How to respond...?

[hiyymer]

my likes and dislikes don't make things real.

But they are about all that is real. Everything else is induction.

Likes and dislikes aren't things.

I guess I meant the emotional bodily state of pleasure or pain. "I like" is just a story about it created by the brain. Our sensed bodily states are probably some of the most "real" things we experience;

It still remains true that our likes and dislikes don't make things real. And, likes and dislikes aren't things.

not thinking about it, but the actual being present to it.

Gobbledy gook. "being present to it." What the heck do you mean by that?

It is our connection with what actually animates us.

What actually animates us?

What do you mean by real? I didn't say they make things real. I said they are real. We aren't animated by our thoughts. Without a limbic loop you have none. http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c ... l/16/4/509

There is a book called "Descartes Error" by Antonio Damasio. It demonstrates pretty conclusively that our choices and decisions are not arrived at as rational conscious cost/benefit analysis. When it comes to our motivations and ability to make life decisions the limbic system is pretty much running the show. We have not escaped the biological reality of being a part of the tree of life.

There is a difference between a feeling and thoughts about the feeling. Sensing the sensation of being angry, and the concept, I am angry, are two different things. Our feelings are available to consciousness in both forms.

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

I think there is a political discussion to be had, which is related to a question about religion in the public sphere.

Imagine that Bob is a National-Socialist. His wife, Zarinda, is not allowed to leave the house by Bob unless she wears a swastika somewhere on her person. In France - and most Western countries - that means she can't move freely in society and function in society. Should we cease to outlaw the swastika so Zarinda can move freely in society? Obviously not. There are grounds for outlawing the Swastika or there are not, but whatever they are, they must be decided on their own merit, not the degree to which Bob - or any oppressive husband or social control - puts Zarinda hostage. For that matter, even if Zarinda believes she can not leave her house without the swastika, that is her problem. If she wishes to function in society and be a member of society, she will have to fulfil certain obligations towards that society.

Our society is an open, emancipated society with a specific history. You may disagree that the banning of the Swastika is not part of an open emancipated society - that may be an interesting discussion to have (not here, obviously) and you may even disagree that the banning of symbols of female oppression (which headdresses in Islam are) is part of our society. However, what is clear is that Bon or Zarinda taking the legislator hostage should not be part of the equation.

If we ban smoking altogether, you may very well refuse to leave your house, but that is your choice. The only reason religion is special is because the rules that flow from religion are given 'special credence' over other, secular, rules. What if I from philosophical persuasion wish to get rid of all my clothes and walk around naked? Is my persuasion less serious because it is not religious and therefore not worthy of amendment of legislation, or is it simply a question of numbers? In the latter case, Muslims have the numbers against them (as does Bob and as does the compulsory nudist) so they're out of luck.

I'm curious, though, as to why the French chose to outlaw the Bhurka considering that many women want to wear it. In a 'liberal' society we allow people to believe what they want, wear what they want, say what they want etc. They say they did it in the name of liberty but it could be argued that the ban is intrinsically illiberal as it oppresses the women who choose to wear it of their own volition. Saying that it is the will of the majority and therefore it's okay is a cop out; liberty applies to all groups and individuals and it falls to the courts to defend the liberty of minorities against the oppressive will of the majority. Unless you are causing others harm, you shouldn't be discriminated against.

In the case of the swastika, there are rational reasons to outlaw it. It was the symbol of a racist, sectarian, genocidal war machine and it continues to be a symbol for those who still hold the ideals that the Nazis did.

I should clarify, I don't approve of husbands forcing the Bhurka upon their wives but a sweeping ban that oppresses a group of any size for irrational reasons is inherently illiberal.

[Coito ergo sum]

What do you mean by real?

"being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary"

I didn't say they make things real. I said they are real.

They are real value judgments - thoughts in someone's head.

We aren't animated by our thoughts.

? Animated? You mean "made alive?" If so, then of course we're not animated by our thoughts.

