I get what you're saying, but I still think what he's proposing necessarily forces people to make value judgments that are beyond science. While science can find evidence of empathy in the brain it can't tell us whether such empathy is necessarily good or bad. Say there is a society that is more "empathetic" than another society and that first society is more materially well off. You can't jump to the conclusion that empathy is good for survival, because there are hundreds of variables that affect the wealth of a nation and furthermore correlation does not necessarily mean causation. It could very well be the case that being materially well off creates a more empathetic society (or creates the conditions that allow such a society to arise). Or it could just be a total fluke.

That's what I found unclear in his speech--how exactly is science making value judgments? Science is providing facts about the world, but it still requires human consciousness to interpret those facts in a meaningful way. And people will interpret the facts differently and this will lead to conflict (global warming, the various string theories, etc.). How that conflict is resolved (whether with words or guns, for instance) will depend on a lot of things--including the values of those participating in the conflict. So it seems like a Catch-22 to me. You're using science to try to come up with value judgments about things, but in order to do that you have to make value judgments about the data you've collected. You're right back where you started.

Changing topics a bit here, I find his argument about the Muslim dress code frivolous. He is specifically cherry-picking by using Taliban-style extremely fundamentalist Islam as representative of all Islamic beliefs. It is true that certain Islamic governments have created laws to enforce a power divide between men and women but it is equally true that not all Muslims share this view and that Islamic countries vary widely in what is considered appropriate dress. The Koran itself admonishes both men and women to be modest in their dress and actions. Obviously certain Islamic scholars have ignored the "men" part and focused on the women in order to pursue their own agendas and strengthen their own power. Sam Harris blames religion for this but I blame human nature. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about religion, a political ideology, law, or any other organized system--there will be humans in the world who will attempt to twist and exploit it to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of those they don't care about. The crusade against religion that people like Dawkins and Harris are waging is, in my opinion, a waste of time. If you really want to change the world, find a way to change fundamental human nature.

Ironically, I believe this is the true purpose of religion--to encourage us to change our base desires or harness them for use towards a greater good. For me, whether a God or gods actually exist is irrelevant. If religion can help people to overcome their own innate self-destructive or selfish tendencies and work together for the good of humankind, then it is a useful tool. But all tools can equally be used as weapons. That doesn't mean you get rid of the tool, though. The problems of religion that both Harris and Dawkins talk about aren't problems with religion per se but with how certain people have interpreted religion in ways that are self-serving. I don't think religion needs to be destroyed. But I do agree with Sam Harris that we need to be vigilant against those who would use religion--or any other organized system for that matter--in order to pursue their own ends, and we need to be willing to call a spade a spade and not keep silent for fear of being considered ethnocentric. That's why I have no problem criticizing the Taliban's interpretation of the Koran and Islamic law. It seems to me to be a thinly veiled grab for power and dominance that uses religion as its cover. I could say the same thing about the drive to ban gay marriages in the U.S. or a host of other issues. My point is that these things are not representative of religions as a whole but instead are examples of discrete individuals (mis-)using religions to further their own agendas.

Sorry for writing so much. Took me a while to sort out all my thoughts on the matter. If you made it this far, thanks for reading.

>> ^mgittle:


I don't think it's about majority vs. minority happiness the way you make it sound. It's not 51% vs. 49%. If you accept his argument at the end regarding the father killing his gay child out of "love", then you must accept that there exists a type of love/empathy that is healthy for a vast majority of a population.
For example, in Turkish, there are two words for love. One is the type of love one feels for their parents, siblings, close friends/community. The other is more like passion/infatuation and would never be used for family/friends. We lack this basic word-based distinction in English, so the idea of love often gets strangely twisted between the multiple types and sometimes requires convoluted explanations of one's feelings. This distinction is important because I believe the former type requires empathy to feel, and the latter type is more instinctual and does not require empathy.
Therefore, if you can argue that empathy is a good survival trait because it creates a stronger nation/culture/etc, then there must be scientific evidence for empathy in the brain and evidence that certain individuals lack empathetic brains for whatever reason.
I don't think he's arguing that "good for the majority = good for everyone" is something that works 100% of the time. Clearly, personal freedom is important, but when personal freedom/morality encroaches on the freedoms of others (such as his argument that culture forces "voluntary" body covering, or the aforementioned father-killing-gay-son argument) it is no longer a good thing for anyone involved.

