The best response to being touched by government security is overt sexual arousal.
I.E. Boners. Let them feel that; if you pull it off most of them will feel much weirder than you.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Guilt and Morality
Consider a morally sound sociopath. Someone who both determines right and wrong and decides to perform righteously for purely intellectual reasons. Although he would take them into consideration, he is not very much influenced by societal, cultural, or emotional factors. He decides what is right by reasoning and internal argument, considering primarily the consequential aspects of his actions, as well as their intrinsic morality.
His task seems more difficult (although probably less emotionally stressful) than one who feels significant pressure from those factors the sociopath is numb to; most importantly the fear of guilt. Most of us have felt significant guilt, and fear of that sensation or state of mind encourages those individuals to more carefully consider their actions - not because of the consequences or even the intrinsic morality of said actions, but because of how they might feel as a result of them; that they might feel a painful sensation of anxiety, guilt, or shame as a result of their action.
In this way fear of guilt is morally analogous (or perhaps even equivalent) to fear of punishment.
I say this because of the frequent and often complete irrationality of guilt. It is often experienced by those who are perfectly innocent (most particularly and extremely in children). Much more often, it is not experienced by those who are morally questionable or reprehensible, but have performed their actions in a situation that insulates them from their consequences, or where they are congratulated for them and surrounded by approving individuals (e.g., many soldiers). The sensation of guilt is a terribly unreliable indicator of both the morality and consequences of an action. Given its emotional nature, this is hardly surprising.
[ I would make the same claims about the reaction of disgust or repulsion with regard to morality ]
The conclusion I would like to make is that righteousness is not only more difficult and impressive for the sociopath to achieve, but also that it is a substantially more noble accomplishment.
Of course, one may argue that the sociopath's superior action may be attributed more to habit than moral striving, but this accusation is not anymore true of him than so than someone who fears guilt.
Conscience is usually defined to include intellectual judgement alongside the more common meaning which implies intuition and feeling.
tl;dr: Not feeling guilt and still managing to avoid actions that ought to generate guilt is more impressive than avoiding those actions while fearing guilt.
His task seems more difficult (although probably less emotionally stressful) than one who feels significant pressure from those factors the sociopath is numb to; most importantly the fear of guilt. Most of us have felt significant guilt, and fear of that sensation or state of mind encourages those individuals to more carefully consider their actions - not because of the consequences or even the intrinsic morality of said actions, but because of how they might feel as a result of them; that they might feel a painful sensation of anxiety, guilt, or shame as a result of their action.
In this way fear of guilt is morally analogous (or perhaps even equivalent) to fear of punishment.
I say this because of the frequent and often complete irrationality of guilt. It is often experienced by those who are perfectly innocent (most particularly and extremely in children). Much more often, it is not experienced by those who are morally questionable or reprehensible, but have performed their actions in a situation that insulates them from their consequences, or where they are congratulated for them and surrounded by approving individuals (e.g., many soldiers). The sensation of guilt is a terribly unreliable indicator of both the morality and consequences of an action. Given its emotional nature, this is hardly surprising.
[ I would make the same claims about the reaction of disgust or repulsion with regard to morality ]
The conclusion I would like to make is that righteousness is not only more difficult and impressive for the sociopath to achieve, but also that it is a substantially more noble accomplishment.
Of course, one may argue that the sociopath's superior action may be attributed more to habit than moral striving, but this accusation is not anymore true of him than so than someone who fears guilt.
Conscience is usually defined to include intellectual judgement alongside the more common meaning which implies intuition and feeling.
tl;dr: Not feeling guilt and still managing to avoid actions that ought to generate guilt is more impressive than avoiding those actions while fearing guilt.
Friday, May 13, 2011
New Word Order
Every so often new words must be created and popularized in order to describe new technology, practices, processes, ideas and beliefs. Never has it been more true than the last few decades, wherein lasers, blogging and googling, to name a recognizable few, have entered the lexicon.
