Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: ]C[rusader on August 06, 2006, 07:08:43 pm
-
Snipped from an Amazon.com book review:
"Let's assume the following groups:
1. Those who hate Jews: commonly known as anti-Semites. People in this group can safely be assumed to also hate Israel and Zionism.
2. People who are impartial to (or are friends with or are themselves) Jews, but are critical of policies and actions of Israel, especially as regards the treatment of Palestinian Arabs over the years. Let's also assume that some in this group make it their life's work to research and expose such actions to the relative exclusion of all other issues.
3. A presumed majority of Jews, who admit a certain bias towards Israel, but think of themselves as reasonably fair minded and open to argument (I consider myself in this group).
4. Hypothetical members of a Jewish "lobby", who in the interests of defending Israel at all costs (and possibly self-enrichment) will resort to a number of tactics, including expropriating the memory of the Holocaust for their own selfish ends, and especially playing an anti-Semitism card to deflect otherwise legitimate criticism of Israel that may emanate from those in group 2.
All these groups have many members, but it's impossible to say how many or even the relative ratios... Finkesltein [sic] would have us believe that he is in the second group. But since people in group 1 would like to present themselves as belonging to group 2 wherever possible, this is hard to take at face value..."
Hm. Makes me wonder.
Q: "Is it possible to be impartial?"
A: "i do not know... even the very words and phrases chosen can often smuggle in a slant or bias, whether intentional or not."
Q: "Is it necessary to strive for impartiality in the first place?"
A: "i think so. Better to be the open mind that fails in a bid for truth, rather than a closed mind which succeeds in not caring."
With that said, i offer a look at the process used in my attempts to seize truth. In the excerpt, an author began a book review with what i thought was impartiality. Then i hit the second paragraph, whereupon the slant of it whacked me square between the eyes. Worse after that, a rereading of the first paragraph made me realise the hidden biases apparent up there as well. So i decided to pull it all apart for a better understanding.
Starting from the top...
Let's assume the following groups:
1. Those who hate Jews... [polemically anti-Jew and anti-Israeli-policy]
2. People who are impartial... [non-polemically pro-Jew and anti-Israeli-policy]
3. A presumed majority of Jews... [non-polemically pro-Jew and pro-Israeli-policy]
4. Hypothetical members of a Jewish "lobby"... [polemically pro-Jew and pro-Israeli-policy]
... i see a listing of two groups without caveat as to their tangible presence, a third group asserted to be a majority, and a caveat of "hypothetical" upon the fourth. i would say that this slants the piece by smuggling in a notion of "only three of these actually exist; the third naturally represents most Jews; the fourth is just speculation". A simple smuggle like that suggests a lack of objectivity in the argument, due to a lack of evidence given for the assertion about group 3, plus the author's withholding of credibility against the very people (group 4) whose presence might most harm the credibility of the author's chosen comrades (group 3).
Next...
All these groups have many members, but it's impossible to say how many or even the relative ratios.
... i find this sentence provides no evidence for the claim of group membership being a case of "impossible to say how many". i would say that slants the piece by smuggling in a notion of "it's already cut-and-dried that we have no numbers of membership in these groups." The simple smuggle affects the entire argument's factual integrity; what if there are numbers available, yet the author simply hasn't taken sufficient pains to uncover them?
(Interestingly, the claim about impossibility seems to contradict the assertion about Group 3, i.e., the group allegedly a "presumed majority of Jews". How can the author know such a thing yet also be unable to "say how many or even the relative ratios"? But i digress...)
Now, as mentioned, this entire suspicion of bias was only inspired after i started the second paragraph. Here it begins...
Finkesltein [sic] would have us believe that he is in the second group. But since people in group 1 would like to present themselves as belonging to group 2 wherever possible, this is hard to take at face value.
i stopped reading after that, because i found immediately that the statement seemed to smuggle an unsupported assertion while also avoiding a significant part of the whole truth. First, the author hasn't offered any evidence or proof that any members of Group 1 want to belong in Group 2. Second, the levying of that assertion solely versus the group most adversarial to the author's apparent viewpoint, avoids how it might apply elsewhere--e.g., should we ask whether the members of Group 4 would wish to belong in Group 3?
* * *
Given the above deconstruction, i find myself hard pressed to read further in the author's commentary, since i anticipate more slant and bias of the type apparently found. Regardless i do still find the piece useful, if only as an example of how a deconstructive process can identify any smuggles lurking beneath an ostensibly neutral statement.
