Birds certainly have different ‘dialects’ of song specific to habitually learned patterns in certain regions - and yes, they’ve moved chicks from one region to another to show their songs aren’t innate but learnt. — I like sushi

And elephants, because their elders are being killed, are less socialized and males have been causing all sorts of problems with other elephants, humans, and even raping rhinos. IOW since they have not been brought up well, they act like humans who are products of bad or neglectful parenting may act: with greater tendencies to violence and problems being social. This is cultural and nurture. Any social mammal raised alone, that is without the normal socialization with others of its group, will lack a set of skills and behaviors. IOW it lacks culture.

Animals are more nature than we are, hence they can do things like start walking right out of the womb in some cases, but they still have cultural aspects, as you are saying.

Humans are the most insecure animals on the planet. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

and the sad thing is, you will deny that this statement is silly and not backed up by science, even though your argument is fine without it. People get so defensive about their polemic, everything must be true. And that is a sign of a denied insecurity.

It has everything to do with the fact you point out.
A deer can escape on it's own quite quickly, while humans cannot for the longest time and that is why we are so insecure and why we are hard wired to cooperate when possible. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Sigh. No. You're making stuff up. 1) there is no way to measure insecurity. 2) Babies are held and do not realize there are predators, while at the same the baby deer is already scarnning for threats and partially responsible. Human babies and young children and not responsible are not scanning for predators, few in the west ever have to run from a predator.

The root of our selfish gene creates insecurity — Gnostic Christian Bishop

1) there is no particular gene for insecurity. 2) other animals have even more reason to be insecure and in fact this is why they are born ready to run, rather than being able to do nothing while others keep an eye out for their safety.

But you'll just deny this. Oh, well.

I'll leave you to others.

That helplessness causes our insecurity and dependence on the tribe. That same insecurity is what has us default to cooperation instead of competition. Cooperation is a better survival strategy than competition. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

And in many group social mammals that are just prey, th ey are very dependent on the tribe/group. And they are very cooperative, more so than us.

I just listened to experts who point out that we have to be cared for for the longest time of all animals when born by our mothers. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

That's not because we are insecure, it is because we are born with less hardwired. A baby deer can walk instantly, we have to learn. We traded having inelastic brains (cmpared to ours) that made for babies that could do a lot of things (llike run from predators) to having brains that can learn more stuff and more different stuff. It has nothing to do with the babies feelings of security and that baby deer will be on guard from moment one.

Child labor is illegal in the US because of a movement fueled mainly by women: specifically: mothers. Their argument was exactly as you stated.

What is the foundation of this argument? IOW, what is its persuasive force? Logic? Observation? Love?
— frank

I may have missed it but your argument seems to be that since China has had great economic growth and they allow child labor, we should. As I pointed out in the post you ignored above, they also allow do all sorts of things and have centralized powers to influence the economy that do not fit with democracy. Should we allow for these also`?

The main reasons to strictly regulate chlild labor is that
children are not ready to defend themselves against workplace abuse and are much more easily manipulated
child labor interferes with children's education
child labor was used in periods in history when children were seen as small adults, there was a great deal of ignorance about developmental stages and the needs of children which are not the same as adults. They need time to play, for example, to develop well.
In China it is under 10% of the children who labor.
Child labor there is associated with higher school drop out rates.

And who cares what the sex of the people arguing against child labor was? That it was the people who spent the most time with developing children and know the most about them should only be seen as positive, if anything.

And if you think that it was mainly women who decided that child labor should be restricted, you have a very poor understand of women's power at that point in human history. They'd had the vote only a few years, legislators and judges were nearly all male.

It's as if a wave of irrational women overpowered the primarily male government.

That sure smelled of sexism on your part.

Would insecurity be the main cause of our creating and adoring evil gods? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I would guess custom and parenting would be.

Humans are the most insecure animals on the planet. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

How did you measure that one?
I would guess that many prey animals are, on average more nervous. We're a mix of predator and prey, at least in our bodies and genes. Watch a wild rabbit or a mouse, constantly checking for threats. But this would be my guess. Not sure what you base yours on.

The root of our selfish gene creates insecurity, which feeds our tribal nature; — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Our selfish gene?

We are social mammals, our tribal nature comes out of that.

feeding our desire to join religions and other tribes. This we should see as a loving gesture. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Great, so not an insecurity based one.

But Dennett and Frankish only want to endorse radical skepticism for introspection and subjectivity, not the external world. Dennett is a pragmatic realist when it comes to objectivity. But I think the sword cuts both ways, as a good skeptic would be sure to point out. — Marchesk

Yes, since all they have, as empiricists, is experience to work with, any knowledge of the external world or even the conclusion that there must be one is fruit of the poisoned tree.

It’s immoral that the Federal Government sanctions what supposedly free individuals can or cannot put into their bodies.
— Mtherapist67
I consider this an ignorant whine, not even arising to the level of speech, and at the least confusing license with freedom - and likely having no understanding of what freedom is. In practice, I have never met an addict who felt in the least bit free about taking illegal drugs, they always argue need and compulsion! — tim wood

Wow. That raised so many issues and implies that use of drugs that are illegal is always by addicts or that everyone who uses illegal drugs is compelled. It just assumes that legal approaches are best for addiction, let alone for people who use who are not addicted. It seems unconcerned that legal drugs are killing people in huge numbers and that the difference is not the level of addiction between legal and illegal, but the kinds of effects on the outlook of users. And as someone who has counseled drug addicts you are incorrect. Often addicts deny they are addicted or under any compulsion. It can take years to get them to see they need help to get off the drugs and that it isnt', for them, a free choice in the sense it might be for a non-addict.

