Re:How many times does it have to be said?
on
AOL Wins Anti-Spam Case
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Nothing of the sort can be attributed to spam.
If you think that spam causes no "substantial harm", then you pay AOL's costs for servers, bandwidth, and storage to handle over ten million spam e-mail messages per day. And while you are at it, write checks to every ISP to cover those costs. Then go back and write checks to every Internet user that has paid higher monthly fees because of spam. Respected estimates put the total cost of spam into the billions of dollars every year.
Since there is no substantial harm to users
According to industry estimates, spam increases each subscriber's monthly costs by several dollars. Just how much would it have to cost consumers before you considered it to be "substantial harm"?
Then please post your credit card number here. I want to send advertisements to you by conventional mail but I do not want to pay the postage myself. This way, it will be like spam. You will pay for the delivery of the ad to you and I, being the advertiser, will only shoulder a fraction of the true cost.
I guess that you are in favor of collect calls from telemarketers, too...
It normally is, especially when the ISP has made their policies against it clearly known.
I'm not saying spam should be outlawed altogether.
I am. Businesses and individuals should not have to invest money in servers, bandwidth, and storage so that spammers can flood them with unwanted advertisements.
The advertisements are being delivered at the recipients' expense. That's theft, pure and simple. It's no different than someone using your credit card to pay for the postage on junk-snail-mail that they send to you.
Re:How many times does it have to be said?
on
AOL Wins Anti-Spam Case
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Lots of speech, or free expression, is dishonest, annoying, and unethical depending on your perspective. It doesn't mean that it isn't protected.
Commercial speech does not get the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. Look up "Central Hudson test" on Google to get more information on this.
Critical thinking and reasoned thought is not an invention.
You are trying to press your rational atheism on these people just as much as I'm trying to push my own religion on them.
Far from it. I don't feel that I have a moral right to go into their village and tell them that their religious beliefs are wrong. I can give them logical tools and they can come to their own decisions about religion should they wish to consider it. What you want to do is to tell them that their non-Christian religious beliefs are wrong, that, if they continue to worship a God other than the Christian God that they will burn for all eternity in Hell, etc. I do not believe in mixing fact and faith when teaching people. If they want to ask you about your beliefs, then answer them. But don't pass off your beliefs as "the gospel truth" {snicker}.
Hopefully, they (random tribesmen) will enjoy the material improvements to life that Westernity has to offer until we finish arguing over philosophy...;)
Christians preach love. If they don't show love, then what's the point? That is the main crux of the Christian faith the good news- God loves us, he sent his Son to die for us.
Again, you are mistaking good deeds and the good people who do them as affirmation that the religious beliefs are correct. I have no doubt that many Christians have done many wonderful, generous things. And I don't have anything against most of the morals taught by the Christian faiths. But doing good deeds does not give one moral license to pass on their religious beliefs as fact to unsophisticated, and grateful, tribes people.
Condoms are better than sex without protection, but far riskier than abstinence or monogamy (faithful partners for life).
Then why don't you go to sub-saharan Africa and try to educate them? Thanks to the influences of industrialized countries, the men no longer work in the villages as hunters or farmers. Instead, they are hauled by trucks and buses to inner cities where they have sexual liasons with prostitutes.
Deal with reality. The entire continent is not going to suddenly adopt Christian views about sexual morality. What the Catholic church is doing to stop the distribution of condoms in places like that is pure evil.
Well the missionaries went in there first. They showed their faith and love by their deeds. They put their "money" where their mouth is.
So you are saying that, if Scientologists went in first, that would mean that Scientology was the most valid belief system? Little did I know that one should judge a belief system by punctuality.
When the missionaries' children came back to the tribe on a mission, the tribe were convinced.
And when the eclipse ended, the Chinese people were convinced that their beating of drums and shooting arrows into the sky is what scared away the dragon that had swallowed the sun. Being convinced of something does not mean that it is valid.
So yeah maybe some "objective" scientist of your preferred beliefs (e.g. nonchristian) should go there and help them.
Do you think that missionaries invented the vaccines that cured polio and smallpox? Did you know it was scientists, not missionaries, who invented Mectazin, the drug used to prevent the onset of river blindness? How did the missionaries get there? Did God deposit them there, or were they shuttled in by cars, helicopters, boats, and planes developed by engineers? Was it missionaries that developed prevention and treatment methods for AIDS? (No. Instead, the Catholic Church is busy trying to keep condoms away from people at-risk for AIDS.)
