|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="Fox"]
| Leon wrote: |
Doctors take their job in a voluntary manner ... |
I've said several times that it is not the doctors who are the targets of the tyranny here, but those desiring the tests. [\quote]
That's bizarre, to me. Please explain how they are entitled to a non-medically necessary test from a medical professional. You used unjust rule as a stipulation of tyranny, are these doctors ruling over these people?
[quote="Fox"]
| Leon wrote: |
| For whom, the person receiving the blow, or the person giving it? |
Both.[\quote]
If the person doesn't know the others intention how could that possibly be true.
[quote="Fox"]
| Leon wrote: |
| You can not go into someone elses head, you can be reasonably sure of their motives, but not entirely, so it's best practice as a general rule to not focus too much on motives. |
"Best practice as a general rule." You almost make it sound like you think of me as some petty bureaucrat or accountant. I know very well how much certitude I can place on any given assumption, I don't need your "best practices" to trap me into some sort of arbitrary framework.
| Leon wrote: |
| Please don't. If I do something for poor reasons it can still have good outcomes, and the inverse is especially true. We are unable to truly know other peoples motivations, but we can measure outcomes. |
This sentiment is one I have a lot of harsh things to say about, but there would be little point in stating them here, so that's that I suppose. Even Mill seemed to realize on some vague and instinctive level how degenerate utilitarianism ultimately was if you read him carefully, but you seem totally enthralled with it. [\quote]
You're right, there would be no point. I don't follow Mill, and there are certainly degenerate aspects to his version of utilitarianism. I disike isms so this isn't always the best frame work, but it fits here.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| It's not clear from the article whether this one man can unilaterally create this policy or not. I suspect that several other people had to be involved, so what I'm getting at here is that if other people had, in your opinion, more reasonable motives and were a part of this ruling would that also weaken the tyranny? |
I don't have sufficient information about either the process or motives you're stipulating here. On the one hand, you chide me with your "best practices," and on the other you push me to speculate on the vaguest of premises. In either case you're running to dangerous [\quote]
Dangerous what? You don't have sufficient information, is what I'm getting at
| Leon wrote: |
| If a doctor exists that wants to perform this test on a girl/women who isn't being coerced, and the test doesn't produce a false negative, and the doctor is actually fined, then this might be a mild form of tyranny ... |
Well that's the policy stipulated. |
Almost, now you just have to show that the parents are actually entitled to this test, how the test is an actual right that the are being denied through unjust rule and you are home free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
That's bizarre, to me. Please explain how they are entitled to a non-medically necessary test from a medical professional. |
Who said entitled?
| Leon wrote: |
| You used unjust rule as a stipulation of tyranny, are these doctors ruling over these people? |
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
| Leon wrote: |
| If the person doesn't know the others intention how could that possibly be true. |
You do not need to be aware of how two things essentially differ for them to essentially differ, and if two things essentially differ, they essentially differ in a universal fashion, meaning they differ for both parties whether both parties are aware of it or not. I don't think this is complex.
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| It's not clear from the article whether this one man can unilaterally create this policy or not. I suspect that several other people had to be involved, so what I'm getting at here is that if other people had, in your opinion, more reasonable motives and were a part of this ruling would that also weaken the tyranny? |
I don't have sufficient information about either the process or motives you're stipulating here. On the one hand, you chide me with your "best practices," and on the other you push me to speculate on the vaguest of premises. In either case you're running to dangerous |
Dangerous what? You don't have sufficient information, is what I'm getting at |
Dangerous intellectual extremes. I don't know why that wasn't in the post, I clearly remember typing it. Whether you think I have sufficient information or not in any given case is not a concern to me; I know how much information I have in any particular situation, and I know how far I am justified in extrapolating from that information. I don't need your "best practices," and I don't need to speculate when I know I don't have enough information either.
| Leon wrote: |
| Almost, now you just have to show that the parents are actually entitled to this test ... |
No, I just have to show that absent the rule there would be doctors willing to provide it to them, and real-world experience has already proven it for me. Tyranny is not limited to the elimination of rights and entitlements, simple unjust obstruction of the otherwise available is sufficient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
That's bizarre, to me. Please explain how they are entitled to a non-medically necessary test from a medical professional. |
Who said entitled?