They now know that a very high percentage of addicts were abused as children, severely abused. We treat them as criminals rather than as people who society let down. The criminalization has led to the highest rates of incarceration in the world and the war on drugs was consciously started to attack and control minority communities.

Did you know that in Switzerland where heroin addicts instead of being incarcerated were given medical quality heroin, almost universally survive and after a period of tend years, after reducing as their own choice their doses, stop using. They hold down jobs and do as well as people who drink alcohol. Portrual decrmininalized narcotic use. It is still illegal to sell. but not to use. The number of deaths dropped down to almost no difference from non-users. people were not longer incarcerated. Their is less HIV being contracted and less crime committed by users.

Even the most critical of the new policy, such as members of the narcotics squads in Potrugal now admit that this was the right decision.

The drug war has a racist history, racist enforcement and have created a great deal of the violence around drug distribution.

Anyone who only complains about drug users thinking it is OK to use drugs while not also being critical of the drug war and much of the legislation related to it is being immoral I think.

A nice read about this is.....https://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-Opposite-Addiction-Connection/dp/1620408910

This does not resolve the issue of whether one has an obligation to follow those laws or laws in general, but that passage and your quite insulting reaction to the other poster led me to go into this issue a little. It's just a sketch.

You said what he said barely rose to the level of speech. Your response was extremely poor.

Did you ever spend time trying to figure out if a cherry popsicle could win the Indianapolis 739? No, because it's absurd and there is no such race. The point here is merely to suppose that if a question is asked (that is not a nonsense question; i.e., a serious question), it presupposes certain answers to that question - not to be confused with answering it. Without this rule, we are obliged to consider whether our question is about, or also about, or answered by, the number of spots on a leopard or the weight of a hippopotamus. — tim wood

I didn't get this.

Just here I'll mention that it's been my position that a) it is immoral to break the law, but that it is possible that a higher or greater morality or rule attends breaking it. In my view that does not make the lesser morality "evaporate." It's still there, and, as a practical matter and depending on enforcement, can still bite! — tim wood

Nice, clear. This will help clarify where we agree and disagree.

Your argument, as I read it, is that there can be reasons for breaking a law superior to those for obeying it. — tim wood

This is certainly one of the arguments.

We perhaps disagree on the both the extent of the justifiable grounds for such an action, and the status of the action itself. — tim wood

re: breaking the law on moral grounds. yes, we may disagree. But once we agree, then it opens a door where we must think as individuals. Below you say...

I do not feel obligated if I think the law is immoral to follow it.
— Coben
No? What happened to the concept and understanding of law in general? Isn't this expression of the thing too facile? It comes down to what you mean by "think." — tim wood

I could follow laws and pretend I am not thinking, but I am making a decision to follow them. You are using thinking to judge people for breaking the law. We use thinking to come with laws. It is a huge responsibility we each have, whether we follow or not and when and why and how much we thought and how we decided to trust ourselves to go against what some other thought or to go along with them.

And as well that if you consider it moral to break a law, arguably you must think the law itself is immoral. That is, yours is an attack not just on some particular thing at a particular time in a particular way, but on the system as a whole. — tim wood

I don't think thinking that one law is immoral means you think the whole system is wrong. I don't think an abolitionist need think that laws against rape are wrong or even that a government can make the laws, in general, is wrong.

In sum, morality arises out of community, and law out of morality. Off-hand I can think of no law so arbitrary it cannot be traced back to these roots. As such, members of any community start with/under obligation. — tim wood

That is certainly what the state expects and many of the citizens in it. Though, again, I notice pretty much everyone then breaking at least small laws when they think they have the skills needs or whatever to make the judgement it is OK in this or that instance or in general. They offer wine to their minor kids and give a talk they think makes for a more healthy whole than not doing that. They jaywalk. They double park because it's the only way to get their kid to....And yes, for most they are minor offences, but the door is open and I would guess that most citizens do this. So I have a state expecting me to follow all laws and consider them moral and a sort of base contract. While at the same not legislators, enforcement (police) and my fellow citizens also clearly make at least small exceptions - iow they think they are small, they think they can make the decision. And most of them would agree that they would break laws in other countries if they were born there if following the law was immoral. And in past times they would break laws they considered immoral.

I see no communal consensus on this. I also see a contract as having arisen around me. Yes, I could emigrate and place myself in the confines of another contract, in another society. But I cannot head out to the frontier and live in the Rockies in my shack and avoid the contract. I don't know how to view that contract. I made no promise. I had no real choice. I did not make the contract.

Now I do things like jaywalk but I have not committed crimes against persons or property. I do follow the laws in the vast majority of instances. And I understand the need for laws the commonly shared practices and morals they become. I get that. But I am not sure why I need to see the laws I dislike as anything other than customs, which have punishments if broken. I don't see why I need to see them as moral.

There are those who argue that law impairs their "freedom," or "freedom of choice." But it's likely that such arguments are based on flawed understandings - if even there are any understandings - of the terms of their own arguments. — tim wood

Could you expand on that?
States are based on values also, say those in the Declaration of Independence - and if you are not from the US, perhaps there are ideals, images, propaganda, values that are touted at official events, in government explanations for their choices, legislative, policy, oversight whatever. In the US these values can be seen, often, to be at odds with particular legislation. Should one listen to the promises and values in the PR or the laws.