Missionaries use the valuable work done by scientists and engineers to legitimize, to the villagers, the unfounded Christian belief systems that they foist off on them.
Your argument is what is known as an Argumentum ad Verecundiam or "Argument from respect (modesty)" (Latin). The basis of your argument is that the missionaries did something deserving of respect and admiration, therefore, their belief in Christianity must be valid. It's a common logical fallacy.
Even if every outsider try their best to avoid supplanting their religions belief system, all the other ideas they acquire through contact will still lead them to re-evaluate their belief.
Why do you say that? Step back and look at how, despite all objective and rationale arguments against it, Christianity has survived. It's pretty absurd when you think about it, the concept of an all-powerful, yet invisible, being whose presence cannot be detected or measured by any scientific method. Yet people cling to those beliefs. I see no reason to suppose that the religious belief systems of these tribal peoples could stand up any less well to scrutiny.
BTW how do you make the distinction between "primitive people" and the other "less primitive people" and know whom to leave alone?
I just consider what they know, what they don't, what beliefs they hold, their standard of living, and so forth. Sorry, but there's not a dipstick of advancement to which one can refer.
You know most of say India is pretty primitive by Western standards, so it's just wrong to introduce them to such alien and unnatural things like computers and programming languages.
{snide remark} Then where would we get our H1-B employees? The next thing you know, computer professionals would command the same kind of pay the lawyers, doctors, and other professionals with intellectually demanding work get. {/snide remark}
You are mistaking the teaching of technology and science with proselytizing. While it is good to help people advance, teaching Christian myths and superstitions as fact does just the opposite. It encourages unreasoned belief which is not founded on logic or science.
Unlike TNG, which I came to loathe, people in DS9 had _conflict_, internally and externally.
Drug addicts have conflicts, too, but I don't want to watch them. Besides, I felt that the conflicts that Picard faced on TNG were far more substantive than the border skirmish that was DS9.
I've seen no-one mention how complex the setting was
Sure, there was complexity, but I always felt that it was a transparent reference to Nazis (Cardassians), Jews (Bajorans), and the United States (The Federation) after WWII. Besides, I don't just want complexity. I want variety.
Finally, there's religion. Rodenberry wouldn't have it in his show, but it exists in the real universe.
Sure he did. Look that TOS. There were episodes like "Who Mourns for Adonais" and "Bread and Circuses" which prominently featured religion. But I always Roddenberry's vision of a future where man no longer clung to religious beliefs to be one that gave me great hope.
I don't think you're giving these guys enough credit; they are NOT children, they are quite as smart as you or me. If they are not coerced, some of them may convert, and some will not.
Intelligence and knowledge are not the same. When primitive people are in awe of modern visitors, they are very likely to believe what these people tell them -- especially if the tangible part proves true.
I note you don't have any problem teaching them about the scientific method, or "freedom of (lots of things)", which are just as much a cultural construct as Christianity, and whose adoption would change their society. It seems your objection is not so much to changing the natives' society, as teaching them Christianity.
Science is not a cultural construct and comparing it to the blind-faith that is Christianity debases it. Teaching primitive cultures about medicine, food safety, irrigation, and so forth improves their lives. Teaching them about Christianity denigrates their religious belief systems for no valid purpose.
I find it equally... odd... that you seem happy that the natives keep any religion *but* Christianity;
I don't want them to continue any belief in the supernatural, whether it is their native belief system or Christianity. I want them to accept the scientific method and logical thinking so that they question any religion that has them worshipping invisible dieties.
it sounds like you have some particular animus against that religion.
Yes, I do. Christianity is why we have a President holding back federal funding for stem cell research that could save countless victims of everything from Parkinson's Disease to spinal cord injuries. It's a major cause of people not understanding science. We have religious zealots fighting against schools teaching evolution. Christianity is responsible for the Crusades and countless atrocities throughout history. I could go on and on, but, frankly, that's off-topic.
Because they believe it. A powerful and almost all-knowing bunch of people appeared one day and told them, for a fact, that the Christian God exists and that to not believe in that God would damn them to suffer in hell for all eternity.
Since these people understood medicine, may have had magic boxes through which voices spoke (radios), and may even have arrived by car or helicopter, sure they believed them.
