America the Ignorant - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/21/2010 04:31:03 PM · #326

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What other "striking" similarities are being drawn?

Elements in the Weimar Republic were pro-authoritarian and enabled the decline of parliamentary government by not adding, or actively discouraging, dissent. Other elements in society outside the government did the same. There was an inevitable road to fascism that the country seemed bent on damning itself to, and for me, that is the seminal resemblance to American politics irrespective of the course along the spectrum.

I guess I would just politely disagree. I don't see signs of this at all. I don't have a lot of respect for the Tea Party, but they are not proto-Nazis in any way I can see.

I'm sorry, but you've missed the point. There was no suggestion by anyone that any of those involved was a proto-Nazi. The parallels drawn were not that gross.

Sorry, I misquoted. I think the term was "proto-fascist" (by Matthew). Of course in 1930s Germany "proto-fascist" and "proto-Nazi" would have been synonymous, but I have now broken Godwin's Law. Dang!

Message edited by author 2010-09-21 16:31:55.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/21/2010 04:32:56 PM · #327

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...I have now broken Godwin's Law. Dang!

I say you can use your "Get Out Of Jail" card just this once ... ;-)

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

09/22/2010 12:23:58 AM · #328

Has anyone out there in the public morass considered that other than the full faced versions, the dress of Muslim women is quite similar to that of Catholic nuns? They could hide all sorts of weapons in those habits of theirs. Is anyone asking nuns to cease and desist wearing habits?

Just curious if this has been brought up somewhere yet. I noted the similarities while waiting in line behind a Muslim woman in a simple headscarf and Western clothing, as a Catholic nun in full habit walked by.

09/22/2010 12:47:37 AM · #329

It's not about the potential for concealed weapons anyway, it's about the veiling of the faces. Which nuns don't do. Nobody cares if people want to wear robes, lots of cultures, both sexes even, do that. Where there's a security issue, if there's a security issue at all, is when people become unrecognizable, as if they were in disguise...

R.

09/22/2010 12:56:57 AM · #330

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I understand your position on this. But I then go back simply and asky why we should listen to our "instinct of fairness" when considering Burqas? It is merely one instinct among many competing instincts. What directs us to favor this instinct over the others in this situation? You tell us this is what we should do, but you fail to say why.

I didn't fail to say why. In fact I've answered that question three times now:

Originally posted by scalvert:

The relatively recent development of civilization has allowed us the luxury to relax concerns of personal survival and start questioning those traditional justifications for discrimination that we've grown up believing make other groups less worthy of our innate fairness (including the very idea of basic human rights). The old barriers slowly fall and we again recognize former "inferiors" as very much like ourselves. Concepts of equality that were once considered outrageous become so obviously natural that it makes us wonder how our ancestors could have thought otherwise.

Originally posted by scalvert:

I believe modern societies are starting to favor fairness stemming from our natural empathy for others over that natural drive to get ahead at all costs: as our personal interests and survival are secured by industrialization and the support of others, we have less reason to rationalize others as less worthy to justify their subjugation.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Industrialization and social support has reduced concerns over personal survival. This has allowed us to re-evaluate traditional subjugation of others, resulting in democracy, women's suffrage, the abolition of slavery, torture and apartheid, etc.

Our strongest instinct is self-preservation, and we'll tend to fight anything we perceive as threatening to our own lives even if it means doing so at the expense of others (what you refer to as domination). But we also have a strong urge for altruism, which is why society reserves its highest praise for those who act out of altruism against the powerful instinct of self-preservation. We call them heroes. Basically, we favor altruism when the stronger urge for self-preservation is no longer a concern. We wouldn't expect a single observer to personally intervene if he witnessed 100 people attack a victim, but we are outraged if 1 person attacks a victim and 100 people don't try to help.

What directed us to favor abolition over slavery? Certainly not religion! In a broad sense, the advance of modern society lowered the perceived personal risk of change until it no longer outweighed the desire for altruism. Farm implements like cotton gins, corn pickers, grain elevators, balers, cotton harvesters and reapers all appeared before the Civil War, reducing the need (and therefore the justification) for slave labor.

