The "see you someday" fallacy did not kill him. Actually, his contempt for his parents' religion (which is a tangential component in the note; certainly not its primary grievance and not "what killed him") was caused by the "I'll never see you because you'll be burning in awful hell forever because you disagree with my pastor" fallacy.
the "debate" here is simply the utter failure by so many to recognize power abusing non-power for ideas deemed unsavory
just as is the inability of so many to recognize that it is exactly the same when wikileaks is refused a right to be published via server space
you "debaters" should be ashamed of yourselves...but you won't be. i don't fully understand that part. is it really that hard to see the shape of the nation? the commerce infrastructure? the war, imperialism, peonage, acquiescence to abuses in the name of stability and financial growth.
yet nazis DID exist, and nazis DO exists, and the more often Godwin's crock of a law is pompously imposed the more will exist. ask yourself: how did they exist? were the german middle class simply naturally evil spawn of the devil children waiting to grow up and be spawn of the devil killers? how did they rise? not some macro view, a micro view. how did the middle class of a western nation create the nazi's military machine?
have you considered that they were propagandized? and how did that occur? why was information lacking? is it possible that information was suppressed? who suppressed it?
you are not immune to the very same information deficit which you endorse. you are not immune to the very same fear which envelops the nation.
but you say, "this is incest, i just don't like incest". well, there's lots of things you might not like. perhaps for example consider that 80-90% of you are not gay. presumably you don't read gay fiction. why are gays allowed to have a deviation from your norm while you are selectively willing to determine another deviation from your norm eligible for suppression? try to keep in mind that your cultural norm is a shockingly violent culture filled with shocking amounts of violent fantasy. "oh but i don't like violent fantasy". yeah right, i'm talking to the other 99.9% of you then.
you <--- yes you, reading this, are the middle-class of a western nation with quite a track record, and one that is only getting worse and so very very quickly year upon year of this century.
what questions will people ask 70 years from now to try to understand you. the middle-class "debaters"
metaphors are a powerful force against natural difficulty to place events into context. i would say you're only hurting yourselves, but actually you're hurting us all. You.
I think you take it too far. Yes, the powerful abusing the weak is not a healthy thing. But there is actually 'bad' in the world that should be suppressed. Unfortunately, there are people (you?) that are willing to say "we can't all agree on what is bad, therefore nothing is bad". That would work, except for the fact that we're human, frail and don't know nearly as much as we think we do.
Since the original article is sex, and you refered to it above, let's continue with it. Try going to an SA (sex addicts) meeting sometime and hear about shattered lives because of what someone did to someone else. I'm going to put my foot down and say rape is bad because of the horrible emotional baggage it leaves in someone's life. Incest is usually in the same category (I personally know a guy who will never have normal relationships because of what his older sister and friend did with him when he was 12).
I'm sure someone (you?) will try to argue there are cases where it's OK, so we shouldn't call rape 'bad'. PLEASE! Sometimes, there ARE things that should be suppressed.
And this doesn't mean anything or everything should be suppressed. If people are suppressing/hiding something because they did wrong (the government) then it should be exposed.
Except, whoops, we just said the government did 'wrong'. That's a value judgement! <sarcasm>Maybe some people think starting fake wars is OK and we shouldn't be so quick to call that unsavory</sarcasm> Value judgements have to be made as long as we're human. Value judgements mean there is 'good' and 'bad'. I don't think we want more 'bad' -- it's bad by definition! If we ever get to the point that we're computers and can hit a reset button, then _maybe_ right and wrong will go away...
So wikileaks and exposing corruption -- good, bring it on, don't suppress it. Encouraging rape or incest, I'm calling bad -- we don't need more of that in society.
There is a distinct difference between making something illegal and making writing about something illegal.
There are all sorts of films and books that show crime being committed, sometimes even with the criminals being the good guys. These obviously shouldn't be banned - but the crimes depicted probably should be.
"we can't all agree on what is bad, therefore nothing is bad"
I don't think the parent was arguing for that, indeed I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who truly believes that. He talks exclusively about ideas and fiction.
On a final note its not very classy to 'bait' people to downvote you. It's the reason that I didn't upvote you.
rape is coercion. good luck on that correlation. if incest is psychologically or physically coerced then it rape as well
incest has a negative physical effect on society as far as i understand it, but i am no expert. it does appear to be a wise for society to ban and even discourage the practice. there is no claim here that all ideas are of equal value. however, it is the expression of the idea which i am discussing, not the value, not the practice.
incest, as you say, may also have negative psychological consequences. however i could make a case that those are because of society, again i am no expert, and that does not diminish the potential social value of discouraging it. in fact i could make the case that despite the big picture problem we're discussing on the individual level the psychological problems induced by over-reactions are a downside to our collective discouragement of the practice. there's no free lunch. and sometimes the lunch costs too much, for example, how many tens of thousands of people are in prison for smoking a herb? society isn't always right (duh). that's why we defend freedom of expression. we don't know what we don't know that we don't know. ;)
again: rape is coercion, and it is expression & not practice or value which i am discussing.
to defend freedom of expression we must defend expression of ideas odious to us (nothing is universally odious). but hey, that's freedom 101, not sure why it needs reminding
and to veer in a different direction: it's also worthwhile to consider that all of the above occur frequently in literature & pulp. i'll venture to guess that rape occurs by far the most. the intellectual age has long passed wherein entertainment containing apparently negative representations of such things can be considered without considering the appetite of the audience. if we make value statements then let's try not be delusional about audience participation (i'm not saying you claim otherwise, just throwing this in the mix)
also: let's not get caught up on blaming the government for oppression, a common thread in all these discussions. amazon doesn't get a free pass by being private. power is power that affects me & you regardless where we shop. the texas board of education censors the ideas available in most american schools via the commercial apparatus of mass production aka efficiency. last i checked i don't live in texas either.