That's what is referred to as exerting undue influence. It's the same thing that parents do to get kids to believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny: they use their perceived trustworthiness and knowledge to make the child believe.
What about teaching them to read? Are you against that too?
No. I am in favor of education -- just not religious indoctrination.
I like to think that universal literacy, the scientific method, freedom of (lots of things), not getting shot with arrows, etc, are great things, not just my particular tribal taboos. I am genuinely sad for people who don't have these things, and would like to offer them the benefits of our culture.
I agree. And I would add farming techniques, medicine, and birth control to that list of valuable things we can teach.
They don't have to accept, that's certainly their right, but I think they'll be silly to turn down the things the West has to offer. Doubtless they'll take the parts they like, and skip the rest. What's wrong with that?
I don't know why you think that they will "skip" anything. Think about this hypothetical situation: Primitive villagers are confronted by people exiting a helicopter carrying walkie-talkies, radios, and computers. The people teach the primitive villagers about irrigation, treating wounds, safely storing food, etc. In with all this, presented as fact, is that there is a "God" that is invisible, all-powerful, created man, and that does battle with Satan. You know the story. The primitive villagers are going to accept that the wise and powerful westerners that arrived there know that this God exists -- probably without question. It's the same phenomenon that allows parents to convince children that Santa Claus exists.
Why is the world poorer for the loss of cultural diversity? Are you worried about a particular dance no longer being performed? The loss of some pagan religion? The loss of a language (I'll admit, as a linguist that one gives me the heebie-jeebies)? The loss of wearing loincloths?
I am worried about all of that. And I am worried about the loss of history. Oral traditions tell us much about a culture. When those oral traditions are abandoned because missionaries have "taught" the "Word of God", that's a horrible loss. Yes, I'm worried about dances, religions, languages, and native garb being tossed aside.
Imagine National Geographic if every person they profiled was basically the same.
I find it interesting to note your use of the terms "some pagan religion" and "loincloths" rather than simply "their religion" and "native clothing." Were those terms meant to be pejoritive, either consciously or subconsciously?
It seems your premise is that people shouldn't pollute each other's minds by communicating with each other.
Not at all. When two equals communicate, that's great. But when a group of missionaries ties assistance, education, and religious teachings together in one lump package, it does a terrible disservice to less-advanced peoples (who may not be able to separate facts -- about, say, food safety -- from religious beliefs).
Interesting that you assume that the missionaries in the 50s were Catholic. I don't recall reading that in the article. Methinks you might have a bias/prejudice...
No. I simply confused in my mind the mention of Catholicism in these threads and what I read in the article. The missionaries were actually part of a non-denominational group called American Unevangelised Field Missions.
There are people who believe a book written by middle-eastern sheep hearders thousands of years ago to codify their superstitions is irrefutable fact. Would you consider them to be sophisticated?
In areas other than that one huge blind spot, yes. But that is a good summary.
You selectively quoted me. I said another option is to leave them alone...
No, I did not. Please reread my response and you will see that I did not quote selectively.
Careful. DS9 was probably the best series of all of them. It had a direction to go, it did so, and the fans were satisfied. Unfortunately, the people who didn't/couldn't keep up with it were the ones that were burned. So I can see why you say that about DS9.
And here I diverge to off-topic...
I watched every episode of every Star Trek series and I found DS9 to be the least satisfying. It was Days Of Our Lives In Space. The characters were, by and large, not satisfying and spent most of the show in a morose funk -- especially Sisko. The only character that I felt had any depth was Garak -- and he was not a primary character. Colm Meaney was wasted in his role as Miles O'Brien. His mysterious disappearing wife Keiko added nothing to the show and left one wondering what kind of marriage he had.
DS9 was a post-war-pissing-contest between the Cardassians and Bajorans -- with religious mysticism thrown in for bad measure. It was simply boring, with the crew helpless to do anything while sitting around on the station. The being-stuck-on-a-space-station is why the Defiant was added to DS9.
I want something uplifting. I like travelling with the proudest crew on the Federation's flagship. I want to see a captain and crew that make first contact and wrestle with ethical decisions that define our humanity. I'm not interested in seeing someone sitting around fondling a baseball while grieving over his dead wife for seven years.
