On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:19:18 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> True enough. But one can conclude, for example, based on facts, that the
> risks of allowing slavery are too high, and the benefits insufficient,
> to hold that its a valid behavior. This concept, when based on
> "opinions", was both defended at part of the natural order of the
> universe and gods plan, and as something that god wouldn't accept, due
> to the other sides opinions of equality of justice and unreasonable
> cruelty (none of which was, at that time, equality of ability,
> intelligence, or race), by those who "had no" fact based position to
> derive their views from.

What constitutes justice or unreasonable cruelty, though?  That's a 
matter of opinion.  There is a common basis for that opinion now (through 
things such as the Geneva Conventions), but even within the bounds of 
something like the GC, there is still question, for example, about 
whether the use of a Taser constitutes unreasonable cruelty.

In and of iteself, perhaps it doesn't, but there can (and often is) a 
situational component.  It's like the training a police officer goes 
through as regards the use of deadly force.  Unprovoked is easy - there's 
no case for deadly force.  But you've got a criminal drawing down on you 
and you've got a split second to decide - shoot or be shot, kill or be 
killed - that's not something that's a fact-based decision, it's a split-
second opinion-based decision that potentially decides who walks away 
from the incident.

> The problem I have with opinion is not that it isn't an important part
> of how societies work, its that it ***is*** an important part of how
> societies work, and, unfortunately it doesn't take much to derail
> opinion into complete idiocy using emotional appeals, and a lot of wild
> spinning. 

That doesn't mean opinions are unimportant in society.  This is a bit of 
a straw-man argument, in fact - because it posits a situation where the 
use of opinions can lead to "complete idiocy" and then concludes that 
consequently, *all* opinion is bad.

> Its rather more difficult to do that when you have "empirical"
> grounds for forming such opinions. 

By your own argument, that's not an opinion, though.

> I.e., not all opinions are equal.
> Unfortunately, one of the consequences of the dogmatic view of
> "equality", "fairness", and, "respect" in the US goes like this: "All
> ideas are equal, to be fair we have to listen to all of them and judge
> them in their own context, and we need to respect when people's ideas
> differ." 

Now this I can agree with - we do tend to take this to an idiotic length 
at times.  But that's a matter of opinion - one that you and I share. ;-)

>> Agreement isn't required.  Understanding isn't either, for that matter,
>> but I have found that understanding how someone with an alternative
>> viewpoint arrived at that conclusion leads to an understanding of how
>> to interact with that person in a constructive way.  I've found this to
>> be an incredibly valuable skill to use given that many of the people I
>> work with professionally have strong personal religious faith.  Even
>> for those whom I don't discuss religion with (which is most of them),
>> knowing the common set of experiences that they go through every week
>> when they go to church (for example) helps me understand how to
>> motivate them and get what I need from them.
>> 
> Ok, to an extent, you are correct. But, there are obvious limits to such
> "understanding". 

Sure.  There are limits to everything.

> Most of the things the hardline atheists go on about
> are cases where they fully understand, often due to once "sharing" those
> views, how someone reached a conclusion, and they see both how its
> "incorrect", but how much effort is put into not seeing, intentionally
> ignoring, excusing, or finding "good things" in the very negative
> consequences of "reaching" those conclusions in the first place, or,
> sometimes, due to even how they reach them.

We all have our blind spots.  Some people embrace them, and some don't 
recognize they have them at all.  But we all do.

> I mean, do you honestly think there is no consequence to, to use slavery
> as an example again, concluding that someone should be treated nearly
> equal, like a really smart animal, but still not accepted as equal in
> all ways, vs seeing them **as** "equal" in all ways to you? Of course
> not. The end result, in the short term, may be the same, when an
> injustice exists. In a more contemporary example, gay "separate but not
> quite equal secular rules", vs. "defending marriage". The later isn't
> even under any real threat, and the former is pure bullshit. You can't
> have separate but equal. The result is "never" equal, pretty much by
> definition. The moment you say "separate", you start already applying a
> "special rule", that says one gets to be seen, treated, or acted on,
> differently than the other. Its pretty much down hill from that point.

Shifting my frame of reference to the time when slavery was a common 
thing in the US, I don't know that either of us *in that frame of 
reference* (ie, with the knowledge that existed then) would necessarily 
have been exposed to the idea that those minorities who were slaves 
weren't somehow inferior.  (Ugh, it's distasteful to even express that 
idea).  In a different time, who's to say how you or I would react?  It's 
easy to look back and say "that was wrong" because we have the benefit of 
our current knowledge and experience, but if we'd been alive at the time, 
our life experiences would've been very different, and that would've 
shaped our perceptions.  Remember that there *were* people who felt they 
could *prove* that slaves were inferior.  Even very intelligent people - 
like those who put together the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of 
Rights, etc.  "All men are created equal" didn't apply to "all men" (and 
certainly didn't apply to women).