You can see this principle in action with most social issues. A politician generally isn't going to incur the personal risk of an unpopular vote right before an election even if the result would benefit others (Don't Ask Don't Tell, stem cell research, etc.), and religiously-minded folks aren't going to support a ban on burqas if they perceive a threat (whether real or not) to their own personal choice even if it would free those women from abusive treatment.

09/22/2010 01:02:18 AM · #331

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

But people are allowed to disguise themselves every day wearing things like hooded jackets, hats, ski masks, scarfs, not to mention this yet those aren't banned.

09/22/2010 01:26:02 AM · #332

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's not about the potential for concealed weapons anyway, it's about the veiling of the faces. Which nuns don't do. Nobody cares if people want to wear robes, lots of cultures, both sexes even, do that. Where there's a security issue, if there's a security issue at all, is when people become unrecognizable, as if they were in disguise...

R.

But people are allowed to disguise themselves every day wearing things like hooded jackets, hats, ski masks, scarfs, not to mention this yet those aren't banned.

I'm not saying it's defensible; IMO it's not. I'm just saying this would be the only security issue, IF there were to be a security issue. Not the fact that folks are in full-length robes.

R.

09/22/2010 01:39:19 AM · #333

Shannon,

Doc's trying to see if you can come up with a logical construction, an "equation" as it were, that justifies altruism or fairness, something other than what you've been giving us so far, which is basically "altruism is defensible because it's good", and "as we have evolved as a society it costs less to be altruistic (or the potential downside of altruism is not as severe)".

That's all probably true. I don't think Doc would seriously argue that dominance is "better" than altruism, and *I* certainly wouldn't. But that's not the issue that's bothering us. We both believe that there needs to be a level playing field, logically, and that there's an inconsistency in the position you're espousing. Now, since it's "obvious" that altruism is "better" than dominance, that freedom is "better" than slavery, that the expression of self is "better" than the subjugation of self (at least to our liberated, Western sensibilities), it's pretty easy to gloss over the logical weaknesses of the argument, because the end result of it seems reasonable.

Unfortunately, there's a sort of an implied arrogance in the position, an implied statement that "we" (the proponents of the position) have an inside track on the truth, an exalted perception, if you will, in matters of morality. That's as plainly as I can put it. I think it's dangerous. I think it's dangerous when people disregard, sometimes to the point of ridicule and mockery (yeah I know, I've said this a gazillion times) the positions of other, thoughtful individuals, and support their OWN positions with such self-referential logical positions.

R.

09/22/2010 01:58:50 AM · #334

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I know you asked Shannon but IMO it's not about what is good or bad but what is most beneficial. When society isn't fair and just or lacks that perception it evidentially leads to a violent uprising if society doesn't yield to change. History is litered with such examples. Now of course domination could also be beneficial but only to the select few in power. For the rest it isn't beneficial at all.

Message edited by author 2010-09-22 02:00:39.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

09/22/2010 08:07:21 AM · #335

Originally posted by yanko:

I understand what you're saying, and in general I agree with you, as I said earlier: it seems "obvious" to us that freedom is "better" or "more beneficial to humankind" than tyranny. Nevertheless, from a logical point of view yours (and Shannon's) formulation of the issue as NOT "good or bad" but rather "beneficial or not-beneficial" is just a semantic change-up. There is still the core problem of how we can rationalize that on purely logical grounds.

Not only that, but when you say that history is "littered with examples" of violent uprisings against societies perceived to be unfair, I'm not sure that's proving anything either. The longest-lasting, most stable societies in human history have been basically tyrannical in nature, although the benevolence of the tyranny (if that makes any sense) can (and has) varied greatly.