"Deserve" is such a humanist/humanities thought. Fairness is something we make up to imagine a better world. There is having or not having, trying to factor fairness into it is a frivolous exercise.

In a Marxist society, afaik, you can measure a man's worth by his amount of work. In a capitalist society you can measure a man's by the amount of paper in his wallet or bits in a bank computer. Which is fairest? Does it matter?

There is only power and those who are afraid to wield it!

The financiers who pushed money around to grab huge payouts wielded their power proficiently and robbed people blind without them ever knowing it. They gamed the system and won cash. I blame the system as much as the people who used it (arguably abused it).

I'm liking this better than the last proposal.

I think that the reasons for a siftquisition should be made clear as well. You shouldn't be able to make them for your own gratification; ie.:

Is @demon_ix a do-do head?
yes: 800
no: 1

would be a bad siftquisition.

It should be some relatively clear violation of the rules or the spirit of the rules; harrasment, repeated personal attacks, blanket downvotes, knowingly breaking or circumventing the rules etc. It's not a place to settle personal twists, if it can be solved by PM. It should not be a frivolous thing to do.

Optimally, this would never be used, but it's good to have as a tool.

...and dix is totally a do-do head.

I had a long-lasting crush on a girl, and it actually motivated and inspired me in many ways over the years. Feelings of attachment and righteousness aren't "in place of" clear thinking, they can co-exist.

Religion is a little deeper in us, remember Ted Kaczynski making up his own rabbit-god while he was solo in the Montana forest?

"While I was living in the woods I sort of invented some gods for myself. Not that I believed in these things intellectually, but they were ideas that sort of corresponded with some of the feelings I had. I think the first one I invented was Grandfather Rabbit. You know the snowshoe rabbits were my main source of meat during the winters. I had spent a lot of time learning what they do and following their tracks all around before I could get close enough to shoot them. Sometimes you would track a rabbit around and around and then the tracks disappear. You can't figure out where that rabbit went and lose the trail. I invented a myth for myself, that this was the Grandfather Rabbit, the grandfather who was responsible for the existence of all other rabbits. He was able to disappear, that is why you couldn't catch him and why you would never see him... Every time I shot a snowshoe rabbit, I would always say 'thank you Grandfather Rabbit.'"

It satisfies our need to humanize our environment (and our existence) and have a personal relationship with it. Though I think your metaphor was right on in some ways, I don't think religion can be reduced to that level of triviality.

>> ^Drax:
Obviously this fades over time as one wises up.. but remember getting a massive crush on someone in your youth, and falling in love with very little knowledge of the person? Remember how it felt?
I think this same emotion is felt for many with religion. No I don't mean they have an actual crush on Jesus or anything, it's just that same sort of base feel of love. I mean it's there in all of us, we just wise up to falling into it frivolously over time with physical people. When it's felt for something abstract, there's no rejection to make you realize you're in it's trance, or conversely no one to work with to develop it into a more true love.
I think -that's- a key reason religion is so strong for some people. It's certainly a good emotion, but it causes a feeling of attachment and righteousness (in a, 'I'm on the right path...' sort of way) in place of clear thinking.
Just my theory.

Obviously this fades over time as one wises up.. but remember getting a massive crush on someone in your youth, and falling in love with very little knowledge of the person? Remember how it felt?

I think this same emotion is felt for many with religion. No I don't mean they have an actual crush on Jesus or anything, it's just that same sort of base feel of love. I mean it's there in all of us, we just wise up to falling into it frivolously over time with physical people. When it's felt for something abstract, there's no rejection to make you realize you're in it's trance, or conversely no one to work with to develop it into a more true love.

I think -that's- a key reason religion is so strong for some people. It's certainly a good emotion, but it causes a feeling of attachment and righteousness (in a, 'I'm on the right path...' sort of way) in place of clear thinking.

Just my theory.

Rachel mentioned being worried about this going to court, and this councilman being tied up in litigation and distracted from the actual functions of his office. While I somewhat agree, and I typically despise frivolous litigation, I tend to think it would be fantastic if this actually goes to court.

I (miraculously) have enough faith in our legal system in the US to believe that the article in the S.C. constitution would be summarily slapped down by the supreme court. And that would set precedent for all of the other states mentioned, along with pushing some other "state vs. federal" issues into a sharper focus in general (gay marriage for example).

So while I would empathize with the councilman himself for being dragged along through the legal system, I think that he could potentially do a great service to the country by doing so and prompting a more logical and rational response to this issue.

