The Atheist Tradition of Ruining America

[thegreekdog]

I fully recognize that there is worse discrimination like the scenarios you stated; my intent was merely to point out that there is discrimination out there. And there have been killings, although yeah they aren't as prevalent as say racial or gay killings: http://www.parallelpac.org/murder.htm

Like I said, I agree that there is discrimination against atheists, and like any discrimination it is bad. As BBS suggests multiple times, the amount of time I can spend concerned with discrimination against atheists is virtually zero. And when atheists attempt to get the attention of me, or the government, or social institutions, if they are successful, they are taking away those resources from other, and more important, attempts to eradicate discrimination (or any other non-discrimination type issues).

[thegreekdog]

Like I have always said.... you want to see religious fundamentalism in our time, look at some Atheists. Some of them which you can find on display almost anywhere are by far the most hateful, most intolerant, most close minded people around. They are the most hollow too, and if you ask me they have replaced the emptiness left from the place others fill with morality or fear of a higher power and possess spirit, with hate. Usually unhappy also.

Not all, just some. The spirit which helps a person struggle through a tough time and can provide unimaginable great strength in the highest moment of need, can also be used to do evil and spread hate and unhappiness and make the world a crappier place.

You could say the same of any extremist, regardless of his religious, ethnic, or ideological affiliation.

"Some of [insert group to Hate-Hate-Hate-Hate upon] are like this and like that and like this and uh."

And it dosen't justify discrimination.

[thegreekdog]

I don't even know how you got to that conclusion. I've never made a blanket statement of agreeing with ViperOverLord on his views.

But hey, don't feel bad about it. Maybe rational thinking and logical conclusions just aren't your cup of tea, perhaps?

Yes, that's my point. In threads where a particular user (whether that is Viperoverlord or not) has taken the position that discrimination exists with respect to white, Christian men, I did not see you supporting his contention when others (including me) have attacked that position. Using your logic (that any discrimination necessitates a response using resources), discrimination against white, Christian men is something that needs to be eradicated and we should spend social, economic, and government capital to achieve that result.

Under my logic, there are worse and more pervasive discriminations that we should be using our capital to eradicate. In the United States, I would classify the discrimination we should spend time on as follows: discrimination against gays, discrimination against Muslims, discrimination against hispanics, and discrimination against blacks. Other than that, our social, economic, and government capital cannot be used to protect Christians, or whites, or atheists, or men.

The rest of your argument is stupid. See BBS's post for a response.

[Aradhus]

lol - Every time any member of a group brings up discrimination of their group somebody provides an even greater nefarious discrimination against another group, which I guess to some people mitigates the initial discrimination.

Personally, I'm pro-discrimination, of every kind.

[pmchugh]

I'd really like some sort of script that hides the poster's identity when reading the forums.
Then we could play games trying to identify the poster based on his message.
Would be cool.

P.S. I was torn between this being a NS/PD thread(based only off the title) , probably would have went with NS.

My post would have had actual content to it though.

And I don't think atheists should be deported. Although I do think many are trying to ruin America simply by suing on the bases of "being offended" when they see religious expressions on public property. No one's rights are being violated by being offended by something.

Holy shit I partially agree with part of your post. Too many people in america the western world sue over everything and are far too quick to get offended over anything.

However I would not say this is limited to, or even particularly done by atheists.

[pmchugh]

Like I have always said.... you want to see religious fundamentalism in our time, look at some Atheists. Some of them which you can find on display almost anywhere are by far the most hateful, most intolerant, most close minded people around. They are the most hollow too, and if you ask me they have replaced the emptiness left from the place others fill with morality or fear of a higher power and possess spirit, with hate. Usually unhappy also.

Not all, just some. The spirit which helps a person struggle through a tough time and can provide unimaginable great strength in the highest moment of need, can also be used to do evil and spread hate and unhappiness and make the world a crappier place.

Name one and show how he has had a negative impact on the world due to his atheist fundamentalism.

[natty dread]

If the state's goal is to mitigate discrimination, then it makes sense to mitigate the effects of discrimination which create the most harm.

Yeah that's cool and all, except it's not all about states' decisions. There are ways to fight discrimination that do not require state intervention.

