The Big Picture: Not Okay

[chadachada123]

I don't think murdering or executing people over a crime where no one died is OK (well I'm not a fan of the death penalty in general but executing someone for that seems a little more wrong) but whatever.

And yes that's me, and I remember you posting there (I don't remember any of your posts but I remember you).

It's good to see you. It's been a while since I've been there. Ever since the Supreme Court ruling I don't go there much. You know Andrew Eisen has an account here, not sure if he still posts here.

FYI I'm not giving away any personal info, that's his user name both here and on gamepolitics.

Eh, you're probably right from a moral standpoint, because it should be left to the courts to decide, but I can't say that I wouldn't be angry enough to at least kneecap the guy (or girl) if the situation arises. I'm also against the death penalty in all but the most messed up of cases (like Charles Manson-level stuff), yet to me it *might* be worth the jail sentence to kill a rapist with my bare hands. But enough about that; hopefully I'll never be in that position.

But yeah, I haven't been there in a long time either, I had some personal stuff going on, the usual. Good to see that at least both you and Andrew on this site as well, it's a good source of news and has a populous forum section *and* some civility to boot.

 

[John Funk]

This is probably the most pissed off I've ever heard movie bob sound; I don't blame him, either, as I've said the exact same thing on more than one occasion over the last few years. I remember calling some friends out on throwing the word rape around more casually than I was comfortable with and they looked at me like I grew a second head.

Seriously, nerd culture based sexism is something I would seriously like to see go away. Forever.

using the word rape to mean lose doesn't equate to sexism

No, but it does devalue the concept of rape as one of the most horrifying things a person can do to another human being, and certainly doesn't help deal with widespread rape culture.

Rape Culture 101. [http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html] Educate yourself.

The theory of rape culture always seemed kind of sketchy to me. That author seriously thinks games with rape in them encourage a society where rape is not taken seriously? I'd love to see what evidence she has to support that but I'm guessing it's nothing.

It's not just games with rape in them, it's that it becomes a very tricky quagmire of linking violence, aggression, and (male) sexuality while simultaneously sexually objectifying women and trivializing rape. There's no ONE thing that gets done to support it, but... well, once you start to understand it and see it, there's no unseeing it.

It's still a completely null point. We don't condone violence against women, far from it. As a culture we're much more accepting of women being violent to men than vies-versa.

Culturally we are far more likely to condone sexual violence if the woman is the perpetrator. Just look up that bullshit that happened with 'the view' or some other garbage day time chat show. When they brought up the story about that guy having his penis cut off and 3/4 of the panel burst out into fits of laughter and saying her probably deserved it, because he was a guy. They were then forced to do an apology, if that's what you could call it. Can you imagine that with the roles reversed? If a chatshow with male panellists had laughed at a women having her genitalia mutilated. They'd have been fired and probably had legal action brought against them faster than you could blink. I'm not bringing that up to whine about how women get preferential treatment etc, but you can't bring up cultural opinions about sexual violence and then ignore things like double standards.

That isn't an isolated case either. Just look at that experiment.

Are you really going to say that we culturally support violence against women? Because that's just bullshit.

It's true that violence against women by men is considered more acceptable - even funny - by society at large. Is this problematic? Of course. But it's ALSO seated in the inequal status of women, by and large. Women are viewed as weaker and inferior, so ergo violence by them against men isn't something to be taken seriously by large swathes of the populace. They see it akin to a child being violent against an adult.

Yes, it's a problem. But women don't have the social and institutionalized power that men do. So while people not taking violence against men seriously is problematic, it's also problematic when one state (Kansas? Missouri? Around that area, I forget) stops prosecuting domestic violence cases entirely because it can't afford to do so. It shows where the priorities lie.

And on the harmless fetishisation side of things, females being dominant is ever more present in both pop-culture and the bedroom.

...which is, again, a male fantasy. Not that there's anything wrong with sexually aggressive or dominant women in fiction, but it almost always goes hand in hand with a "ingenue vs slut" narrative. How many of those women are the heroes, compared to a virgin "good girl"?

So no, I didn't read down to that part because frankly it's more of the same tripe that always get brought up in conversations like this.

"MOAAR WOMANZ GET WRAPED THERFOR EET MATTERS MUUR!"