If they can't tell the difference between a flashlight and magic, then they are going to be easily duped into Christianity
That's probably true. They may accept the posession of said flashlight as a sign that the holder is wise, powerful, and intelligent. If the flashlight owner were then to teach them about irrigation, food safety, and medicine, while winding in teachings about Christianity as if it is above question, then it is likely that the indigenous people will accept Christianity as factual.
Maybe someone should go in and teach them critical thinking skills and the scientific method, so they can more objectively evaluate the prosthyletizing of the missionaries.
An excellent suggestion.
Another option would be to just leave them alone.
An even better idea.
However, whether it's missionaries in the '50's or ranchers and eco-tourists in the '00's, the world is getting smaller and they are going to have contact with some outsiders sooner or later.
Sophisticated outsiders have a moral responsibility to not try to supplant the indigenous religious belief systems of primitive people.
Let's assume, for the sake of understanding the Christian missionaries, that they ARE right, and that life now and hereafter DOES get better if you're a Christian.
Let's assume that the missionaries are wrong. Let's assume that the local beliefs are right. Let's further assume that the locals' conversion to Christianity angers their gods and causes those gods to put a curse on the village and the crops. Let's assume that the villagers then starve to death.
You are going on the assumption that there is some reason to believe that Christianity is "right" and that local belief systems are "wrong." That's simply not the case.
Now, if we discard the "the Christians are right" assumption and simply look at it from a general standpoint, it STILL isn't "sad."
Yes, it is. These people probably had a rich cultural heritage and religious views that were passed down from generation to generation in stories. Losing that so that they can be added to the Catholic Church's list of conquests is very sad.
Because it supplants the tribe's own belief systems, losing that part of their culture and making the world poorer for the loss. You may feel that teaching primitive, innocent people to feel shame about their own bodies is good. I, and others, do not.
You may disagree with their beliefs, but wanting to share what you think has merit with the distant or marginal people of the world isn't terribly 'sad'.
It is when the "marginal people" are a primitive, easily-influenced people who accept the beliefs because they hold the people teaching them in such high regard. It's like a satanist converting a young child to satan worship. It is not an affirmation of the belief system nor is it an example of free will on the part of the new convert.
As an advanced (relatively speaking) people, we have a moral duty to not impose religious beliefs on people who lack the sophistication to understand the difference between science and beliefs in the occult (e.g., people rising from the dead, ceremonies in which wine and wafers symbolise cannabalism, people being turned into pillars of salt, etc.)
The point isn't a matter of specifications, its of durability.
It is seldom that a company produces a product with poor performance that is durable (Harley Davidson being the most notable exception). Nor is it common for a company to produce a product with excellent performance and short lifespan.
In audio, if the company cut corners and used poor-performing op-amps for their output circuitry, you can be pretty sure that they rest of the parts, mechanical and electrical, are similarly crappy.
Input signal amplitude and volume control (which is usually just an input attenuator) combine to produce an excitation signal whose amplitude, or level, determines what the output level of the amp is.
But these facts and statistics are just a means to find something that tastes good, and the taste itself is the best criterion.
But with audio equipment, one should choose based not on what sounds "better", but rather on what is more accurate. If you take two amps and do an A/B blind test, an amp that is set 1db louder will be perceived as sounding better (assuming that the two amps are roughly equal in performance).
With wine, you want it to impart it's own flavor. You definitely don't want that with audio equipment.
Why on earth should consumers be expected to know about harmonics or transistors or any other technical detail?
So that they can make an intelligent purchase decision that will leave them happy for years to come.
Let me ask you this: Why on earth should consumers be expected to know about calories, fiber, or vitamins when choosing food?
Surely you should just listen to the output and pick the unit that sounds best.
Not if you are considering four different units available at four different dealerships. Human memory of sound quality is not that good. Nor is it fair to compare amplifiers by listening to different source components played through different speakers in different acoustical environments.
Consumers have a huge advantage over salespeople. We can actually research the items we want in depth since we have the advantage of focussing on at most a handful of items.
An interesting theory, but actually flawed. Manufacturers have actually started to not publish specifications. I remember considering a Sony cassette deck about three or four years ago. Even basic specs were not published in the Sony catalog. It took a bit of hunting to find it.
Remember the Bad Old Days before most major vendors had their product info online? People were lucky to find any information anywhere.
What I remember was being able to get a one-page sheet for each and every component that I was considering the purchase of. The sheet had a big glossy photo of the product, rundown of the features, and VERY complete specifications. Try getting that now.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing of the sort can be attributed to spam.