And when atheists attempt to get the attention of me, or the government, or social institutions, if they are successful, they are taking away those resources from other, and more important, attempts to eradicate discrimination (or any other non-discrimination type issues).

That's assuming that fighting discrimination is a zero-sum game.

Yes, that's my point. In threads where a particular user (whether that is Viperoverlord or not) has taken the position that discrimination exists with respect to white, Christian men, I did not see you supporting his contention when others (including me) have attacked that position.

Ok, the thing is, even if a white christian man can be discriminated against on an individual level, it doesn't mean that white christian men as a group are discriminated against. Because usually in these cases there are other factors than whiteness, christianity or maleness that cause the discrimination. For example, a gay white christian man can be discriminated against for being gay.

Using your logic (that any discrimination necessitates a response using resources), discrimination against white, Christian men is something that needs to be eradicated and we should spend social, economic, and government capital to achieve that result.

That's so far away from my logic that I can't even see it with binoculars anymore.

Under my logic, there are worse and more pervasive discriminations that we should be using our capital to eradicate. In the United States, I would classify the discrimination we should spend time on as follows: discrimination against gays, discrimination against Muslims, discrimination against hispanics, and discrimination against blacks. Other than that, our social, economic, and government capital cannot be used to protect Christians, or whites, or atheists, or men.

And again you're assuming that there's some finite amount of time and resources that are reserved for fighting discrimination. This just isn't true. Government measures are often necessary to fight discrimination but they're by no means the only ones. In a lot of cases, individuals can fight agaisnt discrimination much more effectively than governments could. After all, to eradicate discrimination you need to modify the attitudes of people, and people are more likely to listen to their peers than they are to obey some government edict.

And when it comes to those kind of measures, your argument simply falls flat. People choose which issues they care about enough to fight about - most often based on how closely the issue touches their own lives, although this is not always the case - and if you were to somehow prevent these people from fighting against the issue of their choice, this wouldn't mean they would switch on to fight the issue which you deem more "important".

So the argument that fighting less important issues necessarily takes away resources from more important issues simply isn't true.

The rest of your argument is stupid

No, the rest of your argument is stupid.

[BigBallinStalin]

[BigBallinStalin]

If the state's goal is to mitigate discrimination, then it makes sense to mitigate the effects of discrimination which create the most harm.

Yeah that's cool and all, except it's not all about states' decisions. There are ways to fight discrimination that do not require state intervention.

Okay then, replace "state" with "natty dread" or "organization." It still doesn't change the fact that resources are limited and that in order to gain the most effect, the resources should be dedicated to their most highly valued use.

I said that in response to your previous post. Before we move on, what are your thoughts on that? Have you changed your stance here?

Just wondering because my point is related to TGD's about the relative value of different types of discrimination.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165918&view=unread#p3628819

So, you're of the opinion that the entire world should only concentrate on one problem at any given time?

Yeah, that sounds efficient. And by efficient, I mean utterly moronic.

If you brush off problems on the basis that there are worse problems, then eventually you have to brush off all the problems in the world except the absolutely worst one.

Decisions, which dedicate resources to achieve a certain goal, are made on the margin. If the state or some organization has limited resources, then they must dedicate them to whatever they perceive to be their most highly valued use--at the cost of not dedicating these resources to other uses (i.e. opportunity cost).

If the state's goal is to mitigate discrimination, then it makes sense to mitigate the effects of discrimination which create the most harm.

[natty dread]

Okay then, replace "state" with "natty dread" or "organization." It still doesn't change the fact that resources are limited

You obviously didn't read my whole post, because I already addressed that exact point in it. The short version is: you're wrong.

Before we move on, what are your thoughts on that? Have you changed your stance here?

Read my previous post. It's in the longest paragraph (2nd to last).

[BigBallinStalin]

And again you're assuming that there's some finite amount of time and resources that are reserved for fighting discrimination. This just isn't true. Government measures are often necessary to fight discrimination but they're by no means the only ones. In a lot of cases, individuals can fight agaisnt discrimination much more effectively than governments could. After all, to eradicate discrimination you need to modify the attitudes of people, and people are more likely to listen to their peers than they are to obey some government edict.