| Leon wrote: |
| You used unjust rule as a stipulation of tyranny, are these doctors ruling over these people? |
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
| Leon wrote: |
| If the person doesn't know the others intention how could that possibly be true. |
You do not need to be aware of how two things essentially differ for them to essentially differ, and if two things essentially differ, they essentially differ in a universal fashion, meaning they differ for both parties whether both parties are aware of it or not. I don't think this is complex. |
If someone feels threatened by me and shoots me in self defense, even if I wasn't a legitimate threat then for that person it is essentially different than a random thrill kill, but for the person who is shot it is still the same. If someone has reasonable intentions, but harms me through incompetence, why would I care about their intentions. I understand your principle, but I am challenging it. I do understand that this is getting off topic and it would probably require lots of effort on both of our parts to go into this issue fully, so lets just leave it here in consideration for both of our time.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| It's not clear from the article whether this one man can unilaterally create this policy or not. I suspect that several other people had to be involved, so what I'm getting at here is that if other people had, in your opinion, more reasonable motives and were a part of this ruling would that also weaken the tyranny? |
I don't have sufficient information about either the process or motives you're stipulating here. On the one hand, you chide me with your "best practices," and on the other you push me to speculate on the vaguest of premises. In either case you're running to dangerous |
Dangerous what? You don't have sufficient information, is what I'm getting at |
Dangerous intellectual extremes. I don't know why that wasn't in the post, I clearly remember typing it. Whether you think I have sufficient information or not in any given case is not a concern to me; I know how much information I have in any particular situation, and I know how far I am justified in extrapolating from that information. I don't need your "best practices," and I don't need to speculate when I know I don't have enough information either. |
That's interesting. Please expound on these dangerous intellectual extremes, I think I know what you might be getting at, but I'm curious what it actually is. It's funny, many people would consider you to be a dangerous intellectual extremist (not me) so words like extreme is necessarily relative. You're right, you don't need my best practices, perhaps my critique of your form as well as content was a bit snide, apologies.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Almost, now you just have to show that the parents are actually entitled to this test ... |
No, I just have to show that absent the rule there would be doctors willing to provide it to them, and real-world experience has already proven it for me. Tyranny is not limited to the elimination of rights and entitlements, simple unjust obstruction of the otherwise available is sufficient. |
Please give a definition of tyranny, because it seems we are working with two different concepts here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
If someone feels threatened by me and shoots me in self defense, even if I wasn't a legitimate threat then for that person it is essentially different than a random thrill kill, but for the person who is shot it is still the same. |
By this logic, a meteor falling from the sky and instantly killing me, and a man shooting me in the head from behind by surprise and instantly killing me are the same "for me," since in both cases I'm still equally the victim of an instantaneous death, right? Yet if I had to choose, I'd pick the meteor instead of being murdered. How can I make such a clear and certain choice if the two are truly "the same?" The clear answer is that they are not the same. Trying to claim otherwise is the product of a consequentialist mindset, it's not something with which I need to concern myself.
| Leon wrote: |
| I understand your principle, but I don't think it to be valuable outside of philosophy. |
There is no "outside of philosophy," and the world would be a better place full of better men if that were more widely realized. Wisdom is not an academic exercise. I remember reading some time back about a study demonstrating that professors specializing in ethics were not actually themselves more ethical than professors in other fields, and such a professor, when asked about it, snidely replied with something along the lines that studying ethics was just his job, so of course he shouldn't be expected to act any more ethically than anyone else. Just his job!
| Leon wrote: |
| Please expound on these dangerous intellectual extremes, I think I know what you might be getting at, but I'm curious what it actually is. You're right, you don't need my best practices, perhaps my critique of your form as well as content was a bit snide, apologies. |
Why do you keep asking me questions which would require essays to answer properly? If I'm not willing to write out an entire ethical theory for you, why would I be willing to write out a treatise on epistemology?
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Almost, now you just have to show that the parents are actually entitled to this test ... |
No, I just have to show that absent the rule there would be doctors willing to provide it to them, and real-world experience has already proven it for me. Tyranny is not limited to the elimination of rights and entitlements, simple unjust obstruction of the otherwise available is sufficient. |
Please give a definition of tyranny |
Why should I when your own proffered definition justifies my position:
| Leon wrote: |
| cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control. |
The authority figure in question is unreasonably using his power to coercively inflict his ideology upon a certain portion of the populace (specifically, those concerned with ensuring their daughters are virgins). I've suggested more reasonable and just ways in which this perceived problem could have been addressed in this thread which accords with what you describe as modern medical ethics while still allowing for the possibility of these people receiving satisfaction. Instead, the threat of punishment was applied in a blanket fashion. Taking more severe measures than are necessary for ideological reasons is not reasonable, and your definition allows for an unreasonable use of power to be classified as tyranny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
If someone feels threatened by me and shoots me in self defense, even if I wasn't a legitimate threat then for that person it is essentially different than a random thrill kill, but for the person who is shot it is still the same. |
By this logic, a meteor falling from the sky and instantly killing me, and a man shooting me in the head from behind by surprise and instantly killing me are the same "for me," since in both cases I'm still equally the victim of an instantaneous death, right? Yet if I had to choose, I'd pick the meteor instead of being murdered. How can I make such a clear and certain choice if the two are truly "the same?" The clear answer is that they are not the same. Trying to claim otherwise is the product of a consequentialist mindset, it's not something with which I need to concern myself.