That people can be shown to have an instinctive, even hard-wired need for, or desire to pursue, "freedom" does not, in and of itself, constitute proof that freedom is a natural or desirable state, any more than mankind's collective, demonstrable, instinctive urge to dominate and subjugate others in a social group constitutes proof of the same on the other side of the coin. In any case, it can be argued that the extreme of freedom is anarchy, just as the extreme of dominance is malicious tyranny.

So, in short, I rankle a little when people act, or argue, as if these issues are beyond debate, as if democracies are unquestionably "better" than, say, monarchies or oligarchies or any other sort of "archy". I want to see that parsed out in a way that makes sense, logical sense, objective sense. That's probably not possible, but in that case I want people arguing the case to acknowledge that they believe these things because they "feel right", not for any supposedly ironclad, logical, reasons. I can live with that. I believe with all my heart that a well-informed populace running a reasonably altruistic democracy is the way to go. Although I'm inclined to believe that an enlightened,benevolent monarchy is a very reasonable alternative :-)

R.

Message edited by author 2010-09-22 08:13:32.

Apple iPhone 5

09/22/2010 08:34:52 AM · #336

Nicely said.

Governments exist on the basis that the majority of the population are happy (or at least ambivalent) towards them. Or, that they can maintain sufficient power to suppress an 'unhappy' population - but there's only so long they can do that for.

It is far more effective for the government to stay in power by ensuring the citizens *believe* they are happy, and that they have the 'best' form of government. This idea is sold by governments the world over, from North Korea to Saudi Arabia to the United States.

Take Iraq as an example; were the people happier under the Saddam style of dictatorship? - They were certainly more secure. Same goes for Afghanistan. These governments were overthrown by an external power who believed they had a better form of government.

Either through cultural or religious differences, or through the fact the populace didn't appreciate a foreign power telling them the type of government they would be 'happier' under, both attempts to impose democracy have led to instability and turmoil in these two countries.

If democracy truly was without doubt the best form of government, then the people of Iraq and Afghanistan should have realised this the instant their existing governments were overthrown and embraced democracy without question.

For us who live under democracy, of course we see it as the 'best' form of government, and we shake our heads in disbelief that other non-democratic countries won't jump on the freedom bandwagon. It's been sold to us by our governments since the day we were born - we've been conditioned to be happy with it.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

09/22/2010 11:01:11 AM · #337

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

There may well be a legitimate security and/or safety issue, but the original reason articulated for pursuing this policy was that the burqa is demeaning to women. If the law had been proposed with the security and safety issues in mind and had been tailored strictly to addressing those concerns, it would have been a lot less intrusive and would not have raised questions of hypocrisy (Western culture isn't entirely without its demeaning aspects for women) and cultural imperialism. In my opinion this controversy is really all about forced assimilation, is it not? It's comforting to think that centuries of oppression can be wiped away with the wave of a hand, but it doesn't work that way in real life. I've been reading about the fact that in some households where women are being forced to wear the burqa, the men may not allow their wives to leave the house at all now that the garment has been banned. So the politicians may have thought they were liberating those women when in some cases they have just driven the problem further underground. Assimilation occurs in time, probably not with the immigrants themselves but certainly with the second and third generation, and it's confounding to me why the powers-that-be could not have exercised a little more patience with respect to this issue.

09/22/2010 11:14:30 AM · #338

Robert, once again, can say things a bit more eloquently than I can. He is correct that I am not actually arguing the end result (I don't favor tyranny and I don't favor burqas), but rather am trying to argue the fundamental principles behind the positions. Shannon has dismissed the "pro-burqa" position with one wave of the hand as a mere religious tautology. What he does not understand, is his opponent, if he wished, could dismiss Shannon's position in the same manner. That if you boiled it down enough, the argument would become either axiomatic or circular. Believe it or not, I'm not saying it's a terrible argument, but I AM saying that if you want to discount something on technical grounds, you had best be sure your own argument doesn't run afoul of the same problems (and in this case, it does).