One does get punished if one breaks the law and is caught.

Must I for some reason consider my behavior immoral also. Must I agree with the majority, if it even is the majority that thinks it immoral? If I break a law I take a risk. This may or may not lead to anxiety. But here we have the practical measures the state takes for those who break the law. It has decided to approach the issue with prison and fines and probation and so on. Yes, there are also statements by politicians about why the laws are in place, but the primary method is punishment for breaches of those morals the law covers.

I see myself born into a system with flaws and positive traits and a whole lot of messages about how one should and can live. These messages do not always fit with the laws. These laws do not always fit with my morals or my sense of what the state should or even should be able to tell me to do.

yes, my concluding this is reached by my thinking. And people who theoretically do not think may follow laws that are immoral. But the fact is they think. They decide to trust authority, the authority they have been told to trust and to adhere to it. Often they just assume that if it is illegal it must be bad. This is poor thinking from my perspective. And it leads to the conclusion not only that they and others should follow the law, but even how they vote. This is all a form of thinking, one they are responsible for and one that has consequences.

Did they think well?
Could they consider considering these laws a little more carefully?
Do they ever look at history?

This last section is me responding to what seemed like incredulity that what I think might be allowed to lead to my behavior.

I see no way to avoid this.

I can see avoiding thinking for oneself, which might be leaving open the possiblity of believing something more controversial, though perhaps moral.

It seems to me a reasonable supposition that law comes out of morality. — tim wood

Much of it certainly does. It tends not to cover a great deal of things that may be considered immoral - making fun of someone in most instances - but what is in the law has perhaps for the most part to do with morality. Exceptions might be things that are just practices we need to agree on, like perhaps around contracts, where different models might be equally moral, but we need to have one so we are all on the same page.

The question then is not whether law is immoral but whether obedience to law itself is a matter of morality. Or a clearer form of the question: is there a presumption about law or any law that it should be obeyed? — tim wood

Right, and it's good you bring this up. I think that is an underlying issue here, so it's good to have on the table.

To ask if a law is moral or can be disregarded is to presuppose that it is moral and should be complied with. — tim wood

I don't think this makes sense. Unless you mean we are presupposing that the law deals with behavior and was constructed to encourage moral behavior. But just because it is a law and intended to deal with a moral issue does not for me lead to the conclusion that it is moral.

That's the starting point for any member of a community. — tim wood

I get that from your perspective that should be the starting point. But the people in question may, for example, identify as Christian and where the law goes against that sub-community, they will feel obliged to break the law if it means they must sin.

It would be one thing if there was a like a big caucus and we decided which group we wanted to have a society with and then made up laws we considered moral. But we find ourselves in societies, and then also in subcultures and our sense of morality may go against the morality in the law. US law, ironically enough, even allows for one to break the law on moral grounds - necessity defense - if one can show that it was so important - in ways that the wider societies values - to break that law. It is a rare defense as far as working, but there it is, in the law itself, the idea. That opens the door - though I think it is already open - to the idea that breaking the law can be moral.

And there apparently are a lot of people who feel they're entitled (presumably as members of the community) to legislate their own laws and their own compliance with laws. I claim and argue that this is immoral. — tim wood

I get that, and it's good to have that clearly stated. I don't think I have ever met someone who did not break at least minor laws - jay walking, say - when they felt they could evaluate the potential consquences, etc. But it is possible that some people, you being one, never do this, or consider it per se immoral when you do.

I don't think this is the case. And right now we are working at a very abstract level. Would this be true for women in Iran, abolitionists who broke the law aiding escaping slaves, dissidents in the old USSR, revolutions against royal power, colonies like the US breaking laws to leave the Empire. Once it is is moral in some situations, we now have to decide when. But perhaps even in those societies you would hold the same stance. And I do have sympathy for the idea. One can look at is as a kind of contract with the other members of society. And in many situations I certainly want people to exhaust other means: try to change legislation, protest, whatever - if these things are allowed - before breaking certain laws - in specific societies.

But otherwise no, I do not feel obligated if I think the law is immoral to follow it. There could be instances where I would feel it was immoral not to break a specfic law. Using illegal drugs not being one of those sets of laws.

The argument is that it is ok to break the law under "certain circumstances". Questions: what circumstance and by what or whose standard? And with what consequence? — tim wood

Waht are the consequences of following the law? In some situations this might include reporting people to powers that would commit immoral acts against them.

But even in more mundane situations, tracking consequences is very tricky. Some one can track, some I don't think so.

If you have an argument, here, thought through, I'll be glad to read it and reply. But if you look back through this thread, you will see that much of it is a waste of time. if we're to do more here, then let's do better! But take care to observe what I have not argued. — tim wood

Well, my first argument is that we need to get specific. Does your sense that it is immoral per se to break the law hold regardless of the laws/society involved? If it does we can discuss examples like the ones I mentioned. If it does not hold regardless of the laws and society, then your questions about consequences and grounds and the rest is also one you would need to answer.

If one's offended when others are offended. Equating "upset" with "offended" is questionable. "Upset" is broader than "offended," as, for example, one is upset when one is worried about one's health, or when one is sad, but neither makes much sense to characterize as "offense." — Terrapin Station

I agree it's broader, but is there a reason that expressing upsetness would be a taboo?