Where this gets interesting is how these new words translate in the modern, profoundly interconnected world we live in. For simplicity lets consider only new words that originated in English; such as "internet" or "blueray". The terms quite frequently maintain their pronunciation in most other languages (as much as the new host allows, at least). "Internet", and many other new words are the same sound signifying the same thing in, perhaps, a dozen languages; many of which have few other meaningful similarities.
There are exceptions for a variety of reasons; sometimes the word is understood and instantly translated; the "internet" goes by the word for "web" or "net" used to denote fishing or storage tools in some languages, which is quite sensible. The worst exception are those attempted creations by entities such as the French Academy. They try to create new words within the language rather than use the word as it sounds in another language (for the words walkman, software and email, the academy has suggested baladeur, logiciel, and courriel respectively). This is done to prevent the Anglicization of the French language - something that is apparently perceived as a cultural atrocity of sorts.
This practice (and those similarly inspired) are simultaneously silly and counterproductive.
The idea of linguistic purity is academic, and a profoundly pedantic concept at that. It is at most a purely aesthetic preference; true it may make the language slightly more uniform; it may eliminate a few grammatical exceptions. But these concerns are those of linguists, not the mass of humanity, and even if they should be perfectly executed would do precious little for the average user of the language.
It is impractical because language is very rarely "manufactured" in this way; words take hold and gain popularity quite naturally and effectively on their own, not as a result of inventions by a language-governing-body. Indeed, the use of the Academy's terms relative to the "English" versions is often very low.
Finally and most crucially this practice is harmful in that it unnecessarily strengthens language barriers. Quite simply, consider if the entire world used very nearly the same word for the same thing. Communication across languages can be accomplished much more successfully and rapidly when the drudgery of memorizing and translating the names of objects can be skipped.
Not every word need or ought to be uniform, of course, there is no danger of that, and no uniformity of structure whatsoever would necessarily result. But for common physical objects, and most especially anything technical in nature, uniformity of name would greatly facilitate communication. (I would accuse those that fear a global language arising from such a practice to be both ignorant of the processes by which language tends to form and of being profoundly unimaginative with regards to the implications of such a thing coming to be).
The first and most important purpose of language is communication, and this practice hinders that, and in a potentially serious way: these are very commonly used words.
Has the English language suffered terribly as a result of rampant Latinization and Greekization [this word is actually in a real dictionary - no shit]? On the contrary, I would suggest that its extremely modular and encompassing nature is one of the greatest strengths.
Where this gets interesting is how these new words translate in the modern, profoundly interconnected world we live in. For simplicity lets consider only new words that originated in English; such as "internet" or "blueray". The terms quite frequently maintain their pronunciation in most other languages (as much as the new host allows, at least). "Internet", and many other new words are the same sound signifying the same thing in, perhaps, a dozen languages; many of which have few other meaningful similarities.
There are exceptions for a variety of reasons; sometimes the word is understood and instantly translated; the "internet" goes by the word for "web" or "net" used to denote fishing or storage tools in some languages, which is quite sensible. The worst exception are those attempted creations by entities such as the French Academy. They try to create new words within the language rather than use the word as it sounds in another language (for the words walkman, software and email, the academy has suggested baladeur, logiciel, and courriel respectively). This is done to prevent the Anglicization of the French language - something that is apparently perceived as a cultural atrocity of sorts.
This practice (and those similarly inspired) are simultaneously silly and counterproductive.
The idea of linguistic purity is academic, and a profoundly pedantic concept at that. It is at most a purely aesthetic preference; true it may make the language slightly more uniform; it may eliminate a few grammatical exceptions. But these concerns are those of linguists, not the mass of humanity, and even if they should be perfectly executed would do precious little for the average user of the language.
It is impractical because language is very rarely "manufactured" in this way; words take hold and gain popularity quite naturally and effectively on their own, not as a result of inventions by a language-governing-body. Indeed, the use of the Academy's terms relative to the "English" versions is often very low.
Finally and most crucially this practice is harmful in that it unnecessarily strengthens language barriers. Quite simply, consider if the entire world used very nearly the same word for the same thing. Communication across languages can be accomplished much more successfully and rapidly when the drudgery of memorizing and translating the names of objects can be skipped.