Do you mean, moved or stirred to action? Given motion to? If so, again, I'd agree with you to a point, although our thoughts CAN animate us, we aren't necessarily animated by our thoughts.

Without a limbic loop you have none. http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c ... l/16/4/509

Have none what?

There is a book called "Descartes Error" by Antonio Damasio. It demonstrates pretty conclusively that our choices and decisions are not arrived at as rational conscious cost/benefit analysis. When it comes to our motivations and ability to make life decisions the limbic system is pretty much running the show. We have not escaped the biological reality of being a part of the tree of life.

There is a difference between a feeling and thoughts about the feeling. Sensing the sensation of being angry, and the concept, I am angry, are two different things. Our feelings are available to consciousness in both forms.

I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about.

[hiyymer]

They are real value judgments - thoughts in someone's head.

It had to start with an emotional state associated with the representation liked or disliked.

Without a limbic loop you have none. http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c ... l/16/4/509

Have none what?

none thoughts. It's an ugly article but if you just read the case histories and the conclusion you get the idea.

[Coito ergo sum]

They are real value judgments - thoughts in someone's head.

It had to start with an emotional state associated with the representation liked or disliked.

I don't get what you're even arguing.

Without a limbic loop you have none. http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c ... l/16/4/509

Have none what?

none thoughts. It's an ugly article but if you just read the case histories and the conclusion you get the idea.

O.k. - not sure what the relevance is, but o.k.

[hiyymer]

They are real value judgments - thoughts in someone's head.

It had to start with an emotional state associated with the representation liked or disliked.

I don't get what you're even arguing.

I think we got started on this because I said likes and dislikes are real as opposed to immaterial. Neuroscience tells us that our life decisions are made by irrational emotive driver called the limbic system, rather than by conscious reason. If I remember correctly the point being made was that the logic of our argument is all that matters, and our likes and dislikes are immaterial and not real. I am saying that it is quite the opposite. What you want is what is real and matters, and what you can justify by reason is non-operative before the fact, and nothing but rationalization after the fact. Reason is a tool for being more effective at what we want, whether it is building a smarter bomb or better indoor plumbing. That's all.

[camoguard]

In response to the OP:

You can't reason with that person. The argument for art and stories needs to be cartooned somewhere. That's hilarious.

[Santa_Claus]

I'm curious, though, as to why the French chose to outlaw the Bhurka considering that many women want to wear it. In a 'liberal' society we allow people to believe what they want, wear what they want, say what they want etc. They say they did it in the name of liberty but it could be argued that the ban is intrinsically illiberal as it oppresses the women who choose to wear it of their own volition. Saying that it is the will of the majority and therefore it's okay is a cop out; liberty applies to all groups and individuals and it falls to the courts to defend the liberty of minorities against the oppressive will of the majority. Unless you are causing others harm, you shouldn't be discriminated against.

The purpose of France is be a place for the French to live in as French people (the UK is of course just a place to do business, with some workers living in it).

A Burkha (and ideas behind it) is not French, therefore it has no place in France. The ban is for ideological reasons - and for that majority rules. France is for the French and they are entitled to defend their chosen way of life, if you don't want to be French then you are in the wrong place.......f#ck off and colonize the UK

In the case of the swastika, there are rational reasons to outlaw it. It was the symbol of a racist, sectarian, genocidal war machine and it continues to be a symbol for those who still hold the ideals that the Nazis did.

Wow!! that would explain some of the funny looks I get.......

[Santa_Claus]

Oh, in response to the OP.......

Does she have BIG tits?

[Hermit]

There's nothing inherently rational about secularism.

Except for the rejection of irrationality, of course.

Every 'ism' is a "should", and every "should" is irrational.

Hiyymerism par excellence.

[dj357]

In response to the OP:

You can't reason with that person. The argument for art and stories needs to be cartooned somewhere. That's hilarious.

