But: do we kill because God commands it, or do we kill because we want to and then apply God retroactively to justify it?
It’s a bit of both, but clearly religion teaches its adherents a whole lotta things that they’re supposed to hate that they wouldn’t otherwise hate and seek destroyed.
For instance, does a father want to kill his daughter who’s just been raped (honor killing) because he has that desire out of the blue, or is it rather because religion has repeated the need to kill her so many times that it’s fair to say that religion contributed a lot to the decision?
I think in this case the answer is straight forward.
One of the great things about Tumblr is that people use it for just about every conceivable kind of expression. People being people, though, that means that Tumblr sometimes gets used for things that are just wrong. We are deeply committed to supporting and defending our users’ freedom of speech,…
It’s always a heavy question how to address these sorts of problems and potentially interfere with the freedom of others.
What I like about the Tumblr approach is that the proposed solution is inclusive as it won’t force bloggers to leave Tumblr in preference of their own blogs where the glorification of self-harm can proceed unchallenged. So it avoids the moralistic pitfall where we often see those who claim to help actually end up damaging the very people they were supposed to protect.
Eating disorders are no trivial matter and I would like to post a couple of mortality statistics I found on a page:
Add to that the human foibles that we tend to seek proof only of that which supports our preconceived ideas and that Social Proof (“everyone does it”) is among some of the most powerful factors that spur people to action.
Also, other media tend to have clear guidelines on reporting of suicides. One thing that is rarely - and shouldn’t be - reported is the method of suicide and too many demographics on the person that committed suicide. Why? Because research has conclusively shown that if a person identifies with the person who killed herself and learns of the specific method used there is an increased likelihood of seeing copycats. What research can show is that there are definite, identifiable spikes in suicides a few weeks after the (badly) reported suicide.
Also, these are not just risky choices in life by people pursuing happiness. Some are genuine mental health conditions that should be treated and quite a few can actually look forward to much happier lives after successfully addressing the causes of their self-harming behavior.
In all of life’s important areas disagreement is very important and the PSA’s will provide that and lessen the impact of Social Proof.
On greed as said by Milton Friedman (it’s 2½ minutes, so you’ll manage):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxfK9etKaIM
The clear difference to notice - now these protesters are equivocated to absolitionists - is that that contrary to what slavery did these “evil” corporations in a rights-based, Capitalist society have improved the lot of the poor more than any other attempt at doing so in history.
So they are not being hypocritical, but they are sawing off the branch that they’re sitting on, and that’s just STUPID!
I would depart from what he said in that in the video linked Friedman ignores the history of colonialism and that these “successful” capitalist societies rely heavily on exploitation.
Obviously Milton Friedman has been asked that very question and it’s cleared up in another video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xeebU8VhmY
You’ll really like the questions the guy puts forth in the video, because it covers every indictment that can be stated about the issue. Maybe you’ll even like the answer? :)
There’s a lot of msunderstandings about the exploitation and net value of colonies. There are indeed successful Capitalist countries, and when you hear Friedman’s answer you’ll better understand why they are so.
This argument impresses me as much as the one that abolitionists were hypocrites because they wore clothes made of cotton picked by slaves.
I’ve got a few comments to that:
It’s a bad “argument” alright. The real problem in my view wit this kind of protesting is the biasing that creeps into even great minds when they adopt the defeatist mantle of the victim. The feeling of injustice and victimization tends to overshadow a more precise analysis of the problems and it also causes a lot of unwarranted summary judgement over corporations.
When we have Socialist riots in my country, Denmark, pretty much any private business with a well-known logo tends to be torched. And yes, it’s ALWAYS a Socialist/Liberal riot.
These “victimized” people pay no attention to the fact that what they torch are often franchises where a private person has invested his own hard-earned money into the business and willingly entered into a contract with the franchise provider. Also they tend to discard the fact that no one forced anyoneto work “as slaves” in the local franchise business.