And when it comes to those kind of measures, your argument simply falls flat. People choose which issues they care about enough to fight about - most often based on how closely the issue touches their own lives, although this is not always the case - and if you were to somehow prevent these people from fighting against the issue of their choice, this wouldn't mean they would switch on to fight the issue which you deem more "important".

So the argument that fighting less important issues necessarily takes away resources from more important issues simply isn't true.

You haven't successfully explained how the underlined is true.

How is there an infinite amount of resources and time for fighting discrimination?

(hint: you have to sleep at some time; hint 2: you only live so long; hint 3: you can only dedicate a finite amount of time toward fighting discrimination because other actions are necessary--e.g. earning an income, or any activity other than fighting discrimination).



Also, opportunity costs still matter (e.g. hint 3). Whenever you decide to fight a certain kind of discrimination, you're foregoing the value of fighting discrimination elsewhere (or some other action, whatever that may be). If time and resources were infinite, then why does an individual still incur opportunity costs?
(hint: because resources are scarce; they are finite).


TGD deems that compared to discrimination against white atheists, racial discrimination and hate crimes against gays are a more valuable form of discrimination to fight. Do you agree?

[Neoteny]

I pretty much agree with tgd and BBS. In the US at least, we, as atheists, are fairly well protected constitutionally, and there are plenty of ways to go about ensuring our equality through the legal system. I do worry about the public school system to a large degree, but that's a crossroad of a multitude of issues that need to be addressed.

As far as atheism goes, I'm actually much more concerned about the mote in our eye, or however that saying goes (what can I say, my Biblical knowledge is limited). As a bunch of middle class white dudes, we atheists look as silly complaining about discrimination as Christians do. We need to diversify, and that should be our top priority. That's where most atheist resources should go (with the leftovers going to help teh chilluns) imo.

It's jarring to hear politicians requesting their particular god bless us, and seeing the religious right trying to hamstring personal freedom, but those that are relatively harmless (since the former is just absurd, and we can combine resources with others on the latter). If we wish to present non-hypocritical concerns that we want to be taken seriously, we need to at least make an effort to get our own shit in order. Even if the theists don't recognize there's an issue yet. Indeed, we probably shouldn't wait for them to start pointing it out.

I hate that people treat us like shit too, but we aren't usually held back by it, and I think, for the short term, most of our investment still needs to be internal. Plus, when there are more of us, and they aren't all white professors, we'll pack a, perhaps not harder, but more impressive and effective, punch.

[natty dread]

You haven't successfully explained how the underlined is true.

It's explained right in the text that follows the underlined part. Should I underline the relevant parts for you?

Here you go:

And again you're assuming that there's some finite amount of time and resources that are reserved for fighting discrimination. This just isn't true. Government measures are often necessary to fight discrimination but they're by no means the only ones. In a lot of cases, individuals can fight agaisnt discrimination much more effectively than governments could. After all, to eradicate discrimination you need to modify the attitudes of people, and people are more likely to listen to their peers than they are to obey some government edict.

And when it comes to those kind of measures, your argument simply falls flat. People choose which issues they care about enough to fight about - most often based on how closely the issue touches their own lives, although this is not always the case - and if you were to somehow prevent these people from fighting against the issue of their choice, this wouldn't mean they would switch on to fight the issue which you deem more "important".

So the argument that fighting less important issues necessarily takes away resources from more important issues simply isn't true.

How is there an infinite amount of resources and time for fighting discrimination?

That's not what I said.

I said there isn't a finite amount of time/resources that are reserved for fighting discrimination. Maybe I should have said "static" instead of finite, to be more accurate. But the point is, that people fight against discrimination where they perceive discrimination to exist, and where they feel qualified to speak out against the issues of discrimination. If you tell those people that the issues they fight for are "less important" than some other issues, that doesn't suddenly make those people spend their "resources" to the more "important" causes - in other words, the resources those people are spending in fighting for the causes of their choice are not resources taken away from fighting for other causes.


