Spazztastic was talking about the ban on child pornography. You said the purpose of that was to "appease Puritans who can't stand the thought of anyone ever actually enjoying anything." That's what I said, "Oh, come on" to.
Don't worry, you can still pull out of this consistently, if you claim that all efforts to ban child pornography are really based on an underlying desire to ban all pornography and to prevent anyone from enjoying anything.
The possessive can be used to replace almost any kind of "of" phrase. So, "love of money"=="money's love". But some usages are unusual, so they seem odd.
Aha! I found the info here, through a link provided in someone else's comment. TFA is a bit off, it seems to me. The 37% figure is notices about sites outside America. And there were three other types of "flaws":
In this study, we traced the use of the Section 512 takedown process and considered how the usage patterns we found were likely to affect expression or other activities on the Internet. The second level of analysis grew out of the fact that we observed a surprisingly high incidence of flawed takedowns:
Thirty percent of notices demanded takedown for claims that presented an obvious question for a court (a clear fair use argument, complaints about uncopyrightable material, and the like);
Notices to traditional ISP's included a substantial number of demands to remove files from peer-to-peer networks (which are not actually covered under the takedown statute, and which an OSP can only honor by terminating the target's Internet access entirely); and
One out of 11 included significant statutory flaws that render the notice unusable (for example, failing to adequately identify infringing material).
In addition, we found some interesting patterns that do not, by themselves, indicate concern, but which are of concern when combined with the fact that one third of the notices depended on questionable claims:
Over half--57%--of notices sent to Google to demand removal of links in the index were sent by businesses targeting apparent competitors;
Over a third--37%--of the notices sent to Google targeted sites apparently outside the United States.
"In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.""
57% are from businesses targeting competitors, and only 37% are invalid? What does that mean?
1.) That up to 20% of notices are from businesses who are catching their competitors in the act?
2.) Or is it not 37% of total notices?
3.) Or am I getting mixed up on something?
I'm not sure about the GP's point, but he's half-right.
There's a difference between being unaware of the established scientific facts, and disbelieving them. They're different issues, and different problems.
Yes, because trailers are always the best source for determining a film's success. In fact, why bother releasing the movie, since its success is assured?
Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either
on
Watchmen Watched
·
· Score: 1
It's rated R for a reason, and several plot summaries I've read use words like "dystopian" and "gritty" so it boggles the mind how so many people are upset the movie isn't "family friendly", like they somehow expect an R rated movie to have fluffy bunnies farting rainbows or something.
Well, this particular AC didn't sound upset. He just commented.
But yeah, the proper response to "Hmm, this R-rated movie isn't family friendly" would be "Duh!"
I'm sorry you think I'm playing a "game". I don't certainly don't. The 20th century is littered with corpses, the result of people not taking it seriously--the detritus of materialistic, genocidal regimes. Those philosophy courses, were you to take them, would introduce you to "the grounding problem", and it's hardly trivial. In a universe of simple facts, how do you ever get a "should"? How do you ever get a normative principle? You seem to be a moral realist--you need to realize that though you think it's ridiculous, many people are not. And if you think that philosophical academia is going to bless your assumptions with a consensus that "Yes, there are objective principles we ought to obey", you're in for a rude awakening. You will find the field full of those who argue that there is no basis for one person or one culture to judge another--that we only have social convention.
I agree that "it's wrong to cause suffering" is fundamental, and I think it's ridiculous when people don't recognize it. But the problem is, that kind of objective moral claim is incoherent in a purely materialistic worldview. And I mean "incoherent" literally.
You know that we shouldn't commit murder. But how can you ever get a "should" from physical matter? In a universe that consists only of molecules bouncing:
1.) If you're faced with someone who doesn't recognize it--like a sociopath, or a died-in-the-wool moral relativist--you have no basis for asserting what they "should" care about. They'll ask "why" in deadly seriousness. They will be willing to commit horrific acts and institute genocidal regimes, based on the idea that it doesn't matter. (I realize that people find justification for genocide in religions, too. That's not the point. In a materialistic world, why does anyone need justification?)
2.) You're assuming transcendent moral principles--suffering is "bad" (whatever that means), and we have objective worth. I agree. But why do you think the universe cares? We care about our own survival & happiness, but why do you think it objectively matters?
I know why I think it matters. Do you? Or have you taken it for granted, to the point that you think I must be playing a game if I challenge to you examine yourself?
1.) We should call beliefs "subjective" when we mean "objectively false".
2.) If something's objective, there won't be debate.
