Ask Me Help Desk - The Christian named Hannity

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

So then we can probably add the Baptists to this column. How many millions more is that?
If it is still a minority, it is hardly tiny.

[B]Besides, since when does mere numbers mean any group is right?

[/B
Exactly, I never understood the argument that just because "everybody else" was doing it thinking it, or believing it, that it meant it was right. That is what got me turned off to formal religion in the first place. The idea that if I was going to be part of their group, that I had to give up my free thinking, and just go along with what the group said we believed. Not for me, too much of a free thinker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cozyk

[/B
Exactly, I never understood the argument that just because "everybody else" was doing it thinking it, or believing it, that it meant it was right. That is what got me turned off to formal religion in the first place. The idea that if I was going to be part of their group, that I had to give up my free thinking, and just go along with what the group said we believed. Not for me, too much of a free thinker.

Free thinking is fine. I sometimes go outside the box.

The important thing to keep in mind is the veracity of the information we are using while doing the free thinking. Like they say, "garbabe in, garbage out" and that isn't just for computers either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

Free thinking is fine. I sometimes go outside the box.

The important thing to keep in mind is the veracity of the information we are using while doing the free thinking. Like they say, "garbabe in, garbage out" and that isn't just for computers either.

If it's garbage, I'll recognize it. I'm like the least gullible person you will ever know. I know what is b.s. and what is rational, sensible, and rings true.

Cozyk,

I don't EVER just go along with the crowd. There have been things I have been taught about the Bible and I have checked them out MYSELF, only to find it wasn't correct. Anything I say... I actually believe based on what the Bible says not what some denomination believes. Just fyi... :)

(sorry ex... I hijacked your thread again... I just had to set the record straight)

Quote:

Originally Posted by cozyk

If it's garbage, I'll recognize it. I'm like the least gullible person you will ever know. I know what is b.s. and what is rational, sensible, and rings true.

I hear people say this sort of thing a lot, and I'm never quite sure what to make of it, mostly because I am struck by the fact that most of the people from whom I've heard it have proven themselves to be very sloppy thinkers.

Take an example. Here are two arguments (premises offered in support of a conclusion). See if you can tell which is valid and which is not, i.e. in which argument does the conclusion follow from the premises and in which argument does the conclusion not follow.

Argument A
1. If it is raining, then the streets are wet.
2. It is not raining.
3. Therefore, the streets are not wet.

Argument B
1. If I am hungry, I will eat a sandwich.
2. I do not eat a sandwich.
3. Therefore, I am not hungry.

Can you tell which argument is valid and which isn't? Can you say why?

Here's why I offer this little exercise: Most of us aren't nearly as smart as we think we are. And most of us like to think that we are really good at detecting BS, at weeding out the rational from the irrational. But, as it happens, years of research by cognitive psychologists have shown that we actually suck at it. We are absolutely terrible. Add to this the fact that most Americans, at least, are poorly educated and woefully uninformed, and the prospects really aren't good at all. The idea that is so dear to many people, that their "gut" is a reliable truth-detector, is absolute bunk and has been shown experimentally to be bunk.

I would feel much better if more people exhibited intellectual humility, rather than prattling on about how savvy and free-thinking they are. It has been my experience that free-thinkers tend to be stupid at about the same rate as non-free-thinkers. In fact, the label "free thinker" doesn't mean much, since people mostly use it as a way of telling others how cool and smart they are: "I am a free thinker" is just another way of saying "I'm so smart that I don't need anyone to tell me what to believe". But, of course, that's just nonsense. No one is expert at all fields of cognitive endeavor. We all need experts to tell us what to believe about, say, physics, biology, medicine, chemistry, history, theology, philosophy, art, political science, the law, etc. etc. etc. Anyone who thinks that they have the wherewithal to adjudicate all these matters all on their own is a fool. I'm not a Proust expert, so if I want to know what to think about Proust I can either (a) study really hard for a long time in order to become a Proust expert, or I can (b) find a Proust expert and ask him or her a bunch of questions. The tricky part is mostly discerning who the real experts are since, as we see here at AMHD every day, there are charlatans lurking around every corner.