You're assuming there's some static amount of resources each person spends to fight discrimination, and that you can somehow direct those resources to the "most important" causes. This is not true, because not everyone cares about every cause, and if you were to somehow prevent people from fighting for the cause of their choice, they would just stop fighting for any cause. Or alternatively, they'd start fighting for the cause of "stop BBS from preventing us from fighting for the causes we choose".


Am I making myself clear enough? I even underlined the relevant parts for your convenience.

Whenever you decide to fight a certain kind of discrimination, you're foregoing the value of fighting discrimination elsewhere

Sure, if the only way you consider "fighting discrimination" is donating money to some organization, but that's by far not the only way to fight discrimination. And again, when it comes to actions by individual humans, your argument simply falls flat.

TGD deems that compared to discrimination against white atheists, racial discrimination and hate crimes against gays are a more valuable form of discrimination to fight. Do you agree?

Wow, nice strawman there. Who's fighting against discrimination against "white atheists"? Or do you just assume that non-white people can't be atheists because, what... they're more "primitive" or "uneducated"?

Anyway, no, I don't consider one form of discrimination to be "more valuable" to fight against. We need all kinds of discrimination to be fought against. Firstly because of reasons I already explained in the first part of this post, and secondly, well, there's no secondly really.

Note that this doesn't mean that things shouldn't be prioritized in cases where you have some limited amount of resources, and you have to decided which causes you commit those resources to - for example, situations like some charity organization or government or whatever having to decide how much of their funds they dedicate to which cause. But again, this does not apply to individual actions, and not even to all organizations.

Lastly, I leave you with a nice proverb I read one day:

I wept, because I had no shoes. Then I met a man who had no feet...

...and I continued weeping, because his foot problem did nothing to address my shoe problem.

[BigBallinStalin]

You haven't successfully explained how the underlined is true.

It's explained right in the text that follows the underlined part. Should I underline the relevant parts for you?

Here you go:

And again you're assuming that there's some finite amount of time and resources that are reserved for fighting discrimination. This just isn't true. Government measures are often necessary to fight discrimination but they're by no means the only ones. In a lot of cases, individuals can fight agaisnt discrimination much more effectively than governments could. After all, to eradicate discrimination you need to modify the attitudes of people, and people are more likely to listen to their peers than they are to obey some government edict.

And when it comes to those kind of measures, your argument simply falls flat. People choose which issues they care about enough to fight about - most often based on how closely the issue touches their own lives, although this is not always the case - and if you were to somehow prevent these people from fighting against the issue of their choice, this wouldn't mean they would switch on to fight the issue which you deem more "important".

So the argument that fighting less important issues necessarily takes away resources from more important issues simply isn't true.

I read what you said. That underlined part doesn't refute the claim that there is finite amount of time and resources that are reserved for fighting discrimination.

To me, you're just saying: people value things differently. Okay, and?

How is there an infinite amount of resources and time for fighting discrimination?

That's not what I said.

I said there isn't a finite amount of time/resources that are reserved for fighting discrimination. Maybe I should have said "static" instead of finite, to be more accurate. But the point is, that people fight against discrimination where they perceive discrimination to exist, and where they feel qualified to speak out against the issues of discrimination. If you tell those people that the issues they fight for are "less important" than some other issues, that doesn't suddenly make those people spend their "resources" to the more "important" causes - in other words, the resources those people are spending in fighting for the causes of their choice are not resources taken away from fighting for other causes.

Yeah, I know, people value things differently. There's still a finite amount of resources and time an individual can dedicate to fighting discrimination.

RE: 2nd underlined. Opportunity costs exist. I don't understand why you don't get that.

You're assuming there's some static amount of resources each person spends to fight discrimination, and that you can somehow direct those resources to the "most important" causes. This is not true, because not everyone cares about every cause, and if you were to somehow prevent people from fighting for the cause of their choice, they would just stop fighting for any cause. Or alternatively, they'd start fighting for the cause of "stop BBS from preventing us from fighting for the causes we choose".

Your reasoning, i.e. "not everyone cares about every cause," doesn't refute the claim that each person has a limited amount of resources dedicated to fighting discrimination.

I never said that the amount was static. It's definitely subject to change, and it varies for each individual.

