The Song Fight Bulletin Board

15-16 puzzle wrote:Because she likes it. I don't. At all. I choose to do something that I do not want to.

If your professor's argument is to say that anything that someone does, he is choosing to do, and therefore it is a choice for himself, well that is a lazy circular argument.

It may be cirrcular, but it's true. The point of it is, just because you choose to do something unpleasant, doesn't mean it's wrong or selfish. The question isn't about selfish decisions or non-selfish ones, or pleasant or unpleasant, it's merely about undertanding that everything an individual does, they FIRST do because THEY choose to, and thus they did it for themselves, to satisfy their own choice.


Irritating. This guy was super irritating to argue with, and man how I tried to find something, but I realized the trap of the arguement is that I TOOK THE BAIT. What I wished I'd said way back when was " no I can't , what a stupid question, of course the primary moment is me making a choice, however, this is always true. What is more important is WHY I made the choice. "


Or something like that...

I think that everything you do *does* have something to do with what you want. It's all in what level you're looking at.

Erik doesn't want to visit his mom. But she likes it. So he does. How does this give him what he wants? Well, he (presumably) loves his mom. Therefore making her happy gives him some pleasure, even if that pleasure is just a reduction in the guilt he feels when he hasn't visited her in a long time. The actual visit itself brings him no joy while it's actually occurring.

I think I'm with the professor on this. But some people are able to see past their immediate desires to some kind of future, and act in a way that they think will ensure that pleasurable future. Others only know that they want the candy bar, but they don't want to go to jail, so they pay for it.

There's an atmosphere the lends itself to peace and prosperity, and people who recognize that peace and prosperity are enjoyable will take actions that they think will realize those states. Things like donating to charities, volunteering, and being nice to people.

jb wrote:Erik doesn't want to visit his mom. But she likes it. So he does. How does this give him what he wants? Well, he (presumably) loves his mom. Therefore making her happy gives him some pleasure, even if that pleasure is just a reduction in the guilt he feels when he hasn't visited her in a long time. The actual visit itself brings him no joy while it's actually occurring.

I do love my mother, but I could go forever without visiting her, and not feel guilty about it. I don't even pat myself on the back and think that I'm a "good son" or any of that stuff.

I think that most people do most stuff because on some level, it makes them feel good (or makes them feel bad, if they *want* to feel bad). But I also think that not every choice can be boiled down to this.

Hoblit wrote:I think you misunderstood me. He was the only Catholic president. Every other president has been 'Christian' as in protestant. Just a fact...

NOT A FACT. CATHOLICS ARE CHRISTIANS. PROTESTANTS ARE CHRISTIANS. CHRISTIANS INCLUDE BOTH CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS.

If I said ALL of our presidents were Christian, somebody would have undoubtably corrected me with that little chunck of information. Think about Ireland for a minute ... folks there would be mightily offended if I lumped a Catholic president in with the protestant ones.

That's fine, don't lump them together. Just say "all except one have been Protestant" and we're both happy.

This is not a minor distinction. This goes to the whole identity of the religion. I'm really sick of that sort of attitude. And also the one that says "Catholics are bad and evil" and the one that Poor June espoused a while back. It's not right.

You should know that I generally don't get into online arguments, and when I do, it's something important. I thought that was pretty insulting.
-bill

JB's response is almost identical to what I recall (from 13 years ago!) what the prof says.

At least, that was better put than my explanation!

Holy crap Bill. I think Hoblit's being pretty clear. Catholics are not christians.


sheesh. Call a catholic a non-christian and they get all insulting. Next you'll tell me hindus aren't muslims.

Get your facts straight dude.


And I suppose Bush isn't gay??

Leaf, Bill is correct, Catholics are Christians. Being Christian simply means you believe in Christ. If you go to a "christian" church that is not Catholic and ask them exactly what their religion is you will find that they all have a particular name: Methodist, Protestant, Baptist, and many more complicated names. FACT: There was Catholicism, then there was Martin Luther, then everybody realized they could just make their own flavor of religion based on the bible any old way they liked.

EDIT: Ok, maybe that whole two pope thing happened before Martin Luther, I don't actually remember.