3.) You can tell that you evaluate something objectively, because you decided that it's a fairy tale.
4.) If God existed, no one would believe differently about religion; if something is real, people agree about it.
5.) Christians were all raised that way.
6.) If someone believes Christianity, it must be because of brain damage and desperate desire. If someone rejects Christianity, it proves their objectivity.
7.) The way to prove your objectivity on a subject is to spew vitriol and bile at people who disagree. This will demonstrate to all that your conclusions are uninfluenced by anything other than calm rationality.
You remind me of people who use "Freethinker" as a synonym for "atheist"--i.e., "To be a freethinker, you must agree with me."
It is really quite simple. Something is bad when someone suffers from it.
Why? If I don't care about the harm I do to other people, why do you get to tell me that I should care? Why do you get to tell me that it's "bad"?
In other words, all you did was push back the question from "murder is wrong" to "harming people is wrong". Try answering it again:
"What if someone made the same claim about harming? Would you agree with them? If not, then by what means would you evaluate their claim and decide that it's false?"
(And if you say that evolution gives that to us as a natural moral intuition--because its better for the survival & propagation of our genes--then again, why should anyone care? Sure, you can say that people without conscience will be weeded out of the gene pool, but why does that let you say that they're "bad"?)
Just to be clear, there's nothing "objective" about your beliefs. Believing any kind of relationship between two consenting adults of sound mind is immoral is *clearly* a subjective assessment. ie, there is nothing inherent about that belief that makes it logical outside the framework of your religion.
At least you didn't try to say there's nothing logical about it, full stop. It's logical--but based on premises that you don't recognize. The logic of my view is not unique to the framework of my religion--the premises are. (A premise about what sex is for--marriage, an expression & consummation of a committed, covenant relationship. And a premise about us owing something to our creator.)
Interestingly, somehow, the fact that you don't recognize it makes it "not objective". (You seem to imagine that a religious framework is inherently "not real". That to be even a candidate for objectivity, a framework can't mention God. As though God isn't objectively real or unreal. Or is inherently unknowable.)
"Just to be clear"[1], the way that I would define "objective moral principle" would be something like this: Regardless of whether you recognize it, you should (or shouldn't) do something. Things are that way, whether or not you admit it. That's what makes it objective.
I can't tell how you're defining "objective moral principle". Or rather, I can't tell how you're being consistent with your definition. You seem to imply that you think there are objective morals. (You didn't say, "There's no inherent logic to establish that any act is objectively immoral." You singled out "relationship between two consenting adults".) Seemingly, though your own moral philosophy isn't part of something you call "religion", you think that the premises at the root of your own moral views are "objective". Is that the case? (Or have I misunderstood? Do you not recognize any kind of objective morality?)
If you do see objective morality, then what is at the root of your logic? Is it something like, "We shouldn't harm each other"? I would agree with that, but how on earth do you ground it?
1.) You can say that evolutionary principles would shape our conscience that way. It may be physically, inherently objective that acting a certain way will make it more likely for myself and my community to survive. You can derive a pragmatic morality in which everyone (or the majority) ends better off, from an evolutionary perspective.
2.) That doesn't let you tell anyone that they should care about not harming other people. You can say, "If you care about your own survival, you should treat others well." You can say, "People who don't care will be eliminated from the gene pool." But you can't tell someone that they should care about the survival of their genes. (Example: If someone values the thrill & challenge of becoming a successful serial killer, how can you tell them they're wrong?)
In a nutshell, you have no basis for ever using the word "should", outside a conditional: "If you want/value X, you should Y." You have no philosophical framework that gets special status as "objective".
If you think I'm off-base, then I would be fascinated to know what it is that grounds your idea of objective moral principles. Something that's either outside any philosophical framework (and yet manages to make claims about what we should do), or that's part of a special framework that gets christened with the title "objective".
[1] Notice that I'm using the phrase for clarification, not for condescension.
Just because some dude in a weird outfit claims that some invisible guy in the sky says that something is bad and wrong does not make it so. The only people who think homosexuality is abnormal or immoral are people who's religion or culture told them that. Nobody is born thinking it is wrong. Nobody arrives at that conclusion without coercion from an outside source.
I ask these questions not as a rhetorical game, but because I'm honestly curious, and interested in the discussion:
What if someone made the same claim about murder? Would you agree with them? If not, then by what means would you evaluate their claim and decide that it's false?
In other words, how do you know that "homosexuality is wrong" is not a natural part of some people's moral intuition? How do you know that it only happens because of "coercion from an outside source"?
