Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.
— baker

You think there's a reason behind that or that it's just brute fact? — Wayfarer

If God exists, then nothing happens without God's will. Ergo, God must approve that some are born to sweet delight, while others to endless night.
If God does not exist, then it's just a brute fact that some are born to sweet delight, while others to endless night, and this is simply how the Universe works.

Everything else is just people seeking power over other people, such as through "spiritual guidance".

Incest has been taboo since prehistory, likely not because of an anti-liberal agenda, but because it leads to unhealthy babies. — Kenosha Kid

But once the unhealthy babies are not an issue, the actual question is, Why rely on legal tradition, why adhere to it?

Should incest and/or marriage be allowed or disallowed in such cases? — Apollodorus

If a high-profile couple demands it and succeeds, it could possibly become a legal precedent.

Not at the moment. You? — Jan Ardena

There you go. So you're no better than the atheists you bitch about.

Men on a lower level of understanding, when brought into contact with phenomena of a higher order, instead of making efforts to understand them, to raise themselves up to the point of view from which they must look at the subject, judge it from their lower standpoint, and the less they understand what they are talking about, the more confidently and unhesitatingly they pass judgment on it.
— Leo Tolstoy

:up: Amen to that. — Wayfarer

*awww*

If only I hadn't heard this from so many different religious, spiritual, and otherwise "advanced" people, each of them, of course, promoting their own ideology as "the highest".

Hearing it once, it seems so pertinent! So to the point. But hearing it a dozen times, from a dozen different sources, each one promoting their own ideology as "the highest", it doesn't make sense anymore. It's just another way to blame the other person for not living up to one's standards, and more, it's just another way of expressing the demand that others should live up to one's own standards.

So are you a functional member of a religious community?

Not my problem. The religious should get their act together and fight their own wars amongst themselves for supremacy, before they go out and pester those who are not religious.

Surely the default should be that the existing natural state is OK /.../ — Isaac

This is moral realism, though. Might makes right. The downtrodden will not like it.

"The existing natural state is that people have children. Because it is the existing natural state, it's ok."

vs.

"The existing natural state is that rich and powerful people can take advantage of those with less money and less power, and they can do so with impunity. Because it is the existing natural state, it's ok."

The "the existing natural state is OK" motto is not applicable in all cases, so it cannot be used as a general rule by which to act or assess the moralit status of an action or ideology.

Is it permissible to do something on someone else's behalf because one has a notion that "most people" would "want this"? — schopenhauer1

Permissible by whom?

Is any postmodern philosophy justifiable? — Kenosha Kid

Well, all those hordes of academics had to ensure a living for themselves, publish or perish, as it were, and what offers more opportunity for coining new career-making terms than pomo?!

The emergence and spread of postmodernism is an indicator of how the world of academia exists primarily for its own sake, catering to its own needs, interests, and concerns. It's also a cautionary tale of what happens when academia is opened to plebeians, ie. people who don't belong there.

I don’t understand why we wouldn’t just charge someone that molests his daughter with child molestation(or maybe something like “aggravated child molestation” if you want the punishment to be more severe for incest cases). — TheHedoMinimalist

It seems to be mainly due to respecting the legal history of how an issue has been treated so far in a particular jurisdiction.

In the state-wide pilot social experiment currently conducted in the states of Rhode Island and Jew Jersey." — god must be atheist

Bear in mind that new laws tend to be passed as needed, prompted by actual cases and the political momentum for it at the time, not somehow in the abstract in advance. It can so happen that if there are no visible cases of an issue in a country, the country may have few or loose laws about it. This is how there exist legal loopholes. When people try to exploit them (or have successfully exploited them), then, ideally, the government will take steps to remedy the issue and pass new laws that will close the loophole.

as rare as incest — TheHedoMinimalist

Do you have the actual statistics?

What is the frequency of a miscarriage of a pregnancy conceived in an incestuous relationship, in comparison to a non-incestuous one?

If many pregnancies conceived in an incestuous relationship naturally end in miscarriage (due to greater probability of genetic defects), this can make incest look rarer than it actually is.