15-16 puzzle wrote:

jb wrote:Erik doesn't want to visit his mom. But she likes it. So he does. How does this give him what he wants? Well, he (presumably) loves his mom. Therefore making her happy gives him some pleasure, even if that pleasure is just a reduction in the guilt he feels when he hasn't visited her in a long time. The actual visit itself brings him no joy while it's actually occurring.

I do love my mother, but I could go forever without visiting her, and not feel guilty about it. I don't even pat myself on the back and think that I'm a "good son" or any of that stuff.

I think that most people do most stuff because on some level, it makes them feel good (or makes them feel bad, if they *want* to feel bad). But I also think that not every choice can be boiled down to this.

I guess as long as you can include "it lets them avoid feeling bad" in "it makes them feel good", then I agree. Also "they know it will let them feel good eventually".

Future Boy wrote:Leaf, Bill is correct, Catholics are Christians. Being Christian simply means you believe in Christ. If you go to a "christian" church that is not Catholic and ask them exactly what their religion is you will find that they all have a particular name: Methodist, Protestant, Baptist, and many more complicated names. FACT: There was Catholicism, then there was Martin Luther, then everybody realized they could just make their own flavor of religion based on the bible any old way they liked.

EDIT: Ok, maybe that whole two pope thing happened before Martin Luther, I don't actually remember.

Well, with the two popes they all thought they were Catholic. And Luther didn't really *want* to create Lutheranism. He just wanted to fix the Catholic church.

Those different names for different Christian churches are called "denominations".

Protestant would be accurate for all the Presidents but Kennedy, who was Catholic, since it basically means "not Catholic":

Protestant
1539, from Ger. or Fr. protestant, from L. protestantem (nom. protestans), prp. of protestari (see protest). Originally used of Ger. princes and free cities who declared their dissent from the decision of the Diet of Speyer (1529) denouncing the Reformation. The word was taken up by the Lutherans in Germany (Swiss and French preferred Reformed). It became the general word for "adherents of the Reformation in Germany," then "member of any Western church outside the Roman communion;" a sense first attested in Eng. in 1553.

"In the 17c., 'protestant' was primarily opposed to 'papist,' and thus accepted by English Churchmen generally; in more recent times, being generally opposed to 'Roman Catholic,' or ... to 'Catholic,' ... it is viewed with disfavour by those who lay stress on the claim of the Anglican Church to be equally Catholic with the Roman." [O.E.D.]

Thank you providing the proper nomenclature, JB, shame on me for not remembering it.

It's a little confusing, because there is a protestant religion known as "Christian", and then there's also the definition of "christian" being "a person whose religion is based on Christ's teachings". In the former sense, then Catholics are not Christian, but then neither are Baptists, Mormons, any of those. But in the larger definition, Catholics are not only Christians, they are THE original Christians.

Future Boy wrote:Leaf, Bill is correct, Catholics are Christians. Being Christian simply means you believe in Christ. If you go to a "christian" church that is not Catholic and ask them exactly what their religion is you will find that they all have a particular name: Methodist, Protestant, Baptist, and many more complicated names. FACT: There was Catholicism, then there was Martin Luther, then everybody realized they could just make their own flavor of religion based on the bible any old way they liked.

EDIT: Ok, maybe that whole two pope thing happened before Martin Luther, I don't actually remember.

Sometimes my sarcasm is misunderstood.

Of course they are christians. Clearly (ok, not clearly) Hoblit's just didn't phrase what I've assumed he meant, which is that JFK was the only President that he knew of that was of a significantlly different demonination from the rest... or something like that.

Calling him an asshole once cause you don't understand his point is fine, anger can be good. Maintaining this after the dude apologies and attempts to straighten things out is just belligerent. The one clear thing is Hoblit wasn't attempting to be an asshole about it. (I was!)
Quell the anger and get on with debating politics and religion and morality and ethics in the non-emotional, vulcan manner we're all supposed to adopt.

By the way, I spent a signifcant portion of my youth attending the United church, and as I was a member of a touring Boys Choir, I've witnessed most Christian services, from Temple Baptist (my favourite, those people are perversely happy) to catholic, lutheran, anglican, presbeterian... blah blah.
So I get it. (and I'm not ranting at you Future boy, I'm ranting with you.)