(As a separate question: What if you're right? Does it prove that homosexuality is not wrong, if no one were born with that intuition? If someone is born with no moral intuition/conscience, we call them a sociopath, and we think something is broken in them. If everyone were born without a conscience, and had to learn it, would that prove that there's no such thing as right & wrong?)
I don't share your opinion of immorality, but I find your principle of not enforcing your opinion on others highly admirable. Good for you.:)
Er... I'm not sure what you mean by "not enforcing your opinion on others". Do you mean that I agree with free speech? If so... Right. That's how I see it. "I may disagree with what you do & say & advocate. I may think that it is reprehensible. But I will defend to the death your right to discuss it." (In other words, the classical definition of tolerance. As opposed to some fuzzy modern notions of tolerance--"If you think that you're right and other people are wrong, then you're mean and nasty.")
So, I see this as a matter of free speech, and consistency of treatment.
Stop it. Stop the Homophobia bullshit. There's no such thing as Homophobia. There are people that think homosexual conduct is immoral, or abnormal. That doesn't mean they have a phobia. A phobia is a clinical condition, recognized by psychologists. There's no such thing in the DSM. "Homophobia" is a marketing term for one side of the argument, a buzzword.
Dude. Step back for a sec. You have some point, but you go too far when you say the word is meaningless.
I'm a conservative Christian who believes that same-sex sexual activity transgresses an objective moral principle. I also think that people drop the "homophobe" word at the drop of a hat, regardless of whether it really applies. (For instance, I view gay sex in the same moral category as any sex outside marriage. Which is the same category as lying, gossip, stealing, alcoholism, etc. I think it's sin--and I also think that I'm a sinner, in other ways. And yet, some people will call me a homophobe--even though they probably wouldn't call me a "alcoholophobe".)
But there really are people who are filled with a deep-seated emotional fear/hatred toward gay people. Or toward being accused of being gay. (Which, by the way, may turn out to be a gay person who is in denial.) The word "homophobe" does have a valid use. Even though it's often misused.
When Microsoft bans, say, people from writing "I am black" in their profile because it might start a fight with skinheads or "I am an evolutionary biologist" because it might start a fight with creationists is the day I'll consider this position toward gays and lesbians even remotely fair.
Speaking as a conservative Christian who believes that same-sex sexual activity transgresses an objective moral principle:
This whole thing is BS. Microsoft should not be restricting people from mentioning that they're gay. Even your example wouldn't be remotely fair. The only thing that would make it fair would be this: They restrict you from mentioning sexual orientation, period.
If they want to prevent people from discussing sexual orientation at all, that might be equitable. If they ban people for saying "I'm straight", too, that would be fair. But this is like allowing people to say, "I'm a democrat," but not allowing them to say, "I'm a republican." Or it's like a university allowing pro-choice student clubs, but not allowing pro-life student clubs. Or allowing someone to say "I'm white," but not "I'm black".
If they want to restrict speech in order to maintain a non-controversial environment, they should restrict the entire topic.
Slashdot Mirror
So help us all out, by finding the funny comments and modding them up!
Spazztastic was talking about the ban on child pornography. You said the purpose of that was to "appease Puritans who can't stand the thought of anyone ever actually enjoying anything." That's what I said, "Oh, come on" to.
Don't worry, you can still pull out of this consistently, if you claim that all efforts to ban child pornography are really based on an underlying desire to ban all pornography and to prevent anyone from enjoying anything.
Oh, come on. Whatever else you think about it, how can you say that about a law that bans child pornography, but not pornography?
I know! I went to meet her, and she tried to hit me up for investing in the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC!
The possessive can be used to replace almost any kind of "of" phrase. So, "love of money"=="money's love". But some usages are unusual, so they seem odd.
That makes sense. But see my other new comment--it turns out that the 37% is sites outside America.
57% are from businesses targeting competitors, and only 37% are invalid? What does that mean? 1.) That up to 20% of notices are from businesses who are catching their competitors in the act? 2.) Or is it not 37% of total notices? 3.) Or am I getting mixed up on something?
Eh?
I'm not sure about the GP's point, but he's half-right.
There's a difference between being unaware of the established scientific facts, and disbelieving them. They're different issues, and different problems.
Yeah, they made that mistake with Iron Man.
It's rated R for a reason, and several plot summaries I've read use words like "dystopian" and "gritty" so it boggles the mind how so many people are upset the movie isn't "family friendly", like they somehow expect an R rated movie to have fluffy bunnies farting rainbows or something.