Let's dissect Shannon's last response:

Our strongest instinct is self-preservation, and we'll tend to fight anything we perceive as threatening to our own lives even if it means doing so at the expense of others (what you refer to as domination). But we also have a strong urge for altruism, which is why society reserves its highest praise for those who act out of altruism against the powerful instinct of self-preservation. We call them heroes. Basically, we favor altruism when the stronger urge for self-preservation is no longer a concern. We wouldn't expect a single observer to personally intervene if he witnessed 100 people attack a victim, but we are outraged if 1 person attacks a victim and 100 people don't try to help.

The three bolded statements are the core of the paragraph. The rest is secondary. If, biologically speaking, we are a product of our insticts, why would we not favor the strongest instinct over the weaker one? Why would we consider the weaker to be "good" ("reserve highest praise") over the stronger? We certainly do this, but what biological imperative tells us to? How does a weaker instinct win out over a stronger one?

To go back to analogies, the instincts are like notes on a piano. Domination is a C note. Altruism is a G note. A C note isn't "wrong" unless it's played when you are told to play a G note and vice versa. But neither note itself tells you when it should be played. That's done by something else (the sheet music). The question then becomes, why does Shannon's sheet music tell us to play the G note (altruism) over the C note (domination)? You can't just say, "because we favor it" because that's an axiomatic argument, or circular, or tautological. You can't also just say, "it's beneficial for society" because that's also circular (what's beneficial? That which is fair.)

Message edited by author 2010-09-22 11:17:03.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/22/2010 11:32:48 AM · #339

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I'm not saying it's defensible; IMO it's not. I'm just saying this would be the only security issue, IF there were to be a security issue.

It's not. It's a matter of freedom from oppression and the right to live as an equal in society:

Originally posted by President Sarkozy:

In our country we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity. The burka is not a religious sign. It is a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/22/2010 01:00:32 PM · #340

Originally posted by scalvert:

Farm implements like cotton gins, corn pickers, grain elevators, balers, cotton harvesters and reapers all appeared before the Civil War, reducing the need (and therefore the justification) for slave labor.

Actually, it's my understanding that it was the invention of the cotton "gin" (engine) which allowed the perpetuation of the Southern slave-based economy, by making it possible to process enormous quantities very cheaply. The gin only separates the seeds from the fibers; the cotton still needed to be harvested by hand, typically by slave labor. Without that machine, the agricultural economy may have diversified into less labor-intensive crops, and other industries/services might have increased as a proportion of the overall economy.

09/22/2010 01:08:21 PM · #341

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If, biologically speaking, we are a product of our insticts, why would we not favor the strongest instinct over the weaker one? Why would we consider the weaker to be "good" ("reserve highest praise") over the stronger? We certainly do this, but what biological imperative tells us to? How does a weaker instinct win out over a stronger one?

Four times I've explained why, and four times you've ignored it. Self-preservation is the strongest instinct for individuals, and altruism is secondary (roughly analogous to self-preservation of the group). When looking out for ourselves is not a concern, then we look out for our family, friends, neighbors and complete strangers- generally in that order. While not 100% predictive, this tendency is readily demonstrable. If someone is drowning in a swift river, all bystanders want to help (altruism), but that imperative takes a back seat to the concern for our own safety (self preservation). We'll first look for a rope or a branch to help the victim rather than risk ourselves. If our primary concern is reduced, then we readily heed the call for the second. A boat captain, strong swimmer or someone secured by a rope or human chain is far more likely to directly intervene because those self-preservation concerns are reduced. The level of reduction necessary for altruism to take over is proportional to how closely we identify the victim as "ourselves," so a parent or best friend will be more likely to heed the second impulse with less concern for personal safety than a stranger. Now obviously a stranger could jump right in, but you'll usually find that such cases involve a person who acted reflexively or misjudged the danger.