If you're trying to not be offended, then sure, ideally that wouldn't be offensive to you. It's not that no one is going to be offended, but why don't we try not to be, and also not treat it as taboo when someone offends the offendable? — Terrapin Station

I am trying to put it in a wider context, where I find taboos on all sorts of perceived as not respectful enough interactions as widespread and for me most troublesome when the other person has the ability to hurt me, withhold something I need, punish me in practical ways. So in that context I don't see a reason to focus on one kind of getting upset about the way someone seemed to be implying or was implying something about me I didn't like.

Given that we are emotional creatures I would like to free up our ability to respond emotionally, but minimize the consequences where people actually get damaged for seeming to offend/upset someone. There is excess on the side of the PC around feeling offended. But then in my day to day life I encounter - in beauracries, in various authorities, in bosses, in police, and in the upper classes - for example as customers - extreme hypersensitivity to being insulted, offended or upset. I wish this was more central to the people who are upset that people are so easily offended. I want to see what people are willing to put on the table and are willing to experience themselves, especially when it affects some people in extremely damaging ways and also creates a culture of fear, where it is the rule to inhibit ourselves in the face of potential abuse and even just customary use of power.

If some people get offended by Miley Cyrus twerking I think it is fairly silly. On the other hand getting enraged about that in a context where there are all sorts of things most of us have to do and have to avoid doing to keep ourselves from being seen as offending or upsetting certain people in key positions or having certain kinds of power, I find that getting enraged at the people offended by Miley Cyrus fairly silly also.

If any starts making moves to put her in prison, ok, now we are getting into something.

I wonder if we are so used to not offending/upsetting in certain ways, since they just seem the natural consequences of power relationships in our societies (capitalist or communist) we focus on areas where we can vent and have some hope of shutting someone up.

If that is how you define the term great. It seems reasonable enough. How on earth this can be proven is a more confusing matter. Also, “using” meaning plagiarism is already considered bad news.

I don’t quite see how using an artistic style of another person/s - short of copying - is necessarily bad though. If things are being relabelled and repackaged with an intent to deceive then I am against it. — I like sushi

It's certainly going to be a tough set of guidelines. Adn we haven't even separated out what are issues of law and what are merely moral breaches.

As to your second comment, I don’t care much really. Right, left, extreme conservatives, or zealous contrary liberalism ... they’re all equal prey to their own stupidity and I’ve no qualms about wearing any kind of garb if it suits me to do so for the reasons I choose - those offended can be offended — I like sushi

That's fine that you don't care and are consistant. Just wanted to point out that it's not just a left thing to get offended.

I specifically said ‘bad’ because if they were good, or better, in quality then I doubt anyone would mind too much as it would draw attention to something great for everyone to benefit from. If they were falsely presented as being produced by someone that hadn’t produced them though that would be plagiarism/lies. — I like sushi

Right to the last. The problem is, I think, that groups are not protected against plaigarism, though individual writers, say, are.

We certainly should remain aware that there are individuals out there who wish to purposefully misrepresent and demean others - that should be something to keep in mind and expand our perspectives rather than to double down imo. — I like sushi

Or people who don't really care. Stepping very quickly in and out of the issue I said I wanted to avoid, I would say that I don't think it should be a legal issue when someone mocks through lack of care or intention another culture in a way that is demeaning. I do think it can be an immoral act and one that should expect outrage and even boycotts and the like. Freedom there with consequences.

I think the relations between the target that is demeaned and the one demeaning does matter. Like making all asians look like glasses wearing morons or evil criminal geniuses was more offensive than any vaudville type shows asian americans might have put on for their own community making fun of whites. Back then. Now Asians are much more integrated and the myths around them have some balance between negative and positive ones. But earlier in history that kind of stuff was more obnoxious.

At some level it becomes a kind of propaganda that actually affects the people who are mocked in their sense of self. But that's another can of beans. The hot topic today of CA seems more about piecemeal instances of rudeness or perceived rudeness and not systematic demeaning stuff.

How about if we (a) try to not be offended by anything, and (b) don't treat it as taboo to offend the offendable? — Terrapin Station

Would it be considered being offended if one got upset when others got offended? Then, I'm in. It would be lovely because I find that those with power are oddly the least able to deal with being their sacred cows and themselves being offended. IOW it is not just a negative rule for them. Then don't just need not to be offended, but they must shown respect and fawned over in ways they feel no obligation to aim at others.

So, sure, I am in. And I want everyone to also not treat people feeling offended as taboo either. A total free for all. With no economic punishments for any breaches. It can't hurt your job or your grades at all, for example, if some authority figure thinks you offended them. They can jsut be as offended as loudly and emotionally as they like, since this also would no longer be offensive. We all could. We could all be honest.

Do you think we should leave child labor illegal? Why? — frank

We should allow slave labor too, sweat shop type relationships, indentured servitude, no workers rights, and we should, like the Chinese eliminate freedom of speech. It has also worked for the Chinese to occasionally violently put down dissent, restrict freedom of religion, eliminate rights to privacy. We should encourage much more familial control over children, restrict the number of children parents are allowed to have and have governmental control of the internet. Morals, rights, individuality, freedom matter nothing in the face of the most rapid economic growth China has achieved. We can't annex Tibet violently, but perhaps Canada.