Making up a concept such as rape culture and then focusing on it's effects on one gender/sex is so unbelievably hypocritical I can scarcely believe I'm having to point it out.

Women AND men are both the target of sexual violence and assault, to focus on one more than the other is tantamount to saying that one matters more than the other.

Not to mention I doubt the figures on the percentage of women that have been raped in comparison to the percentage of men that have been raped are even close to being accurate. What is it, like an estimated 1 in 6 women report rape or sexual abuse. I'd wager the ratio is even more alarming with men. Because there is an even greater social stigma attached to that, especially if you identify as a heterosexual male and happen to have been raped by another male.

Yes, there is absolutely a stigma against reporting rape if you are a man, and these statistics only cover REPORTED rape. It's almost certainly higher for women, and much higher for men.

But frankly, it does make sense to focus on rape and sexual violence against women more-so than men - not excluding them, but focusing on the women - because not only do men have more institutional power, but it IS more common.

Here's the thing, in blunt facts: A man is more likely to rape somebody than a woman. If we want to prevent somebody from raping somebody, that message needs to be targeted at men. And since men rape women more than they rape men, well.

Should sexual violence against men be ignored? Of course not. But a widespread culture of sexual violence against women (and, it might be added, the "feminization" of men who are sexually violated) lends itself to certain forms of pushback.

I'm pretty much going to put that 'rape culture' BS in the same category as Andrea Dworkins and her theory that all sex is rape because there's penetration.

--snip--

No no no.

You can't just bat that away.

Is saying "murder", "cripple" or any other word being used as a hyperbolic synonym for 'dominate', in the context of competition the same as saying "rape"?

If not, you'd better give me an actual reason. Not some quasi-feminist ramblings about our big bad culture being pro-raping women (because apparently raping men doesn't count) with a list of bias supposedly proving that.

I don't buy into Dworkin's ideas, but I sure as hell buy into the idea of a rape culture. Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

And here goes. I'd like you to read this, first: Why Rape Jokes Are Never Okay [http://www.menspeakup.org/why-rape-jokes-are-never-ok].

There is a reason that rape is considered very different from "murder" in this sense (and I'm going to just ignore the "cripple" bit, as A.) it's hardly used in the same context and B.) when it is used, it's used in a way that the word has been used for years; i.e. "his economy is crippled" in StarCraft. "Rape" as a synonym for "dominate", however, is a new development in language).

In 2006, there were 17,034 "murders and nonnegligent manslaughters" in the United States. In that same year, there were 92,455 "forcible rapes." This does not include other types of rape, like rape by duress - and as mentioned above, that number is likely to be MUCH higher given that this was just the number of REPORTED forcible rapes. There are some estimates that say that only 20% of rape cases are ever reported. While this may be a particularly highball estimate, we can both agree that this number is likely significantly higher, yes?

Right away, rape and sexual violence is a crime that affects far more people a year than murder. And from a consequence of that, you are more likely to know a rapist than you are to know a murderer (in fact, you probably do. And whoever they are, they sure don't seem like a rapist, because if there were an easy way to identify rapists we'd be doing it already).

Refer back to the article I linked. You read that, right? The vast majority of rapists think that *all men rape.* Now, obviously that's not true. And the idea horrifies most of us non-rapist guys, undoubtedly.

Which is why telling rape jokes, or trivializing rape as a synonym for "defeat in an electronic game" is problematic. Because it reinforces to a rapist viewing that "yeah, this is okay." And that makes it more likely that, y'know, he'll do it. The more trivial the concept of rape becomes, the easier it is for someone who's thought about it to go and do it.

And that's why "rape" is inherently different from "murder". Also, well, going back to the concept of a society that links sex with violence and aggression against women. There is no "murder culture," but there is a "rape culture."

Even if these two things weren't true, the fact that there are so many more people affected by rape than murder every year should be reason enough.

This is probably the most pissed off I've ever heard movie bob sound; I don't blame him, either, as I've said the exact same thing on more than one occasion over the last few years. I remember calling some friends out on throwing the word rape around more casually than I was comfortable with and they looked at me like I grew a second head.

Seriously, nerd culture based sexism is something I would seriously like to see go away. Forever.

using the word rape to mean lose doesn't equate to sexism

No, but it does devalue the concept of rape as one of the most horrifying things a person can do to another human being, and certainly doesn't help deal with widespread rape culture.