> So, sure.. Understanding how to motivate someone is one thing. But..
> Some things either work or don't, and if you can motivate someone out of
> doing them right, there are 50 other people, far better equipped, to
> motivate them to do it wrong, or not at all.

Sometimes life ain't fair.  I don't like that, but that's a fact proven 
again and again.

>> Sometimes yes, people who have strong religious faith react badly when
>> they're told that they're not being rational.  How do you react when
>> someone tells you you're talking nonsense when you're talking about
>> something that you have a strong personal investment in it?  What I
>> find is that the presentation coming from someone with a point of view
>> often is not handled very tactfully.  Understand that for people of
>> strong religious faith, when you start trying to prove that their view
>> is wrong, that is often perceived as an attack on the foundations of
>> everything they have built their life upon.
>> 
> Well, I admit, I don't react "that" well. But I react worse when their
> reason for making the claim has no basis at all. There is a saying,
> something to the effect, "If you react badly to someone's comment about
> you, its because you recognize something of truth in it.", or something
> like that. Someone says I am not being rational about something, then
> either I admit it, I accept that I may be, after its explained, or I
> reject it, because their own "evidence" amount to not sharing my view,
> and therefor concluding that they are being rational, but I am not, for
> failing to agree with them. The later I have no sympathy or patience
> with. 

I could see that.  It's a very similar reaction that those who feel the 
foundation of their life is under attack from someone who doesn't 
understand it.  That's the sort of thing I mean when I say "put yourself 
in their shoes" - you've been there, done that, and reacted badly to it.  
It shouldn't be so difficult to understand why others react that way when 
they feel the basis of their life is under attack. :-)

> I would never tell someone they where being irrational without
> "attempting" to explain why. Neither would the vast majority of other
> atheists I know (well, except when the person is being persistent, or
> keeps showing up, and does nothing but tell "us" we are wrong, without
> any other argument, then people get.. snippy.) But... Well, lets just
> say that for people who have been told all their lives that X view is
> right, and believing it makes them right, and you shouldn't really
> question these things, its real hard to get them to reflect at all on
> whether or not they are being rational, never mind actually get them to
> admit they are not.

Well, there again, though, it comes back to being perceived as an attack 
on a foundational part of their life.  If they believe some things are 
not to be questioned and it works for them and doesn't cause harm (now 
there's a highly subjective idea, what constitutes harm?) to others, then 
it's not a problem.

> Watched some clips today of various comics, and the strongly religious
> one was precisely like that. His absolute 100% position was, "I believe,
> I know I am right, so therefor 'everything' I say about non-believers or
> sinner **has to be funny**. 

Consider:  Perhaps he was being satirical.  Comedy is his career, and 
some people do satire well enough that the humour is missed.  The first 
few episodes of The Colbert Report were like that; Stephen Colbert (the 
person, not the character he plays) gave an interview on NPR and 
explained what he was doing, and then it became clear what he was doing 
(at least for us).  He also fine-tuned his act so that it was more 
apparent what he was doing.

> It wasn't so much a joke as mental masturbation. "Here is what I
> 'imagine' would happen, if I taped the guys mouth shut, locked them in a
> room, and read the Bible for hours at them." My only reaction to this
> was, "You don't have a clue how wrong you are, since you never talked to
> one.", or, alternatively, "Then again, after 5 minutes of what I imagine
> is even 'worse' BS than your comedy routine, I would jump out a window,
> preferably a from the 20th floor." lol

It sounds to me more like he was providing a commentary on how ridiculous 
some bible-thumpers are, to take the situation to an absurd level to 
point out the absurdity of forcing a religious view on another person.

> Or, as someone put it. How do you "fairly" explain away the "problems"
> presented in 20 minutes by someone, with only 20 minutes to rebut them,
> when *each* so called problem is a 20 minute lecture, and they just gave
> you 500 things to "respond to". You can't. And, its how "they" stack the
> game.

People who don't want to be convinced they're wrong employ a wide variety 
of techniques to prevent being told they're wrong.  Ultimately, those who 
don't want to be convinced won't, no matter what you do.  The ability to 
act and think as an individual comes with that as baggage, but I think 
our ability to think independently has great benefits as well.  Life 
would be pretty boring if we all thought the same thing and believed the 
same thing.

One of the things that alternate ideas do is force us to reexamine what 
we believe in.  The debate about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, for 
example - what that has done is galvanized a large part of the scientific 
community that deals with evolutionary science, and it seems that we are 
discovering more things that demonstrate evolution in practical terms.  
If we didn't have Creationists challenging the very idea of Evolution, 
it's likely we wouldn't have had the advances.  The lack of a challenge 
often leads to complacency and lazy thinking.  But having to structure a 
debate, even against something that you and I think is patently 
ridiculous, helps science.