To be fair, i cannot claim this process will prove anything about authorial intent, since the author is the only one who truly knows. Nor can i claim that my perceptions are necessarily any clearer, or less biased, than those of the person(s) i critique. All i can say for certain, is that a good analysis will often point to key questions... questions which the author ideally should be willing to answer, be it at least to grudgingly demonstrate good faith, or else at best to cheerfully clarify all points of doubt.
-
TL DR
-
so thats why people accuse me of hating jews when i express disapproval towards israel. i always have to clarify, 'i don't hate jews, i hate the jews running israel, as people, not as jews'.
never seems to work when i put it like that though.
-
Just say you dislike the people in charge of Israel...similar to the way you would say (perhaps) that you dislike the people in charge of the United States. You don't say "I hate the white guys/christians/caucasians who are in charge of the United States." Its perfectly acceptable to say that you disapprove of the job someone is doing as leader...slightly less acceptible to say that you dislike the actual person...but definately not to stereotype which is what you do when you start grouping by race.
-
actually i do say that i hate the christians in charge of the US. theyre a bunch of loonies trying to bring about the apocalypse, and i don't approve.
-
It's better to just refer to them as neo-cons, as that's the name those bastards usually go by. Not to mention by saying "the christians in charge of the US", you'll incur the wrath of Char, who firmly believes that Christians will be persecuted, locked up and killed in the near future... or something... :rolleyes:
As an aside, could anyone enlighten me as to why nobody ever really likes the Jews throughout history?
-
As an aside, could anyone enlighten me as to why nobody ever really likes the Jews throughout history?
From what i have read (corrections welcome), significant numbers of Jews were viewed as convenient scapegoats for societal problems at various points throughout European history. The nadir of that branding apparently occurred with the rise of the Third Reich, after the demise of which the Jewish stereotype probably changed for the most part to "victims". However, upon the partitioning of Middle Eastern territory to forcibly create a Jewish state, the native residents of the region apparently felt justified to renew the "scapegoat" stereotype. Subsequent political and military actions between the Israelis and their neighbours, plus the interference of other nations, have arguably led to the increase of that regional tension, as well as the spread of it... to an extent where perhaps very few non-Israelis or non-Americans worldwide ever choose to see Israelites as "victims" rather than "aggressors" or "occupiers".
@Turambar:
Quite sorry to hear that you've been stereotyped by others while trying to express your opinion. It does make a discussion difficult, doesn't it. i do agree with Icefire's advice about that.
-
It's a common trick. Claim that someone is an anti-semite and you can get away with ignoring anything they've said no matter how correct it actually is.
You only need to look at the various debates on this board to see how often people get accused of anti-americanism for saying that the American government is wrong about something or anti-Israeli feeling for saying that both the Jews and the Palestinians are in the wrong.
-
Not to mention by saying "the christians in charge of the US", you'll incur the wrath of Char, who firmly believes that Christians will be persecuted, locked up and killed in the near future... or something... :rolleyes:
where is that "help! we're being oppressed" population piechart when I need it...
74% of the US is christian, 16% of it atheist/agnostic, the remaining are other religions.
Char is an idiot if he thinks
A) christians are persecuted (Though they do have a well documented persecution complex)
B) christians aren't the oppressors
C) non-christians want to lock christians up
-
It's a prophecy, apparently.
-
you know a persecution complex is a something very commonly demonstrated by abusers (IE abusive spouses), when the abused stands up to them they claim to be the victim not the perpetrator.
-
A persecution complex is a braod term, It could apply to any number of things, but the most common cause is the sufferes initial lack of nuts IE the lack of bottle when it comes to fefending them selves from simple situations, Often scenarios as simple as someone cutting a cue for a train/bus etc will reduce the victim to tears.
You're points pretty valid though.
-
From what i have read (corrections welcome), significant numbers of Jews were viewed as convenient scapegoats for societal problems at various points throughout European history. The nadir of that branding apparently occurred with the rise of the Third Reich, after the demise of which the Jewish stereotype probably changed for the most part to "victims". However, upon the partitioning of Middle Eastern territory to forcibly create a Jewish state, the native residents of the region apparently felt justified to renew the "scapegoat" stereotype. Subsequent political and military actions between the Israelis and their neighbours, plus the interference of other nations, have arguably led to the increase of that regional tension, as well as the spread of it... to an extent where perhaps very few non-Israelis or non-Americans worldwide ever choose to see Israelites as "victims" rather than "aggressors" or "occupiers".