Rape Culture 101. [http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html] Educate yourself.

And when people are hungry and they say they are "starving", it also devalues a very terrible slow death that millions of people suffer from, and yet I don't hear people saying that that word isn't discouraged. So why focus so much on this word? Why not discourage the use of the word "starving"?

"What about teh menz?" isn't always the answer.

So you don't think people should bring up rape against males in a discussion about rape in general? Good to know.

Like any of that actually needed to be addressed.

1 asshole =/= even a small portion of people who play games. His opinion of gaming-culture, which is a nonsense phrase to begin with, means exactly the same. The only reason that douche got any attention is because he was on some shite TV show.

People like you, responding to this type of behaviour as if it's actually some sort of real issue and not a few lone nuts being retardly backwards are what give the stereotype of 'sexist gamers' credence. Because it gives the impression it's a serious enough issue for it to be addressed.

News flash......... it's not.

And BTW, 'rape' is not a sexist phrase. What is sexist is your assumption that that phrase is in someway, only demeaning to women. You didn't overtly state that, but I don't really see any reason for you to have brought it up if that wasn't your point.

"I'm raping you!" When used in the context of a competition is in no way sexually explicit. It simply means one side/person is dominating the other side/person. If you read any more into it than that, you've got hangups.

It is trivializing one of the most traumatic experiences a person can foist on another human being to a mere "LOLOL I'M WINNING." If you don't see any problem in that, then you're ignorant as hell.

I assume you mean the 'raping' part.

In that case when someone says "we're murdering you" or "I crippled your ass" (which are phrases I've heard just as much as 'raping' when playing fighting games, sports games and shooters against mates) we should reprimand them for being ignorant as hell because they trivialised murder and being crippled. Both things I'd argue are worse than rape.

It's not a trivialisation, it's got nothing to do with the actual act of rape. It just draws on the connotation of dominance that word evokes.

I really wish we didn't have to bubble wrap our words incase they bounce off the wrong person.

Again, refer to "Rape Culture 101."

Nothing in that article refers to how the use of rape in trash talk trivializes it.

How often have you heard "my parents are going to murder me because of my bad grades". Is murder trivialized? No. Far from it.

You can talk about how it makes people uncomfortable and is immature and you'd be right but the idea that it trivializes rape is debatable.

See my response above.

 

[axlryder]

Meh, was okay. I was hoping Bob would tackle the more interesting aspects of sexism and segregation, but he really just went on a PC rant defending everybody who isn't a white male from generalized politically incorrect remarks. Fine I guess, it's still an issue so there's obviously still a place for rants like this and I can't fault him for getting angry at things like blatant sexual harassment. Though, I don't think the whole issue is as simple or one-sided as Bob is making it out to be.

That said, while you can tell people it's wrong to, say, trivialize rape by using it as a colloquial term, I'd think attempting to actually stamp out such forms of "self-expression" (especially through enforcement) will likely result in a pretty severe backlash. If one feels their rights are being infringed upon, I'd think the backlash will be that much harder.

 

[Valanthe]

Just wanna say Bob, I would watch your shows even if you never touched a controversial topic. That said, I don't think I've -ever- heard you get this worked up before, you sounded genuinely angry. I'm not blaming you either, as someome who views gaming as his lifestyle, seeing someone like this who makes the entire gaming community, not just himself or his tournament, look bad, absolutely infuriates me.

 

[thiosk]

Heya bob, I agree with you here. But I did find this funny.

versus

And we're supposed to somehow believe this isn't proof positive that Capcom are not actually nazis? Oh they didn't know that drawing two S's as slanty Z's didn't mean like WE CAN HAS NAZI TIME NAOW? This here be proof. You won't find this on the mainstream liberal media, thats for sure.

You heard it here first.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

See my response above.

Your response doesn't answer my question

 

[Icehearted]

...and yet not a word about misandry. Oh, that's right, it's only awful when it's happening to women. Way to throw more gas on the fire by stating the obvious as unevenly as possible, pretty much like anyone else lamenting the woes of oppressed women these days.

I don't disagree with you, Bob, but another "save the women, damn the men" speech changes what, exactly?

