Lie to Me

Some people feel that lying to a kid about Santa Clause is a good decision. I disagree. Lies are lies. If your parents go through so much trouble and make up such a long-winded explanation of how presents end up in the house, how can I trust what my parents say about other subjects? Oh, so the parent lies just about Santa and nothing else? They say trust is like paper; once it is crumpled, it can never be made perfect again. Do the parents decide to stop lying when things are important? Right, because that's so easy to tell.

I feel that lying is immoral. I'm the type of person that would take the truth above any sort of lie. I would take the truth even when the truth and the lie both results in the same outcome, only the truth hurts more. I prefer truth over lies. This is the reason why claims about religion annoy me so much in principle. I want to believe in something because it's true, not because it's comforting. Half truths and lying by omission are deceptive and in my eyes almost equivalent to a flat out lie. Why is it so fucking difficult to get the truth? We're so used to lying to everybody to the point where we are expected to lie or deceive people when their emotions are in danger. If I asked a girl out and she's not into me, I don't want some bullshit like "I'm not looking for a boyfriend" or something. Just say it. It's like a band-aid. Rip it off, prevent scarring. Get it over with. I deserve the truth and if you don't give it, it is on you. I don't care if it's hard to tell the truth. Just refuse to tell the answer if you're so embarrassed or uncomfortable.Prevent anybody from getting the wrong idea and keeping false hope that will get shattered in the end all the same. I don't want false hope, I want the real deal. I want to prepare emotionally and physically for whatever comes my way before I hits me in the face. And it's funny to me that relationships go under due to 'lack of communication'. Or the ridiculous bullshit mind-games that people play in relationships. Be real. Tell the truth. Know what your standing is with everybody else and vice versa.

Now, back to Santa Clause. Some may argue that lying to children about Santa Clause gives them a sense of wonder. This is bafflement. This is confusion about how the laws of physics works and testing the incredulity of little kids by feeding them lies. Sure, with religion the idea has a higher chance of actually sticking with them into adulthood, but at least from a religious person's point of view, they are teaching their kid the truth. Teaching kids about Santa Clause is flat out intentional lying. There are many things in this world that are amazing and filled with wonder. Teach a kid what a cloud is. Or what a rainbow is. Or what the Sun is. Or how when we look out into the night sky, we are looking back in time. There is so much magic in reality that we don't need to start inventing myths and superstitions about this fat dude flying around in the air assigning toys to kids he deems nice instead of naughty after around the clock surveillance. And science has practical applications too. Beyond just wonder, IT'S REAL. The world revolves around science. This is education along with wonder.

Have you see Vsauce? It is a Youtube channel for mainstream science, where very interesting questions are posed. How much does a shadow weigh? Did you know the same effect that makes the sky blue is also what makes our eyes blue? Etc etc. And it is the strongest science Youtube channel to date. It fills people with curiosity, with wonder. And it is also educational. We don't need a fake fat guy in the way to get there. Or we can turn Santa into an educational activity. Kid asks if Santa is real? Ask him or her to investigate. How would we go about figuring this out?

I'm not a parent. I don't have  PHD in child raising. But when in doubt, stick with the truth. I don't think messing with the kid's sense of reality. You may argue that kids taught about Santa typically do just as well as the ones not taught about Santa Clause, but similar things can be said for teaching people about astrology. It's one more piece of falsehood and pseudoscience that just might stick. You cannot encourage healthy skepticism on one hand and then teach them about Santa being real on the other. And kids are still learning things about the world, and incorporating what they learn into their grasp of reality. Don't chuck lies in there.

Wonder is wonder. Wonder doesn't have to mean lies.

Opportunity Cost

Here's a thought: The food you eat, the shoes you buy? They are killing people.

Every $100 you spent on something is a $100 that could have been spent elsewhere. When you spend $100 on shoes, you are saying that the value of the shoes outweigh everything else I could get for $100 at this moment. Let's just say for the sake of argument that donating $100 to the right places saves the life of one random person. So the logical conclusion is, buying shoes for $100 means the person thinks the shows are more valuable than the life of a random person. And not only that, the $100 could've been used to save the person, therefore the person allowed somebody to die.

The obvious problem slams people in the face rather quickly: Then doesn't this mean we are indirectly allowing thousands of people to die? Well, yes. We are. There's really no argument that can be made at this point against my conclusions. Opportunity cost is understood in-depth in economics. But the coming points are subjected to debate, and debate people will. Since we are letting thousands die, does this make us immoral? The question lies on how we call somebody moral.

