tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post6933808685846259024..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Contributions to a StereotypeAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-30484466738456311322008-08-28T22:14:00.000-06:002008-08-28T22:14:00.000-06:00Alonzo: You wrote: "In this type of case, the vic...Alonzo: You wrote: "In this type of case, the victim of the crime and the person who may have caused the crime are the same person. From which we may assume that the person harmed consented to the risk.<BR/><BR/>The same is true of the person who stands up for a cause and gets himself shot."<BR/><BR/>This is grossly incorrect. The victim did NOT cause these harms, even if they recognized and accepted the risk.<BR/><BR/>I recognize that I have a risk of theft in my neighborhood, and I take precautions to prevent it. If I choose not to lock my door and get robbed, this may affect my ability to be compensated on my insurance policy, but it does not mean that I consented to be robbed or that I caused the crime. My action may have made the crime easier, just as my choice of neighborhood may make me a target, but I am most certainly not the proximate cause in either a legal or a moral sense.<BR/><BR/>You seem to agree with this in a later comment where you write that "There is no principle of morality that says that it is more permissible to shoplift from a store that does not have security cameras than it is to shoplift from a store that does. There is no principle of morality that says that it is less of a theft to take a car with the keys in the ignition than to take a car without keys in the ignition."<BR/><BR/>This seems completely at odds with what I quote from you above.<BR/><BR/>You also wrote: "The Catholic Church, on the other hand, did not consent to the risk of having their property taken from them. In fact, they were quite vocal in their non-consent."<BR/><BR/>They did and do accept the *risk* that some communion recipients may not consume the host in virtue of the fact that they do not implement measures to ensure that it is consumed or to verify that recipients are Catholics in good standing. That doesn't mean that they *consent* for that to happen.<BR/><BR/>The real question is whether they have any moral right to insist that those to whom they provide wafers must consume them, in the absence of an explicit agreement and consent of both parties, merely on the basis of custom or tradition. If I'm handing out big foam fingers to patrons of a basketball game on the assumption that everyone who receives one will wave it wildly in the air at the game, and this is also the expectation of most of the recipients, I don't have a right to complain if one of the recipients isn't aware of this tradition, takes the foam finger, and instead of waving it wildly at the game, decides to compress it into a ball, put it into their pocket, and take it home and use it to clean up a spilled drink.<BR/><BR/>Those with a Protestant rather than Catholic background who consider communion to be purely symbolic could conceivably take a host similar to the way Webster Cook did, in order to show one to a friend and compare to their own. I had a Protestant upbringing but my family then started attending a Franciscan church, so I've had both Protestant and Catholic communion as a child, and the latter occurred in circumstances where I had not been confirmed or baptized as a Catholic, had not gone to confession, and had no idea about Catholic notions of transsubstantiation--I thought it was purely symbolic. The thin round Catholic wafers were different from the tinier square hosts I had previously been familiar with. Under Catholic doctrine, I was not an authorized recipient of the host, but did I commit theft by deception in my ignorance?Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39962267850197363042008-07-31T05:18:00.000-06:002008-07-31T05:18:00.000-06:00AnonymousWe can continue to dream up examples and ...<B>Anonymous</B><BR/><BR/>We can continue to dream up examples and counter-examples.<BR/><BR/>For example, perhaps we should view the taking of a communion wafer like taking a private art class. The teacher says, "You can have whatever materials you need to complete this project." If you abandon the project, you abandon all unused materials as well.<BR/><BR/>But the main principle remains the same.<BR/><BR/>You do not get to decide when and how I distribute my property - no matter how clever the story is. I get to decide. It is, after all, my property. If I say, "I will give you a quarter if you hop on one foot for an hour while singing 'Peter Cottontail' - then those are the conditions under which you get the quarter. If I say that you get a communion cracker only as a participant in the ritual of Communion, then those are the conditions for getting a communion cracker.<BR/><BR/>The owner of the property gets to decide, and it does not matter how absurd his decision is, it is still his property.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-91876515572537807112008-07-30T18:38:00.000-06:002008-07-30T18:38:00.000-06:00The idea that we should just ASK seemed reasonable...The idea that we should just ASK seemed reasonable to me, so I looked up who the Catholic Church is willing should receive communion.<BR/><BR/>From http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp :<BR/><I>The Church sets out specific guidelines regarding how we should prepare ourselves to receive the Lord’s body and blood in Communion. To receive Communion worthily, you must be in a state of grace, have made a good confession since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharistic fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication.</I><BR/><BR/>However, I have received communion. According to this it was a mistake; I thought I was just supposed to follow the person in front of me and had no notion that you had to be Catholic, or indeed that I was going to be expected to drink wine at the front.