Not every word need or ought to be uniform, of course, there is no danger of that, and no uniformity of structure whatsoever would necessarily result. But for common physical objects, and most especially anything technical in nature, uniformity of name would greatly facilitate communication. (I would accuse those that fear a global language arising from such a practice to be both ignorant of the processes by which language tends to form and of being profoundly unimaginative with regards to the implications of such a thing coming to be).
The first and most important purpose of language is communication, and this practice hinders that, and in a potentially serious way: these are very commonly used words.
Has the English language suffered terribly as a result of rampant Latinization and Greekization [this word is actually in a real dictionary - no shit]? On the contrary, I would suggest that its extremely modular and encompassing nature is one of the greatest strengths.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Drugs
Specifically the crucial distinction between illicit and prescription only.
Both have great potential for abuse, both are abused on a large scale, and both have physically harmful and chemically addictive variants.
What is the difference that warrants the legal distinction between these drugs? The primary stated reason is the lack legitimate medical uses for the illegal drugs. In most cases this claim is highly questionable; I won't go down the list here, but the majority of illicit drugs have or have had accepted medical uses, and almost all of them have some potential, if only very slight (Feel free to provide counterexamples; I am honestly curious about this).
There are two glaring differences between them;
The first is the way in which society perceives the drug. There is a more significant and widespread stigma associated with the use of illegal drugs than there is with legal ones. Some of this is due to the stigma associated with crime in general, and some of it has to do with use of the drugs themselves regardless of law. What is considered popular or acceptable to society is meaningless when one is considering what the best thing to do is.
Secondly, and more importantly, is the price of illegal drugs, which creates a massive, extraordinarily profitable, and violent business built upon their sale - the highest cost of prohibition in terms of corruption and human suffering.
I've rambled a bit, but perhaps you've taken my point; why make some drugs illegal and others available by prescription if both are addictive and harmful? Why is opium legal and heroin illegal?
Drug law ought to be based on chemistry and medical science; instead it is and has been based on popular opinion, public fear, and as a reaction to the other criminal acts of those who sell them.
Both have great potential for abuse, both are abused on a large scale, and both have physically harmful and chemically addictive variants.
What is the difference that warrants the legal distinction between these drugs? The primary stated reason is the lack legitimate medical uses for the illegal drugs. In most cases this claim is highly questionable; I won't go down the list here, but the majority of illicit drugs have or have had accepted medical uses, and almost all of them have some potential, if only very slight (Feel free to provide counterexamples; I am honestly curious about this).
There are two glaring differences between them;
The first is the way in which society perceives the drug. There is a more significant and widespread stigma associated with the use of illegal drugs than there is with legal ones. Some of this is due to the stigma associated with crime in general, and some of it has to do with use of the drugs themselves regardless of law. What is considered popular or acceptable to society is meaningless when one is considering what the best thing to do is.
Secondly, and more importantly, is the price of illegal drugs, which creates a massive, extraordinarily profitable, and violent business built upon their sale - the highest cost of prohibition in terms of corruption and human suffering.
I've rambled a bit, but perhaps you've taken my point; why make some drugs illegal and others available by prescription if both are addictive and harmful? Why is opium legal and heroin illegal?
Drug law ought to be based on chemistry and medical science; instead it is and has been based on popular opinion, public fear, and as a reaction to the other criminal acts of those who sell them.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
The Scum of the Earth
Consider the worst of humanity; those individuals who, for whatever reasons, contribute virtually nothing to anyone else, and whats worse actually do significant harm to others.
This includes everyone from historical monsters such as Hitler and Genghis Khan to serial killers to particularly brutal pimps. It also includes the relatively sympathetic destitute, illiterate, callous young man who understands the world only in terms of what he can get away with.
What ought to be done with these people? Certainly, there is potential in almost every case for their redemption; there does exist the possibility that they could see the error of their ways and improve themselves. However, this is often very difficult, and costly in terms of time and resources. Given that there is no shortage of humans themselves, nor is there any likelihood there will be for a very long time, would it not be more expedient to simply exterminate these individuals and replace them with new humans, who have a decent chance of becoming, well, decent.