If you think that spam causes no "substantial harm", then you pay AOL's costs for servers, bandwidth, and storage to handle over ten million spam e-mail messages per day. And while you are at it, write checks to every ISP to cover those costs. Then go back and write checks to every Internet user that has paid higher monthly fees because of spam. Respected estimates put the total cost of spam into the billions of dollars every year.
Since there is no substantial harm to users
According to industry estimates, spam increases each subscriber's monthly costs by several dollars. Just how much would it have to cost consumers before you considered it to be "substantial harm"?
Advertising is Free Speech.
Then please post your credit card number here. I want to send advertisements to you by conventional mail but I do not want to pay the postage myself. This way, it will be like spam. You will pay for the delivery of the ad to you and I, being the advertiser, will only shoulder a fraction of the true cost.
I guess that you are in favor of collect calls from telemarketers, too...
While SPAM may no be trespassing
It normally is, especially when the ISP has made their policies against it clearly known.
I'm not saying spam should be outlawed altogether.
I am. Businesses and individuals should not have to invest money in servers, bandwidth, and storage so that spammers can flood them with unwanted advertisements.
The advertisements are being delivered at the recipients' expense. That's theft, pure and simple. It's no different than someone using your credit card to pay for the postage on junk-snail-mail that they send to you.
Lots of speech, or free expression, is dishonest, annoying, and unethical depending on your perspective. It doesn't mean that it isn't protected.
Commercial speech does not get the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. Look up "Central Hudson test" on Google to get more information on this.
The scientific method is an invention.
;)
;-)
Critical thinking and reasoned thought is not an invention.
You are trying to press your rational atheism on these people just as much as I'm trying to push my own religion on them.
Far from it. I don't feel that I have a moral right to go into their village and tell them that their religious beliefs are wrong. I can give them logical tools and they can come to their own decisions about religion should they wish to consider it. What you want to do is to tell them that their non-Christian religious beliefs are wrong, that, if they continue to worship a God other than the Christian God that they will burn for all eternity in Hell, etc. I do not believe in mixing fact and faith when teaching people. If they want to ask you about your beliefs, then answer them. But don't pass off your beliefs as "the gospel truth" {snicker}.
Hopefully, they (random tribesmen) will enjoy the material improvements to life that Westernity has to offer until we finish arguing over philosophy...
Amen to that.
Christians preach love. If they don't show love, then what's the point? That is the main crux of the Christian faith the good news- God loves us, he sent his Son to die for us.
Again, you are mistaking good deeds and the good people who do them as affirmation that the religious beliefs are correct. I have no doubt that many Christians have done many wonderful, generous things. And I don't have anything against most of the morals taught by the Christian faiths. But doing good deeds does not give one moral license to pass on their religious beliefs as fact to unsophisticated, and grateful, tribes people.
Condoms are better than sex without protection, but far riskier than abstinence or monogamy (faithful partners for life).
Then why don't you go to sub-saharan Africa and try to educate them? Thanks to the influences of industrialized countries, the men no longer work in the villages as hunters or farmers. Instead, they are hauled by trucks and buses to inner cities where they have sexual liasons with prostitutes.
Deal with reality. The entire continent is not going to suddenly adopt Christian views about sexual morality. What the Catholic church is doing to stop the distribution of condoms in places like that is pure evil.
Well the missionaries went in there first. They showed their faith and love by their deeds. They put their "money" where their mouth is.
So you are saying that, if Scientologists went in first, that would mean that Scientology was the most valid belief system? Little did I know that one should judge a belief system by punctuality.
When the missionaries' children came back to the tribe on a mission, the tribe were convinced.
And when the eclipse ended, the Chinese people were convinced that their beating of drums and shooting arrows into the sky is what scared away the dragon that had swallowed the sun. Being convinced of something does not mean that it is valid.
So yeah maybe some "objective" scientist of your preferred beliefs (e.g. nonchristian) should go there and help them.
Do you think that missionaries invented the vaccines that cured polio and smallpox? Did you know it was scientists, not missionaries, who invented Mectazin, the drug used to prevent the onset of river blindness? How did the missionaries get there? Did God deposit them there, or were they shuttled in by cars, helicopters, boats, and planes developed by engineers? Was it missionaries that developed prevention and treatment methods for AIDS? (No. Instead, the Catholic Church is busy trying to keep condoms away from people at-risk for AIDS.)