| Leon wrote: |
| I understand your principle, but I don't think it to be valuable outside of philosophy. |
There is no "outside of philosophy," and the world would be a better place full of better men if that were more widely realized. Wisdom is not an academic exercise. I remember reading some time back about a study demonstrating that professors specializing in ethics were not actually themselves more ethical than professors in other fields, and such a professor, when asked about it, snidely replied with something along the lines that studying ethics was just his job, so of course he shouldn't be expected to act any more ethically than anyone else. Just his job!
| Leon wrote: |
| Please expound on these dangerous intellectual extremes, I think I know what you might be getting at, but I'm curious what it actually is. You're right, you don't need my best practices, perhaps my critique of your form as well as content was a bit snide, apologies. |
Why do you keep asking me questions which would require essays to answer properly? If I'm not willing to write out an entire ethical theory for you, why would I be willing to write out a treatise on epistemology?
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Almost, now you just have to show that the parents are actually entitled to this test ... |
No, I just have to show that absent the rule there would be doctors willing to provide it to them, and real-world experience has already proven it for me. Tyranny is not limited to the elimination of rights and entitlements, simple unjust obstruction of the otherwise available is sufficient. |
Please give a definition of tyranny |
Why should I when your own proffered definition justifies my position:
| Leon wrote: |
| cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control. |
The authority figure in question is unreasonably using his power to coercively inflict his ideology upon a certain portion of the populace (specifically, those concerned with ensuring their daughters are virgins). I've suggested more reasonable and just ways in which this perceived problem could have been addressed in this thread which accords with what you describe as modern medical ethics while still allowing for the possibility of these people receiving satisfaction. Instead, the threat of punishment was applied in a blanket fashion. Taking more severe measures than are necessary for ideological reasons is not reasonable, and your definition allows for an unreasonable use of power to be classified as tyranny. |
I'm understanding your frustration more and more, I edited my post at least twice since the version you replied to, oh well. The article mentions the practice had either been requested or carried out 5 times, with doctors either faking the result, being uncomfortable with doing it, but being harassed into doing it, and in the instigating case a girl telling her school nurse that she didn't want the test done but her parents forcing it on her. Applying only the given evidence from the article it seems like a reasonable solution, you disagree, I know why you disagree, and I think you know my reasoning. Anyways there are lots of other important issues to talk about in this thread like Titus' racist dog post.
You don't get to choose between murder and the meteor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10390183/Girl-smuggled-into-Britain-to-have-her-organs-harvested.html
| Quote: |
The unnamed girl was brought to the UK from Somalia with the intention of removing her organs and selling them on to those desperate for a transplant.
Child protection charities warned that the case was unlikely to be an isolated incident as traffickers were likely to have smuggled a group of children into the country.
The case emerged in a government report which showed that the number of human trafficking victims in the UK has risen by more than 50 per cent last year and reached record levels.
A total of 371 children were exploited, with the majority of them being used as slaves or sexually abused. They included 95 children from Vietnam, 67 from Nigeria and 25 from China. Others hailed from Romania and Bangladesh.
The figures also detail how 20 British girls have been victims of human trafficking. It comes after a series of court cases in which British girls were raped and exploited by gangs of Asian men. |
Immigrants. Doing the organ harvesting that the lazy natives won't do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not necessarily tyrannical, but potentially dangerous. Fair warning: if you follow the link below, you may want to quickly scroll down to the text. Don't come crying to me if your eyes bleed.
The Militant Baker: MY EXCUSE? I'M GLAD YOU ASKED.
| Quote: |
By now, we've all seen the fitspiration mom of the year who "unknowingly" unleashed all kinds of fat shaming rage across the world. The family photo of her toned body with her three children asks "Whats your excuse?"; perpetuating the ever present belief that anyone who doesn't currently have a Pinterest worthy body is this way because they lack willpower. Rightfully so, Fatvocates roared back, and Maria Kang pulled a Mike Jeffries by saying she was sorry that everyone took it the wrong way, that any negative interpretation was the readers fault, and that she wasn't responsible for public insecurity. While I do agree that we should own our reactions, I'm going to hold Maria responsible for her privileged move disguised as inspiration. What her boastful image suggests is an ignorant and quite frankly, worn out accusation that couldn't be more misinformed. As someone who has spent the last couple of years researching, exploring, and writing about the true causes behind our frightening obesity crisis (OH NO!) I roll my eyes in Maria's general direction. Not because of her toned abs (she's fucking gorgeous) but because of her arrogance. Because she asked, I'm happy to answer, and perhaps someday she (and the rest of those convinced that fatties are little more than potato chip hording embarrassments) will see that its not as simple as everyone wants to believe.
