Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby Kyrn » Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:30 am UTC

Stealing is not always wrong.

It's not necessarily wrong when ownership/property is questionable. Frequent uses/abuses of the term includes stealing one's userbase, stealing one's love, stealing profits, stealing software/music.

/derail

Likewise, hate is not always wrong. Hate is not necessarily wrong when the negative effect of resultant acts is questionable. Using hate to channel energy to focus on a (peaceful) task, for instance.

For example: Person A hates Jews. Thus, he channels his energy to help non-Jews. Is this form of hate wrong?
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby mmmcannibalism » Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:08 am UTC

Stealing is not always wrong.

It's not necessarily wrong when ownership/property is questionable. Frequent uses/abuses of the term includes stealing one's userbase, stealing one's love, stealing profits, stealing software/music.


Your just equivocating. Taking something isn't necessarily wrong, stealing is taking something that belongs to someone else*; stealing is only being used as a manner of speech for things like stealing one's heart.

Likewise, hate is not always wrong. Hate is not necessarily wrong when the negative effect of resultant acts is questionable. Using hate to channel energy to focus on a (peaceful) task, for instance.

For example: Person A hates Jews. Thus, he channels his energy to help non-Jews. Is this form of hate wrong?


Just because someone has a bad quality(hating an ethnic group) doesn't mean everything they do will be bad. Also, you can't exactly channel hatred of a group into helping another group unless that second group is directly opposed to the first.

*Which is different then taking something that is not owned. For instance, profits can't be stolen(in the legal sense) because no one owns consumer spending. Stealing product leads to less profit, but the crime there is taking a product(or idea in cases of copyright) that you do not own.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby Kyrn » Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:32 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote: Also, you can't exactly channel hatred of a group into helping another group unless that second group is directly opposed to the first.

Why can't hatred be channeled into helping another group unless that second group is directly opposed to the first? E.g. You are furious about what someone said. You take your pent up energy, and spend it on cutting down that tree that sorely needs to be chopped down for whatever good reason (Granted this is more of anger, but it is sufficiently similar). And even then, this in no way means that such a situation cannot exist. E.g. You hate your rival, and channel your hatred into making yourself better.

My point is that hatred is not a negative trait so long as it is controlled and not exerted in a negative manner.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby guenther » Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:36 am UTC

thc wrote:One could come up with any number of thought experiments where having hate arguably leads to a better outcome. Anyway, the point is that I'm not convinced that hate is always wrong. I think both you and guenther are far from proving the case.

Any number of thought experiments could show that genocide could arguably lead to a better outcome. That doesn't mean that it's good to take a soft stance of it.

Here's my case: We have an inherent tendency to like what we know and dislike what we don't know. When people form groups, this bias gets aligned and we have a tendency to have a greater like for group members. When two groups get shaped by their opposition on certain issues, each group will have a bias to dislike the other group. The less we like someone, the easier it is to justify treating them poorly. When the other team treats us poorly, our dislike for them gets reinforced making it even easier to justify treating them poorly in return. When this happens, their dislike grows and they are more likely to treat us bad. The cycle creates positive feedback that drives people to greater and greater levels of irrational intolerance.

If I set aside my ideology that holds hate as always wrong, my big problem with it is that it creates a huge distortion of perspective and severely limits our ability to look at problems rationally. And I believe the dynamics of Us vs. Them is such that it pushes both sides to ever greater levels of this (to whatever limits of decency the culture will bear). So when negative bias is uncontrolled for, we become victims of the system and our capacity to effect meaningful change is reduced.

I believe our moral sense of right and wrong serves the purpose of applying pressure to oppose our natural biases (in particular when following our biases is in conflict with what's best for the group). So when I promote hate as always wrong, it doesn't mean that hate always produces bad results. Rather it is a mechanism to counter our irrational tendency to be intolerant. But the mechanism will fail when people feel empowered to grant themselves exceptions to the rule. We are incapable of completely avoiding the bias created by the team game mentality, and we'll tend to make exceptions when it's useful to do so. (Of course every person has different levels of bias, so this effect will vary between individuals.) Promoting the rule with exceptions will only serve the purpose of giving people the warm feeling of doing the right thing.