I see you've got your confidence back. On to the next chapter of bitchology!

it would seem very hard as a hard-necked atheist to refute the whole of the new testament — JACT

1. Why call oneself by the ideologically laden term "hard-necked"??

2. Why would the atheist need to refute anything??

Can you answer?

Christian Anarchism Q: What is the atheist response to Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is within you"?

That Tolstoy simply invented his own religion, which, essentially, makes him an infidel and an atheist. (To be stoned to death by proper religious people.)

A taunting torturer can use empathy for bad. Empathy itself does not entail doing the right thing, but can just help understanding others. — jorndoe

But what is "the right thing" to begin with?

Duh. People vote for Trump!!!!

But ultimately the burden is that of self-hood, and that is inextricably part of the human condition. — Wayfarer

Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.

Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. The human craving for justification on matters such as life and death cannot be satisfied, hence humanity has a need that nature cannot satisfy. The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. The human being, therefore, is a paradox. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe#Philosophical_work

Darling, let's watch an episode of a reality show (I have in mind one that starts with K, but pretty much any one will do), and you will be proven wrong on the spot.

But He exists in the same way that someone can account for hearing that tree fall in the forest, either by being present, scientific analysis, or common sense. — Jan Ardena

Which per se doesn't suffice for religious membership, and God belief without religious membership is worthless.

You're letting yourself be dragged onto their turf, exactly what I warned against.
— baker

How do you figure? — jorndoe

Because you bring in biblical references, thus moving the discussion onto their turf.

So, again, it's about socio-economic class. You could afford such an arrangment, Most people can't.
— baker

Afford what? A home computer and email? — Possibility

Mainstream feminism conveniently forgets about the realities of socio-economic class, and tries to blame on gender issues things that actually have to do with socio-economic class.

A feminine power monger? — Banno

Clearly, you have not met many women.

Psychologists and philosophers are equally subject to stupid stereotyping because people don't care enough to try to understand. This is also true of almost all academic disciplines and professions. — magritte

Oh? It's people who don't care? Or is it that almost no academic disciplines and professions care about people?

People should care about psychologists, but psychologists should not have to care about people, right.

But of course, the placebo effect is real, and a great optimism about a medical treatment can contribute to better treatment outcomes. I actually envy the optimists. It must be great to be that way. Yay!!!! I wish I could be like that. Just close my eyes, not think, not feel, just go along with what those in positions of power say, and be happy, happy, happy.

And what does that say about your mother, your father, your family, your community, and the lessons they taught you? And the lessons you teach others, God help us!

At the end of the day, it's all about confidence. It's not even about health.
— baker
Yep, tell that to the scared, suffering, incubated, and dying, and to the people who care for them and about them. And tell that to the people who end up paying for it all, namely all of us. (And give no thought at all to any science of the matter!)

Btw, are you vaccinated? Do you ever go to a doctor or take people you care about to the doctor? Or do you care about anyone, or anyone you? — tim wood

Your hostility is duly noted. Which of my bills are you willing to pay?

Nah. I doubt anyone in this whole thing really thinks of others. It's just politically correct to say one is doing it "for others". It makes for such good PR.
— baker

I can only speak for myself, but I did it for others, not myself. Specifically my wife and son. While I want to live, I'm not married to life. I'm married to my wife and I love my son. I also don't want to be the one that murders some other poor sap for no reason other than my own pseudo skepticism.

I suspect that a great many people who got the vaccine think along the same line. But I could be wrong. — James Riley

Really? So we're supposed to believe that, for example, people who drive aggressively, who tailgate, cut in front, run others off the road etc. suddenly become paragons of compassion and empathy when a pandemic strikes? That men who refuse to wear condoms and who routinely risk the health and life of their female sex partners suddenly grew a conscience? Employers who have their workers work in unsafe conditions now suddenly "care about others"? Really?

P.S. Put this in the back of your brain pan for future reference: Did Isis or AQ or some other group weaponize this?

Eh?


Have you noticed that in the beginning, when they began vaccinating and vaccination was limited to the elderly and some other critical groups, the medical protocols were quite different than they are now?