Well, I think Jews have always been viewed very negatively in Western history (not sure on Middle Eastern), for example Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. Aside from the obvious Christian religious reason - blaming Jews for the death of Jesus - I believe Judaism was the only religion to allow money lending, etc, when both Islam and Christianity forbode it; this would obviously allow Jews to establish some of the longest and most established banks, etc, in history, but at the same time would lead to the 'greedy, grasping' etc stereotype ala Shylock. People tend to resent the people they owe money to, after all. Whether or not this would be a primary reason, though, I don't know.
-
[nod] Envy of financial / economic clout, does seem to be a very powerful motivator for many people. If it is true that significant organisations of ethnic and religious Jews have enjoyed a large monetary advantage throughout history, then i could certainly see how that might feed any negative stereotypes.
-
I have my own little theory on why jews have been persecuted throughout history, nothing to really back it up at the moment, but please read, digest and respond:
The vast majority of jewish history has been that of displacement, or people without a "homeland" so to speak. There have been few periods in history when the jewish people were ever really a majority or even their own rulers. As such, Jewish communities would always be tight knit and insular, often alienating them from the majority, which was almost always polytheistic. Additionally, the jewish people have demonstrated a remarkable intelligence and a will to strive, and would often rise to the upper classes of society (if given the opportunity). The insular nature of judaism coupled with their almost uncanny ability to transmute rags to riches would naturally draw the ire of the natives and locals who have toiled for generations with little to show for their work.
As such, the historical persecution of the jews has been somewhat akin to the class struggle outlined by Marx. Jews have had the misfortune of not only being "aristocratic" but also a "different and mysterious" religion, what better targets of the mob? This was occuring LONG before Jesus or his famed death, which I think only gave people a sort of "moral out" for rapaciousness, by virtue of the absence of pograms during peaceful, healthy periods.
The unyeilding criticism of Israel for almost any and all violent acts it perpetrates, I think, is a direct result of the superb "marketing" of the Holocaust by anti-defamation groups. The holocaust is by and far the best known atrocity in human history, although it is by no means the worst (Stalin was responsible for, If i am not mistaken, the deaths of 12-20 Million Ukranians in under 2 years). As such, the world holds the bar for Israel's actions much higher than it would for anyone else, and so every little thing it does that results in the suffering of others is henpecked to oblivion.
-
TL DR
Could you possibly be more cryptic? :p
-
The vast majority of jewish history...
Some of that opinion resonates with what i've read, some of it sounded a bit like overstatement or overgeneralisation, and then some of it wasn't covered by what i've read.
As such, the historical persecution of the jews...
Very interesting thought there, about a possible parallel to Marxist ideas on class struggle.
The unyeilding criticism of Israel...
Even though the opinion was announced upfront as being an opinion without support, i'm having difficulty accepting that paragraph, due to the same reaction i had to the aforementioned book review. i'll refrain from overanalysing, but i do want to ask for elaboration on something: how does the "marketing of the Holocaust" lead to a "raising of the bar"? i don't quite follow the reasoning there.
* * *
@Sandwich:
i get the impression Kazan may have been drawing a deliberately absurd contrast for the purpose of humour, by compressing "Too Long, Didn't Read" into as short a format as possible, and then appending it to my admittedly lengthy post.
-
The unyeilding criticism of Israel for almost any and all violent acts it perpetrates, I think, is a direct result of the superb "marketing" of the Holocaust by anti-defamation groups. The holocaust is by and far the best known atrocity in human history, although it is by no means the worst (Stalin was responsible for, If i am not mistaken, the deaths of 12-20 Million Ukranians in under 2 years). As such, the world holds the bar for Israel's actions much higher than it would for anyone else, and so every little thing it does that results in the suffering of others is henpecked to oblivion.
To a degree I feel that is true. The Holocaust has been marketed by the Jews to a very large degree. (So much so that the next person who tells me that "we need to remember the Holocaust because 6 million people died" is going to get beaten to death).
As such the world should hold them to that standard. You can't constantly complain that the world should remember the injustice you have received while expecting the world to turn a blind eye to the injustice you cause.