My excuse is that I am one of the 95% of women who were not born into the body represented in American media. And were not talking about the Well, if you just tried harder you COULD kind of body discrepancy here. The majority of us have figures that will never become what Maria's can because of genetics. FIVE PERCENT of women have the body we're taught to aspire to, guys. Can I emphasize GENETICS? My genetics also gifted me PCOS which stops me from easily shedding what weight I do have. Stop pretending the world is equal opportunity, Society. It makes you look silly. |
More excuses in the link.
| Quote: |
| I fully realize that there is nothing wrong with my body, and there is nothing wrong with hers. I am perfect; she is perfect, and when the end goal is happiness… the importance of body shape fades away, doesn't it? |
And some bodies are more perfect reservoirs for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, arthritis, etc, while others are more perfect for attracting healthy, successful mates.
| Quote: |
| I allow my body to be what it is, and love it as so. This probably stops me from dieting and spending five hours at the gym every day, but you know what I'm doing instead? AWESOME SHIT THAT IS CHANGING THE WORLD. |
Changing the world by helping to churn out more fatties is not exactly what I would call "awesome." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| My excuse is that I am one of the 95% of women who were not born into the body represented in American media. |
These women act as if women have always been fat in the USA. As if it is the default condition.
| Quote: |
| My excuse is that I hate being at the gym. |
Then eat less?
| Quote: |
| My excuse it that the majority of my life I grew up in a lower class home. |
Eat less?
Etc.
I like this:
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/dc/f5/e1/dcf5e1ef572c5ebb31d044bdf6f705cf.jpg
These women are so fragile that even the hint that they are responsible for their condition sends them into hysterical mode. I HAVE NO AGENCY!!!
But to complicate things we also have narcissism: "but you know what I'm doing instead? AWESOME SHIT THAT IS CHANGING THE WORLD. And I'm okay with that!"
She is powerless to diminish her weight but she is sufficiently powerful to change the world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I fully realize that there is nothing wrong with my body, and there is nothing wrong with hers. I am perfect; she is perfect, and when the end goal is happiness… the importance of body shape fades away, doesn't it? |
I think this calls for a lesson from dear old Uncle Screwtape:
“No man who says I’m as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority that the patient refuses to accept. And therefore resents.”
On the broader point, I am generally indifferent to obesity. If a woman wants to put in effort to be thin, that's fine, and if she doesn't want to, that's fine as well. What is more distasteful is when the woman doesn't want to put in the effort and then insists the rest of the world should treat her as if she had. It all always comes back to a vigorous sense of self-entitlement, an insistence that the world mold itself specifically so as to coddle and flatter the ego. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| On the broader point, I am generally indifferent to [an individual's] obesity. |
That I would agree with, but this woman actively encourages others to be less healthy and successful in her efforts to address her self-esteem issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| On the broader point, I am generally indifferent to [an individual's] obesity. |
That I would agree with, but this woman actively encourages others to be less healthy and successful in her efforts to address her self-esteem issues. |
Your correction is what I actually had in mind, so that's reasonable enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The internet is weird, she has 18,924 facebook likes, and I'm not even sure if that's an accomplishment or easy to do these days or not. Underneath the excuse post is a post full of pictures of cakes, cupcakes, pies, etc. This isn't tyranny but it is aggressively stupid. I think it's valid to make points about women in magazines being photoshopped or other such things, but even aside from body issues and self esteem and whatnot I feel like why aren't people telling her how straight up unhealthy she is. The lack of self awareness is pretty striking. Geldedgoat, were you looking up Margarita cupcake recipes and somehow found this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| I think it's valid to make points about women in magazines being photoshopped or other such things ... |
Is it? Everyone knows (or at least should know) that such photoshopping occurs, so it seems to me that a woman feeling insecure because she's not as attractive as a model on the cover of Maxim or some such is like me being insecure because I'm not a model of male excellence in the model of Diomedes or the like. I'm not insecure about that though, so why should a woman be insecure about those pictures? Getting upset because you don't live up to a completely unreal standard manufactured by artists is intrinsically dysfunctional. Is, "The average woman is so completely dysfunctional that she can't handle exposure to unreal standards without feeling terrible," really a valid point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| This isn't tyranny but it is aggressively stupid. |
OK. I'm starting a new thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Geldedgoat, were you looking up Margarita cupcake recipes and somehow found this? |
I enjoy margaritas (mango margaritas made my Philippines vacation much more tolerable) and occasionally cupcakes, but putting the two together does not sound appetizing in the least. Daiquiri cupcakes maybe.
No, one of my college friends posted a link to this on her Facebook page (and was inconsiderate enough to include that picture in her post - not a pleasant thing to scroll across in the newsfeed early in the morning). Care to guess what kind of fruit her figure most resembles?
| Fox wrote: |
| Your correction is what I actually had in mind, so that's reasonable enough. |
I meant it more as emphasis than correction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