<BR/><BR/>Morally speaking, if I make a mistake, I am expected to correct the mistake, and make ammends for any inconvenience anyone should suffer as a result of my mistake. Which probably means I should go to a Catholic Church again some day and make a donation equivalent to the value of the cracker, plus the value of the priest's time used to bless the cracker, plus the value of sitting in the church in order to make the donation, plus interest.<BR/><BR/>To those who are arguing that the Catholic Church has show itself not to care: in the current instance (of PZ Myers's proposed 'score'), it is saying that it most definitely DOES care - or at least Bill Donohue is saying that, and some Catholics agree with him.<BR/><BR/>To the matter of the defrocked Catholic priest blessing the wafer, Wikipedia says this: <I>A dismissed priest is forbidden to exercise ministerial functions.</I> So that would probably be fraud again.<BR/><BR/>In the matter of a sympathetic, but more current, priest there are probably similar rules about what can be done with the crackers, and not following them would similarly be fraud or embezzlement. Even if the priest was not currently emplayed at a church and bought the wafers with their own money, there are probably oaths the priest takes with relevence on the matter or following doctrine would be part of the price of receiving priestly training.<BR/><BR/>The ridiculousness of it has no impact on the morality.Emu Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05352556221263050952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-57364080208427353772008-07-30T06:30:00.000-06:002008-07-30T06:30:00.000-06:00Eneasz, Anon YmousRegarding your recent comments, ...<B>Eneasz, Anon Ymous</B><BR/><BR/>Regarding your recent comments, I wish to point out that there is a difference between explaining an action and justifying it. While I agree that every action can be explained, it is not the case that every action can be justified.<BR/><BR/>I also need to point out that my criticisms applied to two people; Stephanie Zvan and Ema.<BR/><BR/>While I had grown suspicious that Svan was going to give a negative interpretation to whatever comments I made, my harshest condemnation was aimed at Ema, whose insulting tone (as opposed to the tone of somebody asking for clarification) and decision to take her mistaken interpertation to another forum made her deserving of harsher criticism.<BR/><BR/>I am aware of the role that the signalling effect had. However, I also hold that we have an obligation to be aware of these tendencies and to try to avoid them if possible.<BR/><BR/>It should have taken only one sentence from me to refute the original accusation.<BR/><BR/>"I did not say X. I said not-X."<BR/><BR/>At this point, the responsible reader would go back and try to plug not-X into the original statement, look at it in context, and find an interpretation where not-X makes sense. If she cannot do so, she can come back and say, "I tried plugging not-X into your original statement, and I still don't get it. Help me out here."<BR/><BR/>Or, one can use Ema's response.<BR/><BR/>"You said X. I know you said X. And, furthermore, you are a filty liar for denying that you said X, and I am going to tell everybody I know that you are somebody who believes X!"<BR/><BR/>That's the point at which I responded, "Ema, here is how not-X fits into the context of the original discussion. Now, you owe me an apology."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it was missed that my comment where I asked for an apology was addressed to Ema, not Stephanie. And it was not for misinterpreting my original statement. It was for calling me a liar when I said that they had misinterpreted what I had written, and for going elsewhere to tell others about the so-called ethical atheist who thinks that women who put them selves at rape consent to being raped.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-68722747561862855752008-07-30T05:39:00.000-06:002008-07-30T05:39:00.000-06:00If I may comment on the "All you can eat" metaphor...If I may comment on the "All you can eat" metaphor that has been used a few times throughout the cracker debate, it seems to me that there is one crucial difference. When you go to an All you can eat restaurant, they do not give you all the food on the buffet, rather they give you a certain percentage of that food, albeit rather vaguely defined as "All you can eat". If I decide to carry some of the food out with me, then I am stealing by taking more than I was allotted - "All you can carry". As most people can carry a significantly larger amount than they can eat, a restaurant that allowed this would go through much more food than one that enforced the rules.<BR/><BR/>A closer analogy would be a cafe that allows customers to take sugar packets to put in their tea. Suppose I walk in there, buy a cup of tea, take my sugar packet, and then put the sugar in my pocket and drink the tea unsweetened. In this case I have clearly broken the rules about sugar and depending on the specifics you could also argue that I had lied and/or broken a promise. I'm not comfortable with describing it as theft though, for the simple reason that "honest" and "dishonest" customers take exactly the same amount from the cafe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-60595708011156997512008-07-28T22:26:00.000-06:002008-07-28T22:26:00.000-06:00Had to do a bit of a search since I *had* misspell...Had to do a bit of a search since I *had* misspelled the blog I was trying to plug. Here's a better url:<BR/><BR/>http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com /2004/10/feminism-101.html (no spaces)<BR/><BR/>And yes, I'm giving a shameless plug to a blog I haven't explored thoroughly, because hey, that's how I found this one in the first place (a url in a comments thread in a discussion I was interested in linking to someone who was able to discuss those issues a lot better... Think the linked post was the original Perspective on the Pledge.)