-
TL DR
Could you possibly be more cryptic? :p
it means "too long, didn't read"
-
Why post such a thing?
-
NFI.........
-
TL DR
Could you possibly be more cryptic? :p
it means "too long, didn't read"
:wakka: I guess it would have been funny had I given the disclaimer in that post I thought of giving: "Haven't had time to read this yet, but..." :p
Oh, and: TS, DU. :p
-
You can't constantly complain that the world should remember the injustice you have received while expecting the world to turn a blind eye to the injustice you cause.
Murky waters.
And, the more i ponder this, the less certainty i have about anything.
-
You know, if there was a real Rapture, where all the people who had done the least to harm their fellow man and had spread the concept of tolerance, equal rights and understanding, there would be an awful lot of Christians wondering where all the Atheists went :p
-
I've always said that I couldn't believe in a God who'd choose to hold the fact I didn't believe in him against me :)
-
I never understood why God was so insecure about the whole belief thing, myself.
-
He probably got teased at God-school, ended-up with a complex.
-
He probably got teased a God-school.
Poor lad. Must have been the fat ginger kid or something.
-
Actually I think it was the fact he doesn't have a mum and dad.
-
Actually I think it was the fact he doesn't have a mum and dad.
Yeah, that'd screw anyone up pretty bad.
-
You can't constantly complain that the world should remember the injustice you have received while expecting the world to turn a blind eye to the injustice you cause.
Murky waters.
And, the more i ponder this, the less certainty i have about anything.
yay!! uncertainty is the breeding ground of science and intelligent discussion! a true scientist would never be certain about anything, and always testing to make sure. the people who have no uncertainty (people of faith) simply stagnate, and their minds never move.
-
@Turambar:
Hm. [nods] Okay, fair enough, although i'd think total or major uncertainty is a bit stressful at times for anybody. i agree that any person, scientists included, should strive to be open-minded towards truth, and to avoid being close-minded. It just seems like being blindly unsure, is about as imbalanced as blindly being sure.
On the flipside, i suppose it can at least be said that i'm certain about my uncertainty?...
... well, until i said that sentence, anyway. Now i'm doubting the sureness of my doubt.
(Doh. Open foot, insert mouth. Or something like that.)
And, speaking of flipsides:
You know, if there was a real Rapture...
i realise the joke, but i'd still like to go semi-serious in offering a friendly challenge to you, Flipside. Would you be willing to restate your thought, so that it becomes the most accurate and the least partial thought possible?
@karajorma:
I've always said that I couldn't believe in a God who'd choose to hold the fact I didn't believe in him against me.
i think that's sensible, in one context.
In another, it's much akin to an ant angrily shaking her antennae in my general direction, right before my heel flattens half her sisterhood. Yes, the outrage certainly matters to the outraged person, but... would that be a sufficient offset to the tangible misery incurred by spitting at a giant?
For example: there seem to be people quite fond of pinning divine motivation to natural disasters. The Indonesian tsunami, the Black Plague, Hurricane Katrina, all have been abused as object lessons by certain pious types, to say "see what happens when you don't listen to our Creator / our holy book / our culture?"
With that in mind, let's make a hypothetical. Suppose a Creator truly was in charge of such things, and suppose that those things truly were a punishment to non-believers / disbelievers. From that, i ask: when weighing the tremendous tragedy of those disasters... versus the worth of keeping firm to any anti-deity beliefs... is it truly wise to value the latter over the former? Is there any point at which the rightness of "sticking to one's guns", is exceeded by the actual cost of doing so?
-
i think that's sensible, in one context.
In another, it's much akin to an ant angrily shaking her antennae in my general direction, right before my heel flattens half her sisterhood. Yes, the outrage certainly matters to the outraged person, but... would that be a sufficient offset to the tangible misery incurred by spitting at a giant?
Since I don't believe in God in the first place the question is pretty moot anyway. You're say lets assume for the purposes of this argument that God exists. Which completely invalidates the argument in the first place. My point was that I refuse to believe that there could even be a deity out there with the awesome powers needed to create the universe who would then run around planting large amounts of evidence to make it look like he didn't and then actually punish people who choose not to believe in him.
Quite frankly I don't believe a being with that kind of power could be that petty.
Is there any point at which the rightness of "sticking to one's guns", is exceeded by the actual cost of doing so?