So my belief that hate is always wrong and equally wrong comes from a great respect for the distortion of perspective that Us vs. Them creates. This will warp our intuition of when hate is OK, and if we follow those intuitions we will just perpetuate the cycle of hate even more. I believe the way to get out of it is to reject all hate and to elevate the value of the exact opposite. Sadly, this comes at the cost of being less politically effective, which is why I think there's little will to do it. (I was encouraged by the Obama campaign during the election cycle, which I feel demonstrated that we can be politically effective while maintaining a positive message.)

I do think there are extreme cases when this analysis won't hold. For example if you face an enemy that is intent on destroying you, fostering compassion for them will likely lead to faster extermination. So to maintain the line of "Hate is always wrong" in that scenario would be purely based on ideology. However, these are extreme conditions, and I think we get into dangerous territory when we try to push the limits of what classifies as "extreme".

Kyrn wrote:For example: Person A hates Jews. Thus, he channels his energy to help non-Jews. Is this form of hate wrong?

How much good has been done by teaching people that hating the Jews is not so bad sometimes? How much good has been done in taking an absolutist stand against hating the Jews*? Which would you rather see promoted in Palestine?

* I mean hate in the dictionary sense, not in the "If you criticize Israel, you must hate the Jews" sense.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby Kyrn » Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:47 am UTC

guenther wrote:
Kyrn wrote:For example: Person A hates Jews. Thus, he channels his energy to help non-Jews. Is this form of hate wrong?

How much good has been done by teaching people that hating the Jews is not so bad sometimes? How much good has been done in taking an absolutist stand against hating the Jews*? Which would you rather see promoted in Palestine?

Alternatively, how much good has been done by telling people that if you hate someone, prove you are better than them in a fair challenge, hence promoting competition? The problem has always been about control, as your whole first point noted, with the assumption that control cannot be completely enforced. What if, instead of spending effort on trying to get people to work together, we spend effort on getting people to be on equal grounds? (Incidentally, this evokes Pride as well, instead of Wrath alone)
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby mmmcannibalism » Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:00 am UTC

Kyrn wrote:
mmmcannibalism wrote: Also, you can't exactly channel hatred of a group into helping another group unless that second group is directly opposed to the first.

Why can't hatred be channeled into helping another group unless that second group is directly opposed to the first? E.g. You are furious about what someone said. You take your pent up energy, and spend it on cutting down that tree that sorely needs to be chopped down for whatever good reason (Granted this is more of anger, but it is sufficiently similar). And even then, this in no way means that such a situation cannot exist. E.g. You hate your rival, and channel your hatred into making yourself better.

My point is that hatred is not a negative trait so long as it is controlled and not exerted in a negative manner.


Bring me a citation for man decides to build playground for children because he hates Jews. My point is, people channel feelings about in issue in many ways; however, they don't channel hatred of group x into doing something positive for a completely unrelated topic. Someone may take a hatred of racism as motivation to defend civil rights, but they won't take hatred of racism to motivate their plan to sell lots of ice cream.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby guenther » Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:03 am UTC

Kyrn wrote:Alternatively, how much good has been done by telling people that if you hate someone, prove you are better than them in a fair challenge, hence promoting competition? The problem has always been about control, as your whole first point noted, with the assumption that control cannot be completely enforced. What if, instead of spending effort on trying to get people to work together, we spend effort on getting people to be on equal grounds? (Incidentally, this evokes Pride as well, instead of Wrath alone)

I'm not convinced that we can't promote that without hate. If someone happens to be filled with hate, maybe there's useful things they can do with that energy. But we shouldn't foster hate as a strategy to get people motivated to overcome obstacles. But I think that's exactly what happens in politics because it's useful.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby mmmcannibalism » Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:08 am UTC

guenther wrote:
Kyrn wrote:Alternatively, how much good has been done by telling people that if you hate someone, prove you are better than them in a fair challenge, hence promoting competition? The problem has always been about control, as your whole first point noted, with the assumption that control cannot be completely enforced. What if, instead of spending effort on trying to get people to work together, we spend effort on getting people to be on equal grounds? (Incidentally, this evokes Pride as well, instead of Wrath alone)

I'm not convinced that we can't promote that without hate. If someone happens to be filled with hate, maybe there's useful things they can do with that energy. But we shouldn't foster hate as a strategy to get people motivated to overcome obstacles. But I think that's exactly what happens in politics because it's useful.


It's an unfortunate reality; but its easier to rally people behind "fuck those guys" then "you know, we have some serious concerns and disagreements with those guys"
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dauric, Gwydion and 21 guests