^But again, depending on your definition of the words, they are either non-believers, atheist, agnostics etc.. Just because they don't label themselves does not mean they don't fit the labels.

I agree that there are people who go about and just don't care - like I don't care about Fairies. But the problem is, that there are few of the (ahem) "other side" that go about it in this way, religion demands quite a few things of its believes, some beliefs decree that you must go out and convert (most of them do), and all of them have some sort of divine punishment for those who do not follow that particular religion, so it is essentially seen as a good thing to get people converted to your own religion, even if it is only in-directly implied in the holy texts. This is a problem! It warps peoples thoughts of right and wrong and in the end it undermines human progress.

Religion is a way to destroy human individuality and make us travel in herds again, this is why it has been so successful in the past (and still is). People are inherently pack animals, so if a leader says "we're all walking to the right" everyone does it - this can, and is, abused by wicked men and movements.

Atheists (or whatever label you want to use) are often very much individualists and this makes it hard to make a coherent group against the religions (like herding cats, as it's been put). When atheists finally come together under a banner, it is rarely frivolous, it's usually an informed choice (there is of course the bandwagon effect too, atheists because it's hip).

And I think it's hilariously underhanded for a believer to cry foul when we focus the atheist movement in this way.

Could be fun to have seen this said about 2000 years ago:

wow. what you people have done to simple monotheism is beyond me.
making monotheism an ideology is the dumbest fucking idea ever. ever.
Idiots.

I don't think it's necessary to modify the details beyond possibly adding "This video may be of a later demonstration, as there were several."

>> ^Fade:
You didn't see the police man prostrating himself in front of the burning man?

Toward the end of the video, I do see a pair of men with the white straps apparently bowing in the background. I had missed that before. The individual that features more prominently in the foreground I believe is another monk, though the color makes it difficult to say for certain.

I'll admit that nitpicking about it seems frivolous, as all of the monks made the same sacrifice.

Ya, dolphins are one of the few animals that participate in frivolous activities past childhood. Most animals will play as "pups" but then digress from such things in adulthood. It seems that the higher intelligence you are, the more you goof off and make a menace of yourself, kind of funny really

bah what a bunch of bullshit. You want to talk about REAL discrimination and racism?? If a white man said that to him instead of a black man we would have riots in the streets instead of a few people bitching and moaning about a frivolous insult.

Here's to frivolity...

We're talking about tax dollars here though jerryku, not just random money. Tax dollars (in theory anyway) are supposed to be used for official purposes, not frivolity like vacations and whatnot. Obviously you can get nitpicky about some of it, but the point is that money spent on keeping people who (imo) gave up the right to live by intentionally killing multiple people, could be used for many other things. Like perhaps, providing aid to those workers in Mozambique.

Whenever the idea of money comes into the "should we execute them or not?" argument, I cringe. Massive amounts of wealth in this country is being spent on totally frivolous things. I read a book written by a Republican lady who said that half of America's money is spent on non-necessary things. Entertainment, vacations, automobiles, etc. The idea that we would kill people to save some money, when there is so much money being thrown around for hedonistic things, just seems incredibly wrong.

If we were living in say, Mozambique, where the average person makes 200 bucks a year or something around there, then I could OK the death penalty as a money saving measure. But in the US? Not so much.

It's always a bad thing. It's never frivolous. People should always have the choice to do it.

If we want to become a bigger player we'd need a clear identifiable goals:

-Focus: video
I think enhancing online video experience, by adding supplements (text, images, audio, book links, etc. - turn the description area of the video in a unique community-generated website for the particular video) to videos to give context to the video is, apart from selecting videos (quality control), our strength as a community.

-Focus: global audience
I think we'd need to avoid too much of a mixture in the type of context we add to to videos: I'd be for a clear distinction for the visitor between VS-culture and global culture (just like Wikipedia culture and the articles (for the global audience, unaware of the people behind the site)), the serious and the frivolous.

As a sifter I like both cultures but the general audience is not a sifter:

Does the general audience (want to) know about VS-culture or not? (or: To what degree are we sifting for ourselves or for strangers?)

That's a fundamental question here I think that we need to ask ourselves before we dive into a new phase..the answer lies somewhere in the middle I suppose but on which side,? that's crucial.

I'd rather not see turning VS in too much of an unfocused VS-culture-laden entertainment site.