Whenever you decide to fight a certain kind of discrimination, you're foregoing the value of fighting discrimination elsewhere

Sure, if the only way you consider "fighting discrimination" is donating money to some organization, but that's by far not the only way to fight discrimination. And again, when it comes to actions by individual humans, your argument simply falls flat.

Um, are you claiming that opportunity costs don't exist?

And, based on your above responses, I don't think you know what my argument is.

TGD deems that compared to discrimination against white atheists, racial discrimination and hate crimes against gays are a more valuable form of discrimination to fight. Do you agree?

Wow, nice strawman there. Who's fighting against discrimination against "white atheists"? Or do you just assume that non-white people can't be atheists because, what... they're more "primitive" or "uneducated"?

Anyway, no, I don't consider one form of discrimination to be "more valuable" to fight against. We need all kinds of discrimination to be fought against. Firstly because of reasons I already explained in the first part of this post, and secondly, well, there's no secondly really.

Note that this doesn't mean that things shouldn't be prioritized in cases where you have some limited amount of resources, and you have to decided which causes you commit those resources to - for example, situations like some charity organization or government or whatever having to decide how much of their funds they dedicate to which cause. But again, this does not apply to individual actions, and not even to all organizations.

At this point, I don't know if you know what my argument has been, so:

What does not apply to individual actions?

[natty dread]

At this point, I think you're just being stubborn and refusing to actually read or consider what I'm saying.

I read what you said. That underlined part doesn't refute the claim that there is finite amount of time and resources that are reserved for fighting discrimination.

To me, you're just saying: people value things differently. Okay, and?

Yeah. You're not reading what I'm saying.

Let's make it very simple:

You claim that everyone should focus on only the worst discrimination there exists. You say this is because there's a finite amount of resources to fight discrimination.

I'm saying this is flawed reasoning, because if you prevent some people from fighting a certain problem on the basis of "there are more important issues / worse problems" then the resources those people were spending on the "lesser" issue will not be redirected to the bigger problem, instead they will simply not work on any issue because most people only fight for issues they personally care about.

Can you see my argument now?

RE: 2nd underlined. Opportunity costs exist. I don't understand why you don't get that.

Don't throw your fancy economist mumbo-jumbo at me. What exactly do you mean by "opportunity cost" in this context?

Your reasoning, i.e. "not everyone cares about every cause," doesn't refute the claim that each person has a limited amount of resources dedicated to fighting discrimination.

Sure, but that's entirely irrelevant. The amount of resources each person spends to fight discrimination is not static, ie. it's not a "zero-sum game" - if you take away resources from fighting certain types of discrimination it does not necessarily free resources to fight another type of discrimination. Therefore, the resources a person spends to fight for the cause of his choice are not resources away from other causes.

It's the same fallacy as when the music industry calculates how much piracy eats their profits. They assume that If the people who pirate their music didn't pirate it, they'd buy it instead, and then they base their loss of profit on those calculations and use them to argue for more strict IP laws. But it's flawed reasoning, because they don't know how many of those pirates would actually buy their products if they didn't pirate them.

And, based on your above responses, I don't think you know what my argument is.

I don't think you know what your argument is.

At this point, I don't know if you know what my argument has been, so:

What does not apply to individual actions?

U trollin?

I've now spent 3 posts trying to explain to you what doesn't apply to individual actions.

[BigBallinStalin]

At this point, I think you're just being stubborn and refusing to actually read or consider what I'm saying.

I've been reading everything you've been typing, so there's no need to be frustrated in that regard.

I read what you said. That underlined part doesn't refute the claim that there is finite amount of time and resources that are reserved for fighting discrimination.

To me, you're just saying: people value things differently. Okay, and?

Yeah. You're not reading what I'm saying.

Let's make it very simple:

You claim that everyone should focus on only the worst discrimination there exists. You say this is because there's a finite amount of resources to fight discrimination.

I'm saying this is flawed reasoning, because if you prevent some people from fighting a certain problem on the basis of "there are more important issues / worse problems" then the resources those people were spending on the "lesser" issue will not be redirected to the bigger problem, instead they will simply not work on any issue because most people only fight for issues they personally care about.