> Ah, but.. There is a rising tide of people in the US that not only fall
> for everything said, starting at the "blogged about it" stage, and
> presents "everyone" prior to that, including news agencies that don't
> present "both sides", or actively promote the "big
> science/pharma/government/whatever" side of things, as being "part of a
> vast conspiracy to hide the truth.

So what's the alternative?  And to add a constraint, an alternative that 
doesn't limit the rights of those who push a particular point of view?

> And, well.. If you believe in one conspiracy, like say, religion, then
> its easier to believe in the "war one Christmas", and once you get that,
> you find it that much easier to imagine the "war on religion", etc. The
> most "conspiracies" you willingly accept, the more you believe, since
> many of them are "underpinned" by the same assumptions, starting with
> the idea that you have found the one true path, and those that haven't
> are, to one degree or another, out to get you.

That's one of the risks you run with a free press and freedom of speech.  
What these people say may be total lunacy, but they have every right to 
say it (at least in the US under the protections of the first 
amendment).  The alternative there is to restrict free speech.  Do we 
really want to go down that road?

>> But this is a bit of a shift in the discussion we're having as well,
>> because it doesn't really tie into religious faith - it's more closely
>> related to generic belief.  Not that the two are entirely dissimilar,
>> mind.
>> 
> Well. I don't exactly agree. How do you separate them, really? Because
> one sort of belief is old, and handed down, sort of, while others are
> not? You could call almost anything, by that standard, "religion",
> including patriotism. Then, what.. all ideas that you get yourself,
> instead of learning from parents, or organizations, are "not"? Where is
> the line drawn?

Well, that's why I said "not that the two are entirely dissimilar". :-)

>> should be seen to be being treated lightly or with ridicule - you might
>> as well be calling them "stupid" or worse - and we all know where that
>> leads.
>> 
> Irrational responses, 

Emotional response, the result of feeling one is under attack.  That's 
actually a pretty rational response - to react emotionally when a core 
belief you hold is under attack.

> or.. if you are lucky, someone wondering, "Could I
> be wrong." Another "trend" in recent years seems to be the insane, and
> often ***specifically worded*** this way, idea that, "One should have a
> right to not be offended." Bullshit! 

I agree with this.  However that also means that you and I don't have a 
right to be offended by religion.  That's a two-way street.

> Sorry, but "religion" is just another object in the world to me, and its
> either mild, and therefor safe, but don't "dare" do something stupid,
> like supporting something that isn't, or its insane rubbish, and I
> **will** call them on it. To ask be to do otherwise is to disrespect
> others who fight against the excesses and willing/unwilling support of
> those excesses, and everyone that has ever been hurt by such. They
> deserve it more than than some believer's personal ego.

Just don't be surprised that when you do, you'll cause offense or you'll 
get an emotional response.

> That said. Not stopping long enough to find out what I *am* arguing
> against, but just concluding that it is a personal attack, is, imho, at
> least as good a reason for calling someone an irrational fool as
> "actually" belonging to, or supporting, what ever it is I *am* arguing
> about.

It's about presentation, Patrick.  If your goal is to persuade someone 
that they're being what you consider an "irrational fool", using 
inflammatory language to get the point across will cause them to raise 
their shields (that's human nature) and to fight back.  Using that kind 
of approach isn't going to change anyone's mind, and is likely going to 
be a frustrating exercise for you as well, assuming that your goal is to 
change people's minds about beliefs held for a lifetime.

> Hmm. Ok, then how is this, "Its not the one its directed at that is at
> issue, since they are unlikely to change, its those watching, who see
> that the only response they can give is incoherent, or non-existent."

Those watching are likely to see someone "on the attack", and that gives 
the "recipient" of the ridicule the ability to draw sympathy from those 
on the sidelines.  If you want to affect those watching from the 
sidelines, you have to not make the target of your discussion into a 
victim.  What's more, if the "attack" is seen to be unprovoked, you're 
more than likely going to drive those on the sidelines (and on the fence) 
to *help* the "victim".

> For the most part, such people are not listening to what you are saying
> to start with. Your only option is, "don't play the game at all", or,
> "make sure someone else sees how **they** wanted to play it, and why
> that is stupid."

Sometimes the best way to play is to not play.  An emotional response on 
your part (whether real or perceived) isn't going to convince people 
you're right.  Well, that's maybe not entirely true, you might convince 
those who have no capacity for an empathetic response, but there aren't 
really that many people who wouldn't have empathy for someone who they 
perceived as being attacked unjustly.