I still don’t see anything noteworthy. I do notice a common thread of far left types pushing this narrative though. It doesn’t shock me that people are more sensitive about this in the US due to the history regarding race relations. — I like sushi

Well, I think using other people's work without compensating them fairly due to it being another cultural group one looks down on as cultural appropriation. It's not a sensitivity thing, though sensitivity may end up making mountains out of mole hills in cases where that is the case.

I would wear a Indian headdress as a costume just as I’d wear a military uniform or other religious garb. Just because offensive is felt it doesn’t mean it is intended; it is almost like people are being primed to be offended and assume the worst in people. — I like sushi

Some on the right will be offended by someone wearing priest outfits, going as Jesus, wearing certain military uniforms if they are not earned, burning a flag, wearing the flag as part of an outfit, going as certain historical figures (per se or if there is something mocking about it) and so on. Hell, you can get beat up for wearing what is considered weird or the wrong clothes by conservatives.

I don’t accept this as a monetary issue either. If people produce bad copies of authentic art and get caught they should be prosecuted - false advertising. If they make bad copies of traditional art and sell them at a huge profit then good for them! — I like sushi

Only bad copies? What if they are good copies being sold as authentic? If you make good or bad copies of powerful people's works of art, they will come after you and force you to stop, including jail time. A difference is that in one situation you have a group that has come up with something, which makes it harder to patent/copywrite. The other difference is the power. Regardless it is parasitic.

So you both think this is about money? That is not what I understand as ‘cultural appropriation’. — I like sushi

It can be about money, yes, under most definitions I find. But it is not limited to this. The term seems to cover presenting facets of other cultures in disrespectful ways, getting cred or coolness by using facets of other cultures and more. I went for examples where I thought more people would agree something wrong is going on. Then we have a concept many can agree has some validity and from there we can move on to more controversial examples. I don't think everything that gets labelled CA is bad. I do think however that the concept can be useful and that there are examples of it happening.

If you argue that it's not immoral to break the law by taking illegal drugs, then how can you argue against someone who would hold it moral to prevent you from breaking the law? — tim wood

If you don't conflate the law with morality, you could then explain what your morality is and where it differs from the law and where is it the same as the morality inherent in parts of the law. You are correct that one cannot argue that the murderer was wrong because he or she broke the law. That would be hypocrisy. But you can have all sorts of moral arguments about why it is ok to break one law, because the act is not immoral, because the law itself is immoral, some combination of the two - and why it is not ok to commit the act of what you would likely call murder. So if people here are arguing that the reason it is OK to take illegal drugs is because it is always ok to break the law, then their arguments are silly, unless they accept being murdered as ok also. But if they have more complicated arguments, which include the idea that it is ok to break the law in certain circumstances, then they need not be being silly. And most people would break the law in some circumstances, while at the same time think that others breaking the law is problematic unless certain criteria are met.

That's debatable and a minority position called color realism. Wavelengths of light and reflective surfaces are real. Whether either of those could be said to be colored in the way we experience color is controversial. — Marchesk

Nothing is quite like we experience it. All vision shows things from an angle based on where our eyes are, rather than, say, from all directions at once. Everything is filtered, selected, interpreted. This would mean that nothing that we refer to is real. Since, it seems, actual qualities of the objects of perception lead to our seeing of specific colors, it seems to me there must be some color realism. It would be wrong to think that if there were no experiencers than the empty earth would have trees that look green - to no one, I guess - but it is not a random trait or aspect. Qualities of the things lead to our experiences. Which is the best we can hope for and would constitute a kind of realism, since no perfect realism is possible. Or I suppose I would put it that it's not binary, with perfect realism vs. some non-realism. There are degrees.

OK before we get there, consider it like this: Your brain wouldn't work without the "cultural software" that gets installed as you grow, the cultural software that has been undergoing more or less cumulative enhancements and modifications since we evolved into existence. It's not just a matter of values, it's much more fundamental. It's a matter of the very basics of social know-how, technical know-how, language, understandings of options available for action and consequences, cooperation and disruption, etc. If you weren't fully acculturated your brain wouldn't operate as a human brain evolved to operate. You would have fewer options by far. You would be far less adaptable. — Izat So

I'm not a big fan of computer metaphors, but that might just be a tangential remark, we'll see. The cumulative enhancements and modifications may include things I would be critical or simply suffer without quite knowing why. When I read the OP and then this response I think of this as you saying we can't throw out acculturalization and the reason we might want to or the arguments to do this would be using the culture software. So kind of all or nothing. IOW it is silly to argue that the whole shebang is bad since even this argument is part of the whole shebang, and also because it gives us all sorts of useful tools. I certainly agree with that and would not suggest that we throw out the whole shebang.

I do think parts are problematic and should be eliminated or modified. These vary culture to culture, subculture to subculture and even down to what specific individuals need, want, don't need, are damaged by, etc.

But I'm saying that they're outdated views and more accurately, that we need to rethink this very deeply. We cannot conclude that being socialized is more inhibiting than freeing. And

being skeptical about certain types of cultural influence
— Coben

would be something that cultural influence also enables. — Izat So

Not just socialization enables it. IOW I think parts can feel wrong. Adn not because of other cultural tools and ideas. IOW we are not infinitely malleable. I don't think, say a few hundred years ago, some women might have felt there was something wrong with footbinding or that men did not take them seriously as thinkers required other cultural ideas and tools to make them skeptical about the status quo. Some things fit us better than others. I am certainly using cultural tools right now to argue this, but I think our decisions to fight this or that cultural custom can come from the physical emotional - yes, I acknowledge that the physical emotional is not easily separable from the cultural. But that does not mean that what I am arguing is false, it just means it will not always be easy to tell what is inciting the reaction.