First of all, the most basic argument that leads all the way back to the very basic philosophical ideas on morality is that of moral relativism. But this is largely a useless argument. Unless you want to tell me that the people dying want to die, that you personally feel people should die, or that I think people should die, then we are all in agreement that death is bad and should be avoided. Moral relativism, while an interesting philosophical idea, is purely academic in that it does not translate to how we do policies.

But then the question comes in: How do we judge a person to be good or bad? When we call somebody a bad or a good person, we are not typically talking about one specific act they do, but rather every action and thought the person undertakes. Here is my opinion. Your good has to outweigh the bad for you to be a good person. Killing 50 kids and then opening the door for an elderly woman makes you a bad person in total. This case would be the case of a bad person doing one good thing.

I've had arguments which I did not expect. One person considered my stance to b e contradictory because a person doing good things can be good, but a person doing good things can be bad. Well, yes. That's not contradictory. Once again, whether we call a guy good or bad depends on the totality of their thoughts and actions.a

Another argument is about how my conclusions mean we cannot ever be moral. Seeing that every $100 we spend is letting people die, then we can never be moral. That's not actually an argument on the merits and logical consistency of my thought process. If it is true that it is impossible to be moral, then so be it. That's sucks, that's inconvenient, but that doesn't make my conclusions logically fallacious.

One idea is that we judge a person to be good or bad based upon the standards of our time period. Owning slaves is OK 200 years ago, but do that in 2013 and you are considered a monster. Therefore the thought process goes, because most people in 2013 constantly spend money for their own good instead of saving other human beings, doing so is the norm, therefore by this criteria, this does not make us immoral.

Which is something I do agree with, but may be problematic for the future. When slavery was practiced 200 years ago, some people questioned whether this practice is actually good. Maybe we should think about the suffering of others. It takes people who are forward thinkers, who come up with answers about morality which most people don't care for, to drive society forward. If every single person 200 years ago had the mindset that, because slavery is normal, practicing slavery is normal by the standards of their time, therefore there is no need to change, then we will NEVER STOP SLAVERY.

So sometimes I think about the future. Have you ever thought about the past? Asked yourself, how the hell so many people practiced slavery without second thoughts. How their conscience didn't eat them inside-out. Why did it take so freakin' long for somebody in the government to realize slavery is wrong? Didn't ANYBODY stop and think about the suffering of their fellow man? What was wrong with them? It seems to patently obvious that slavery is immoral. What about the future? Maybe people will come and look at 2013, shaking their heads. Didn't people in 2013 KNOW that the $80000 they earn a year and proceed to spend on themselves is letting countless people die in a variety of horrible ways? What were they THINKING? Surely SOMEBODY stopped and think, maybe what we're doing is not morally correct?

The Starving Child

If you were walking on a street one day and saw a starving, dying child, you would probably feel the need to do something about it. Buy the person something to eat, call the cops, or something. But if the person is dying somewhere else, and we know this happens, we feel utterly no moral imperative at all. So the suffering has to be in our face for us to care. Would you save somebody in your school or work for a few dollars? You probably would. But for some stranger? You still might. But you would keep saving people until you realize you don't have money left to buy yourself a new Xbox, then you'd stop. No such point exists where you give out so much money, it is morally correct to stop giving out money to save some people from death. It just becomes more inconvenient to you, but is your convenience worth their death? Every single thing you buy, you are accepting the opportunity cost of that purchase. Every $100 you spent could've been spent to prevent that starving kid from dying. It's not your problem? Of course not. I can do all sorts of very illegal things to you this instant, and if it were not for the law, it wouldn't really be my problem now, would it? Would you say, "not my problem" if you see a guy having a heart attack and you were the only witness? Out of sight, out of mind. No name, no face, no sleep lost.

There's this diffusion of responsibility. If many people can fix the issue, you feel less liable. When I was in psychology class, the teacher showed a video clip about a few psychological studies regarding the diffusion of responsibility. The people in the study saw (or in some cases heard) what seems to be somebody having a heart attack. You have one person in the room seeing this, and they run out for help. You have three people, and the three just sit there going 'oh my god'. This is why when people have a heart attack, medical training says to assign one specific person to call 911 instead of just yelling 'SOMEBODY CALL A MEDIC'.

How many people are in poverty today? In true poverty, not unemployment in the United States. Your bad day is their great day. You are too lazy to go to the store to get food to eat. Or, you're trying to eat less because you're getting fat. The guys over there don't have food to eat. Not my problem, I got dance classes, cya.