Can you see my argument now?

I'm not making that claim. I've never said that "everyone should focus on only the worst discrimination there exists" or anything like that. Please quote me on that.

Since that isn't my claim, your criticism doesn't involve me, but yes I generally agree with your argument.


Here's the original argument which I was responding to:

So, you're of the opinion that the entire world should only concentrate on one problem at any given time?

Yeah, that sounds efficient. And by efficient, I mean utterly moronic.

If you brush off problems on the basis that there are worse problems, then eventually you have to brush off all the problems in the world except the absolutely worst one.

Decisions, which dedicate resources to achieve a certain goal, are made on the margin. If the state or some organization has limited resources, then they must dedicate them to whatever they perceive to be their most highly valued use--at the cost of not dedicating these resources to other uses (i.e. opportunity cost).

If the state's goal is to mitigate discrimination, then it makes sense to mitigate the effects of discrimination which create the most harm.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165918&start=45#p3628819

The underlined is what I responded to. The underlined is different from the argument you described above. Anyway:


In other words, people rationally "brush off" problems on the basis that there are worse problems because people have a scarce amount resources (including time) in order to deal with problems.

It doesn't follow that "eventually you have to brush off all the problems in the world except the absolutely worst one." In order to maximize efficiency, it makes sense to allocate a given amount of resources to their most highly valued need first. (i.e. diminishing marginal returns).

So, it's not that all problems are brushed off except the absolutely worst one. The most valued problem is addressed first with a given amount of resources. Resources of secondary importance are dedicated to a problem of secondary value. So on and so forth.

Therefore, it's not like all problems would be brushed off--they're merely valued less and will have less important resources dedicated to them.

That's all I've been saying.

This is economic decision-making 101. This also applies at the individual level.

RE: 2nd underlined. Opportunity costs exist. I don't understand why you don't get that.

Don't throw your fancy economist mumbo-jumbo at me. What exactly do you mean by "opportunity cost" in this context?

Exactly as I described it. "Whenever you decide to fight a certain kind of discrimination, you're foregoing the value of fighting discrimination elsewhere." (I'll explain what an opportunity cost is below.)

Your reasoning, i.e. "not everyone cares about every cause," doesn't refute the claim that each person has a limited amount of resources dedicated to fighting discrimination.

Sure, but that's entirely irrelevant. The amount of resources each person spends to fight discrimination is not static, ie. it's not a "zero-sum game" - if you take away resources from fighting certain types of discrimination it does not necessarily free resources to fight another type of discrimination. Therefore, the resources a person spends to fight for the cause of his choice are not resources away from other causes.

If your reasoning for refuting the claim (that each person has a limited amount of resources dedicated to fighting discrimination) is irrelevant, then why even refute it?

Here's you: "And again you're assuming that there's some finite amount of time and resources that are reserved for fighting discrimination. This just isn't true."
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165918&start=60#p3630129

At the individual and organizational level, my assumption holds true. I know you said, "I'm not implying the opposite (i.e. resources are infinite), I'm saying they're not static nor are they zero-sum." Okay, you have a weird definition of static and/or zero-sum, but I'll explain below.



"if you take away resources from fighting certain types of discrimination it does not necessarily free resources to fight another type of discrimination."
I agree that resources used for action A can't be used for action B at that time.


[i]Therefore, the resources a person spends to fight for the cause of his choice are not resources away from other causes.[/i]
I disagree because it depends if the resources are re-usable, i.e. can be consumed repeatedly. Eventually though, resources have a "shelf-life," i.e. they can only be used so many times. Once a resource is gone, it can't be used for another cause; therefore, the resource used for cause A can't be used for cause B.


Maybe this will help you understand my position:

I've been discussing this from two perspectives: the individual and an organization. An individual, and an organization, only have access to a certain amount of resources at a specific time in a specific place. At the time of making a decision, dedicating resources to decision A foregoes the dedication of resources to decision B. That's basically what an opportunity cost is. It's the value of some decision foregone. You only have so much time in a day. How will you allocate your resources for the next hour? If you choose A, then you can't do B for the next hour. The opportunity cost is the value foregone from choice B.