But again, I want to point out that we could easily write at cross purposes here. When I am skeptical, as you quoted me above, about certain types of cultural influence, this does not mean cultural customs and tools are bad as a whole. That I want the raw human, whatever that is, some feral child become adult. I was saying that I think there are cultural aspects that I think are damaging and worse than others and/or it would better if I and many others simply were without. Not the whole thing, but specifics. Often a rather large array of these things. This may be a banal truth and really off topic from your perspective.

In a sense I am just making sure you are not arguing that since we would need to use culture tools to criticize aspects of the culture, they are really fine and we shouldn't criticize them. Or that since we need the whole we must accept the parts, any of them. That any criticism of supposedly damaging cultural aspects is wrong headed per se.

We require to be socialized to develop properly and have options available to us. But we need to get beyond a nature/nurture paradigm to think about this more clearly. — Izat So

Perhaps, I failed to get beyond the nature/nurture paradigm above with my arguments that we are not infinitely malleable and reactions based on feeling. (again I will acknowledge that we can react based on feeling due to cultural tools and customs. And since we grow up, especially these days, with mixtures of cultures and contradictory messages and beliefs, we are bound to be critical based on these contradictions freedom vs. duty as an example off the top of my head, or current ideas about branding oneself and being happy and messages that we should be intimate and open with others. But even beyond these triggers coming out of cultural contradictions, I do think some cultural ideas will fit us better than others. Danish kids have more trouble learning their language than Swedish kids have learning theirs. The former language is much less articulated, the latter follows spelling and is articulating much more clearly. The Danish cultural tools work less well, at least in the beginning, because the bodies can't use them as well. I think we will thrive more with some cultural tools than others - though this is very hard for us to work out hence the culture wars and a whole lot of ridiculous self-help books. I do think we will thrive with some set of cultural tools. I am not arguing we need to throw out the whole and I certainly don't want to.

Show me a clear example of cultural appropriation where someone “stole” from another culture please. — I like sushi

Aboriginal art was copied by whites in Australia and sold as authentic aboriginal art.

Show me a clear example of cultural appropriation where someone “stole” from another culture please. — I like sushi

Black artists systematically did not get royalties for their music. White artists did. White artists or their companies/agents have to pay royalties on music written by black artists. The was systematic in the 50s.

Human bias and partiality is not limited to the limitations of our senses. Bias also stems from our opinions and beliefs. And what else is the 'human perspective' if it isn't (at least in part) our opinions and beliefs? [It's what you said too, but as well not instead.] — Pattern-chaser

Sure. I know there are other biases. But I am heading for one's that are so built into the body, I think they cannot be denied or avoided. that we happen to experience the universe with time not as a dimension of space but as something unfolding. But certainly all sorts of paradigmatic, cultural and psychological biases enter into scientific research and affect it. One can try to minimize that stuff. One cannot minimize the fact what I mentioned. At least, I don't think one can.

The central question remains: Do human groups own their culture? — Matias

If someone is getting paid for it, they should. Disney don't let nobody touch their stuff even stuff made by a guy long dead. They even extended the copywrite via lobbying.

I don't think people own their culture, but if someone is getting paid, they should. If you are using a part of someone's culture and making them look like idiots,w hen they are not and/or when you are distorting that culture, that's ugly.

You are benefitting - if you are - through mispresentation and using something you either do not understand or twist for your own purposes. Yes, there will be all sorts of gray areas.

But in this case the problem is not cultural appropriation, but economic exploitation. The problem is not that Whites adopted the music style of the Blacks, but that Black people were considered to be an inferior race. — Matias

Those are not mutually exclusive. You can be racist and economincally exploit also, without culturally appropriating. Slavery being an extreme example. A facet of the dynamic was taking cultural 'things' from a group without compensating them or acknowledging them for their creation.

There are other kinds of cultural appropriation, but this is one kind.

IMO, the whole concept that a culture "owns" some idea is rubbish. Do we Germans "own" our words? Did Americans, when they adopted German words like "kindergarten" or "zeitgeist" steal our property? Does not make sense to me. — Matias

I have heard uses that are absurd, so there is little question in my mind that it can be used poorly. I do think there are clear examples. I think the way black music was more or less stolen - paid very poorly for, rights not granted around, etc. - then appeared via white artists earlier in history is an example where the term has meaning. Of course white artists could be exploited by corporations, but blacks were per se exploited with a difference in quality and degree of exploitation. Other people made money off their work, people of other races. They often barely got by or did not get by while others stole the products of their culture. And this would include white artists who would use their songs adn not be exploited as badly by the industry as the blacks were.

I guess I'm saying SIMULATED FREE WILL = REAL FREE WILL. — TheMadFool

OK, that was a nice use of the Turing test. If we can't tell the different we might as well treat it as free will. Fine. But what does free will mean? Most of us use language that implies free will, but also that implies compulsion. We don't treat it as binary. I am impulsive. I can't control my desires. I can't focus but I want to. I want to quite smoking (do you? wouldn't you then right now). So determinism is packed into our language as well as free will. Both are packed into our experience. It isn't binary. It's not neat like we experience life as if we have free will. We experience degrees of both. Believing in free will leads to a variety of conclusions, for exmaple around responsibility. How much do we weigh the senses of free will and our senses of compulsion?