<BR/><BR/>Basically, before I read that blog I'd never heard of signalling, I honestly didn't know why some people really hated the term "bitch" or "fag" so very much (because I'm young enough not to have seen a whole lot of the sexism, racism or homophobia that used to be a lot worse than it is today), and I honestly didn't know why it was okay to do a whole page of photos of Bush next to photos of chimpanzees with the same expressions on their faces, but it wasn't okay to have a T-shirt likening Obama to Curious George. Heck, I even thought the t-shirt was *pro* Obama...<BR/><BR/>For anyone who's curious, this is the post I saw first, the one about the curious george t-shirt:<BR/><BR/>http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/<BR/>2008/05/double-whammy.html (again, no spaces)<BR/><BR/>Kaerion: I think you're making the same mistake in interpretation that I made when I first read his comment... Thing is, I don't know how to put what he really means into non-inflammatory language, but here goes (and Alonzo, if I still don't get it, correct me - but don't condemn me for deliberately twisting your words, because I promise you I'm not).<BR/><BR/>Basically, when he says that the woman voluntarily assumes the risk of being raped, he does *not* mean she volunteers to get raped. He means that no one else forced her to do things that might incite a sociopath to do her harm - so there's no moral fault for the creation of risk.<BR/><BR/>In this case, the whole "accepting risk" thing is a bit hard to grasp because the risk is of a person harming you. An equivalent would be that you do no moral wrong to walk the streets of Johannesburg at nighttime, even though this act puts you at risk of being robbed. I think this is a better example, because it doesn't stir up the gut-reactions that the rape case does, about blaming the victims - there is no history of blaming the victims of robbery (that I know of), so it is a less inflammatory example to use when pointing out that there is no "third party" who forced the victim to do something that made them more likely to get victimized.<BR/><BR/>I hope I've made things clearer here, rather than more confusing.<BR/><BR/>:o)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-55491692870651488862008-07-28T21:03:00.000-06:002008-07-28T21:03:00.000-06:00Hell, I'm still confused, even after several attem...Hell, I'm still confused, even after several attempts to clarify the comment(s) in question.<BR/><BR/>"In other words, you cannot morally blame the woman who wears provocative clothing for putting herself at risk of a crime because she voluntarily assumed that risk."<BR/><BR/>In reading this, I see (at least) three claims being made by you.<BR/><BR/>1. "The woman did not do something morally wrong by wearing provocative clothing."<BR/>- I agree.<BR/>2. "We can (should) not blame the woman for doing something wrong, even if she is the victim of a crime, since wearing provocative clothing is not wrong."<BR/>- Again, I couldn't agree more.<BR/>3. "The woman voluntarily assumed the risk of being raped, by wearing provocative clothing."<BR/>- And this is where my mind comes to a screeching halt, wondering how you reached that conclusion.<BR/><BR/>Your comments seem to suggest that you never said such a thing, but in looking at your own words, quoted above, "...because she voluntarily assumed that risk.", I just can't see any other way to possibly interpret it. Or is this nothing more than you not thinking the actual example you're using through enough?<BR/><BR/>So, having shown clearly that you did, in fact, say such a thing, I'm hoping we can get around to you explaining your words more clearly. I don't know if the people you've accused of intentionally misrepresenting you are in fact guilty of such a thing, but I can promise you that I am not; I'm hoping this will make you expend on your thoughts, enough that I'll understand them clearly.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and if you'd care to expand on the (more general) position that we can/should not morally blame someone for being the recipient of an action that they have voluntarily consented to, I'd very much appreciate that as well, since it seems (intuitively) wrong to me.<BR/><BR/>I'm a new reader of your blog, but I have to say that (so far, at least) I'm very much enjoying your writing, even when I disagree with you. This specific case withstanding, you have a very clear writing style that appeals to me, and I'm hoping I'll soon have time to go through your older material.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-66872787810033824762008-07-28T19:12:00.000-06:002008-07-28T19:12:00.000-06:00Thanks, Eneasz - once again, someone else manages ...Thanks, Eneasz - once again, someone else manages better words for something I was struggling to find the right phrasing for.<BR/><BR/>I expect Alonzo doesn't know how long I've been lurking here, wanting to post positive responses to his articles and being unable to do so because I was on a work computer that declared the "add comments" page to be blocked due to "Global: chatrooms". I'm currently between jobs, so on my own computer and able to comment, and my first one is on something I disagree with him on. So I don't have your track record of being supportive - though I do in my own head.<BR/><BR/>The way I was going to phrase how confusing it was was related to basic intelligence. I'm not going to give a number, but I'm firmly above average in all aspects measured by the standard IQ test. I tend to feel that if someone phrases something in a way that *I* cannot understand them, even after re-reading and attempting to see it in a positive light, then they cannot legitimately condemn another person for misconstruing what they meant. Alonzo, I don't feel you owe an apology for your poor communications - as you say, anyone can be unclear, as I obviously was - but rather for your condemnation of a person for not understanding you correctly. Maybe an apology is too strong a word. Maybe a retraction of that condemnation based on the fact that other readers have read it in exactly the same way she did.<BR/><BR/>(for the record, I read her other posts, and didn't see them as badly as you did. I saw her as disagreeing with you, sure, but I didn't see her as intentionally misconstruing you. Maybe I'm too charitable. I'm not sure.)