Comments on: Truth as a tool for immoral purposes http://dbzer0.com/blog/truth-as-a-tool-for-immoral-purposes "Frustratingly brilliant reasoning" -- The Atheist Blogger Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:00:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Db0 http://dbzer0.com/blog/truth-as-a-tool-for-immoral-purposes/comment-page-1#comment-4795 Db0 Wed, 07 May 2008 14:42:42 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=678#comment-4795 <blockquote>Can you cite instances in the skeptical/atheist community? I would definitely be interested in criticizing such a fallacious conclusion there.</blockquote> Off the top of my head, no. But I will let you know if I find any :)

Can you cite instances in the skeptical/atheist community? I would definitely be interested in criticizing such a fallacious conclusion there.

Off the top of my head, no. But I will let you know if I find any :)

]]> By: The Barefoot Bum http://dbzer0.com/blog/truth-as-a-tool-for-immoral-purposes/comment-page-1#comment-4794 The Barefoot Bum Wed, 07 May 2008 14:18:40 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=678#comment-4794 <i>However from what I’ve seen, people are criticising the movie itself</i> Can you cite instances in the skeptical/atheist community? I would definitely be interested in criticizing such a fallacious conclusion there. If the fallacious conclusion is primarily proffered in the bullshit postmodernist and Islamic apologetic communities, however, it's probably not worth the effort to reply. However from what I’ve seen, people are criticising the movie itself

Can you cite instances in the skeptical/atheist community? I would definitely be interested in criticizing such a fallacious conclusion there.

If the fallacious conclusion is primarily proffered in the bullshit postmodernist and Islamic apologetic communities, however, it’s probably not worth the effort to reply.

]]> By: Db0 http://dbzer0.com/blog/truth-as-a-tool-for-immoral-purposes/comment-page-1#comment-4793 Db0 Wed, 07 May 2008 14:12:11 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=678#comment-4793 <blockquote>The objection is against using the movie in a racist frame; the objections are directed to the frame and context, not the movie itself.</blockquote> If people are criticising the use use of the movie as a excuse to discriminate against brown people/non-"westerners" then, yes, I would agree. Discriminating against these people is a non sequitur from the movie. However from what I've seen, people are criticising the movie itself, in the sense that it should never have been made and/or played in theaters. This sounds misguided.

The objection is against using the movie in a racist frame; the objections are directed to the frame and context, not the movie itself.

If people are criticising the use use of the movie as a excuse to discriminate against brown people/non-”westerners” then, yes, I would agree. Discriminating against these people is a non sequitur from the movie.

However from what I’ve seen, people are criticising the movie itself, in the sense that it should never have been made and/or played in theaters. This sounds misguided.

]]> By: The Barefoot Bum http://dbzer0.com/blog/truth-as-a-tool-for-immoral-purposes/comment-page-1#comment-4792 The Barefoot Bum Wed, 07 May 2008 13:53:54 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=678#comment-4792 <i>You see, if Wilders is a racist, he deserves all the condemnation he can get; however, what I see people are trying to accomplish is to argue that because Wilders is/might be a racist, the movie itself should be labeled racist as well and thus condemned. Call me slow, but this does not follow.</i> Ok, I'll call you slow. ;-) On the one hand, you're correct, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. On the other hand, I don't see the preponderance of criticism in the skeptical/atheist community as directly calling the movie itself racist, or using the argument you specify. The objection is against <i>using the movie in a racist frame</i>; the objections are directed to the frame and context, not the movie itself. You see, if Wilders is a racist, he deserves all the condemnation he can get; however, what I see people are trying to accomplish is to argue that because Wilders is/might be a racist, the movie itself should be labeled racist as well and thus condemned. Call me slow, but this does not follow.

Ok, I’ll call you slow. ;-) On the one hand, you’re correct, the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.

On the other hand, I don’t see the preponderance of criticism in the skeptical/atheist community as directly calling the movie itself racist, or using the argument you specify. The objection is against using the movie in a racist frame; the objections are directed to the frame and context, not the movie itself.

]]> By: Arnoc http://dbzer0.com/blog/truth-as-a-tool-for-immoral-purposes/comment-page-1#comment-4791 Arnoc Tue, 06 May 2008 22:08:42 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=678#comment-4791 Again a very interesting bunch of questions, my friend. And I will try to answer them from my point of view as precise as I can. ;) 1. The problem is that most people who receive information have neither the possibilities nor the competence to check them in far too many cases. So truth is what truth is taken for. In the individual perspective. And as with everything that concerns perception and humans it is indeed shapable in a tool of whatever use, even into one suitable only for immoral purposes. Propaganda loves this. 2. The morals of one are the immorals of the other. A: "You shot my uncle!" B: "You saved my children!" C: "You woke me up in the middle of the night!" D: "You bought a gun illegally!" E: "You scared my old dog so it got a heart attack and died!" Truth is, someone has been shot by someone else. Does it make the gun use condemnable? I think before we all start blathering about our own self-proclaimed rights and wrongs and discuss the condemnability of the tool we should get straight that the moral factor has to step back on this. 3. Yes. We do. But I think here the truth is more important than the purpose. I hate seeing lies used for no matter what good the purpose. Its just as the difference if you shoot someone or let him starve to death while buried alive. The method is the key to correct attitude, I think. Again a very interesting bunch of questions, my friend. And I will try to answer them from my point of view as precise as I can. ;)

1. The problem is that most people who receive information have neither the possibilities nor the competence to check them in far too many cases. So truth is what truth is taken for. In the individual perspective. And as with everything that concerns perception and humans it is indeed shapable in a tool of whatever use, even into one suitable only for immoral purposes. Propaganda loves this.

2. The morals of one are the immorals of the other. A: “You shot my uncle!” B: “You saved my children!” C: “You woke me up in the middle of the night!” D: “You bought a gun illegally!” E: “You scared my old dog so it got a heart attack and died!” Truth is, someone has been shot by someone else. Does it make the gun use condemnable? I think before we all start blathering about our own self-proclaimed rights and wrongs and discuss the condemnability of the tool we should get straight that the moral factor has to step back on this.

3. Yes. We do. But I think here the truth is more important than the purpose. I hate seeing lies used for no matter what good the purpose. Its just as the difference if you shoot someone or let him starve to death while buried alive. The method is the key to correct attitude, I think.

]]>