Well, this particular AC didn't sound upset. He just commented.
But yeah, the proper response to "Hmm, this R-rated movie isn't family friendly" would be "Duh!"
Wait... Is that how twins are formed? I never knew!
So let me get this straight. You're excluding people who view themselves as Christians because they think that Jesus was a good moral teacher?
I actually agree with that, but I think "If you consider Jesus holy" isn't enough of a criterion.
I'm sorry you think I'm playing a "game". I don't certainly don't. The 20th century is littered with corpses, the result of people not taking it seriously--the detritus of materialistic, genocidal regimes. Those philosophy courses, were you to take them, would introduce you to "the grounding problem", and it's hardly trivial. In a universe of simple facts, how do you ever get a "should"? How do you ever get a normative principle? You seem to be a moral realist--you need to realize that though you think it's ridiculous, many people are not. And if you think that philosophical academia is going to bless your assumptions with a consensus that "Yes, there are objective principles we ought to obey", you're in for a rude awakening. You will find the field full of those who argue that there is no basis for one person or one culture to judge another--that we only have social convention.
I agree that "it's wrong to cause suffering" is fundamental, and I think it's ridiculous when people don't recognize it. But the problem is, that kind of objective moral claim is incoherent in a purely materialistic worldview. And I mean "incoherent" literally.
You know that we shouldn't commit murder. But how can you ever get a "should" from physical matter? In a universe that consists only of molecules bouncing:
1.) If you're faced with someone who doesn't recognize it--like a sociopath, or a died-in-the-wool moral relativist--you have no basis for asserting what they "should" care about. They'll ask "why" in deadly seriousness. They will be willing to commit horrific acts and institute genocidal regimes, based on the idea that it doesn't matter. (I realize that people find justification for genocide in religions, too. That's not the point. In a materialistic world, why does anyone need justification?)
2.) You're assuming transcendent moral principles--suffering is "bad" (whatever that means), and we have objective worth. I agree. But why do you think the universe cares? We care about our own survival & happiness, but why do you think it objectively matters?
I know why I think it matters. Do you? Or have you taken it for granted, to the point that you think I must be playing a game if I challenge to you examine yourself?
Oh my. So let's catalog some of these gems:
1.) We should call beliefs "subjective" when we mean "objectively false".
2.) If something's objective, there won't be debate.
3.) You can tell that you evaluate something objectively, because you decided that it's a fairy tale.
4.) If God existed, no one would believe differently about religion; if something is real, people agree about it.
5.) Christians were all raised that way.
6.) If someone believes Christianity, it must be because of brain damage and desperate desire. If someone rejects Christianity, it proves their objectivity.
7.) The way to prove your objectivity on a subject is to spew vitriol and bile at people who disagree. This will demonstrate to all that your conclusions are uninfluenced by anything other than calm rationality.
You remind me of people who use "Freethinker" as a synonym for "atheist"--i.e., "To be a freethinker, you must agree with me."
Why? If I don't care about the harm I do to other people, why do you get to tell me that I should care? Why do you get to tell me that it's "bad"?
In other words, all you did was push back the question from "murder is wrong" to "harming people is wrong". Try answering it again:
"What if someone made the same claim about harming? Would you agree with them? If not, then by what means would you evaluate their claim and decide that it's false?"
(And if you say that evolution gives that to us as a natural moral intuition--because its better for the survival & propagation of our genes--then again, why should anyone care? Sure, you can say that people without conscience will be weeded out of the gene pool, but why does that let you say that they're "bad"?)
At least you didn't try to say there's nothing logical about it, full stop. It's logical--but based on premises that you don't recognize. The logic of my view is not unique to the framework of my religion--the premises are. (A premise about what sex is for--marriage, an expression & consummation of a committed, covenant relationship. And a premise about us owing something to our creator.)
Interestingly, somehow, the fact that you don't recognize it makes it "not objective". (You seem to imagine that a religious framework is inherently "not real". That to be even a candidate for objectivity, a framework can't mention God. As though God isn't objectively real or unreal. Or is inherently unknowable.)
"Just to be clear"[1], the way that I would define "objective moral principle" would be something like this: Regardless of whether you recognize it, you should (or shouldn't) do something. Things are that way, whether or not you admit it. That's what makes it objective.
