

In response to Mike Arrington: Why you should start living your life again. - tylerdmace
http://tylerdmace.squarespace.com/musings/2010/3/28/why-you-should-start-living-your-life-again.html
I hope me posting this isn't a problem. Just thought some of you would appreciate it.
======
greenlblue
Awesome post and I kinda see where he is coming from. Don't be a dick to
others and be true to yourself and the world will be a much better place.
Solid advice but unfortunately there are always powerful interests at work
that have a stake in shaping your views and opinions. The church, the
government, corporations, etc. Each of these things has a stake in an ideology
that creates the conditions for their well being at the expense of the well
being of others and people are extremely bad at untangling all those
influences and getting to the bottom of who they really are. I even suspect
some people are really uncomfortable with not being influenced and told what
to do since they think chaos is sure to ensue. Every time I tell people I'm an
atheist they act like they are seeing me for the first time and their
immediate next question is "How do you make moral decisions without
religion?". I have yet to find an answer to this question.

~~~
gizmomagico
_"How do you make moral decisions without religion?"_

\- By using your own brain and common sense? How about: "Would you go around
killing people if there was no Bible to tell you it's bad mm'kay?"

~~~
kajecounterhack
Don't you use your brain and common sense to make all decisions, whether
you're religious or not? Yeah, some religious people do tend to say silly
things like "Atheists are less moral, they can't make moral decisions without
religion" << but I think this is because they miss another aspect of life:
_society_ defines morals, not just religion.

Religion is a shaper, but there's only so much defined in religion. Example:
Religion doesn't say anything about illegal downloading. It's not _exactly_
the "stealing" talked about in the bible, because hey nobody loses anything,
just _potential_ profit. There's no exact matching scenario in the bible...you
kind of extrapolate. Where does the rest of your morality regarding such
matters come from? Oh yah, your brain! Your common sense. Oh, what's that?
Right, common sense is based on society -- norms and outside influences.

Now sure, religion is a big part of people. It has strong ties with society,
helping to shape the morality found in societies. Remember how parts of the
bible were once used to justify slavery? Does anyone try to use the bible to
support slavery anymore? Psh. But hey, if your religion says you can kill
people, you wouldn't (logically speaking) just do so in any country today,
because you make the _decision_ in your brain "I won't do it or I'll go to
jail." Society says no." Same with stuff like gay marriage. Some Christians
learn to adapt to having members of the homosexual community in their
congregations. Others can't deal just yet cause people dislike change.
Regardless, in 100 years, it's a nonissue and virtually everyone agrees,
morally speaking. Society wins. It happened with segregation, it happened with
gender barriers, it'll happen again.

Disclaimer: I am religious, I'm a Christian to be exact. But yeah, I don't
claim that Christians are any more moral than anyone else. Morality is
relative from a perspective that doesn't assume existence of God.

^ if you're a Christian, do know that I believe in moral absolutes. But that's
_only_ assuming the existence of God, because in that sense morals are defined
by the nature of God.

~~~
petewailes
Stealing isn't taking financial value from someone else, it's taking advantage
of someone else's work without providing some form of recompense. When you
pirate a film, you're saying to all the actors, director(s), all the people
involved in making the film, all the people who backed it financially, and all
the people who pushed it from idea to finished product that whilst you think
they did a good enough job to warrant spending two hours of your time watching
and enjoying it, you don't value the (often) years of their lives and the huge
sums of money they put in to bring you that two hours of experience.

If it was worth watching, then you should give something in return. Otherwise
it's theft. Not financial theft, as as you noted, it's potential profit
they've lost. But it's still theft nonetheless.

That aside, I agree with the rest.

~~~
prodigal_erik
That's nowhere near the consensus definition of "theft". It's no more
legitimate than declaring you an arsonist, because you've deprived them of a
mansion they could have had built.

Information age scarcity through copyright as a tool to compensate creators
brings a uniquely complex mix of benefits and drawbacks. Arguments about how
and when to apply them best should stand on their own, rather than being
disguised as millenia-old emotional baggage about survival.

------
oldgregg
What ridiculous ramblings. You presuppose that the only problem in the world
is intolerance. Well what if my "true self" is touching kids in the naughty
place, would you tolerate that?

Everyone is intolerant of others, the question is just who is drawing the
line.

~~~
nopassrecover
Ridiculous straw man retort. If tolerance, in the form the author argues for
("recognition and respect (of) differences in opinions or beliefs" from an
impartial viewpoint), was more widely adopted we would be able to have
reasonable debates on issues like censorship and individual liberties without
people like you appealing to people's emotional biases with pathetic fear-
inducing examples.

~~~
oldgregg
It's not a straw man, see the very frequent example below. The problem is the
definition of "impartial viewpoint."

------
jacoblyles
>"But my plea to you all is to stick up for what you believe in - despite
knowing that you will undoubtedly encounter hardships as a result. Yeah, it's
hard. But believe me, it's worth it."

Why is it worth it? Because you say so? A person who holds a minority belief
may risk personal and professional alienation if he expresses that belief
without restraint. How do you know that self-expression is worth it for him?

Isn't this post an example of the pathology it describes? "Being true to
yourself" is something you're supposed to believe in post-1960s American
culture. The author offers nothing but emotion-based arguments for a popular
ideal.

~~~
greenlblue
A society in which people are not willing to trust each other and express
their opinion is in a very real sense broken. No politician on capitol hill is
willing to express their real opinion and look at where that has lead us.
Special interests dominate every aspect of law making and every deal happens
behind closed doors. This is truly a sad state of affairs and it is so mostly
because nobody is willing to say what is really on their mind. All we get now
are ideological shouting matches because just like muscles atrophy when not
used so does the mental faculty of thinking for yourself.

~~~
jacoblyles
If people said what was really on their mind, wouldn't we have more
ideological shouting matches?

~~~
tylerdmace
Perhaps. But ideas wouldn't be getting ignored simply because they're
different or unpopular.