Equally striking is the aversion people regularly exhibit to anything that is too complicated o requires actual cognitive effort. People want easy answers to difficult questions; they want sound-bites; and they don't want to have to read too much or think too hard. Even you, cozyk, frequently complain about posts being too long. You, who champion "free thinking", have repeatedly told us that you dislike the Bible because it is "boring" and makes your "head hurt". Now I can think of lots of reasons to dislike the Bible, but that is about the shallowest one I've heard to date. If you are averse to thinking too hard, or reading anything that is too long or boring, then you aren't ever going to be much of a "thinker" at all. This is the sort of attitude that keeps the New Age industry flourishing: The key is to feel really good about yourself and never ever think too hard. Just skim along the surface of things. It's the American, consumerist, way.

And one sees much the same thing among a lot of the Bible-thumpers. They seem to have made it an article of their faith that all one needs is a Bible and an English dictionary (nevermind that the Bible wasn't written in English). They constantly proclaim that the Bible is the pivot around which their lives turn, and yet they haven't put forth the effort to learn the languages in which it was written nor to study its history. And more than a few of them appear to have questionable reading skills. Again we find intellectual laziness and sloppy thinking elevated to a kind of virtue. I see very little difference between those who constantly announce their free thinking ways and those who constantly attempt to bludgeon others with the Bible. They share the same lack of intellectual maturity.

There, now I've pissed off both camps.

I'm not pissed. I'm amazed at how much I rattled your cage that you had to post such a long post. You made ref. to my being too lazy to read long boring stuff. You are right, but I made it through anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

I hear people say this sort of thing a lot, and I'm never quite sure what to make of it, mostly because I am struck by the fact that most of the people from whom I've heard it have proven themselves to be very sloppy thinkers.

Take an example. Here are two arguments (premises offered in support of a conclusion). See if you can tell which is valid and which is not, i.e. in which argument does the conclusion follow from the premises and in which argument does the conclusion not follow.

Argument A
1. If it is raining, then the streets are wet.
2. It is not raining.
3. Therefore, the streets are not wet.

Argument B
1. If I am hungry, I will eat a sandwich.
2. I do not eat a sandwich.
3. Therefore, I am not hungry.

Can you tell which argument is valid and which isn't? Can you say why?

Here's why I offer this little exercise: Most of us aren't nearly as smart as we think we are. And most of us like to think that we are really good at detecting BS, at weeding out the rational from the irrational. But, as it happens, years of research by cognitive psychologists have shown that we actually suck at it. We are absolutely terrible. Add to this the fact that most Americans, at least, are poorly educated and woefully uninformed, and the prospects really aren't good at all. The idea that is so dear to many people, that their "gut" is a reliable truth-detector, is absolute bunk and has been shown experimentally to be bunk.

I would feel much better if more people exhibited intellectual humility, rather than prattling on about how savvy and free-thinking they are. It has been my experience that free-thinkers tend to be stupid at about the same rate as non-free-thinkers. In fact, the label "free thinker" doesn't mean much, since people mostly use it as a way of telling others how cool and smart they are: "I am a free thinker" is just another way of saying "I'm so smart that I don't need anyone to tell me what to believe". But, of course, that's just nonsense. No one is expert at all fields of cognitive endeavor. We all need experts to tell us what to believe about, say, physics, biology, medicine, chemistry, history, theology, philosophy, art, political science, the law, etc. etc. etc. Anyone who thinks that they have the wherewithal to adjudicate all these matters all on their own is a fool. I'm not a Proust expert, so if I want to know what to think about Proust I can either (a) study really hard for a long time in order to become a Proust expert, or I can (b) find a Proust expert and ask him or her a bunch of questions. The tricky part is mostly discerning who the real experts are since, as we see here at AMHD every day, there are charlatans lurking around every corner.

Equally striking is the aversion people regularly exhibit to anything that is too complicated o requires actual cognitive effort. People want easy answers to difficult questions; they want sound-bites; and they don't want to have to read too much or think too hard. Even you, cozyk, frequently complain about posts being too long. You, who champion "free thinking", have repeatedly told us that you dislike the Bible because it is "boring" and makes your "head hurt". Now I can think of lots of reasons to dislike the Bible, but that is about the shallowest one I've heard to date. If you are averse to thinking too hard, or reading anything that is too long or boring, then you aren't ever going to be much of a "thinker" at all. This is the sort of attitude that keeps the New Age industry flourishing: The key is to feel really good about yourself and never ever think too hard. Just skim along the surface of things. It's the American, consumerist, way.