I can't tell how you're defining "objective moral principle". Or rather, I can't tell how you're being consistent with your definition. You seem to imply that you think there are objective morals. (You didn't say, "There's no inherent logic to establish that any act is objectively immoral." You singled out "relationship between two consenting adults".) Seemingly, though your own moral philosophy isn't part of something you call "religion", you think that the premises at the root of your own moral views are "objective". Is that the case? (Or have I misunderstood? Do you not recognize any kind of objective morality?)
If you do see objective morality, then what is at the root of your logic? Is it something like, "We shouldn't harm each other"? I would agree with that, but how on earth do you ground it?
1.) You can say that evolutionary principles would shape our conscience that way. It may be physically, inherently objective that acting a certain way will make it more likely for myself and my community to survive. You can derive a pragmatic morality in which everyone (or the majority) ends better off, from an evolutionary perspective.
2.) That doesn't let you tell anyone that they should care about not harming other people. You can say, "If you care about your own survival, you should treat others well." You can say, "People who don't care will be eliminated from the gene pool." But you can't tell someone that they should care about the survival of their genes. (Example: If someone values the thrill & challenge of becoming a successful serial killer, how can you tell them they're wrong?)
In a nutshell, you have no basis for ever using the word "should", outside a conditional: "If you want/value X, you should Y." You have no philosophical framework that gets special status as "objective".
If you think I'm off-base, then I would be fascinated to know what it is that grounds your idea of objective moral principles. Something that's either outside any philosophical framework (and yet manages to make claims about what we should do), or that's part of a special framework that gets christened with the title "objective".
[1] Notice that I'm using the phrase for clarification, not for condescension.
Ah, good! We're on the same page, then.
Yeah, fair enough.
Funny, that reminds me of a conversation I was just having yesterday, about using abortion to accomplish "Every child a wanted child".
(Of course, that takes the abortion argument back to the "What is a fetus?" question.)
I ask these questions not as a rhetorical game, but because I'm honestly curious, and interested in the discussion:
What if someone made the same claim about murder? Would you agree with them? If not, then by what means would you evaluate their claim and decide that it's false?
In other words, how do you know that "homosexuality is wrong" is not a natural part of some people's moral intuition? How do you know that it only happens because of "coercion from an outside source"?
(As a separate question: What if you're right? Does it prove that homosexuality is not wrong, if no one were born with that intuition? If someone is born with no moral intuition/conscience, we call them a sociopath, and we think something is broken in them. If everyone were born without a conscience, and had to learn it, would that prove that there's no such thing as right & wrong?)
Er... I'm not sure what you mean by "not enforcing your opinion on others". Do you mean that I agree with free speech? If so... Right. That's how I see it. "I may disagree with what you do & say & advocate. I may think that it is reprehensible. But I will defend to the death your right to discuss it." (In other words, the classical definition of tolerance. As opposed to some fuzzy modern notions of tolerance--"If you think that you're right and other people are wrong, then you're mean and nasty.")
:)
So, I see this as a matter of free speech, and consistency of treatment.
I hope you still see this as admirable.
Dude. Step back for a sec. You have some point, but you go too far when you say the word is meaningless.
I'm a conservative Christian who believes that same-sex sexual activity transgresses an objective moral principle. I also think that people drop the "homophobe" word at the drop of a hat, regardless of whether it really applies. (For instance, I view gay sex in the same moral category as any sex outside marriage. Which is the same category as lying, gossip, stealing, alcoholism, etc. I think it's sin--and I also think that I'm a sinner, in other ways. And yet, some people will call me a homophobe--even though they probably wouldn't call me a "alcoholophobe".)
But there really are people who are filled with a deep-seated emotional fear/hatred toward gay people. Or toward being accused of being gay. (Which, by the way, may turn out to be a gay person who is in denial.) The word "homophobe" does have a valid use. Even though it's often misused.
Speaking as a conservative Christian who believes that same-sex sexual activity transgresses an objective moral principle:
This whole thing is BS. Microsoft should not be restricting people from mentioning that they're gay. Even your example wouldn't be remotely fair. The only thing that would make it fair would be this: They restrict you from mentioning sexual orientation, period.
If they want to prevent people from discussing sexual orientation at all, that might be equitable. If they ban people for saying "I'm straight", too, that would be fair. But this is like allowing people to say, "I'm a democrat," but not allowing them to say, "I'm a republican." Or it's like a university allowing pro-choice student clubs, but not allowing pro-life student clubs. Or allowing someone to say "I'm white," but not "I'm black".
If they want to restrict speech in order to maintain a non-controversial environment, they should restrict the entire topic.