Ahahaha, life lessons from someone who thinks Dexter is worthy of intellectual consideration.
And who gives The Republic serious consideration for the present?...Oh i see you're speaking in Ann Arbour tomorrow, of course you do, just like that "The Republic Is America and The Republic Is Awesome" lecture that is taught in full seriousness in the Yale online courses...now it makes sense, the delusions of apparently omnipotent wealth.
So much high school lovin tonight, what's up pups?!
When N+1 hosts writers just out of college, this is what we get. It happens.
This is your typical "we're special because of xyz" conceit.
We all know what that is. We've all been there, and fortunately many of of have noticed and the next time is less severe.
The "we're special because humans never before did x" has been around since the beginning of time, and it's always right on some vapid level. The exciting thing is, we all still have blood, and thin skins, and bacteria who want to live in us but also want to eat us, and viruses who just want to subvert us. That doesn't change that much. Sure, lifespan doubles, hurrah.
This conceit is a cousin of ludditism, a 1st cousin that is, just with a different twist.
Enjoy your college writers. They are great entertainment. Nothing more.
my post discusses exceptionalism, a conceit which blinds us from reality by convincing us that we are different, a notion frequently addressed:
-- everything is new again just like before
-- there is nothing new under the sun ~ all is vanity
-- the only thing we learn from history is that we never learn
for a more culturally correct critique, though less direct, i.e. more metaphorical: this article is a micro-benchmark with a sample size of 1 and not having adequate controls when measuring in a noisy environment.
this is more or less a cousin of what you're saying to me. although it's humorous that you're making it as a critique of me and not of the article when in fact it and i are both painted with that brush.
and while i can just as easily make the same critique, i dispute it as a another conceit: the physical sciences' over-reliance on rationality in a universe that is not fully understood. an old philosophical problem, and one at the core of feynman's overestimated notions of superiority, brilliant as he was, he'll gladly cut down the social sciences and simultaneously provide us with high-quality tools for mass devastation.
ah, the fraternal sciences, one of whom is convinced it is no sibling, but rather the ubermensch already come.
but, yeah, that sort of micro-benchmark metaphor can be popular when misapplied to the humanities. and what do we get out of that?: economics. woohoo! i'm on fire! now, peeps, hurry with the down votes.
we have reached the pronosingularism. p0rnography is sentient.
it is engaged in simultaneous cyberwars, battling skynet & the alpha-centauri-based bi-located lobster uberbeing, normal service will be resumed shortly.
(and no, joe lieberman uber-alle, there is no agent whom you can call for help with your cyberwars)
added: lol, so many geek refs, and still, hyper sensitivity to discussing the evil surrounding us in our times (joe, not porn) and i am cast out. u down voters suck so hard it just makes me so very lovely happy. this is a sartre moment for me, philosopher borne of french collaboration, his own countrymen: you have created the troll, it wasn't a troll it was humorous references to the darkness...u have created it...oh the humanity, the darkness is you. oh yes, revel in your satisfaction that i am not genteel like you. revel in your blind eyes turning away from the mirror of your own willful ignorance. enjoy the silence of your moneyed minds, the green lawns of hegemony will one day with your hope and silence be restored)
What used to be the mantra of gangsters "It's nothing personal, just business", is now taken as an excuse for everything. Nothing to see here, look the other way, it just business, it's how things are run.
Which is a bit sad, but being amoral is a sign of the times. But if you're amoral then be amoral on everything. For example, don't be enraged to Wikileaks about deaths supposedly (and unproven) caused by things they revealed, while ignoring all the (proven) deaths caused by wars.
It's just the way things go, just business... Now go to sleep.
man you gotta be such a sucker to fall for this one.
debt, assumed by despotic and self serving governments, 20% of which goes to fund their militarily held regimes without providing growth, which enslave generations, all well documented, all neo-colonialism: suckers & selfishticos sign-up here, your dream awaits. join the world bank in its phony do-gooder endeavors.
god what the hell is wrong with people, is propaganda really this good? i mean, seriously. this is on the front page. people voting this up are very evil or very very very stupid, which these do you up-voters prefer to be?
do your own homework. i'm not the one voting up the world bank. the voter uppers have the burden of responsibility for advocation. not all ideas are equal.
this site does not allow me to vote down, this means an unequal burden in defense of a down vote versus an up vote, despite an up-vote being an positive advocation. (this is not a brainstorming session, this is life)
and please note that i'm being called upon to carefully document a response to propaganda on top of defending an idea against anonymous up-votes. hmmm. can you smell the bullshit? can you taste it? all i smell and taste are kangaroo court judges in a carefully constructed technolalaland.
and since the dumbsters really won't get it: if your head is appointed by the president of the united states, not to mention if only americans can be head, then this marketing effort is dictionary definition of propaganda, that's not an opinion statement. (it's amazing how often one needs to pull out the dictionary in this joint)
it's amazing how often one needs to pull out the dictionary in this joint
Leave the dictionary: just give us some links to backup what you claim.