Back then, a doctor would actually interview and examine the prospective vaccinee, their temperature was measured and a covid test done, and only if the covid test was negative was the person vaccinated, otherwise not. Now they don't do any of that anymore. They don't even have people wait for ten minutes afterwards.

The crowds and waiting lines for covid tests and vaccination are one of the main sources of infection. If it would be possible to reasonably guarantee that one isn't infected already shortly prior to the vaccination, and would be sent to quarantine after vaccination for long enough for the body to process the vaccine as it should, then it would all be an entirely different scenario. But the way medical protocols have been loosened, it's all so much more dangerous.

It's been about how people should be, and how they might become that way if they aren't so already.
— baker

And psychologists have certainly done a fine job on that project! — Bitter Crank

Oh yes. That's why people vote for Trump.

Let's not then. What would you replace that power with. Criminals all get treated the same regardless of their mental health? The judge just guesses? We put it to a vote? What is it you think we should be doing instead of making diagnoses based on educated guesswork? — Isaac

What are you, as a psychologist, willing to sacrifice in order to reduce the stigma of a psychiatric diagnosis?

Answer this, and you'll have a context for the above.

Psychology could cure cancer, find the Holy Grail, and win England the World Cup and it's reputation would remain unaltered amoung the ranks of the bizarre crusade this thread is on.

If literally nothing I say is contributing to the collective thought process anyway then I might as well swear like a sailor.

When posting Cambridge University School of Psychology's definition of what psychology covers hasn't budged people an inch from their lazy, puerile assumption that psychology is "Freud 'n that init", what more could I possibly do? Lobotomy? — Isaac

There is a stereotype about psychologists that says that psychologists have a poor grasp of human nature. Psychologists seem to be really eager to prove this, as often as humanly possible ...

The negative reactions you often see to psychologists is when people resent the legal power that psychologists have.

But to my knowledge, there's not one school out there which thinks it can 'see' psychological processes directly — Isaac

*aww*
The confidence with which they speak suggests otherwise.

That's what I do with psychologists! I poke them and watch them squirm.
— unenlightened

That's what I do with everyone...is that not normal...

Not when you're on the other side -- when you're the one in position of less power.

"These results suggest...". Plausibly. — tim wood

That's the thing: Scientific studies usually give suggestions in terms of probability, plausibility, not in terms of certainty.

What makes the difference is the way public discourse of the topic at hand turns that probability, plausibility into certainty, treating it as if it were a fact, and using it as grounds to stigmatize anyone who doesn't fit in to those prospects.

For example, the summary finding of a scientific study says something like "Listening to music can improve productivity".

Public discourse turns this into "Listening to music improves productivity" and "In order to be more productive, listen to music while working!" And there we go, some smartass turns on the radio while we work, and accuses us of refusing to be productive if we don't like it.


One of the biggest banes of psychology is that it has so little power over its devotees. But what is more, psychologists seem to prefer to idly stand by and let it happen.

I think some people have seen movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest too many times. — Tom Storm

Oh Jesus.

For example, I once trained to be a school teacher. I got to see from up close the way school psychologists treat children. Yes, I understand there is not enough time, they are understaffed, and so on, but their professional ethics should be better than that of a witch hunter.

As of this date, 18july2021, the news reports that 100% or arbitrarily close to 100% of people currently sick or dying of Covid are unvaccinated. Of course that's only tens of thousands of people and just empirical data, nothing that should influence those who "know." — tim wood

Fuck you for this cynicism.

People are confident about all kinds of things, so what?

At the end of the day, it's all about confidence. It's not even about health.

Riiiight. In my person I become a source of sickness and death, a mini-me Shiva. So fuck my family and my community, what are they to me? Their sickness and death are of no importance, significance, or relevance. Maybe you should look up "responsible" and "responsibility."

I'm not the one who needs to look it up.

To me, people who are confident that they won't get any negative side effects from the vaccine are the same as people who are confident that there is no covid or that they will beat it by sheer force of will.
— baker

I don't think they are the same. I think the former realize risk but think of others. The latter realize risk but think of themselves. — James Riley

Nah. I doubt anyone in this whole thing really thinks of others. It's just politically correct to say one is doing it "for others". It makes for such good PR.