<BR/><BR/>Oh, and Eneasz - thank you for bringing up the whole "signalling" thing. I've read a bit about it on shakespearssister.blogspot.com (hope I spelled that right - should be a feminist's blog, anyway), but not enough to be fully conscious of when it happens. The only signalling that I am *consciously* aware of responding to are things like "pro-family", which make me hostile, even when the person doesn't really mean "anti-gay"... But you're right, talking about a woman creating risk *does* trigger the same emotional response that talking about her being to blame for her own rape does... even when it's explicitly in the context of her *not* being to blame for it.<BR/><BR/>[bit of context for myself: I'm female, gay, and the victim of an attempted rape in the past. He didn't finish it because I got a good kick in to his nether regions, but I was still condemned for needing to kick him - I'd said "no" several times, tried to run away, yet the fact that I was wearing a slightly low-cut top, and had smiled at him when introduced, were apparently enough that he wasn't to blame for thinking I wanted him, and didn't deserve to be kicked so hard... Yes, I probably react more to the signals you're talking about than I realise.]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-3396565050526988082008-07-28T16:08:00.000-06:002008-07-28T16:08:00.000-06:00Hello Alonzo. As you know I've been a reader since...Hello Alonzo. As you know I've been a reader since almost day one, and love your blog and DU, so I have every reason to try to read something that is ambigious in the most charitable light possible. But I must admit, even I was confused by the skirt comment, and also had a moment of "Did he just say what I think he said....??" So I think it's not unreasonable to say that other commentors where NOT attempting to twist your words, they honestly were pretty confusing.<BR/><BR/>I also think a large part of the reason you're getting so much blowback is due to the signalling effect. In our lives so far, in 100% of the cases we heard something like "That slut was wearing a short skirt and deserved to be raped" it was made by a mysogonistic asshole who believes a women's role is to subservient to her husband and any women who shows independance deserves to be punished in such a manner. They are always racist and homophobic and authoritarian. So whenever someone says something that sounds similar it is a very strong signal of "This is the hated enemy!" It's a pretty effective signal too.<BR/><BR/>On rare occasions there can be a mistake. Someone may make a statement along the lines of "No woman should ever have to fear being raped, regardless of any circumstances. However given the state of the world currently, this is an honest fear, and based on what we know if you want to minimize the chances of this happening you can take steps X, Y, and Z." This sounds close enough to "Do X, Y, and Z or you are to blame for being raped" that it sets off all the same alarms. It is a case of mis-signaling, but it will draw the same reaction because that's how humans respond. Going into this sort of territory is a minefield and the subject has to be handled with extreme care due to the ultra-sensitivity people have developed to these signals. Personally I'd stay out of it entirely unless I was willing to dedicate a lot of energy to make sure I wasn't misunderstood.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I think that's what happened here.<BR/><BR/>Also, now that I think of it, could the theft-blowback be a similar phenomenon? You say that the Myer's-theft is a minor footnote of poor behavior, and the Donahue-affair is a much more severe case of immoral action. Unfortunatly simply saying that doesn't have much emotional impact. What has more effect is number of posts and word-count dedicated to each infraction. Both are reliable indicators of energy spent on chastizing someone, and that normally translates to how strong one views the action as wrong. Right now I believe the Myers-theft has both a higher post-count and word-count than the Donahue-reaction and the Catholic-death-threats.<BR/><BR/>I realize this is an ethics blog, and you are interested in finding unique situations to anylize and dissect, especially ones that are directly applicable in the present. Unfortunatly most humans will assume (not without reason) that word-count is directly related to strength of condemnation and will view this as a strong rebuke of a minor act accompanied with a weak rebuke of death-threats, harrasement, intimidation, and flaming religious stupidity. :(Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-40926505838189053572008-07-28T13:21:00.000-06:002008-07-28T13:21:00.000-06:00Hey atheist blogosphere. This is unprecendented! ...Hey atheist blogosphere. This is unprecendented! Over 40 comments on a post with numerous responses by Alonzo. <BR/><BR/>Delaying him from moving on to new subjects. For what? For going against the grain in not celebrating the feats of the atheist hero PZ Myers.<BR/><BR/>Hey all, did you here there were hearings on impeaching President Bush last week over questions of torture and mis-leading the nation into war?<BR/><BR/>Just slightly more important than a Eucharist and a Koran thrown into the trash can with a bannana peal. Just slightly. :)Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03743116454273042629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-185109039653208772008-07-28T11:39:00.000-06:002008-07-28T11:39:00.000-06:00AnonymousLet's take a look at another one of the i...<B>Anonymous</B><BR/><BR/><I>Let's take a look at another one of the items in that bin which has been largely ignored. It's a pretty safe bet that the publishers of that particular Koran intended it to be read, rather than torn up.</I><BR/><BR/>It does not matter what the publishers <I>intended</I> to be the case.<BR/><BR/>What matters is what the publishers set up as the terms for transfer.<BR/><BR/>If you can walk into a bookstore and purchase a copy of the Koran off the shelf, then the terms for transfer are quite obvious - you pay the money, you get the book.