Did you enjoy knocking down that strawman? It seemed therapeutic.

With this video, and these persistent women in gaming discussions (and that panel with Susan Arendt and others), I don't see the straw man, I see persistent lambasting of anyone that isn't a woman or isn't a man that doesn't side with women on this issue as vehemently as possible. Preemptively suggesting that people of an opposing or even a possibly slightly dissimilar viewpoint will become ugly and hostile (I assume the images of angry mobs with pitchforks served as a visual demonstration to that "fact") doesn't exactly jibe with the notion that any disagreement with the points he'd chosen to make can be even a little rational either.

Conversations about this topic always start up flamewars, Bob's just commenting on that.

It does feel biased at first that it's only about sexism against women but this is a discussion about sexism within gaming. There's not a whole lot of sexism against men in gaming, but if you find some you're free to talk about it.

I realize that, and I'm really not here to fight.

As for sexism against men, there are far too many examples to list here, but I'll give you a favorite of mine, "Testikill". Google, it if you wish, and enjoy the hilarity of killing men via brutal sexual violence. Good luck finding the female equivalent, or for that matter, an achievement for shooting women to death in their vagina.

 

[Razzigyrl]

Thank you, Bob.

I realize that forum rules generally require more than that to be considered a valid post, but really, that's all I'd like to say.

Thank you.

 

[John Funk]

I don't doubt that. It seems like she just takes anything problematic involving rape and labels it rape culture. For instance teens knowing how to rape is rape culture? It's not that complicated if you have an unconscious person. It certainly isn't a sign that our culture doesn't take rape seriously.

Problematic things involving rape ARE part of rape culture. Some to more extent than others. For example, teens knowing that you could use roofies, or whatever. I don't think that's a particularly SIGNIFICANT problem, but everything contributes a little bit.

What an awkward way or working in that men have institutional power. Not that that prevents them from having domineering controlling wives who are also abusive.

We're not talking about an individual man with an individual wife. I've dealt with this on a personal scale, myself. But that does not change my institutional power and male privilege, nor does it change the situation for the vast majority of men and women. Yes, domestic violence is horrible no matter who it's from/towards. Nobody's denying that.

They provide no links to any of the alleged studies about how rapists think all men rape, so since it's completely unsourced ...

--

Well I don't know how they got the 20% so no.

Can't find the "Rapists think all men rape" study, but an official UK government report [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#cite_note-5] found that between 75%-95% of all rapes go unreported. In the US, from 2000-2005, it was 59%. Better, but not by much.

That seems way too simplistic. It's one thing to think it's trivial when you're just thinking about it. It's another to still think it's trivial when you're trying to do it and seeing first hand that it's hurting someone.

Also there's a reason why rape jokes are called dark humor. Most people who think they're funny acknowledge that they are sick jokes in a way that sex jokes aren't. And since they're called sick jokes well that kind of reinforces that rape is bad.

And yet you're still being asked to make light of it. You're asking a rape survivor to laugh at one of the most traumatic events in her life.

Rape jokes are not okay. Using 'rape' as a synonym for 'defeat' is not okay. Ever.

 

[John Funk]

See my response above.

Your response doesn't answer my question

You asked:

"And when people are hungry and they say they are "starving", it also devalues a very terrible slow death that millions of people suffer from, and yet I don't hear people saying that that word isn't discouraged. So why focus so much on this word? Why not discourage the use of the word "starving"?"

A.) 'Starving' is the word of a terrible condition, but it is not one foisted upon somebody by another human being. 'Rape' is.

B.) In trivializing rape, we are indirectly making it easier for someone to rationalize or justify it to themselves.

C.) Part of it is, admittedly, location and relative class privilege. Not many people are starving here in the States or in the UK. Rape is a much bigger problem than starvation. Is it fair? Well, that depends - it's people discussing an issue that matters more personally to THEM, as it's one they're more likely to encounter.

And hell, in many countries where they're starving, the rape statistics are through the roof anyway.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

A.) 'Starving' is the word of a terrible condition, but it is not one foisted upon somebody by another human being. 'Rape' is.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that using both terms so casually, trivializes both of them. So again, why not ask people to not use the word "starving"?

B.) In trivializing rape, we are indirectly making it easier for someone to rationalize or justify it to themselves.