Not just you, of course. Everybody. Me as well. We're not programmed by evolution to be selfless. But I'm saying we are indirectly killing people all the time and we feel no remorse. I believe nobody can meet the standards of morality this sets. But if you're not going to donate money, the least you can do is the acknowledge the reality and not blatantly say 'it's not my problem'.

Public Service Announcement

This is a public service announcement:

Gay does not mean "any sort of sexual deviance" or "not fitting into gender norms".

Fag is a slur referring to a homosexual. It does not mean "bad" or "stupid" or "n00b at Battlefield 3". Calling others this means you can either tell other people's sexual orientation across the internet or you're just being a bigot who doesn't know how to insult somebody with any level of creativity.

Ignorance is not stupidity. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. We are all ignorant of countless things. The issue comes when you are presented with the answer and the evidence and you cannot tell what is right from what is wrong. The road to knowledge starts by admitting you don't know something. If one is willing and able to learn, there is no need to dock somebody for being ignorant.

Newbie isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd take a newbie who is responsive to feedback compared to an arrogant asshole. Beating you in a game does not make the other person a newbie or a n00b necessarily and in fact often means the exact opposite.

Asking "Can I ask you a question?" is a complete waste of breath. Because you just asked one without permission. So what the hell are you getting at? Yes, you may. Anybody is 'allowed' to ask a question. It's called free speech. The problem is whether I am willing and able to answer or whether I will be offended by your question. Which I won't know until YOU ASK ME.

That is all.

Cannibalism

Below is a debate outline I wrote, which I think you might find to be interesting.

Do you consider cannibalism to be intrinsically immoral? Why?

On occasion I think it's a good idea to play devil's advocate or simply question some things we take to be true, regardless of whether they are actually true. I want you guys to understand I am not arguing for legalization of cannibalism or suggesting you go out and eat people. Re-read the first sentence of this post. It says nothing about legalization or recommendations to eat people.

Here are some things I think are worth thinking about:
-Any arguments against something being unnatural is not a valid argument. Lots of things are unnatural. Like computers. There are also other animals that eat each other.

-It may cause diseases. That's just for the person eating. If he gets fucked, that's his problem. People do unhealthy shit to themselves all the time. 

-Arguments about violation of the rights of the deceased isn't an argument about the intrinsic immorality of cannibalism but the immorality of cannibalism without prior consent. Having sex with a person without consent is immoral but it does not make sex itself immoral. Consequences of actions are situational and must of course be judged for each situation, but they do not make the act itself immoral.

-Obviously cannibalism that follows murder is immoral. But for the sake of argument, that's not what I'm talking about. Assume the person that's dead would be perfectly cool with you eating him or her.

-Arguments about family and friends being sad would be irrelevant given a person has no relatives that know about or care or are still alive. One has to balance the feelings of family members versus personal freedom versus the need for food, ei, is human flesh all that is available as food for the time being? This is a more complex question but one that does not render all of cannibalism regardless of the situation to be immoral.

-Arguments about cannibalism is wrong because it leads to 'universal widespread abhorrence': Are wrong. Some cultures are fine with eating other humans. In fact, in the past humans used to eat humans all the freakin' time. What one particular culture feels about an action isn't an argument. We can also reverse the argument: You may feel child pornography is wrong, child rape is wrong, child marriages are wrong, but past cultures have found it acceptable enough. In short, how people used to or still feel about an issue isn't a valid argument. 

On top of that, the fact that many people have an opinion does not prove anything. This is an argument ad populum, a logical fallacy. You can feel guilty for something you've done that's not necessarily immoral; if I run over a dead cat with a car, I'd feel disgusted and some would feel guilty, saying 'poor cat' even though the cat is already dead. I consider something to be immoral when it unfairly visits suffering to an individual. Dead people can't suffer. If dead people had feelings, how would their bones feel being buried in a wooden box and then stuff under dirt? Or perhaps we cremate bodies, in which case it's worse than eating it, we've utterly obliterated their body. If a person asked to be eaten once dead, how can this possibly go against the wish of the once-alive person?

-This is not an argument for legalization of cannibalism, this is purely an academic, hypothetical discussion. This term has raised some hackles so let me clarify: This is discussing the concept, whether it is moral or inherently immoral and has no bearing on actual changes in policy. I call it 'academic' because instead of convincing you of a change in policy or importance of my message, I'm merely debating to try to glean some new insight, in this case, insight on cannibalism. This means, any argument about how tricky it is to implement legalization of cannibalism is completely irrelevant and attacking this would be a strawman. Saying allowing cannibalism leads to a slippery slope or necessarily leads to issues due to supply/murder for cannibalism/etc is also a strawman.