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy your argument. As far as I'm concerned, once you hand something over to another person it becomes their property and it's up to them what they do with it.</I><BR/><BR/>If you turn over something to another person <I>who lied to get you to turn it over to them</I> then it is not their property.<BR/><BR/>If I lie to you . . . I say that I have a special package for you but you have to pay the $100 delivery charge, you pay the money, and I hand you an empty box, then the $100 is not my money.<BR/><BR/>If I know that a bookstore has a box of books that are intended to be donated to a local school library, I lie and say that I am from the school, and they hand me the books, the books do not become my property.<BR/><BR/>If a person lies and indicates through his actions that he is there to participate in the ritual called 'communion', the church hands him a consecrated communion wafer, and he does complete the ritual, then the wafer does not become his property.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-4450478784470997532008-07-28T10:49:00.000-06:002008-07-28T10:49:00.000-06:00...once you hand something over to another person ...<I>...once you hand something over to another person it becomes their property and it's up to them what they do with it, you don't get to retroactively decide that you didn't actually give it away in the first place.</I><BR/><BR/>In that case, may I borrow your car?<BR/><BR/>The transaction in a bookstore is not exactly equivalent to participating in a religious ritual, now is it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-34604714373472848322008-07-28T10:37:00.000-06:002008-07-28T10:37:00.000-06:00Let's take a look at another one of the items in t...Let's take a look at another one of the items in that bin which has been largely ignored. It's a pretty safe bet that the publishers of that particular Koran intended it to be read, rather than torn up. In fact, I suspect it is quite likely that if you went up to the publishers and told them that you wanted a Koran for the specific purpose of desecrating it, then they would refuse to sell it. Was PZ (or whoever acquired it for him) therefore committing theft by, presumably, going into a bookshop and handing over his money without telling the seller what he intended to do?<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy your argument. As far as I'm concerned, once you hand something over to another person it becomes their property and it's up to them what they do with it, you don't get to retroactively decide that you didn't actually give it away in the first place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-29994001398043839512008-07-28T09:54:00.000-06:002008-07-28T09:54:00.000-06:00craig c clarkOh, and a woman creates the risk of b...<B>craig c clark</B><BR/><BR/><I>Oh, and a woman creates the risk of being raped by wearing something revealing? That's just insane.</I><BR/><BR/>Your statement here makes as much sense as that of someone who hears somebody say, "If a nuclear bomb goes off next door, then we are all dead," and answering, "Oh, a nuclear bomb has gone off next door? That's just insane."Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1501623325688646212008-07-28T08:01:00.000-06:002008-07-28T08:01:00.000-06:00Oh, and a woman creates the risk of being raped by...Oh, and a woman creates the risk of being raped by wearing something revealing?<BR/><BR/>By that logic, it could also be said that a woman creates the risk of being raped by being a woman.<BR/><BR/>That's just insane. You need to change the title of your blog.Jafafa Hotshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18118393055149305460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-20876969123017213582008-07-28T07:54:00.000-06:002008-07-28T07:54:00.000-06:00I have NEVER heard the word "score" used as a syno...I have NEVER heard the word "score" used as a synonym for steal. "I scored some tickets to tonight's game," etc. is the sort of context I've heard it used in.<BR/><BR/>Or, back in my drug-taking days, people might "score" some dope, meaning they found a source to buy some from.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying it has never been used to mean steal, just that I, as a typical american, can't recall ever having heard it used that way... so I think to suggest that it's somehow a prevalent or even predominant meaning of the word is really deliberately stretching things.Jafafa Hotshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18118393055149305460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-9639112679918325192008-07-28T05:12:00.000-06:002008-07-28T05:12:00.000-06:00Anon YmousI was all ready to write a really biting...<B>Anon Ymous</B><BR/><BR/><I>I was all ready to write a really biting, nasty response to Mr Fyfe's indignant response to Stephanie Zvan asking for clarification on whether Fyfe had actually said what it looked like he'd said (that a woman wearing a short skirt was consenting to the risk of getting raped).</I><BR/><BR/>What I wrote was clear in the context in which it was written.<BR/><BR/>It only becomes unclear when a careless reader lifts it out of that context and then falsely asserts that it was found in the context of blaming women for being raped.<BR/><BR/>To say that a writer is morally responsible for the fact that somebody else distorted his work is to say that writing is always an immoral activity. Words get their meaning from their context and it is <I>impossible</I> for a person to write anything or to carry on any discussion that will not contain elements whose meaning changes in a different context.<BR/><BR/>For this reason, there is no option but for the burden of the responsibility to be on the reader to understand a statement in that context. <BR/><BR/>The same is true of my statement, ""I am getting the impression that you are eager to create whatever you may need to twist my claims into something you can criticize."<BR/><BR/>You took THAT out of the context that this was the THIRD comment that Stephanie had made in this blog, every one of them showing a disposition to twist what I had written.