But that's not a case of belief. That's simple petulance. That would be knowing that God does exist but deliberately choosing to pretend that he doesn't because you don't like him. My point wasn't that I would continue to deny God's existance even if it was proved. It was that I doubt he could even exist in the form certain religions present him as.
-
For example: there seem to be people quite fond of pinning divine motivation to natural disasters. The Indonesian tsunami, the Black Plague, Hurricane Katrina, all have been abused as object lessons by certain pious types, to say "see what happens when you don't listen to our Creator / our holy book / our culture?"
With that in mind, let's make a hypothetical. Suppose a Creator truly was in charge of such things, and suppose that those things truly were a punishment to non-believers / disbelievers. From that, i ask: when weighing the tremendous tragedy of those disasters... versus the worth of keeping firm to any anti-deity beliefs... is it truly wise to value the latter over the former? Is there any point at which the rightness of "sticking to one's guns", is exceeded by the actual cost of doing so?
Ah, but name one natural disaster that's selectively targeted only 'unbelievers'......
Let's remember, though, that it's a loaded hypothetical; with any such event, there will be tens of people claiming it was failure to adhere to their culture that is to blame; for every Billy Graham blaming homosexuality/hedonism/etc for Katrina, there will be a (for example) Muslim preacher citing it as punishment for immoral American actions in the Middle East, etc. God in this context is very much a proxy for venting an individuals own biases, and even if you wanted to attribute a disaster as punishment by (a) God (or Gods), it'd be a massive task to identify what that punishment was for.
-
My point was that I refuse to believe that there could even be a deity out there with the awesome powers needed to create the universe who would then run around planting large amounts of evidence to make it look like he didn't and then actually punish people who choose not to believe in him.
Maybe he did really badly in God-school, and only wants people dumber than him, ie. people that believe in YEC, in heavan so he's technically the smartest person there.
-
@aldo_14:
Ah, but name one natural disaster that's selectively targeted only 'unbelievers'...
Outside the hypothetical (htl.), it doesn't appear possible to answer that request. i would've figured such to not be a problem though, since i did stipulate the context as being within the htl.
In the context of the htl., then... i stipulated only so far as "suppose that those things truly were a punishment to non-believers / disbelievers." Going farther to address the fate of any "believers" caught by disaster, didn't occur to me as relevant. At present, the request seems tangential, thus an answer seems unnecessary.
Let's remember, though, that it's a loaded hypothetical...
Hm. [curiosity enabled] Would you toss me an example of an "unloaded" htl.?
Aside from that, i agree that the question now looks a tad top-heavy from assumptions like the one you've pinpointed. It does appear taken-as-granted that karajorma would be able to identify not only the reason for the punishment, but also its source, out of the multitude of possibles all voiced from around the world. (Quite a heavy burden, indeed.)
However, what i had in my mind plus what i wrote in the htl., are from my POV just a bit down and to the left of how they appear. i hope my reply to karajorma will sort things.
* * *
@karajorma:
Since I don't believe in God in the first place the question is pretty moot anyway.
i'm thinking the htl. may be buggy, thus making the aim of my curiosity seem like a moot target.
You're saying, let's assume for the purposes of this argument, that God exists.
Not really.
i think between both your response and aldo_14's reply, there has been a bit of smuggling. i stipulated "a Creator". Not "God". The two aren't necessarily or automatically co-equal; in naming one but not the other, i was specifically trying to avoid the baggage commonly strewn everywhere by the latter.
So, at the risk of boring anyone further by endless repetition of my rambles: "Suppose a Creator [i.e. an intelligent something, with the ability to create plus maintain influence over this universe, and which exists as far beyond the current reach of scientific inquiry, as a laptop is beyond the grasp of an ant] truly was in charge of such things..."
If this elaborated definition isn't sufficient, let me know. In the meantime...
My point was that I refuse to believe...
i appreciate the further detail of your point. [thoughtful] Here's where i'll pick up where i left off with aldo_14. i was attempting to paint an htl. with these key elements...
1.) The aforementioned Creator, punishing a set group of people with a natural disaster, for motivations unexplained
2.) A number of evangelistic believers, proclaiming the natural disaster to be punishment from an angry deity, even without a true knowledge or insight about the actual Creator / its motivations
3.) karajorma, solely able to perceive the believers' claims, likewise unable to perceive the Creator itself
4.) The question, "... when weighing the tremendous tragedy of those disasters... versus the worth of keeping firm to any anti-deity beliefs [i.e. the beliefs karajorma holds while unaware of the stipulated Creator and only aware of the believers' interpretation of same] ... is it truly wise to value the latter over the former?..."