Could you give a more specific context for this? I can imagine being skeptical about certain types of cultural influence, but certainly not all. Pretty much any debate, it seems to me, counters some cultural values with other cultural values. I do think that culture can be extremely damaging, though it is in the specifics. Language is cultural and most don't want to give that up. Who holds the opposite view? A link perhaps?

Why do people yield to authority? — Future Roman Empire II

It depends on what you mean by 'authority' but we all pretty much have to, certainly for the first 18 years in purely legal terms. But even after that: we can certainly pick and choose what authority we wish to critique and analyze, but there is only so much time in the say. Most people will accept a lot of other people's already arrived at conclusions. Imagine questioning everything. Often people do take the step, on some issues, of choosing new authorities - finding an expert alternative to the one their parents would have consulted or followed, say. If you have the luxury of time (which generally means money or the equivalent) you can challenge, in your own research and exploration, many authorities. But you will still likely be accepting authority on all sorts of issues while doing this.

Is there anything wrong in this reasoning? — leo

If free will meant the ability to do anything at all with no limitations, then perhaps. But otherwise free will isn't about absolute power, but the not being caused by the previous moment or the state of things before this moment. Freely choosing between even two options would be enough if it wasn't inevitable. This is not me saying that free will is the case. I am just saying that other things existing independent of us might indicate a lack of some options and limits on power, but it says nothing about free will.

No, we can't, or maybe shouldn't, reject the human perspective, but science does, — Pattern-chaser

I can't see how, for the reasons I mentioned. Science is based on our observations. Our observations have to do with us beings that, for example, experience time as unfolding, rather than all at once. Our observations are coming through limited beings - both in space and time - and are biased because of this. Scientists can try to eliminate many factors, but they can never know what biases are created simply by being limited, time bound creatures. It is an empirical epistemology, dependent on our experiences. And this is not to say they can't manage to find out all sorts of stuff or that science is merely subjective. But we cannot eliminate all that it being we who do the science will have certain biases.

Science has always been grounded in observation, I admit. But "the human perspective"? Science explicitly rejects the human perspective, and aims to observe impartially, in an unbiased manner. No human perspective there. — Pattern-chaser

We can't reject the human perspective. Our observations for example are time and location bound. IOW they are made from primate bodies who experience time not as another dimension (all at once) but as unfolding. The observations are thought about/interpreted by brains that imagine and model based our sensory and motor systems and metaphors based on the perspective inherent in this. There may well be other ways that we experience that affects fundamental aspects of our observations.

I'm positive that StreetlightX explained to you at least once before (I can't recall the thread, but I know I read it not too long ago) that observation/measurement in the sciences does not imply human observation or human actions. It simply refers to interaction with other things. — Terrapin Station

Do you mean that tools as extentions of our experiencing make the observation? This would still be empirical, or? And it would be human action? Or are we talking about observation collapsing the superposition?

Art is complex product, but it's a product. When a chair maker creates a chair, customers are not scratching their heads wondering what to do with "the contraption". When a news writer publishes an article, readers are not bewildered in how to interpret sentences they read.

Essentially, it is the same with art. There is more complexity to art than to chair or news article, so an explanation can be expanded, but essentially, what author creates, the audience gets. — Henri

Art is a product that we need to learn how to use. And it cannot come with instructions, though an introduction might give us some tips. It is a product but not just a product. It is an expression, it can be self-revealing, it is about things that it is not about on the surface. We think of art, at least great art, differently than we think about products.

[quote="marshill;d6018"
Group A should not engage in topic B.
Subject X is part of Topic B.
Therefore, Group A should not engage in Subject X

(Im failing to leave out the part that says Subject X is not only part of Topic B, but it is also part of Topic C, and that Group A is allowed to engage in topic C).[/quote]You have contradictory rules, that's your problem. It's not a fallacy, it's contradictory instructions.

You are not allowed to cross the street.
You are allowed to cross the street.

Any conclusion about crossing the street, that you are allowed, that you are not allowed is problematic, since you have been told opposite things.

The house is red.
The house is not red.
from those premises you cannot draw any conclusion.

Argument One:
Jesus was not concerned with politics
Therefore, the church should stay out of politics. — marshill

That's an incomplete argument. It is missing the premise that if Jesus is not interested in something, the church should not involve itself with it. Without that it is not possible to deduce the conclusion. And you will likely then need to demonstrate why that premise is true, many people are going to challenge it. But if that premise is true, the one that is missing, you are getting close to a valid conclusion. I don't think the missing premise is correct, but that's another story.

Argument Two:
As concluded in Argument one, the church should stay out of politics.
Abortion (or slavery, or any other moral issue) is a political issue
Therefore, the church should stay out of abortion. — marshill

This is close to a decent argument, if the premises are correct. But there is a real problem with the verb 'stay out'. What does it mean to stay out of abortion? In a sense it can be an equivocation. Stay out of politics could mean not supporting certain candidates, not punishing candidates, as an organization, on certain issues, and so on. What does stay out of abortion mean. A priest might say something about a political issue, but be staying out of politics. is saying the bible states that abortion is wrong, being political, or is it being theological? or both? or neither? We would need a very clear definition is for what staying out of entails, and since abortion and politics are not really in the same kind of category, what does it mean in both cases. Then we could look at the argument.