...what? How do you make that leap? Also does that mean that by trivializing the condition of starving, "we are indirectly making in easier for someone to rationalize or justify [the concept of starving people]"?

C.) Part of it is, admittedly, location and relative class privilege. Not many people are starving here in the States or in the UK. Rape is a much bigger problem than starvation. .

So then would you not have a problem with people from countries where the criminal act of rape is low, to say that a recent exam "raped" them?

 

[TheNose]

If rape jokes aren't okay, then why do I still laugh if I hear a good one?

 

[JohnTomorrow]

I don't believe in heaven. Too fruity for my tastes.

I believe in something greater. You, sir, should earn a place in Valhalla for giving the biggest *****-slap to the pretentious fuck-heads of the Internet world. By the gods, if you were standing before me I'd shake the shit out of your hand. Great show.

 

[John Funk]

A.) 'Starving' is the word of a terrible condition, but it is not one foisted upon somebody by another human being. 'Rape' is.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that using both terms so casually, trivializes both of them. So again, why not ask people to not use the word "starving"?

B.) In trivializing rape, we are indirectly making it easier for someone to rationalize or justify it to themselves.

...what? How do you make that leap? Also does that mean that by trivializing the condition of starving, "we are indirectly making in easier for someone to rationalize or justify [the concept of starving people]"?

C.) Part of it is, admittedly, location and relative class privilege. Not many people are starving here in the States or in the UK. Rape is a much bigger problem than starvation. .

So then would you not have a problem with people from countries where the criminal act of rape is low, to say that a recent exam "raped" them?

See the link I posted earlier re: Rape Jokes, to answer your Point B. And Point A too, now that i think about it.

and re: Point C, no. Nobody should use it, anywhere. "Starving" is an exaggeration of an extant condition - i.e, I am very hungry. It's hyperbolic, and yes unfortunate, but it's at least the same condition being talking about. "Rape" should only be used about the forcible sexual domination of another human being.

Do not trivialize rape. Period. Why is this a hard concept?

 

[TheNose]

This argument keeps running around in circles. It's not okay to trivialize rape, but murder is trivialized more often in real life, especially in video games. Just because it particularly offends people when a rape joke is told, doesn't mean everybody should feel the same way. The only way I can see it being inappropriate if it can be translated into a real threat.

 

[Carbo]

So assuming we're on the same page here;

Saying something like "Oh shit you're killing me" when someone, say, tells you a hilariously funny joke, is completely okay.

Telling someone "Oh shit you're getting completely raped" whenever talking shit with your friends over a game of Twisted Metal or Mario Party is not okay, is sexist and people should feel terrible and burn in hell for doing that.

I can agree on Aris being an asshole taking it too far at a public event and this being exactly the reason why only "community professionals" such as Seth Killian, UltraDavid, James Chen and Keits are the only ones commenting on events like EVO, but I dunno, the above line of discussion kind of reeks of double standards.

 

[Masterdebator]

The whole problem here with this video is that there is nothing we can do about attitudes like this.

As well-spirited as it is, Bob's simply making a very general assault on the gaming community, one that has grown to be so enormous, a term like 'gaming community' becomes redundant.

No one can control what people will do and say, be it going on sexist diatribes or equivocating rape with owned.

The latter is an rather inane thing to get angered over. Yes rape is a serious and traumatic issue, but think about it realistically: Will a 15 year old care in a moment of excitement within a game? No. Over time, they'll (hopefully) grow up and not trivialize the term, and that's all we can hope for.

As for the sexist comments, again, most 15-20 gamers will simply grow out of using them, but there will always be some exceptions, with troubled individuals like Bakhtanian existing in gaming.

However, Bakhtanian has already been called out for his actions, vilified within gaming circles, and forced to apologize. He probably won't be changed as a person by this event, but it shows that the majority of gamers/ people think sexism isn't okay.

And that's where it should end.

But unfortunately, this is a catalyst for Bob to dogmatically looking down on gamers on the whole (again), needlessly insult people with notions of "needing sunlight" (why?), and apply sexism to be some sort of inherent issue within gaming culture.

Problem here is, sexism is a problem within CULTURE. Same as racism or homophobia. And realistically, it's not going anywhere. People have the freedom to say whatever they feel, and while they can be punished and ostracized for it, they nonetheless have that original freedom.