Hence, the question wasn't, "if you knew about God, would you still disbelieve?" i do regret, that it translated that way.
i was asking, "since you don't know, is it wise / worth the cost to aggressively disbelieve, even though your own limitations might be defying the connection of 'natural disaster' with 'imposed punishment'?"
But that's not a case of belief. That's simple petulance...
[thoughtful again] Although this answer is afield of my question, i still find it intriguing. In your eyes, does an aggressive disbelief / resistance against proof, always amount to petulance? Some might argue that several of humanity's greatest moments of triumph versus adversity, came about precisely because the people involved refused to accept the fact of their situation / their oppressor's power / their own weaknesses. Is there a difference between that versus what you would label as petulance?
My point wasn't that I would continue to deny God's existance...
As i said initially, i found your first statement to be sensible from one context. i feel the same towards this statement as well.
-
I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here.
-
Actually I think it was the fact he doesn't have a mum and dad.
Yeah, that'd screw anyone up pretty bad.
Not necesscelery, I was an orphan. :hopping:
Oh I get it! :lol:
:wakka:
:wakka:
:wakka:
:wakka:
:wtf:
-
Actually I think it was the fact he doesn't have a mum and dad.
Yeah, that'd screw anyone up pretty bad.
Not necesscelery, I was an orphan. :hopping:
Oh I get it! :lol:
:wakka:
:wakka:
:wakka:
:wakka:
:wtf:
you're God?!
-
No the difference between me and god is I had a mum and dad, and just lost them at an early age (3yrs old). Although, the wife does call his name when we're at IT! ;7
-
Exactly. What did God say when the other gods took the piss out of him for not knowing who his mum and dad are? :D
Then you've also got to consider the likely psychological damage from
1) Having no equals to talk to
2) Having no friends you didn't create specifically to be your friends
3) Having some of them turn against you even despite this
4) Having everyone be more interested in what you can do for them than actually just simply wanting to hang out.
i think between both your response and aldo_14's reply, there has been a bit of smuggling. i stipulated "a Creator". Not "God". The two aren't necessarily or automatically co-equal; in naming one but not the other, i was specifically trying to avoid the baggage commonly strewn everywhere by the latter.
So, at the risk of boring anyone further by endless repetition of my rambles: "Suppose a Creator [i.e. an intelligent something, with the ability to create plus maintain influence over this universe, and which exists as far beyond the current reach of scientific inquiry, as a laptop is beyond the grasp of an ant] truly was in charge of such things..."
If this elaborated definition isn't sufficient, let me know. In the meantime...
Let's call him Zog. It's easier to discuss these things once you don't have to keep using long phrases to distinguish between real-life fictional and hypotheical fictional beings. :)
i was asking, "since you don't know, is it wise / worth the cost to aggressively disbelieve, even though your own limitations might be defying the connection of 'natural disaster' with 'imposed punishment'?"
In hindsight it might not be a good idea to attract the wrath of Zog but quite simply we don't live our lives in hindsight. And that's why the question is loaded. It's like saying "I've slipped a bomb into your backpack and you don't know about it. Wouldn't it be a good idea to take off your backpack and run away from it"
There's no way to know about the bomb and we have special places to put people who do things like that without having any good reason for it. They're called asylums. So yes it is wise to act to what is the best of your knowledge in every situation. Sometime that can get you very wisely dead but that's life (or death).
Acting on information you don't have is lunacy and therefore the complete opposite of wisdom.
[thoughtful again] Although this answer is afield of my question, i still find it intriguing. In your eyes, does an aggressive disbelief / resistance against proof, always amount to petulance? Some might argue that several of humanity's greatest moments of triumph versus adversity, came about precisely because the people involved refused to accept the fact of their situation / their oppressor's power / their own weaknesses. Is there a difference between that versus what you would label as petulance?
I've yet to hear of a situation so desperate that someone had absolute proof that they were going to die and didn't. Or absolute proof that something couldn't be done and yet it was. The world simply doesn't work that way.
What I was talking about was a case where you had proof of the existance of Zog and yet completely refused to believe it. That is petulance.
-
1) Having no equals to talk to
2) Having no friends you didn't create specifically to be your friends
3) Having some of them turn against you even despite this
4) Having everyone be more interested in what you can do for them than actually just simply wanting to hang out.