<BR/><BR/>It was "strike three". Clearly, no matter what further response I gave, she was going to distort its meaning. To say that a writer must only write things that others can to distort is to put an impossible demand on the writer.<BR/><BR/>Clearly, there was nothing that I could write in response to her "requests for clarification" that she was not going to distort.<BR/><BR/>And you say I owe her an apology?Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-19495806222004661712008-07-28T00:22:00.000-06:002008-07-28T00:22:00.000-06:00I'd like to second Kagehi's second post (not sure ...I'd like to second Kagehi's second post (not sure I followed all of the first one well enough to second it lol).<BR/><BR/>I was all ready to write a really biting, nasty response to Mr Fyfe's indignant response to Stephanie Zvan asking for clarification on whether Fyfe had actually said what it looked like he'd said (that a woman wearing a short skirt was consenting to the risk of getting raped).<BR/><BR/>After reading the whole conversation, I don't think I can do much better than Kagehi - Mr Fyfe, either you said something unclear, and then got narky at people for not understanding you, or else you said something dumb, then backpeddalled while getting narky to try to cover your whoopsie.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I think you owe Stephanie Zvan an apology for accusing her of reading into your words exactly what you wanted to see... from a third person's perspective, that would appear to be exactly what you yourself were doing when you wrote that.<BR/><BR/>[Post Script:<BR/><BR/>What S.Z. actually wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Did you really--really--just say that a woman who wears a short skirt somewhere is consenting to possibly being raped?"<BR/><BR/>She was asking a question. And she kept the word "possibly" in there, which is more or less equivalent to the word Mr Fyfe used - "risk". <BR/><BR/>Mr Fyfe's response:<BR/><BR/>"I am getting the impression that you are eager to create whatever you may need to twist my claims into something you can criticize."<BR/><BR/>When you are unclear, and you are asked for clarification, I do not believe that it is fair or decent to accuse the person asking you what you meant of twisting your claims.<BR/><BR/>Gah, Kagehi said it so much better... I'm going to leave you all alone, now... :P]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1228948894228699982008-07-27T23:16:00.000-06:002008-07-27T23:16:00.000-06:00If we're going to look to the Roman Catholic Churc...If we're going to look to the Roman Catholic Church for its policies, then we must also consider that it claims to derive its authority to make policy from God. So in effect, you're now saying that PZ Myers obtaining a wafer is stealing because some human claims that God says it's His wafer. How much weight must we give to fictional entities under your ethics? [wink, wink]Dave W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12092834841145857131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-21106400081815217432008-07-27T21:58:00.000-06:002008-07-27T21:58:00.000-06:00Dave W.Once again, you are assuming that the obser...<B>Dave W.</B><BR/><BR/><I>Once again, you are assuming that the observers of Communion constitute a monolithic "Person P" who would all have the same opinion on the matter.</I><BR/><BR/>AS far as I can tell, there is only one person to ask . . . the Catholic Church. Specific priests are agents of the church with no permission to violate Church policy. It does not matter how careless the local priest becomes. What matters is what policy the owner of the property establishes for its transfer.<BR/><BR/><B>Tep</B><BR/><BR/><I>Still, my main point was that it is inappropriate to view Myers' action as an equivalent moral wrong to the actions of the Catholic establishment and for that matter almost any religious hierarchy. Myers should apologize, but these guys have a whole lot more to apologize for.</I><BR/><BR/>This is an understatement. This is also why I felt it necessary to post the Myers article with a link to the Donahue article - to make it clear that this is not a case of "Myers is wrong and Donahue is right." Rather, it is a case of "Myers is wrong, but Donahue is so much more wrong."<BR/><BR/><B>anonymous</B><BR/><BR/><I>[F]raud and theft are distinct. Fraud involves deceit, where theft involves depriving another person of something.</I><BR/><BR/>Fraud involves using deceipt to deprive another person of something.<BR/><BR/><I>As for this specific argument, if an employer says, "I will give you this job under the condition that you are not a Jew", and you say "Okay", are you being unethical if you happen to be Jewish? The employer is discriminating based on religion (or ethnic origin). Replace "a Jew" with "atheist", and you have the current situation.</I><BR/><BR/>Employment is a special case because of it is essential to survival. You can also make the case for the selling of food.<BR/><BR/>If a bowling league only offers prizes to bowlers, this is not discrimination.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-10891967214115632692008-07-27T21:27:00.000-06:002008-07-27T21:27:00.000-06:00Sorry Alonzo Fyfe, but I read it the same way he d...Sorry Alonzo Fyfe, but I read it the same way he did, and I have and had no "intent" to misrepresent what you stated. At best, your statement was ambiguous enough that it could be, and was, **badly** misconstrued. At worst, you might be accused of back peddling after posting something stupid. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that no one, including the blog owner, will give PZ, and presume that your "intent" was something other than what you *seemed* to be implying, given the ambiguity of what you wrote.Kagehihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09037921279395746555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-79535661520920188682008-07-27T21:23:00.000-06:002008-07-27T21:23:00.000-06:00First off.. There are people that go around wearin...First off.. There are people that go around wearing "no" clothes too, and its only a *risk* to them when they do so in places where there are sick people willing to find flimsy post-action justifications for doing things too them. Post-action, because no one commits rape because of what someone else wears, unless **what they are wearing** is the trigger for their behavior, and that can be anything from a short skirt, to a burka, to a fracking clown suit, or it might be because they have blue eyes, brown hair and a bent nose. You are at risk of rape for **being** what ever that rapist obsesses over, even if its something as simple as being blond, or and complex as being 30-35, wearing a business suit, with a southern drawl, on a rainy day, in the wrong fracking neighborhood. The claims being made that someone wearing something presents some sort of risk that they "choose" is bullshit of the same grade as the moon landing being faked or space aliens abducting farmers to probe them. Not one single scrap of scientific evidence suggests that you are more likely to be raped in a short skirt than a long one, ***unless*** the rapist just happens to have that as one of his criteria. If he likes long skirts, then you are just as screwed.<BR/><BR/>As for the argument of theft.. Sigh.. Most people have already covered most of this. But lets try again anyway, with, what I hope is a better analogy. I am in a room with 50 people. I say, "I badly need a laptop." Most people listen to why, nod, tell me a desktop is better, etc. Two people though hear me and send me one via UPS. One of these people stole on two days earlier from a store, the other happened to stinking rich and accidentally ordered two of them from TigerDirect, so figured it wouldn't hurt him to give it to me. If I accept "one" persons, then I have received stolen property. All I did was suggest that I badly needed one. In the end, what matters isn't whether or not my *reason* for doing so was to post about something on a blog, or run a bot net. If the later, then whether or not what I do with it is illegal matters a "lot" with respect to what I mean by both "bot" and "net". If it means running bots for a game, networked so they can talk to each other, then not so much, even if it "sounds" illegal.<BR/><BR/>Whether or not what PZ did "sounds" illegal in some circles, and may be in some insane foreign countries, isn't relevant, only if its illegal *here*. Well, no one is arguing that what he did was anything other than childish, so the question comes down to two things - Receipt of stolen property, and knowledge that it was, or might be, stolen.<BR/><BR/>Well, now we have a real major problem. That you *think* someone in a groups of 50 people "may" have stolen a laptop doesn't means that "I" would expect that. If it was a recovery convention for ex thieves, you might have a point. If some of them had proven stupid in the past may even make me naive, but it doesn't "prove" that I knew or intended anyone to steal anything. Same with PZ. Naive, maybe, but that is far from "knowing", or, "expecting" that it was stolen.<BR/><BR/>So, we come to theft. And, here again, we have a problem. In my example, one of them was "stolen", but, without evidence, I have no idea that either of them was, or which one. All I have is two laptops. In the case of the crackers, you can't even prove that one "was" stolen, never mind which, if any, of them where. Worse, as many people have pointed out already, you can't even identify with certainty that *any* of them qualify as stolen, unless they where taken from the few places that "have" protested the act. This would be roughly the equivalent of, if the business one of my hypothetical laptops was taken from, they where giving them away are promotions, and the "theft" amounted to no more than someone walking in off the street, dressed appropriately, attending the business seminar, but ***no one*** bothering to check ID, to determine if they should have been in there. I don't give a frack if they posted a sign outside saying, "Meeting for attendees of Blah.", or it was sent out in secret memos and emails. Unless they check the people's IDs, or they figure out, while they where there, that they didn't belong *and* have them expelled, they don't have a leg to stand on in claiming that someone they **allowed** into the meeting should be called a thief for taking something they where given away to those attending.<BR/><BR/>Basically, your assertions about PZ's actions come down to assuming he is guilty of inciting something he, at worst, might, if less naive, have predicted, from a person that *may* have committed such and act, with the result of him receiving what "could have been" stolen property, of such a nature that you can't even identify *if* it was stolen, and which, as has already been established, can't be proven to have "been" stolen by any legal or ethical definition, without knowing a) the intent of the alleged thief, b) which one he sent PZ, c) when they obtained it, d) under what circumstances, or e) from who and/or where.<BR/><BR/>In other words, you have a vague accusation of complicity, or incitement, of something you can't even show *any* evidence implying was, always is, or happened to be, in any specific case, what took place. Since, unlike my laptop example, you can't even bloody provide serial numbers to trace, even if the circumstances I gave wouldn't have effectively negated the *entire* claim, due to *greater* negligence on the part of the party supposedly stolen from, who wouldn't be able to "prove" that they thief really stole anything, instead of just getting damn lucky that the company was run by idiots.<BR/><BR/>I mean, do I have this right? Because, if not, then I must have missed some key issue in the ranting about how it was theft, even if it wasn't, or at least incitement, even if it wasn't intended to be, etc.Kagehihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09037921279395746555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-71594554294191969242008-07-27T21:13:00.000-06:002008-07-27T21:13:00.000-06:00emaI have discovered that you are not only intent ...