Now, is that a perfect politically-correct world? No, but it's the world regardless, and if we try and stop people from expressing opinions, offensive as they may be, we'll get into the disgusting world that is censorship, which is unacceptable within games or reality.

So what am I supposed to ascertain from this video?

Sexism is not okay? Trivializing words like "rape" is bad?

Last I checked I'd done neither in recent memory and knew both were not socially acceptable.

But I'm more than aware those opinions aren't a problem solely within the gaming community or communities, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Sexism, racism, homophobia, and general immaturity within people will always exist. People either grow out of it or they don't (and rightly get called out for it, as seen by Mr. Bakhtanian).

Sorry Bob, but I have to echo a previous notion,

"Why are we even talking about this?"

There's nothing we/ you can do about an issue like this.

Your overt feminist ideals are growing rather tiresome Bob.

Stop painting gamers out to be misogynist overweight pigs. Like equivocating the term "rape" with "owned", it's very immature and a narrow outlook on a cultural problem.

 

[Lexxicator]

.........
Your overt feminist ideals are growing rather tiresome Bob.

Stop painting gamers out to be misogynist overweight pigs. Like equivocating the term "rape" with "owned", it's very immature and a narrow outlook on a cultural problem.

I'm here totally agree with you, sir. Of course Bob is right too. But that's the problem here.

Bob, you're trying too hard to be right. The world we live in is not right, and that IS OKAY. Because if you'll try to make it right you might end up being another Hitler or something.

Yeah, some things offend some people. Deal with it! Stop being such crybabies.

Ok, I might not live in America, and I just don't get it. But in my country if someone offend you - you hit them in the face with a big solid stone. And then you drink vodka together.

 

[sapphireofthesea]

Disclaimer: The first sentence or the post that follows it is not meant to be baiting. I am a professor of philosophy and this is a sincere statement of my feelings.

Some of the views expressed in this video hurt me on a deep emotional level. If it was just one man's views then I wouldn't give it much thought since mistakes happen and it's often very hard to see, admit and correct one's own mistake. However, the delusion in question seems to have spread over large portions of humanity, including some of our best and brightest (Movie Bob being an example for both), and I am starting to feel like a the last sane guy in the asylum.

The mistake I am talking about is:


Unlike saying proven objective truths (for example "Randomly attacking people on the street will not make you popular among the police officers."), expressing purely subjective opinions does not obligate other people to agree with you (for example, I believe that the answer to most of philosophical question can be found in one or more episodes of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', but I do not think that the fact Stanford didn't include that show in their curriculum makes Stanford's philosophy program inadequate.)


So far, I am sure that most of you are on board with me. However, for reasons that are entirely mysterious to me, most people believe that, if they wish it REALLY hard, their subjective opinions will MAGICALLY BECOME OBJECTIVE TRUTHS! Aalakazam!

For the betterment of the human race, I present you with a short list of things that DO NOT transmogrify your opinions into objective truths:

1. Shouting.
2. The fact that YOU really believe it to be true, despite the lack of conclusive evidence (unless you are being played by Kevin Costner).
3. The fact that you find the opposing opinion offensive does not make you right, it makes you small-minded (or else every racist, homophobe or fanatic of any kind would be a moral authority by virtue of insanity).
4. Equating the act of expressing an opinion that you disagree with or using an expression that you dislike (but which in itself is not meant as an actual threat against the life or well-being of another person) with an act of aggression does not make you extra sensitive; it makes you insane. (this seems to be stupidity du jour these days. As a method of reality check, I invite all of you 'words can hurt just as bad' people to go to find a rape victim and say to him/her: "What happened to you is terrible. It is just as bad as using 'rape' as a casual synonym for defeat.")

People do not need your permission to have or to express an opinion. If you think that they are wrong - challenge them. If you know them to be logically incorrect - prove it. If you can't but you are still bothered that they are allowed to freely speak their mind -

THEN
GROW
THE
*CENSORED FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW THIS WORD EXISTS*
UP!!!

EDITED on 3.7.2012. 9.14h
5. The fact that many people share your opinion does not prove your opinion to an objective truth (if you disagree, then please prove me wrong. Gather a herd of people who also don't believe me and win the lottery 10 times in a row by making everyone share your belief that you are going to win.