The tendency holds true across most, if not all, situations. If you see a someone signaling for help on the side of the road, will you stop? The answer depends on the above assessment of self-interest. If the person in distress is a child in a quiet neighborhood at noon when you're in no hurry (little perceived personal risk), you will DEFINITELY stop; if it's a rough-looking bouncer at night on a busy freeway, you'll probably hesitate (maybe stop and crack a window or call the police); and if it's someone holding a gun in a bad neighborhood at night while you have a toddler in the back seat, you will DEFINITELY not stop (but you'll call the police because you still want to help). Self-preservation vs. altruism is the determining factor: we first think about helping ourselves, and then we think about helping others. When self-preservation is not an issue, altruism rules.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To go back to analogies, the instincts are like notes on a piano. Domination is a C note. Altruism is a G note. ...The question then becomes, why does Shannon's sheet music tell us to play the G note (altruism) over the C note (domination)?

No, they're not. Is your first concern to play a C note? Will you only play a G if you're reasonably certain that C will be played anyway? Self-interest comes first, then we worry about others. We don't have a problem with, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." during boom times, but we're certainly not going to extend a hand to immigrants during a recession with security fears! They'll take all the jobs, we'll have to pay for their care, terrorists will sneak in among them, yadayadayada... You are simply not going to be concerned about the plight of women forced to wear a burqa until the perceived risk to your own freedom is allayed.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Doc's trying to see if you can come up with a logical construction, an "equation" as it were, that justifies altruism or fairness, something other than what you've been giving us so far, which is basically "altruism is defensible because it's good"...

What I've been telling you is that we have a natural tendency to be altruistic, and you've been demanding for something to justify that instinct: "why should be fair to others (altruism) rather than dominate them (self-interest)?" I've been giving the same answer over and over: altruism is our default instinct when when self-interest in not in question. We have a strong natural instinct for self-preservation and a similar natural instinct for sex, but they're not equal and one is not "better" than the other. If you perceive a high personal risk of contracting AIDs or the stigma of being caught in an inappropriate situation, you'll abstain out of self-preservation, but if the perceived risk is lower (safe sex/low odds or low risk of being caught), then having sex will likely be the default choice.

09/22/2010 01:22:29 PM · #342

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Farm implements like cotton gins, corn pickers, grain elevators, balers, cotton harvesters and reapers all appeared before the Civil War, reducing the need (and therefore the justification) for slave labor.

Actually, it's my understanding that it was the invention of the cotton "gin" (engine) which allowed the perpetuation of the Southern slave-based economy, by making it possible to process enormous quantities very cheaply. The gin only separates the seeds from the fibers; the cotton still needed to be harvested by hand, typically by slave labor. Without that machine, the agricultural economy may have diversified into less labor-intensive crops, and other industries/services might have increased as a proportion of the overall economy.

The cotton gin was invented in 1794, and probably DID increase demand for the other labor intensive aspects of cotton farming, and hardened the will of southern plantation owners to defend their livelihood. The other farm implements I mentioned were developed between 1840 and 1860, and reduced the need for those other forms of labor. Had the latter tools been available without the cotton gin, then you'd still need slave labor for seed separation. My point was only that the availability of ALL these tools together reduced the justification for slavery, which had already been hotly contested.

09/22/2010 02:02:35 PM · #343

So it seems you are setting up a conflict of the altruistic instinct of the group versus the self-preservation instinct of the muslim man who is making his wife wear a burqa (and thus preserving his reproductive potential). Why does the altrusitic instinct trump the self-preservation instinct in this case?

You are basically telling the man, "your self-preservation instinct does not hold sway here". But you said before that it DOES hold sway and altruism only wins when self-preservation is not at issue.

And you don't speak at all to the woman who voluntarily wears the burqa out of respect for her husband and Allah.

Finally, on a different note, I'm not sure why we should "praise" altruism if it is merely an instinct we have and only occurs when we do not feel our self-preservation is threatened. It's merely an instinct. Why not "praise" self-preservation? It, too, is an instinct to heed and to not heed it could be viewed as foolish. Why are altruistic people viewed as heroes and not chumps?