<B>ema</B><BR/><BR/>I have discovered that you are not only intent on misrepresenting my views on this forum, but you have now sought to misrepresent my views <A HREF="http://www.pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/who_would_james_bond_vote_for/" REL="nofollow">elsewhere</A><BR/><BR/>So, with that in mind, I remind you of the context.<BR/><BR/>I argued that if Person A puts Person C at risk of becoming the victim of a crime, that Person A has done something immoral.<BR/><BR/>For example, if I introduce somebody I know to be a serial killer to a neighbor that I wish to see dead then, even though I did not <I>tell</I> the serial killer to kill my neighbor, I would have done something immoral.<BR/><BR/>The case was brought up about a person who puts <I>themselves</I> at risk of being the victim of a crime - by wearing provocative clothing or taking a stand on a controversial issue and risk being assassinated.<BR/><BR/>I argued that it is <I>not immoral</I> for a person to put himself or herself at risk of being the victim of a crime because the person who is put at risk consents to the risk.<BR/><BR/>In other words, you <I>cannot morally blame</I> the woman who wears provocative clothing for putting herself at risk of a crime because she voluntarily assumed that risk.<BR/><BR/>Now, of you want to argue that we <I>should blame</I> the woman who wears provactive clothing, then be my guest. Because that is the position you would have to take if you disagree with the position I actually defended.<BR/><BR/>Now, you owe me a apology.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-81999816347655431192008-07-27T18:05:00.000-06:002008-07-27T18:05:00.000-06:00I always find it interesting that internet comment...I always find it interesting that internet commenters seem to consistently forget that hyperbole, while endlessly fun, is almost always a clumsy and often double edged tool. Let's put aside the absurdity of panting Myers actions, culpability or, (for the love of all that's good and holy,) victimhood in this as anything equivalent to any rape victims. And let's put aside the attempt to draw parallels between catholics refusing to give their magic crackers to any and all comers to refusing to employ someone due to race. The tortured straining and the deliberate obtuseness required to even present such arguments serves as ample evidence that they are complete non-sequiturs, used more for their emotional content and button pushing potential than anything resembling a reasoned, or reasonable, defense. In that respect, they resemble most of the responses by enraged catholics I've seen.<BR/><BR/>I do think, however, it might be interesting to look at the actual content of the two main arguments here, stripped of their high dungeon and questionable claims:<BR/><BR/>Essentially, these are both attempts at painting blame as an all or nothing affair, which conveniently ignore the point of the OP- evaluating the rightness of PZ's actions, apart from those of the RCC, Donahoe, or random believers in the sanctity of baked goods. <BR/><BR/>On the one hand, we have the 'keys in the cracker lock' argument “if entity A is giving something away, even though it is clearly being done with the expressed intent that it be given to people who meet and agree to condition C, person B is entirely in his rights to also take that thing unless A lock's it away, requires signed contracts, and enacts a double-secret code word and handshake known only to the initiates in order to enforce C. Open doors? Allowing members of the public in? Well, then, it's a free-for-all! Their problem. Also- they're bad people if they get mad. And inconsistent as well” <BR/><BR/>An interesting concept, to be sure- although I quail to think what wide spread adoption of such a position would do to open-bar receptions, which are about the only thing I can stand at most weddings.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, somehow, we also have the competing “I can wear what I want to” argument. (Which I personally agree with generally in the case of rape, although I fail to see any relevance to the matter at hand,) A line of reasoning which says that, '”just because person A puts something on display to the general public, or even gives it away freely to person or persons meeting some set of criterion- let's call it C- they have an inviolate right not to have it taken by person who doesn't meet those criterion. Say, person B- who is entirely out of his right, and morally culpable if he does so.”<BR/><BR/>See what happens when you strip the arguments of all their strum and drang, zero-sum morality, and references to water-melon, short skirts, and EOE employment violations? You now have now have two, very lengthy, impassioned attempted defenses of PZ that are <B>mutually exclusive.</B><BR/><BR/>On the other hand, one could look at the thing rationally and dispassionately, realizing that the situation being discussed involves neither Rosa Parks or Jody Foster in an academy award winning role. It is a minor blip on the cultural radar, most of the people running around claiming victimhood have spent equal amounts of time deliberately acting like asses, and it is possible for everyone involved in a spat to actually be in the wrong to varying degrees and on differing issues.<BR/><BR/>Trust me- same thing happens on COPS every week.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-70840170535145856252008-07-27T17:01:00.000-06:002008-07-27T17:01:00.000-06:00Mr. Fyfe,It's been clear that you think it is impo...Mr. Fyfe,<BR/><BR/>It's been clear that you think it is impossible for PZ Myers to become the actual owner of a consecrated communion wafer. Part of my point has been that in the abstract, it is not impossible.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, if Myers attempted to obtain a wafer from the Catholics who participate in Communion at UCF's student union, it would be impossible. But we have a few dozen examples of <I>other</I> Masses in which the Communicants and/or representatives of the Church are not so restrictive.Dave W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12092834841145857131noreply@blogger.com