Exactly. And this is also the case with the scientifically illiterate who are otherwise well-versed in philosophy, they can't philosophize well about science. — leo

Sure, but then isn't this like when the hall monitor teacher in school catches a kid running and the kids says 'but I saw other kids running'? IOW why are we treating the issue as a team issue, rather than a criticism issue. If I say Trump is bad for X, the response that Obama was bad about Y, is a confused response. First there are people are critical of both. Trump's policy/statement/action is not defended by poor actions of others. I don't have to choose between people who are illiterate about science and those who are illiterate about philosophy.

And then how powerful is this group of scientifically illiterate philosophy interested people? I do get that religious people who are skeptical about science as a whole, at least in arguments, has a decent amount of power, but these are not people who are interested xin philosophy - for the most part.

But that's a secondary issue. A very important one. My main reaction is 'so what?' if there is a problem as brought up in the OP, then the fact that there are scientifically illierate people who focus on philosophy is not relevant. If there is no problem as presented in the OP, then it is still not relevent. So the issue is: is that problem there?

Isn't..."gee, I wonder how I would feel/respond if I were in that situation" the most significant imagination that takes place with works of fiction? That would be the same, whether, poetry, prose, film, plays, or any other version of story telling. — ZhouBoTong

Well, if the novel takes place in a jungle village in Columbia, I have to imagine what that looks like. I have to make the images. In a film, the film shows me. I am more passive watching a film. And I tend not to use my imagination in any active way to wonder how i would feel when watching a film. When reading a book I might pause and do this. With a film I might do it after. With films I tend to just automatically identifty. This is not a problem with film, per se. I mean, I love films. It's like comparing bicycles and oranges, both of which I am fond of. Reading a short story - perhaps a more fair comparison - one I could finish in an hour and a half say, perhaps a novella, requires more work while I am experiencing it. I cocreate more. Poetry requries even more work, if it is fairly metaphorical or ambiguous. Fiction elicits, films show. Both can have subtext and symbolism and hidden deeper stuff and these can be pulled out - after for both, during with literature. But the basic process of experiencing the film is more passive. And that includes even watching with my wife, where we both yell stuff out at home, make guess and do more actively go after subtext while watching - though not if its a great film where we'd tell the other person to shut up.

Outside education, I don't have a problem. We each like what we like. Additionally, outside education, art has been monetized, so I don't have to worry. People willing spend billions on Transformers movies. Much less on Shakespeare. People vote with dollars and asses in seats. But once it comes to education, we let the elites decide for us; and most of us just assume they are right (until I had to re-read Shakespeare as an adult, I assumed I just didn't get it - now I know I get it, and I like it even less). — ZhouBoTong

You think the elites don't decide how to distract and addict you? That tastes are not created? The people who create the Transformer movies are rich, powerful and have at their disposal experts in a kind of cognitive science that relates directly to addiction. And this leads to certain products being promoted and others not seeing the light of movie screens. Now of course people's tastes are involved, but these tastes have been built up by television and gaming. Fortunately some television has been moving in directions where one is both entertained and challenged, iow a richer experience. But in general people are being trained to have shorter adn shorter attention spans - the length of scenes in movies has been going down for decades, shorter and shorter - and this shortening is not based on what we as humans most enjoy. In fact its somelike like the putting of sugar and salt in all processed foods, where people's senses are dumbed down via overload and intensity. Addiction, addiction created by rich powerful people, who can hire technocrats to develop your tastes.

There's no way for them to know whether you use social media or whether you're listing any particular names you've used. If they could know that they wouldn't need to ask you; they'd already know the answer. — Terrapin Station

They can ask for your details and if you don't give it, then they can reject you. Which means you would have to create some kind of subterfuge, second accounts and keep them active and have others which you do not give them. Which is a lot of work.

This is likely to be akin to the "Are you a drug trafficker?" "Are you a terrorist?" etc. questions on the customs form. I guess if you are and you're dumb enough to answer "Yes" then it's worth finding that out. — Terrapin Station

Hence it is not at all like this in any way. Right now it is optional, though many may not realize they really can refuse. Visa application processes are complicated. I htink it is a good idea to react now before it is mandatory. And before other countries begin doing the same kind of investigations.
People are getting more and more used to companies, and foremost social media companies, and governments having access to all sorts of private information.

Of course there are individuals and countertrends in science and in the intellectual circles that think science is the only way to gain knowledge. And of course many scientists and science fans realize that there may be many mysteries yet to solve, or assume this, and take an agnostic stance towards phenomena, interpretations of phenomena, and ideas that do not seem to fit with current models. But desite all this there is a significant culture within the science community, within the technocrats and in many intellectual circles that we pretty much know the core stuff about the universe and anyone who does not accept current models is irrational, and there is not much important to be undecided about...etc. And these people have a powerful influence on the way society moves and changes and interpersonally are often quite harsh and dismissive. I honestly can't believe that this is being denied by people in this thread. The fact that they are like this does not mean science is bad or should be overthrown. It means what it means. There is a closemindedness and oversimplification by this culture or significant subculture - and one that is really quite philosophically illiterate despite their intelligence - and this is problematic.