09/22/2010 02:45:43 PM · #344

I am constantly intrigued by the pertinence of Jonathan Haidt's TED talk on conservative vs. liberal morality. Liberal's tend to have a two-axis morality and are concerned with care/harm and fairness/reciprocity and discount three other axes which conservatives pay attention to as well (ingroup loyalty, respect/authority, and purity).

Doesn't it seem pretty obvious that one may arrive at different conclusions about the burqa depending on whether we pay attention to only the first two axes instead of all five? It doesn't make one conclusion superior to the other, but it certainly does help explain it.

That talk should probably be requisite viewing every three months to anybody participating in Rant. :)

09/22/2010 03:10:34 PM · #345

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Think about what you're asking here. Why did the altruistic intent of abolitionists trump the self-interest of plantation owners to keep slaves? Would it matter if the slave agreed to submit out of respect for his master and God? The conclusions don't mean either side IS right, but explain why each thinks it's right. If you're looking for an objectively "correct" answer on the basis of competing instincts alone, you're not going to find one. My taste buds may tell me as a matter of biochemistry that chocolate is awesome, but that doesn't mean it's objectively correct. Popular (as opposed to legally mandated) agreement on a correct course of action is achieved only when one side convinces the other that the issue is or isn't a threat to self-interest. If it is (or seems to be), then consensus will go with whatever helps "us," and if it isn't, then we take the choice that helps others. If you view gay marriage as a threat to your own marriage (legitimately or not), then you'll oppose it as religious groups and older "traditionally-minded" people have. If you don't perceive a threat, like more secular groups and younger generations who've grown up seeing homosexuality as basically harmless, then you're OK with letting others live as they see fit. The French don't perceive a ban on burqas as a potential threat to their own religious expression, so the measure is widely supported as a matter of dignity and equality. Don't confuse that wide support with correctness, though, I'm only saying WHY they support it. As an aside, note that passing a law is not the same as enacting a law in France.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Finally, on a different note, I'm not sure why we should "praise" altruism if it is merely an instinct we have and only occurs when we do not feel our self-preservation is threatened. It's merely an instinct. Why not "praise" self-preservation? It, too, is an instinct to heed and to not heed it could be viewed as foolish. Why are altruistic people viewed as heroes and not chumps?

Society praises heroes BECAUSE they appear to set aside self-preservation to help others (putting society over themselves). That disjunct is often illusory. A hero pilot who saves 200 is also saving his own life, a hero stranger who snatches a drowning child from a pool usually doesn't think he's putting his own life at risk, and a hero police officer who stops a suicide bomber usually doesn't realize he's in danger until he's close enough that stopping the bad guy is the best option for saving his own life.

09/22/2010 03:32:12 PM · #346

Ok, that makes sense in as far as it is explanatory of how you see the world.

09/22/2010 03:38:06 PM · #347

Ditto.

09/22/2010 03:52:20 PM · #348

Incidentally, my own position is summed up nicely by a quote in a book I am currently reading:

"To the extent that human beings enter this world with any altruistic impulses, they are tragically limited. Throughout the ages, humans have demonstrated an instinctive altruism toward their families and their tribes. As human societies grew larger and more complex, the definition of one's "tribe" has often expanded to include entire races, religions, and nation-states. Yet the one constant throughout most of human history has been that those outside this shifting zone of compassion--those not in our "ingroup"--have never been deemed worthy of empathy or concern. These outsiders can be enslaved. And they can be killed. Slavery and genocide are hardly historical anomalies. They have been the overwhelming rule."

09/22/2010 04:12:11 PM · #349

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

How about this...

- The people in Society A general have a strong need for fairness and justice in order to be happy.
- Society A is a melting pot consisting of a diverse population.
- The laws of Society A are fair and just but only to one group of people (ex. white male land owners).
- As a result the People of Society A are generally unhappy except for the white male land owners.

What would be more beneficial to this society (i.e. lasts longer without the threat of rioting from within), would be to spread the wealth so to speak. In this case provide more justice and fairness to more of its' people. What is wrong with this?