There are some definite problems with this method that are more important than the initial gut reaction that "it's horrible". Killing the scum of the world is not too practical, simply because it requires both effective definition of what constitutes such an undesirable individuals and means of identifying said individuals. And then, of course, there is the question of how ethical such a policy would be, even if these requirements could be fulfilled (not considering the ethics of defining these people, but rather
For the first problem, that of definition, we can see the most obvious pitfall is to choose too broad a definition, as did Draco in declaring anyone who violates any law was to be killed. So let us sidestep this blatant error and be at least reasonable by choosing only the absolute worst of the worst; I would argue these are the murderers, which is at least the popular opinion.
And now we have stepped from the arena of speculation into actual policy. We do eliminate these individuals. The question I pose to you is how much farther could we go? How many murderers, and violent, worthless individuals that simply haven't killed anyone yet could we dispose of, and how would we be worse off if we did?
To clarify, I am not talking about instituting actual policy changes; the greatest argument against the death penalty is that the government is not responsible enough to have legal power over life and death. What I ask is if it were possible to eliminate the worst of humanity, should we? And how would you define them?
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Persepolis
I haven't recommended any non-classic movies to anyone in recent history, but I really have to mention this one:
It's an animated, autobiographical, and historical. If you want to better understand Iran (an increasingly relevant nation) while taking in a good story involving a character you cannot help but sympathize with, give it a look.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808417/
It's an animated, autobiographical, and historical. If you want to better understand Iran (an increasingly relevant nation) while taking in a good story involving a character you cannot help but sympathize with, give it a look.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808417/
The Japanese and the Jews
We don't normally think of Jews and Japan having much to do with each other, but there is in fact a storied history. Back in 1904, while Europe was slowly tensing up and preparing for war, Russian and Japan had already gotten into it (It started with a sneak attack by the Japanese, if that is not foreboding enough).
Anyway, Japan was holding its own but probably losing, and to make matters worse was running low on funds. So a man was sent to London (the financial center of the world at the time), to procure a substantial loan. Days passed; no significant European bank or group of investors was interested. The prevailing wisdom was that Russia was going to win the war, and any money paid to Japan would be unpaid (and would engender hostility from Russia).
One man, however, had a different take on things. Jacob Schiff invited the Japanese emissary to New York, where he provided the entire requested amount, a fantastic sum of 200 million dollars (in 1904). The Japanese asked, why, after everyone else had rejected his requests out of hand, that Schiff would agree so readily and thoroughly. Schiff replied that indeed, the investment was a bad one and a banker should not make it; however he was not extending this credit as a banker interested solely in profit. Jacob Schiff was a devout Jew, and was concerned about the plight faced by Jews in Tsarist Russia. One presumes a decrease in the strength of the central government of Russia would result in lessened pressure and scrutiny of mostly poor, rural Jews.
Japan went on to win the war. The origin of this crucial money was popularly known, and it created a grossly exaggerated conception of the Jewish People in Japan.
Anyway, Japan was holding its own but probably losing, and to make matters worse was running low on funds. So a man was sent to London (the financial center of the world at the time), to procure a substantial loan. Days passed; no significant European bank or group of investors was interested. The prevailing wisdom was that Russia was going to win the war, and any money paid to Japan would be unpaid (and would engender hostility from Russia).
One man, however, had a different take on things. Jacob Schiff invited the Japanese emissary to New York, where he provided the entire requested amount, a fantastic sum of 200 million dollars (in 1904). The Japanese asked, why, after everyone else had rejected his requests out of hand, that Schiff would agree so readily and thoroughly. Schiff replied that indeed, the investment was a bad one and a banker should not make it; however he was not extending this credit as a banker interested solely in profit. Jacob Schiff was a devout Jew, and was concerned about the plight faced by Jews in Tsarist Russia. One presumes a decrease in the strength of the central government of Russia would result in lessened pressure and scrutiny of mostly poor, rural Jews.
Japan went on to win the war. The origin of this crucial money was popularly known, and it created a grossly exaggerated conception of the Jewish People in Japan.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)