street preachers want is disturbances and violations of their rights so that they can take whomever to court thereby giving their mission validity.

They have quite a few sharp, albeit devious lawyers whose intent is more about publicity and obfuscation than legality and huiman decency.

12/15/2008 03:09:07 PM · #370

Originally posted by pidge:

Originally posted by JMart:

Don't get your point here. There are laws I don't respect but you can't find me guilty for lack of respect unless I actually break a law.

I'm not a lawyer, but if a country's government says don't come here because we have a law here that you would violate by doing whatever you do, and then you intentionally circumvent government border authorities so you can do what you wanted to do which is in violation of laws.... Well nevermind. The Phelps group thought it was legal since they did it anyways, so you must be right.

Look, I'm not saying they didn't break whatever border law you're talking about. If they get in trouble for whatever it is they did at the border then I have no complaint about it. I'm arguing that in the process of the protests relevant to their court cases they have been following the law and should have 1st amendment protections. Perhaps they're also reckless drivers and they sneak across borders, if so then get them for that, but show me where they broke a law relevant to these cases and I'll be much more willing to change my mind.

12/15/2008 03:28:13 PM · #371

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by JMart:
Don't get your point here. There are laws I don't respect but you can't find me guilty for lack of respect unless I actually break a law.

But they do....for the shock value and publicity.

What law have they broken that is relevant to their court cases? All I've heard is that they deeply offended the father of a slain soldier. That's not against the law and I find it sad that the father is willing to weaken the constitution for which his son gave his life. It would be a great tribute to any fallen soldier to be able to say, "This life was given so everyone from the brilliant to these idiots has the right to free speech"

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

And as far as the free speech thing goes, where does it say that anyone has the right to intentionally disrupt a private service for reasons understood by very few, questionable at best, and held in contempt by most of the rest of society?

Show me evidence that they were at the private service. I don't believe they were. I believe they were on public grounds probably at a stopping point defined by local law enforecement officials. If the law enforcement believed the protest was too close to the funeral then they had every right to move the protest back to a more distant location.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

One of the most stringent parts of Silent Witness training is the education on how NOT to engage the street preachers who intentionally provoke people attending events. What the protesters and street preachers want is disturbances and violations of their rights so that they can take whomever to court thereby giving their mission validity.

Well, I'd say the best thing to do with Westboro is akin to this. Don't give them this attention they crave. Ignore them. Have law enforecement keep them at a respectable distance. But don't give them persecuted status so easily.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

They have quite a few sharp, albeit devious lawyers whose intent is more about publicity and obfuscation than legality and huiman decency.

I agree. Their lawyers/members have no care in the world for the first amendment and they don't care if they trash it in the process. They rant about their beliefs in their arguments in such a way that should make it difficult for a typical juror to understand the actual 1st amendment issues.

The most important precedent in this case is the Skokie case. The Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, IL, a Jewish town with holocost survivors. That strikes me as FAR more offensive than what Westboro is doing. Still, the NAZIs went to the Supreme court and won the right to march in Skokie (They later marched in Chicago where they had originally wanted to all along).

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/15/2008 03:34:19 PM · #372

Originally posted by JMart:

show me where they broke a law relevant to these cases and I'll be much more willing to change my mind.

The first amendment aspects of the issue are discussed here.

Message edited by author 2008-12-15 15:34:28.

12/15/2008 06:00:01 PM · #373

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by JMart:
show me where they broke a law relevant to these cases and I'll be much more willing to change my mind.

The first amendment aspects of the issue are discussed here.

Thanks, that's a very interesting article. It sounds to me like Illinois may be approaching this with a reasonable balance of allowing the crazies their right to protest while giving the mourners a healthy privacy buffer for their ceremony.

I have all the respect in the world for the one soldier's stepmother who said, "They have a right to protest. That's what our son died for, but not at arm's length," she said. "The families need to have some sense of security."

So, coming around full (or 3/4) circle, that Washington atheist display sure seems like an innocent enough message. :P