Look at it this way: you're complaining that people don't do X. You want them to do Y, and are annoyed that they don't. It would therefore benefit you to educate people about why X is bad and Y is good. If you don't at least try, I'm not sure you get to complain any more.
Let's avoid the name calling and rhetoric, recommend us some good reading.
no, i'm complaining that people DO X, please get it straight. They DO advocate X. They DO advocate the world bank marketing effort, which is governmental making it intrinsic propaganda.
Back up YOUR up-votes. why is the world bank a good thing to support? i mean, it's been around 50 years or so, you know, european post-war reconstruction all that. so...tell me, all the poverty...getting worse, yeah, so, how's that whole world bank working out for you, tell me?
i mean, i don't have to get into the neo-colonialism angle. as an atheist i can say to the christians in the bunch by their fruits ye shall know them.
so, you're backing up something, you think it's a good idea to read about, support, take action for. or no, it's just interesting in some faux-amoral sense. but you still think that it's valid to accept that on face value, and you're doubtful about the concept of deceptive & self-serving propaganda as something to guard carefully against.
well, tell me, what do you know about this program? what independent analysis have you seen? why are you advocating? why are you so sure the dissent has the burden of proof when the dissent is not actually taking any actions except to dissent in response?
there is a rhetorical paradox presented here. also known as hypocrisy (since we're speaking of dictionaries)
p.s. as you can see, i think the weaknesses in our frameworks for debate are a far bigger problem than advocating the world bank. we propagate bullshit for generations. our frameworks are broken. our well annotated frameworks are broken. we're deceiving ourselves with some pseudo-victorian genteel ideal.
speak your fucking mind. why are we letting taboos rule our time? micro-managers rule our time.
we are screwed if we don't break free from this hypersensitivity and inability to consider and face our problems with our attempts to improve quality of life for more than just a few technostartopoliptocrats.
what good is free speech if we fear the inconvenient as much as this?
the construction of voting on this site is intrinsically skewed toward bad ideas. sure it may seem awesome for awhile, i mean, yeah, we do have to put up with penis enlargement pills from the 4-hour work-week guy every now and then...
but seriously, does anyone expect that to last when it's so much easier to advocate using anonymous votes than it is to detract where you're called upon to carefully annotate any dissent.
is it really that great a system?
sure it works to keep out the trolls -- oh those horrible trolls, god protect our thin hides and sensitive complexions from those horrible trolls -- but at the expense of accepting a wealth of propaganda and spam in fancy dress?
a call for action on behalf of the world bank is political. that is the problem for the site, the original poster, and the up-voters to consider along with the dissenters. besides, all social organization is political, that is what politics is.
and on [good and] evil:
a. our social condition reasonably constructs a concept of evil worthy of consideration, it also helps our society work, hopefully to benefit the individual
b. on the macro-scale our biological imperative most likely assists in that construction, but that does not imply the construction is always successful in the macro or micro scale (think dinosaurs). besides, what do i care about macro, micro has plenty to consider for me, i'll leave the very long-term to the gene pool to worry about
c. and we create our own truth, you have yours and i have mine. i like mine, but it's constantly adjusting as i attempt to learn
so tell me again where the problem is?
(and no, in response to your comment below, it's you who said that about politics, i just responded with the basic problem in what you're saying)
p.s. i can't respond to posts anymore, i guess i'm a troll, awesome system this. block ur ears from the bad man everyone!
p.p.s. score for the reddit suggestion! psuedo-victorian genteel ideal that it is (the suggestion that is)
and regarding point #3, i'm responding to your questions Thom, responding, you asked how the word evil can be used, i explained why i think it is a valid term for an atheist to use in context. #1 is the answer to the question about why it applies to this discussion.
these are not ideas i came up with, they are the basic problems of philosophy. obviously you don't have agree and neither can i expect that i control the market on truth. that's what intellectual honesty is. i gave you a rough outline of the framework i'm basing opinions and these includes points you can use to refute me...because i can use those point to refute me too.
i am choosing to focus on the social benefits for our time, and i make no claim that this is not a self-serving act, anyone who does is probably lying, though it would be wonderful to be proven wrong. i'm just looking for better society than what we live in now. better for others means better for you and me. it doesn't matter how many cars i have if i sm living in fear of the next attack from our enemies. or the next financial upset. or the rise of china and what it means for my children and grandchildren (well, i've only got the children right now)
on the social scale we are propagating something usefully described as evil in the context of our time in our society and affecting us. and i believe it is an extended condition largely because of our faulty debate mechanisms, susceptibility to propaganda, hypersensitivity to inconvenience...blah blah blah