And one sees much the same thing among a lot of the Bible-thumpers. They seem to have made it an article of their faith that all one needs is a Bible and an English dictionary (nevermind that the Bible wasn't written in English). They constantly proclaim that the Bible is the pivot around which their lives turn, and yet they haven't put forth the effort to learn the languages in which it was written nor to study its history. And more than a few of them appear to have questionable reading skills. Again we find intellectual laziness and sloppy thinking elevated to a kind of virtue. I see very little difference between those who constantly announce their free thinking ways and those who constantly attempt to bludgeon others with the Bible. They share the same lack of intellectual maturity.

There, now I've pissed off both camps.

Argument A ?

1] is statement of fact and 2 and 3 follow

In Argument B
1] is a conditional statement, so 2 and 3 are also conditional, and not fact.

Quote:

People want easy answers to difficult questions; they want sound-bites; and they don't want to have to read too much or think too hard.

I find the NT's statements on love incredibly difficult to come to grips with, and even more difficult to put into practice: "love your enemy" "turn the other cheek" ETC. It is hard to trust in God and follow the commandments even if they are simplified into love God and love your neighbor.

It is much easier to be secular and "just be good" or "if it feels right, then it is okay"

I think torture and revenge falls in this category. If it was my loved one killed in 9/11 and you told me that so and so is responsible or in collusion with those who are responsible... I would not doubt that I would be capable of torturing this person... to rationalize that it is to protect others, or that it is just... but God wants me to love - the opposite of my human nature. This is where Hannity is wrong.

G&P

Actually, Akoue puts it pretty well.

And I might be called a Bible thumper, too.

(A) Looks wrong to me. #3 does not necessarily follow. The streets could still be wet from some source other than rain, e.g.. A broken water main.

Actually inthebox, argument a is a non-sequiter. Just because it is not raining, it does not necessarily follow that the streets are not wet. A fallacy know as "affirming the consequent". Argument b is valid, although somewhat counter intuitive. Also I should point out that valid does not necessarily mean true.

Anyway, great post Akoue. I must admit that I also find the modern tendency to look for easy explanations over superior ones quite frustrating. The new age crap I am confronted with in the philosophy section of my local library drives me to despair. People just can't be bothered with learning for the sake of it, or at least it seems that way. There always has to be some sort of monetary pay off at the end of it, hence you will find plenty of "Think Yourself to Wealth" type books polluting the literary landscape as well. Commodity fetishism and exchange value rule the day, as consumerism tries to define itself as meaningful in a kind of hedonistic display of self-exaltation.

Well, that's my quasi-marxist rant for the day.

For anyone who may be interested:

Argument A is a fallacy called denying the antecedent. As Galveston rightly points out, the streets could be wet for some other reason.

Argument B is valid by (the rule of inference called) modus tollens. As Tokugawa indicates, people often find this rule of inference to be a bit counterintuitive at first.

Back to the OP.

Has it occurred to anyone that the "torture" used at Gitmo is so similar to what college students have put themselves through to join some fraternity?

And how about those survival shows on TV? Or those programs where people eat insects, stay overnight in a cage filled with snakes, or do other weird things, all to get a prize?

Unless you are a veteran who was captured and actually tortured by some enemy, I doubt you know what real torture is.

What I am saying is that we have re-defined torture to suit people who believe in the basic goodness of mankind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

so similar to what college students have put themselves through to join some fraternity?

And how about those survival shows on TV? Or those programs where people eat insects, stay overnight in a cage filled with snakes, or do other wierd things, all to get a prize?

But those "tortures" are accepted willingly by the participants in order to join a group or claim their 15 minutes of fame and $$$. (Would you eat live scorpions for free?) The Gitmo prisoners have not agreed to any of the tortures they have undergone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

Back to the OP.

Has it occurred to anyone that the "torture" used at Gitmo is so similar to what college students have put themselves through to join some fraternity?

And how about those survival shows on TV? Or those programs where people eat insects, stay overnight in a cage filled with snakes, or do other wierd things, all to get a prize?

Unless you are a veteran who was captured and actually tortured by some enemy, I doubt you know what real torture is.

What I am saying is that we have re-defined torture to suit people who believe in the basic goodness of mankind.