Missionaries use the valuable work done by scientists and engineers to legitimize, to the villagers, the unfounded Christian belief systems that they foist off on them.
Your argument is what is known as an Argumentum ad Verecundiam or "Argument from respect (modesty)" (Latin). The basis of your argument is that the missionaries did something deserving of respect and admiration, therefore, their belief in Christianity must be valid. It's a common logical fallacy.
Even if every outsider try their best to avoid supplanting their religions belief system, all the other ideas they acquire through contact will still lead them to re-evaluate their belief.
Why do you say that? Step back and look at how, despite all objective and rationale arguments against it, Christianity has survived. It's pretty absurd when you think about it, the concept of an all-powerful, yet invisible, being whose presence cannot be detected or measured by any scientific method. Yet people cling to those beliefs. I see no reason to suppose that the religious belief systems of these tribal peoples could stand up any less well to scrutiny.
BTW how do you make the distinction between "primitive people" and the other "less primitive people" and know whom to leave alone?
I just consider what they know, what they don't, what beliefs they hold, their standard of living, and so forth. Sorry, but there's not a dipstick of advancement to which one can refer.
You know most of say India is pretty primitive by Western standards, so it's just wrong to introduce them to such alien and unnatural things like computers and programming languages.
{snide remark}
Then where would we get our H1-B employees? The next thing you know, computer professionals would command the same kind of pay the lawyers, doctors, and other professionals with intellectually demanding work get.
{/snide remark}
You are mistaking the teaching of technology and science with proselytizing. While it is good to help people advance, teaching Christian myths and superstitions as fact does just the opposite. It encourages unreasoned belief which is not founded on logic or science.
Unlike TNG, which I came to loathe, people in DS9 had _conflict_, internally and externally.
Drug addicts have conflicts, too, but I don't want to watch them. Besides, I felt that the conflicts that Picard faced on TNG were far more substantive than the border skirmish that was DS9.
I've seen no-one mention how complex the setting was
Sure, there was complexity, but I always felt that it was a transparent reference to Nazis (Cardassians), Jews (Bajorans), and the United States (The Federation) after WWII. Besides, I don't just want complexity. I want variety.
Finally, there's religion. Rodenberry wouldn't have it in his show, but it exists in the real universe.
Sure he did. Look that TOS. There were episodes like "Who Mourns for Adonais" and "Bread and Circuses" which prominently featured religion. But I always Roddenberry's vision of a future where man no longer clung to religious beliefs to be one that gave me great hope.
I don't think you're giving these guys enough credit; they are NOT children, they are quite as smart as you or me. If they are not coerced, some of them may convert, and some will not.
... odd ... that you seem happy that the natives keep any religion *but* Christianity;
Intelligence and knowledge are not the same. When primitive people are in awe of modern visitors, they are very likely to believe what these people tell them -- especially if the tangible part proves true.
I note you don't have any problem teaching them about the scientific method, or "freedom of (lots of things)", which are just as much a cultural construct as Christianity, and whose adoption would change their society. It seems your objection is not so much to changing the natives' society, as teaching them Christianity.
Science is not a cultural construct and comparing it to the blind-faith that is Christianity debases it. Teaching primitive cultures about medicine, food safety, irrigation, and so forth improves their lives. Teaching them about Christianity denigrates their religious belief systems for no valid purpose.
I find it equally
I don't want them to continue any belief in the supernatural, whether it is their native belief system or Christianity. I want them to accept the scientific method and logical thinking so that they question any religion that has them worshipping invisible dieties.
it sounds like you have some particular animus against that religion.
Yes, I do. Christianity is why we have a President holding back federal funding for stem cell research that could save countless victims of everything from Parkinson's Disease to spinal cord injuries. It's a major cause of people not understanding science. We have religious zealots fighting against schools teaching evolution. Christianity is responsible for the Crusades and countless atrocities throughout history. I could go on and on, but, frankly, that's off-topic.
These folks have chosen to stay Christians.
Because they believe it. A powerful and almost all-knowing bunch of people appeared one day and told them, for a fact, that the Christian God exists and that to not believe in that God would damn them to suffer in hell for all eternity.
Since these people understood medicine, may have had magic boxes through which voices spoke (radios), and may even have arrived by car or helicopter, sure they believed them.