Not to mention having an estranged son who never got a girlfriend in 33 years, and spent most of his time hanging out with his 12 male friends... well, you see where i'm going with this, and this was 2000 years ago! Let's just say tolerance wasn't a big thing back then.
Damn, he must be sitting up there screwier than a... a screw!
-
And I never liked that "suffer the little children who come unto me" line either! :nervous:
-
@aldo_14:
[curious] Why be inclined to seek a "point"?
i asked a rather ponderous question, karajorma was indulgent enough to answer.
Simple enough, yes?
@karajorma:
It's odd that i more or less agree with you, both in general and in specific, as regards this topic... and yet... it's as if twice now, your answer has fallen slightly outside the exact context of my question. Thus inspiring my continued pokes for clarity.
Still, i do appreciate your answers, since my questions are sincere... i like asking such things, but rarely do i find anyone willing to endure me long enough to participate. So, thank you.
In hindsight it might not be a good idea...
[nods] Not exactly germane, since my question didn't really try to involve hindsight, but still a true enough statement in general.
And that's why the question is loaded.
Eh. i do get your meaning. i'm not sure that's an apt analogy though. How about:
"All your life, you've heard stories about a type of liquid chemical bomb, supposedly implanted in all humans at birth. Nobody has actually found one, and none are known to have verifiably exploded. Nobody is aware that the "bombs" are actually an inactive control apparatus, since [cue handwaving] the liquid components are separate in the body and appear commonplace." [cough-yes-just-humour-me-cough]
"As such... does a vanishingly small (i.e. from your POV) probability of having been implanted with anything, bombs or otherwise, justify forming and holding an aggressive disbelief in them? Is it worth the cost if perhaps the bomb explodes someday / the control device is activated?"
Is it clear, what i'm aiming at? i'm not really looking to find out how you'd literally act in the htl.; you've already mentioned the impracticality of "living in hindsight", and i concur.
What i'm wondering, is if you feel / think / believe that an aggressive disbelief is wise, justified, or worth the potential cost, in such a situation?
And for fairness' sake, i'll answer my own question: in the context of the htl., i don't think an aggressive disbelief is wise, justified, or worth any potential cost. i think the cultivation of an impartial mind, with a willingness to hold no belief at all, neither pro nor con, in as neutral a state of bias as is humanly possible, would be best.
Back to you... do you believe you've answered my question already? If so, i accept that. If not, i'm all ears.
I've yet to hear of a situation so desperate...
"i've yet to hear" is very well said. i read that as a willingness to hear.
However, the addition of "absolute" to "proof" is a little troublesome. i said and meant "proof" alone, which seems implicitly to be a lower standard... i'm thinking the one could be falsified, the other could not. Hence, a proof of imminent death, would be a gun in the face, falsifiable by a lack of pulling the trigger. Absolute proof would be the actual death-by-bullet, which apparently can't be undone. Is that a fair assessment?
If that does hold water, then i can think of a situation in which someone had proof (not absolute proof) that they were going to die, but lived through it. Viktor Frankl's experience in a Nazi concentration camp comes to mind. He had at all times a tremendous amount of proof at hand of his own impending death, yet he chose to aggressively disbelieve in that fate for years. (i hope i'm characterising that correctly; corrections are welcome.)
What I was talking about was a case where...
Back to "proof"? Now i'm thinking i overanalysed your use of "absolute". Ah well. [slaps forehead] Moving along: my example of "completely refusing to believe" is listed above. Would you say the example is apt?
And, if so, would you therefore answer "no, it doesn't" to my little tangent about "does an aggressive disbelief / resistance against proof, always amount to petulance?" If not, why?
-
Ok, then, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.
-
[nods] Not exactly germane, since my question didn't really try to involve hindsight, but still a true enough statement in general.
Actually it does. The question only becomes important if you say that Zog actually exists. Since there is no current evidence for the existance of Zog the only way that current actions could be considered in the light of Zog's existance is if he is proved to exist in the future. Hence the reason why it would have to be in hindsight.
And that's why the question is loaded.