Yes, I was called an 'A-hole' because I didn't use the word PROTESTANT instead of Christian. My point was that all of our presidents have a religious belief based on Christianity. The ony reason I even made a distinction in the first place was because SOMEBODY would eventually. There is a huge difference in the way Catholics practice religion that is distinctly different in many ways to any demonation of PROTESTANT religions. I'm certainly not making a judgment... just a notable distinction. Again, if I would have said all of our presidents were Christians... somebody would have spoken up and corrected me. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I mean no ill will towards ANY type or style of religion and certainly am not trying to segregate anyone from being right or wrong.

Dude, look, it was a mistake and all, but there ARE people out there who honestly believe that Catholics are not Christians, and (personally speaking) I don't think it's wrong to call THOSE PEOPLE assholes.

agreed.

Hoblit wrote:There is a huge difference in the way Catholics practice religion that is distinctly different in many ways to any demonation of PROTESTANT religions.

Huge? Really? Such as... The differences AMONG the protestant religions is as big or bigger than differences they have with Catholics.

Most of us do consider Catholics as falling under the catagory of "Christian" since they believe Jesus was the son of God.

However, Born Agains/Evangelical Christians can have a pretty narrow view on what a true "Christian" is. If they ask "Are you a Christian?" they may mean:
-Have you "declared Jesus Christ as your personal Savior"?
-Do you believe that when the rapture comes you will be called up into the Kingdom of Heaven... while the rest of humanity suffers through tribulations?
-Do you refer to non-Christian music as "Secular"?

In other words, are you their brand of Christian.

I used to be friends with some Born Agains who definitely did NOT consider Catholics as being Christians. One went to far to say Catholicism was practically a cult and also that my whole Catholic family was going to hell along with Mother Theresa. "Oh, all you Catholics pray on beads to saints and have those little statues of Jesus's mom in your yards... you're really just PAGANS."

Edit: ooops. I deleted a bunch of stuff here that I didn't mean to delete....

Anyhow, I was saying that I've since joined up with the Unitarians who don't argue that Hell truely exists, nevermind whether or not I'm going there. They just say "Hey! You're on your own spiritual journey... good for you! So are we. Join one of our social action committees." and if you're Christian that's great or if you're interested in Buddism that's great too.

Henrietta, that is exactly how I feel... except I never knew the name for it!

Leaf wrote:Dissertation on Ethical Egoism

Woohoo, I love this argument because it's true. There is a part of the brain (Frontal cortex of the Cerebrum, just above Broca's Area) that predicts the outcomes of the various scenarios stemming from an action. It then evaluates each scenario by summing all the personal benefits of every factor. For instance, say you have to decide between visiting your mother and not visiting your mother. Because you have decided to visit her previously this behaviour has become conditioned, and the neural pathways leading to the decision are biased. When you contemplate not visiting your mother this causes discomfort below the threashold of perceptibility (this discomfort registers on EEGs, but the thalamus filters it out) called Cognitive Dissonance. That factor, and all the other factors are given a positive or negative desirability; your brain chooses the one which sums to the highest value. So there is a neurological basis for saying that we only do what we want most. We just have to be careful that we all agree on the same definition of 'I want too'.

Three implications: 1) According to ontological ethics such actions are not considered moral. 2) All of the above observations about the human brain (assuming my psych prof's have real degrees) strongly corroborate biological determinism. 3) All of this implies that I am a big nerd.

HeuristicsInc wrote:

Hoblit wrote:The only non christian president that I can think of was JFK. He was catholic.

DON'T BE AN ASSHOLE.

Congratulations: you have convinced me who the asshole is.

Bill is one of the nicest people here... and so is Hoblit for that matter.

Attempting to crush (percieved) close-mindedness doesn't make someone an asshole, it makes them awesome.

Ok, sorry Hoblit, I was immediately insulted because I thought you were being one of those people that attack us Catholics saying that we're not Christians. I've had people actually say that sort of thing to my face, as Henrietta says. I apologize since it seems you're not dissing my religion. I've just come under a bit of persecution because of my religion.

Sorry this comes so late, I got called away. Otherwise I would have replied sooner.

Also, note that I said "don't BE an asshole" - not "you're an asshole" - I think it's a different connotation

Hope we can be friends, Mr Hoblit.

Puce wrote: Congratulations: you have convinced me who the asshole is.

If someone on a public board seemed to be attacking things you hold dear, would you not comment on it? Anyway, I've apologized now that the misunderstanding is cleared up.

Thanks Henrietta!
-bill