That's what is referred to as exerting undue influence. It's the same thing that parents do to get kids to believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny: they use their perceived trustworthiness and knowledge to make the child believe.
What about teaching them to read? Are you against that too?
No. I am in favor of education -- just not religious indoctrination.
I like to think that universal literacy, the scientific method, freedom of (lots of things), not getting shot with arrows, etc, are great things, not just my particular tribal taboos. I am genuinely sad for people who don't have these things, and would like to offer them the benefits of our culture.
I agree. And I would add farming techniques, medicine, and birth control to that list of valuable things we can teach.
They don't have to accept, that's certainly their right, but I think they'll be silly to turn down the things the West has to offer. Doubtless they'll take the parts they like, and skip the rest. What's wrong with that?
I don't know why you think that they will "skip" anything. Think about this hypothetical situation: Primitive villagers are confronted by people exiting a helicopter carrying walkie-talkies, radios, and computers. The people teach the primitive villagers about irrigation, treating wounds, safely storing food, etc. In with all this, presented as fact, is that there is a "God" that is invisible, all-powerful, created man, and that does battle with Satan. You know the story. The primitive villagers are going to accept that the wise and powerful westerners that arrived there know that this God exists -- probably without question. It's the same phenomenon that allows parents to convince children that Santa Claus exists.
Why is the world poorer for the loss of cultural diversity? Are you worried about a particular dance no longer being performed? The loss of some pagan religion? The loss of a language (I'll admit, as a linguist that one gives me the heebie-jeebies)? The loss of wearing loincloths?
I am worried about all of that. And I am worried about the loss of history. Oral traditions tell us much about a culture. When those oral traditions are abandoned because missionaries have "taught" the "Word of God", that's a horrible loss. Yes, I'm worried about dances, religions, languages, and native garb being tossed aside.
Imagine National Geographic if every person they profiled was basically the same.
I find it interesting to note your use of the terms "some pagan religion" and "loincloths" rather than simply "their religion" and "native clothing." Were those terms meant to be pejoritive, either consciously or subconsciously?
It seems your premise is that people shouldn't pollute each other's minds by communicating with each other.
Not at all. When two equals communicate, that's great. But when a group of missionaries ties assistance, education, and religious teachings together in one lump package, it does a terrible disservice to less-advanced peoples (who may not be able to separate facts -- about, say, food safety -- from religious beliefs).
Interesting that you assume that the missionaries in the 50s were Catholic. I don't recall reading that in the article. Methinks you might have a bias/prejudice...
No. I simply confused in my mind the mention of Catholicism in these threads and what I read in the article. The missionaries were actually part of a non-denominational group called American Unevangelised Field Missions.
There are people who believe a book written by middle-eastern sheep hearders thousands of years ago to codify their superstitions is irrefutable fact. Would you consider them to be sophisticated?
In areas other than that one huge blind spot, yes. But that is a good summary.
You selectively quoted me. I said another option is to leave them alone...
No, I did not. Please reread my response and you will see that I did not quote selectively.
Careful. DS9 was probably the best series of all of them. It had a direction to go, it did so, and the fans were satisfied. Unfortunately, the people who didn't/couldn't keep up with it were the ones that were burned. So I can see why you say that about DS9.
And here I diverge to off-topic...
I watched every episode of every Star Trek series and I found DS9 to be the least satisfying. It was Days Of Our Lives In Space. The characters were, by and large, not satisfying and spent most of the show in a morose funk -- especially Sisko. The only character that I felt had any depth was Garak -- and he was not a primary character. Colm Meaney was wasted in his role as Miles O'Brien. His mysterious disappearing wife Keiko added nothing to the show and left one wondering what kind of marriage he had.
DS9 was a post-war-pissing-contest between the Cardassians and Bajorans -- with religious mysticism thrown in for bad measure. It was simply boring, with the crew helpless to do anything while sitting around on the station. The being-stuck-on-a-space-station is why the Defiant was added to DS9.
I want something uplifting. I like travelling with the proudest crew on the Federation's flagship. I want to see a captain and crew that make first contact and wrestle with ethical decisions that define our humanity. I'm not interested in seeing someone sitting around fondling a baseball while grieving over his dead wife for seven years.
If they can't tell the difference between a flashlight and magic, then they are going to be easily duped into Christianity
That's probably true. They may accept the posession of said flashlight as a sign that the holder is wise, powerful, and intelligent. If the flashlight owner were then to teach them about irrigation, food safety, and medicine, while winding in teachings about Christianity as if it is above question, then it is likely that the indigenous people will accept Christianity as factual.