For all practical intents and purposes, psychology has been a prescriptive science. It's been about how people should be, and how they might become that way if they aren't so already.

The key term is prescriptive.

The instinct of "I'm fine, why introduce perceived risk" — Cheshire

I suppose it's like this for some people. It seems to me that for many more, it's "I'm already in bad shape, exhausted and stressed out to the max, I dread what will happen if I add more strain". For such a person, if they choose to get vaccinated and end up with serious side effects, they will have noone to blame but themselves. Hardly a prospect that one looks forward to.

Unfortunately, it makes for a lousy group decision and once people acknowledge that pandemics are group activities; then some of them come around.

One wonders when people will acknowledge that life is a group activity.

This covid crisis is an opportunity to acknowledge this, but it looks like it will go by unused, as people are looking forward to go back to the old normal where they don't have to care about others.

My metaphoric view/understanding of issues of vaccination is as that of a man shooting a gun and do I want best protection from those bullets, or do I want no protection from those bullets.

I lump people who don't want best protection - or any protection - with those who think they will breathe underwater. Of course an irony is that many of those will almost have to. — tim wood

Of course pretty much everyone wants such protection. That's not the issue. You're strawmanning.

The question is whether such protection is even possible, whether it exists, and whether it is possible in one's particular case, given one's current state of health.


To me, people who are confident that they won't get any negative side effects from the vaccine are the same as people who are confident that there is no covid or that they will beat it by sheer force of will.

And wrt epidemics, choice of protection isn't really just about oneself but also about family and community.

Which is a strange thing to say, after decades of fierce indoctrination that everyone should be responsible only for themselves.

To now introduce the socialist idea of solidarity just shows how unprepared for real life the authorities have been. I'd love to see what Margaret Thatcher would have to say to it, how her idea of there being no society, only individuals, would go over now.

As to potential side effects, everything has those. Rhubarb, I read, will kill me if I'm careless with it.

That's glib.

If they are supposed to have that same measure of legal power, then psychologists should get their act together and agree on one theory and enforce it, one objective system of measurement.
— baker

Well for a start they have the DSM, but aside from that, I really don't see how further unifying the criteria (even if it could be done) will help reduce either stigma or false diagnoses, you'll have to lay out for me a bit more clearly how you see that working. — Isaac

I'm talking about what would justify the same great measure of legal power that they have.


As for false diagnoses, there is a number of issues:

For one, the medical model of disease that assumes that psychological problems exist due to a physical/organic problem.

For two, the model of disease that assumes that psychological problems exist in the same way as physical problems; as discrete, enduring entities that can be objectively identified.

Thirdly, a relatively short time frame for observation of a person, in a very limited and specific social context, yet making definitive judgments based on such observation.

Fourthly, the power differential between the psychologist and the patient/observed person. People are expected to open up to a stranger who has the legal power to make their life very very hard, and worse. What could possibly not go wrong??


As for the stigma: It seems the stigma of a psychiatric diagnosis is part of the intention for a diagnosis to begin with, a form of punishment for being different, for not living up to other people's expectations, or for simply being so weak that one ends up as the scapegoat of others. Scapegoating is normal, societies seem to need it to feel sane and normal -- "Look at him, he's bad, he's not normal! While we are good and normal!"


Like I said above, I think people are far more resilient and saner than psychology has given them credit for. Yes, people occasionally have hard times, but they can climb out of them. But if that process is interrupted, forced into a mold prescribed by someone in position of power, simply on account that they have the power to do so, then the person's problems last longer and become more severe than they would without such interruption.

Also, many times, a person's problems aren't actually due to their faulty psychology, but due to external factors, like poverty or abuse by other people; situations where any sane person would eventually go crazy. But it doesn't seem to be in psychology's interest to acknowledge this.

Science is the selfless observation of the world, and one cannot have a selfless observation of the self. — unenlightened

But this is precisely what psychology attempts/aspires to be: a third party to tell you who you really are.