Well, through some further discussions I've found that she's not unamenable to the arguments, but she has begun the whole conversation with a whole shed-load of preconceptions such as the ones that are plain to see in her quoted text. But yeah, the stories vs. facts thing is rather comical

Oh, in response to the OP.......

Does she have BIG tits?

.....maybe....

[camoguard]

In response to the OP:

You can't reason with that person. The argument for art and stories needs to be cartooned somewhere. That's hilarious.

Well, through some further discussions I've found that she's not unamenable to the arguments, but she has begun the whole conversation with a whole shed-load of preconceptions such as the ones that are plain to see in her quoted text. But yeah, the stories vs. facts thing is rather comical

I'm not saying it's awesome for you or anything. Just that the read was quite something. I have my own impenetrable peers.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I think there is a political discussion to be had, which is related to a question about religion in the public sphere.

Imagine that Bob is a National-Socialist. His wife, Zarinda, is not allowed to leave the house by Bob unless she wears a swastika somewhere on her person. In France - and most Western countries - that means she can't move freely in society and function in society. Should we cease to outlaw the swastika so Zarinda can move freely in society? Obviously not. There are grounds for outlawing the Swastika or there are not, but whatever they are, they must be decided on their own merit, not the degree to which Bob - or any oppressive husband or social control - puts Zarinda hostage. For that matter, even if Zarinda believes she can not leave her house without the swastika, that is her problem. If she wishes to function in society and be a member of society, she will have to fulfil certain obligations towards that society.

Our society is an open, emancipated society with a specific history. You may disagree that the banning of the Swastika is not part of an open emancipated society - that may be an interesting discussion to have (not here, obviously) and you may even disagree that the banning of symbols of female oppression (which headdresses in Islam are) is part of our society. However, what is clear is that Bon or Zarinda taking the legislator hostage should not be part of the equation.

If we ban smoking altogether, you may very well refuse to leave your house, but that is your choice. The only reason religion is special is because the rules that flow from religion are given 'special credence' over other, secular, rules. What if I from philosophical persuasion wish to get rid of all my clothes and walk around naked? Is my persuasion less serious because it is not religious and therefore not worthy of amendment of legislation, or is it simply a question of numbers? In the latter case, Muslims have the numbers against them (as does Bob and as does the compulsory nudist) so they're out of luck.

I'm curious, though, as to why the French chose to outlaw the Bhurka considering that many women want to wear it. In a 'liberal' society we allow people to believe what they want, wear what they want, say what they want etc. They say they did it in the name of liberty but it could be argued that the ban is intrinsically illiberal as it oppresses the women who choose to wear it of their own volition.

It is, I assume, because the French believe that it represents the oppression of women, and because the French believe emancipation is one of the most important aspects of their republic, and that this emancipation goes for everyone. The irony here, and this is what most people are on to, is that freedom also means the freedom to be supremely restrictive in one's own life and to drag another person into this.

Saying that it is the will of the majority and therefore it's okay is a cop out; liberty applies to all groups and individuals and it falls to the courts to defend the liberty of minorities against the oppressive will of the majority. Unless you are causing others harm, you shouldn't be discriminated against.

These are moral, political considerations.. One may disagree or disagree with them, I was putting forth a particular perspective, not my own.

In the case of the swastika, there are rational reasons to outlaw it. It was the symbol of a racist, sectarian, genocidal war machine and it continues to be a symbol for those who still hold the ideals that the Nazis did.

I should clarify, I don't approve of husbands forcing the Bhurka upon their wives but a sweeping ban that oppresses a group of any size for irrational reasons is inherently illiberal.

I think star trek deals with this issue very well. Their idea of the prime directive touches upon the development of societies and the destructive impact it has to introduce a more advanced culture to a less advanced. I think in our own society, we witness the opposite. Namely, people from a culture that is highly patriarchal have difficulty adapting. In the Netherlands, Moroccans from the Rif mountains are a group in which crime and antisocial behaviour is over-representative. I think this is due to a clash of cultures, and that the educative principles that did well in those mountains where there was a great deal of social control is failing now.