Maybe someone should go in and teach them critical thinking skills and the scientific method, so they can more objectively evaluate the prosthyletizing of the missionaries.
An excellent suggestion.
Another option would be to just leave them alone.
An even better idea.
However, whether it's missionaries in the '50's or ranchers and eco-tourists in the '00's, the world is getting smaller and they are going to have contact with some outsiders sooner or later.
Sophisticated outsiders have a moral responsibility to not try to supplant the indigenous religious belief systems of primitive people.
Let's assume, for the sake of understanding the Christian missionaries, that they ARE right, and that life now and hereafter DOES get better if you're a Christian.
Let's assume that the missionaries are wrong. Let's assume that the local beliefs are right. Let's further assume that the locals' conversion to Christianity angers their gods and causes those gods to put a curse on the village and the crops. Let's assume that the villagers then starve to death.
You are going on the assumption that there is some reason to believe that Christianity is "right" and that local belief systems are "wrong." That's simply not the case.
Now, if we discard the "the Christians are right" assumption and simply look at it from a general standpoint, it STILL isn't "sad."
Yes, it is. These people probably had a rich cultural heritage and religious views that were passed down from generation to generation in stories. Losing that so that they can be added to the Catholic Church's list of conquests is very sad.
Sad why?
Because it supplants the tribe's own belief systems, losing that part of their culture and making the world poorer for the loss. You may feel that teaching primitive, innocent people to feel shame about their own bodies is good. I, and others, do not.
You may disagree with their beliefs, but wanting to share what you think has merit with the distant or marginal people of the world isn't terribly 'sad'.
It is when the "marginal people" are a primitive, easily-influenced people who accept the beliefs because they hold the people teaching them in such high regard. It's like a satanist converting a young child to satan worship. It is not an affirmation of the belief system nor is it an example of free will on the part of the new convert.
As an advanced (relatively speaking) people, we have a moral duty to not impose religious beliefs on people who lack the sophistication to understand the difference between science and beliefs in the occult (e.g., people rising from the dead, ceremonies in which wine and wafers symbolise cannabalism, people being turned into pillars of salt, etc.)
The point isn't a matter of specifications, its of durability.
It is seldom that a company produces a product with poor performance that is durable (Harley Davidson being the most notable exception). Nor is it common for a company to produce a product with excellent performance and short lifespan.
In audio, if the company cut corners and used poor-performing op-amps for their output circuitry, you can be pretty sure that they rest of the parts, mechanical and electrical, are similarly crappy.
Input signal amplitude and volume control (which is usually just an input attenuator) combine to produce an excitation signal whose amplitude, or level, determines what the output level of the amp is.
But this one goes to 11.
But these facts and statistics are just a means to find something that tastes good, and the taste itself is the best criterion.
But with audio equipment, one should choose based not on what sounds "better", but rather on what is more accurate. If you take two amps and do an A/B blind test, an amp that is set 1db louder will be perceived as sounding better (assuming that the two amps are roughly equal in performance).
With wine, you want it to impart it's own flavor. You definitely don't want that with audio equipment.
Why on earth should consumers be expected to know about harmonics or transistors or any other technical detail?
So that they can make an intelligent purchase decision that will leave them happy for years to come.
Let me ask you this: Why on earth should consumers be expected to know about calories, fiber, or vitamins when choosing food?
Surely you should just listen to the output and pick the unit that sounds best.
Not if you are considering four different units available at four different dealerships. Human memory of sound quality is not that good. Nor is it fair to compare amplifiers by listening to different source components played through different speakers in different acoustical environments.
Consumers have a huge advantage over salespeople. We can actually research the items we want in depth since we have the advantage of focussing on at most a handful of items.
An interesting theory, but actually flawed. Manufacturers have actually started to not publish specifications. I remember considering a Sony cassette deck about three or four years ago. Even basic specs were not published in the Sony catalog. It took a bit of hunting to find it.
Remember the Bad Old Days before most major vendors had their product info online? People were lucky to find any information anywhere.
What I remember was being able to get a one-page sheet for each and every component that I was considering the purchase of. The sheet had a big glossy photo of the product, rundown of the features, and VERY complete specifications. Try getting that now.