Does that make it right? That some people lower themselves and their dignity to either fit into a group or win big bucks? That really isn't relevant at all to the torture issue. It's amazing how insignificant some people feel that they will stoop to these kinds of measures just to "fit in". It's also a sad state of affairs that any group would required it's members to leave their dignity at the door in order to come in. Really pathetic.

I hope I never know what real torture is and it would be my wish that NO ONE knew what real torture is. Unfortunately, some people lack the "humane gene", so it does happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

But those "tortures" are accepted willingly by the participants in order to join a group or claim their 15 minutes of fame and $$$. (Would you eat live scorpions for free?) The Gitmo prisoners have not agreed to any of the tortures they have undergone.

The detainees weren't forced to eat bugs. In fact, they got special menus to accommodate their religion.

The detainees weren't forced to sleep in cages with snakes. Just a caterpillar. Or was that just a threat? HOW HORRIBLE!

I repeat, your definitioin of torture is totally unrealisic.

I suspect that you are an idealist. Were you part of the movement whose slogan was "make love, not war"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

The detainees weren't forced to eat bugs. In fact, they got special menus to accomodate their religion.

The detainees weren't forced to sleep in cages with snakes. Just a caterpillar. Or was that just a threat? HOW HORRIBLE!

Neither were the hazees and the reality folks. None of them were forced. They applied/volunteered.

Have you read the list of tortures done to the detainees, some of whom are innocent?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Neither were the hazees and the reality folks. None of them were forced. They applied/volunteered.

Have you read the list of tortures done to the detainees, some of whom are innocent?

I was going to jump in for you, but then I thought, WG can take care of this. You did not let me down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

For anyone who may be interested:

Argument A is a fallacy called denying the antecedent.

HEY!! Stop showing me up!! :D

Actually, I really need to reacquiant myself with the logical fallacies, so you've given me something to do this weekend (life in the fastlane for me baby! ):(.

As to what galveston wrote, I don't think that the argument given is very helpful when it comes to providing a stable definition of "torture". Others have already touched on it, but to give it another perspective, we can also witness people who choose to hang themselves in the air supported by nothing more than hooks that pierce the skin. I think that most people would agree that to do this to someone against their will would be a form of torture. I have already pointed out on another thread that there are of course varying degrees of torture, just as there are varying degrees of child abuse, assault, etc. To say that something isn't torture because it's not as harsh certain other forms doesn't actually cut it as far as I am concerned.

The best we have to go on is the definition according to UNCAT (United Nations Convention Against Torture), which states -

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Note that it refers only to "people", and I can also see that we are probably now going to debate what severe pain or suffering,whether physical or mental actually is, which is really what we have been debating all along I guess. I feel it is quite reasonable to say that many of the activities carried out at GITMO would fall within those bounds. That they are not as severe as what some other countries have been party to is neither here nor there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tokugawa

HEY!!! Stop showing me up!!!:D

Actually, I really need to reacquiant myself with the logical fallacies, so you've given me something to do this weekend (life in the fastlane for me baby!!):(.

As to what galveston wrote, I don't think that the argument given is very helpful when it comes to providing a stable definition of "torture". Others have already touched on it, but to give it another perspective, we can also witness people who choose to hang themselves in the air supported by nothing more than hooks that pierce the skin. I think that most people would agree that to do this to someone against their will would be a form of torture. I have already pointed out on another thread that there are of course varying degrees of torture, just as there are varying degrees of child abuse, assault, etc. To say that something isn't torture because it's not as harsh certain other forms doesn't actually cut it as far as I am concerned.

The best we have to go on is the definition according to UNCAT (United Nations Convention Against Torture), which states -

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Note that it refers only to "people", and I can also see that we are probably now going to debate what severe pain or suffering,whether physical or mental actually is, which is really what we have been debating all along I guess. I feel it is quite reasonable to say that many of the activities carried out at GITMO would fall within those bounds. That they are not as severe as what some other countries have been party to is neither here nor there.

You need to spend some time at the current events board. Very well said.

Very well. We shall see whether Obama and crew can keep us safe from terrorist attacks by diplomacy.

Okay which country, which state, which town will accept these supposedly GITMO detainees?

I know Obama should just house them at the Whitehouse :D:rolleyes:

G&P