An even more hidden fact that is appreciated way too little is the unholy cooperation between said “evil” corporations and the political system. Looking into the future I predict that the single most important change of our Western governmental systems will be the creation of new Constitutions that introduce an unbending limitation on what governments can legally do.
The limitation that is sorely needed must be that government CANNOT subsidize private businesses in ANY way. The punishment would be “treason against the people”. That is actually in line with the idea of the republic, but it has been so perverted these days in pretty much all democracies because they’ve become majority despotism systems.
As one smart guy, whose name I forget, said: I’d rather like to see goverment stop subsidizing corporations than raise taxes for them.
While oh-so-polite what’s going on these days it’s still corruption and it’s systemic.
Let anyone think of corporations what they will, but most would agree that they are indeed predictable. They’re out to make money. If they do so by treading on someone else’s freedom, we can talk about it reasonably.
The huge fallacy that so many have fallen for is that somehow individuals like politians or public employees are transformed into altruistic doo-gooders just because they get into office or gets a public job.
On greed as said by Milton Friedman (it’s 2½ minutes, so you’ll manage):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxfK9etKaIM
The clear difference to notice - now these protesters are equivocated to absolitionists - is that that contrary to what slavery did these “evil” corporations in a rights-based, Capitalist society have improved the lot of the poor more than any other attempt at doing so in history.
So they are not being hypocritical, but they are sawing off the branch that they’re sitting on, and that’s just STUPID!
Jeg har netop modtaget dette fine brev fra DR, som ikke har albuerum nok til lidt politisk satire.
Bare der var en måde at føre siden videre på…
OK, det der er bare så fucked …
Jonas: prøv at søge vidt og bredt blandt dine followers på tumblr, facebook og twitter og se om der ikke er nogen, der ligger inde med billeder du kan få lov at bruge. Ellers får du forhåbentlig snart mulighed for selv at gå til valgmøder, hvor du kan tage billeder af dem selv ;)
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.
- Noam Chomsky (via amazingatheist)
I’ve come to the realization that I have no Idea where I stand on people. Just people. Generally.
On one hand, I care about their plight. I feel suffering vicariously. I sympathize, or empathize where appropriate. I worry about them, I work for them, I advocate for them.
On the other hand, I can’t fucking stand people. When I see how hopelessly dumb they are, how unwilling they are to step outside themselves, how low and deceptive they are, how violent and callous they are I can’t help but feel an almost total disconnection from them.
I have no idea how to reconcile these two positions. I can’t defend myself from criticism because I don’t understand it either. Inmendham says that I love the human and hate humanity. Or maybe that was reversed. I have no idea what the fuck that means, even as an abstraction. I can’t settle into a position, and so I’m constantly uncomfortable. I swing wildly between the two poles depending on situation or mood, and I’m sure the people around me are just as fucking confused as I am.
People are fun to watch on TV. Especially when they blow each other up.
It would be a mistake to concile the two. Rather I think PaulsEgo should consider what it is precisely he loves. My guess is that he loves the ultimate, most fully human expression of the potential inate in humans. Once someone is clear on that it becomes easier to see the failed, gutter-level humans for what they are.
It’s not much different that admiring the wonderful works of Michaelangelo, Monet, Mozart or just a very skilled carpenter you happen to use, but that should in no way pave the way for an irrational love for the next random guy able to smear paint on a canvas or chop up low quality wood and glue it together as a “chair”.
In fact, why would anyone on any subject where the outcome is widely distributed in, say, a bell curve want to treat, think and judge the entire mass as only one thing?
In most things the frame - or metaphor - determines how we think about things. Remember way back when you were a kid and reacted just like in that Simpson’s episode where the audience first swings completely one way then the other after hearing the defendant and prosecutor’s case? Well, they’re just entirely switching frames when in fact they should adopt a common, better frame that allows them to critically think about the issue (instead of following blindly along with whatever judgment the lawyers put forth).
Let the discriminating eye keep discriminating.
About HrVad