> Well. Here it is different. But, go to one of these radical sites some
> times and look at the content... Unchallenged, they can **claim** you
> are a) afraid to challenge them, b) don't have any answers to their
> imaginary issues, or c) you ran away, because you know you would lose.
> On their own sites they "bolster" this opinion, by deleting anything
> that "remotely" disagrees, or fails to praise them. 

Welcome to the idea of free speech. :-)  These "radical sites" are not 
public spaces, but are privately owned, and they have the right to 
enforce whatever they want and to say whatever they want as long as it 
doesn't break some other law (like incitement laws and the like).  If I 
want to create a website that's viewable by the public that "proves" that 
the sky is red and I only allow comments to be posted that support that 
notion, that's my right as the site operator.  It may be ridiculous, but 
ultimately I have that right and you can't stop me from doing it.

> Part of the point of
> making them look even more foolish is to show fence sitters that the
> issue isn't your "unwillingness" to face them, but that you can't stop
> laughing while doing so. ;)

At some point, it's not a question of "unwillingness", but a question of 
"is it even worth my time?".  If you or I spent all of our time trying to 
convince people all the things we think are ridiculous are ridiculous, 
we'd have scarce time to ourselves.

> Some of them though.. Like the Catholic League, thankfully just "lie"
> about how many they have. Someone worked out that, based on their public
> records, and the dues needed to "be a member", either each one "claimed"
> only actually put in about 30 cents, or the numbers where "exaggerated",
> by like.. 10,000 times the actual number, and there where less than a
> few hundred "actual" people in the entire organization.

I think part of the problem is that the tax law is too convoluted; it 
allows people to work around disclosing what their actual assets are.  
The LDS Church (again as a convenient example) is a huge business with 
large business holdings.  Beneficial Life, for example - a major 
insurance company in the US - is (or was, this could have changed, I 
suppose) owned by the church.  What do you suppose the tax advantages are 
for having an insurance company that's owned by a religious organization?

> 
>> Logically, if the scientific principles are sound, then it shouldn't
>> trip the scientific world up too badly.  Either that or the premise has
>> a flaw in it, no?
>> 
> Right.. Because no one can come along and just declare, by fiat that
> Stem cells are useless, or, like in India, we should be using Vedic math
> and science, including alchemy, instead of "western" ideas...

There are short periods of idiocy in policy, again, that's one of the 
things that happens in a free society.

> This principle is only true if science is "allowed" to seek the correct
> answers. 

Taking a "devil's advocate" position, at what cost do those answers 
come?  Do we decide a class of people we can reasonably agree on as 
people (ie, let's leave the debate about embryonic stem cells out here) 
need to die in order to continue the research?  Let's say all people with 
red hair are determined to have the right genetic makeup to advanced stem 
cell research, but the research can only be achieved by extracting 
something that they need in order to live, thus causing their death.

> A lot of people would like it to "start" with what they think
> are the right answers, then throw out anything that doesn't fit.
> Strangely, when the Islamic world does this, its a sign of the
> corruption of Islam, while Christians doing the same thing are "trying
> to save the US from communist and atheistic views". o.O

Well, that comes back to absolutist points of view, but we've been over 
that.  I also look at that and say it's ridiculous.

>> That's why often walking away is the best option.  As someone wise once
>> said, "it's sometimes better to be silent and be thought a fool than to
>> open your mouth and remove all doubt."
>> 
> No it isn't. Walking away lets them *claim* that you refused to
> challenge their views, where afraid to, didn't have answers, or knew you
> where wrong. 

So what?  Why is their opinion of such importance to you?

> It doesn't matter if they "look" silly when prancing around
> with floppy shoes. If all anyone sees is, "Bozo the creationist has a
> presentation at so and so place.", they are not going to see the "Bozo",
> part, all they are going to see is the "sub-headline" which says,
> "circus claims scientists had to evidence against controversial theory."
> You "do" have to show people that they are silly. Because, well.. They
> gave up the nose and shoes two years ago, and while they still where the
> poka-dot underwear, they figured out that keeping it "under" a business
> suit gave them more "apparent" credibility. Your only option at that
> point is, sadly, to go there and pull their pants down, while hoping
> they didn't change tactics "yet again", in the mean time.

Then you risk turning them into a victim, and that never turns out well 
for you, but it helps them.

> 
> Thankfully, most such seem to lack imagination as much as humor. Comes
> from having a mind focused to much on "one view", that you can't "see"
> anything else. Thus, the idea that red noses are high comedy, while
> thinking George Carlin is a boring loud mouth. ;)

Well, to some, Carlin was a boring loud mouth.  That's a matter of 
personal taste.

But now I need to go and listen to the 7 words routine again - I don't 
think he was a boring loud mouth, and I miss that he's not here any more.

Jim

Post a reply to this message