-In addition, just because something is currently illegal does not mean something is immoral. That's a non-sequitur. 

-The argument isn't that it causes happiness, therefore cannibalism is not immoral. It's that it does not visit unfair suffering to the parties involved. Instead, cannibalism offends our sensibilities, somewhat irrationally. Ensure your argument is not an appeal to emotion, brought about by socialization and conditioning.

-Please do not make personal attacks against me, this is purely a hypothetical, something I think is interesting.

Value of Debating

From my experience in debating religion in an online forum, in every single discussion of this nature there would be at least one person who posts long angry posts about “who cares?!” and about how we should just let people believe what they want to believe. These people are not interested in responding to refutations of their logic because they didn't care in the first place. But I hope the reader cares so I’d like to describe my reasons for debating, apart from the fact that beliefs inform our actions, etc.

First we need to understand that debates should not be contests ideally. How does one “win” a debate? If by winning it means being the person who comes up with the most valid reason and evidence, I think I basically almost take the place of the winner. Is winning the debate being the person that convinces the opponent to side with them? Then let me start by asking, when was the last time any debate of any kind directly changed a person’s beliefs on the spot? Basically never. With that out of the way, let us tear down all debates ever. Let’s start with debates among presidential nominees. Maybe asking the correct questions will start a person on a path where they eventually arrive at a right answer. We don’t know if that’s the case. Now, people can change their minds, just not right away. Rarely is the change ever immediate. There are theists out there who are very isolated from people with differing points of view. There are theists who don’t know the arguments posted by atheists… many don’t even know what atheism is. If I can get people to question their beliefs, then something good is taking place. It doesn’t matter if they change their side. The very act of questioning things, the act of skeptical inquiry, of understanding more clearly what’s going on, that is by itself a good thing. Thinking beats not thinking. And in debates you have to think. If I can get a Christian to turn atheist, kewl. But if I can get them to actually read their own Bible and understand their own religion even if that means they’ll continue to cling onto it, I still find that better than when we started. The act of debating activates people’s wish to win a debate. If you look at places like Europe which now beats America in oh-so-many things, debating isn’t a dick move. Complete strangers would hash out issues over a coffee table instead of sitting alone with their Macbooks pretending to write a book. Because people want to win debates, they need to be informed. To be informed is not enough; developing critical thinking skills is required, and that my friends, is beneficial to not just the person but to society as a whole.

Hell, even if people don’t change their minds, does it not occur to people that the never-ending search to verify what beliefs they have are true is considered noble? We can do this by discussing ideas with people who disagree. We can categorize, sort, link together information we have in our heads. I have an entire book’s worth of things tied to religion in my head. What better way to ensure your reasoning is sound than to expose them to people who will try to prove you wrong? It’s like proofreading but even better. Wasn’t America founded upon the idea democracy and the informed decision, of a constant clash of ideas and debate? I learn new things as I go along. Trust me, I wrote a book. I’ve got lots of info locked up inside my noggin’ here. But I do get new info that come in from different people with different perspectives on this whole issue. As such I actually have more content I wish to pursue. Further still I wish to defend as often as I can, what atheism is and what agnostic atheism is. I dislike people misusing the term, and people who stereotype atheists, etc.

There was a time, when I lost a debate on religious matters. I didn't admit I was wrong at first but that stayed with me throughout the time I was looking at more and more evidence until I recognized I was wrong. I lost contact with the person who proved me wrong, I never got to tell him I was wrong. But at least I changed my mind with incoming evidence. So there at least, is an exception to your rule. If you wished to argue, at the start, that debates of this sort means changing fundamental belief systems, then sure. But if you wish to argue still, that necessarily means nobody will ever change their opinions, you can't possibly know that. The very fact that fundamental belief systems are deeply rooted and fiercely defended means it takes time to process and recognize what's going on. And even more importantly, it means rarely will the person who realizes they are wrong will openly declare themself a loser.

So in short if you think dialogue is bad, then don't be a part of it. But there are those among us who seek out the dialogue because we find it worthwhile for a multitude of reasons. And if both sides feels the same way, there's no harm in a debate. Are such threads about religion really useless in a forum among random threads such as “rate my outfit”? The very definition of a forum is “a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged”. Even IF debate is useless, don’t tell me you never do anything useless.