Mr. Psychology professor. I am aware that this was meant for the non-science crowd. However, being a scientist myself and in the interest of further enforcing the validity of your argument, please provide some references for the points you have made, otherwise you are at risk of finding your own statements fall victim to your line of logic.

I personally find your above, unsupported, statement flawed, without reinforcement, and ignorant of the possibly of collective moralities playing a part in supporting a right or wrong ideal. I am no expert but I am aware of the contention in psychology surrounding the idea of morality. I would love to give references myself but it is late and it is not my field of study so I have no grounding to make an informed search of the literature.

First of all, I am not a psychology professor, I am a philosophy professor. The only reason that I have mentioned that in my post has been to explain why I care deeply about people making the mistake that I described in my post. The validity of my objection should be judged solely on it's coherency and the quality of my reasoning. I do not believe that my academic title, by itself, makes my reasoning more or less sound. For the same reason, I see no need to make a reference to other people's work in order to strengthen my case. Non quis, sed quid. (it doesn't matter who said something, it only matters what they said)

As for collective moralities, I believe that, while it is true that many groups of people share certain moral beliefs or whole moral systems, I do not believe that an opinion, moral or otherwise, becomes more valid simply because more people believe in it. Just because something IS does not prove that it OUGHT to be (Hume's Law). The fact that many people believe in something does not prove their belief to be either correct or moral (the moral system shared by the majority of Germans during Third Reich is a commonly quoted example).

In fact, that whole "many people sharing an opinion make that opinion true, will make a nice rule 5 for my original post:

5. The fact that many people share your opinion does not prove your opinion to an objective truth (if you disagree, then please prove me wrong. Gather a herd of people who also don't believe me and win the lottery 10 times in a row by making everyone share your belief that you are going to win.

My issue was less against your argument and more that your argument is unsupported. As best I am aware, even philosophy requires that positions be backed up by some 'evidence', in the case of philosophy I know it to be the opinion of other noted Philosophers.
So please find some references to support your position otherwise your distinction of being a philosophy professor (in support of your position being informed) becomes only as valid as any of the other posters here.

The well informed inform, the Scientific refer.

This is because you do not understand what 'evidence' means. Which would be excusable were it not for the fact that, despite your ignorance of this you are trying to teach me what evidence means. Since you have not even bothered to wiki 'evidence' or 'proof', I most certainly will not do that work for you. I will, however, demonstrate why your opinion (that a 'proper' philosopher can not make an argument without supporting it with a quote of other 'notable' philosopher saying the same thing) is wrong. This is called reductio ad absurdum (again google it or wiki it)


Let us suppose that it is true that every 'proper argument' in philosophy must be supported by quoting a 'notable philosopher'.

For example, let's say that I support argument A, by quoting Kant who also said wrote that A is true. However, if we are considering Kant to be a 'notable philosopher' and are quoting him as such, then we are surely not quoting some trivial thing he said but a 'proper argument'. Then, ex hypothesi, Kant himself must have had quoted some notable philosopher before him, say Plato, who in turn quoted Socrates. But, alas, Socrates quoted no one, because he is the first philosopher to have come up with argument A. This means that A was not a 'proper argument' when Socrates said it, which means that any argument based on A is also not a 'proper argument'.

In other words if there are such people as philosophers (and supposing that human race does not exist eternally , but that it had a beginning) there must have existed one among them who has been the first philosopher. However, since you claim that it is impossible to be a philosopher without quoting philosophers who came before you, there couldn't have been a first philosopher. Which means that there are no such thing as philosophers.

Or you are simply wrong about your hypothesis.

So in effect, no, you have nothing to support your view so it is just your opinion and your status does not add or subtract any more to it. Just wanted to clarify that.

 

[JLF]

I agree completely and I'm happy that somebody points out that people have obligations as well as rights. I do not know how it is in the States, but at least here in Finland we seem to have all the rights but almost no obligations (with the exceptions of having to pay taxes and the obligatory army/civil service). One should take responsibility for the actions even if they seems insignificant to some.

PS. Please do not refrain from making more of these "non-fun" episodes. It is one of the reasons I enjoy checking out the Escapist Magazine almost every other day.