Eh. i do get your meaning. i'm not sure that's an apt analogy though. How about:
"All your life, you've heard stories about a type of liquid chemical bomb, supposedly implanted in all humans at birth. Nobody has actually found one, and none are known to have verifiably exploded. Nobody is aware that the "bombs" are actually an inactive control apparatus, since [cue handwaving] the liquid components are separate in the body and appear commonplace." [cough-yes-just-humour-me-cough]
"As such... does a vanishingly small (i.e. from your POV) probability of having been implanted with anything, bombs or otherwise, justify forming and holding an aggressive disbelief in them? Is it worth the cost if perhaps the bomb explodes someday / the control device is activated?"
Here's my point. I can come up with millions of hypotheticals all as obtuse or unlikely as this one. Any single one of them could be true but almost certainly isn't. They all contradict each other and the consequence of acting on any of them is that you act as if thousands of other ones aren't true.
You're basing this on the absolute fact that there is a Zog and then expecting people to believe in him despite the fact that there is an equal amount of evidence for Zib, Zob and an entire pantheon of other deities with no particular reason to pick any of them at all.
Given the fact that there is no proof of the existance of any of these the only sensible option is to act as if none of them exist until proof does turn up. Anything else is simply grabbing at straws and you're far more likely to grab the wrong one than the right one.
What i'm wondering, is if you feel / think / believe that an aggressive disbelief is wise, justified, or worth the potential cost, in such a situation?
And for fairness' sake, i'll answer my own question: in the context of the htl., i don't think an aggressive disbelief is wise, justified, or worth any potential cost. i think the cultivation of an impartial mind, with a willingness to hold no belief at all, neither pro nor con, in as neutral a state of bias as is humanly possible, would be best.
I think you've wondered off on a tangent because you've failed to understand what I was saying. You've assumed that saying I don't believe in something is proof that I agressively disbelieve it. I said no such thing. I don't believe in God but I don't disbelieve in him. I simply see no point in choosing a low probability event over a high probability event. To act any other way would be stupidity as far as I'm concerned. I have the data so why should I choose what every single logical thought shows to be the wrong choice?
"i've yet to hear" is very well said. i read that as a willingness to hear.
However, the addition of "absolute" to "proof" is a little troublesome. i said and meant "proof" alone, which seems implicitly to be a lower standard... i'm thinking the one could be falsified, the other could not. Hence, a proof of imminent death, would be a gun in the face, falsifiable by a lack of pulling the trigger. Absolute proof would be the actual death-by-bullet, which apparently can't be undone. Is that a fair assessment?
If that does hold water, then i can think of a situation in which someone had proof (not absolute proof) that they were going to die, but lived through it. Viktor Frankl's experience in a Nazi concentration camp comes to mind. He had at all times a tremendous amount of proof at hand of his own impending death, yet he chose to aggressively disbelieve in that fate for years. (i hope i'm characterising that correctly; corrections are welcome.)
Not a good enough example. Any fool knows that there would be the possibility of surviving long enough for the Germans to lose the war. Which in the end is exactly what happened. You're going to have to try much harder to come up with a situation so hopeless that it's worth even continuing this particular idea.
And, if so, would you therefore answer "no, it doesn't" to my little tangent about "does an aggressive disbelief / resistance against proof, always amount to petulance?" If not, why?
Disbelief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is either stupidity or petulance. The simple fact is that if you can't prove it then you have to act on what you know. You confuse continual testing to prove if you're right (i.e the scientific method) with refusing to accept any evidence, picking an opinion at random and then insisting that it must be correct. Like I said the latter is either stupidity or petulance. The former on the other hand is what has actually led to the advances you want to claim came from belief in the face of evidence to the contrary.
-
@karajorma:
i'll halt here. If you desire any further reply beyond the following, just ask.
Given the fact that there is no proof of the existance of any of these the only sensible option is to act as if none of them exist until proof does turn up. Anything else is simply grabbing at straws and you're far more likely to grab the wrong one than the right one.
Thank you for your answer, and i'm rather sorry about belabouring the question.
Disbelief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is either stupidity or petulance.
At this point i'm willing to take your statement as granted true from your perspective, and not probe farther to see if there is actually an exception to which you'd agree. It's fine if there isn't; i was simply curious.
-
Nothing wrong with curiosity.
Well unless you're a cat. Then it's murder.
-
Mm. i'm feline quite well, actually.
-
Ba'doom'Chsshhhh.....................*kill me please* :sigh:
-
Ba'doom'Chsshhhh.....................*kill me please* :sigh:
My pleasure!
*takes chainsaw to CD's face
:p