People are more likely to be open to other possibilities or answers in topics they don’t take as seriously. But in an effort to be as rational a person I can be, I need to try to push that emotion aside and stick to reason and evidence. And the things we take seriously are often the things that most need changing if they are wrong, am I correct? Now, we all have our own opinions on matters of religion and some people don't want to take part. That's not a problem. I don't go to random strangers on the street wearing a cross to tell them how misguided I think they are. I discuss this stuff with people who seek out a debate. The flip side is, I don't go to Anime Threads and tell them how boring and useless it is to talk about anime characters. I understand it's not my cup of tea so I leave it be. This is a matter of preference. On the other hand, people drop posts about how they hate religion discussions and how futile they are. If for some reason you found my initial reply to be lacking, so what, if you think they are useless, then leave it for people who enjoy it to get into it. Even if I grant that most religion discussions turn into hatefests, does that mean all of them turn into hate fests? No, it means then, that you have some diamonds in the rough. People debate about politics fiercely. And people have gotten pretty fired up over an Intel vs AMD debate, personal experience. It's not a reason to deny all other people from having debates because some get out of hand... to me that just means I need to look harder for those conversations worth having. And when I find it, all the better. And how do we attempt to fix this? By discussion with people who volunteer to jump into the discussion, not by ducking the issue forever and ever. And to some extent it's also an interest, which is removed from the notion that all debates are only about finding truth. Yes, more investment is often made into religion but not always. There are casual theists who barely understand or care about their own religion, yet rebuke those who challenge beliefs. So a large part of it is due to the culture. Culture has a huge impact on the way we look at things, which we often don't want to admit. The hard topics are harder to talk about but often more rewarding and more important to talk about in the first place. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I also hope you understand, there are people who think as I do when it comes to debates.

You don’t have to be a painter to enjoy paintings. You don’t have to be an artist to enjoy music. Why do you have to be a scientist to appreciate science? Why must you be an angry atheist to appreciate a debate?

Witchhunts for Pseudo-Intellectuals

Recently I got branded as a pseudo-intellectual. Somebody thinks I'm a pretentious guy, who thinks he is smart but is in fact stupid. I don't want to turn this blog into a dumping ground for my opinions on people who attack me because who wants to read that? I don't even want to read that.

But let's explore this for a moment. Do I use big words when I type? Not really, I don't think. I may whip out a couple of 'argument from ignorance fallacy' or 'ad hominem' phrases. So what? We use these all the time for discussing religion. It's second nature to me, I don't use it because less people are familiar with it. People don't understand it, there's a dictionary. You can ask me, I'll try my best to help.

I've already written about how I feel I relate to other people in terms of intelligence. I'd LIKE to think I try to be as rational as I possibly can. There's a big difference between thinking you're super smart and thinking one specific person is a complete idiot. It's like not knowing the answer, but knowing a really wrong answer when you see one. Do I get caught up in the moment once in a while in a debate? Yeah. I'm human, but so are you. We're not perfect. Just because I attack somebody for saying stupid stuff doesn't mean I automatically think I'm the best in the world, EVEN IF I use words you think are super academic. It's not like I use big words for the sole purpose of showing off, or even to show off. Do you really want to replace 'argument from ignorance fallacy' with the definition each time you want to use that phrase in effort to run away from being labeled a 'pseudo-intellectual'? I know I don't, that's a pain in the ass is what it all comes down to.

I don't think I'm a pseudo-intellectual and I don't particularly care to call some other people as one either. We're just people. We hold beliefs that may or may not be justified and it's important we try to figure that out together. I know full well I'm not some phd scientist, lol. I'm a teenager that wants a place to collect his thoughts into one place so it is easy to organize. And if other people want to read them, awesome. But I know full well I have an audience of less than 10 people. But that's OK, and it doesn't bother me because being #1 wasn't my intention.

Attack the message, not the person. The person generally has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The other crap is unnecessary. Yes, it is true I have insulted others on different occasions but it is for blatant, racism or prejudice against other people. EG, Americans are honestly the most stupid people on the planet! (Once said in a video featuring an American professor, which ironically the commentor adores) These are things that are obviously just wrong, wrong, wrong. But that was one line, not the entire post. If I wrote an entire post centered on how stupid a person is, that would be pointless. Yet some people find it in them to stalk people to get information on them, in order to tailor their insults to put you down in the worst way they can find.

I get hate on just about every aspect of me as a person that a person could find out on their own. I grow more used to it but by god, people find ways to get their message across, to make it more personal each time. I'll be fine of course, but it can be exhausting at times. You write a book, you get hatemail. That should be a no-brainer anyways.