It's the same fallacy as when the music industry calculates how much piracy eats their profits. They assume that If the people who pirate their music didn't pirate it, they'd buy it instead, and then they base their loss of profit on those calculations and use them to argue for more strict IP laws. But it's flawed reasoning, because they don't know how many of those pirates would actually buy their products if they didn't pirate them.

Help me out here. How is this fallacy equivalent to whichever claim I've been making?

And, based on your above responses, I don't think you know what my argument is.

I don't think you know what your argument is.

I do. The above counts as the second time I've posted the original argument.

At this point, I don't know if you know what my argument has been, so:

What does not apply to individual actions?

U trollin?

I've now spent 3 posts trying to explain to you what doesn't apply to individual actions.

Okay, I'll try again:

Note that this doesn't mean that things shouldn't be prioritized in cases where you have some limited amount of resources, and you have to decided which causes you commit those resources to - for example, situations like some charity organization or government or whatever having to decide how much of their funds they dedicate to which cause. But again, this does not apply to individual actions, and not even to all organizations.

What exactly doesn't apply to individual actions? "Prioritizing in cases where you have some limited amount of resources, and you have to decide which causes you commit those resources to"? I don't know , which is why I asked...

I want you to be totally clear: what exactly does not apply to individual actions? Your zero-sum/static scenario? ???

[natty dread]

I've been reading everything you've been typing, so there's no need to be frustrated in that regard.

So... you're just being stubborn, then?

I'm not making that claim. I've never said that "everyone should focus on only the worst discrimination there exists" or anything like that. Please quote me on that.

That was the argument TGD appeared to be making and you entered the argument in defense of TGD:s side.

To be more precise, the argument TGD appeared to be making was "discrimination against group X does not matter because group Y suffers worse discrimination". I pointed out that the logical conclusion of not addressing a problem because worse problems exist is that we can ultimately only address one problem at any given time. You seemed to disagree with this assessment, since it was at this point you entered to defend TGD:s side of the argument.

Since that isn't my claim, your criticism doesn't involve me, but yes I generally agree with your argument.

So what exactly are you arguing against then?

In other words, people rationally "brush off" problems on the basis that there are worse problems because people have a scarce amount resources (including time) in order to deal with problems.

But here's the thing: there's no objective assessment of what constitutes as the "worst" problem. It all depends on perspective. If you're a black person, then you probably see racism against black people as the worst issue. If you're gay, you see discrimination against gay people as the worst issue. If you're an environmentalist, you see pollution and climate change as the worst issue. Etc and so on.

So there's really no "rational" basis to brushing off problems. It's one thing to say "I want to dedicate my finite personal resources to addressing problem X, so I don't have any resources left to address problem Y which I consider a lesser problem", and another thing entirely to say "I think problem X is worse, so problem Y doesn't exist/is irrelevant/people who care about problem Y are idiots". The former I can agree with, not the latter.

In other words, it's ok to prioritize your personal resources according to which problem you perceive as the worst, or which problem you see yourself having the best opportunities to address, or for some other reason. But it's not ok to argue that everyone should have the same priorities in addressing problems as you have.

Exactly as I described it. "Whenever you decide to fight a certain kind of discrimination, you're foregoing the value of fighting discrimination elsewhere."

natty dread wrote:It's the same fallacy as when the music industry calculates how much piracy eats their profits. They assume that If the people who pirate their music didn't pirate it, they'd buy it instead, and then they base their loss of profit on those calculations and use them to argue for more strict IP laws. But it's flawed reasoning, because they don't know how many of those pirates would actually buy their products if they didn't pirate them.

Help me out here. How is this fallacy equivalent to whichever claim I've been making?

It's simple. You said that when you decide to use your resources to address problem A, you're then "foregoing the value of" addressing problem B.

But this assumes that you would have used those resources to address problem B in the first place. I'm saying that you can't make that assertion. The same way the music industry can't make the assertion that the people who pirate music would have bought it instead if they didn't pirate.

So the resources you use to address problem A are not resources taken away from addressing problem B, if you would not have addressed problem B either way.

I want you to be totally clear: what exactly does not apply to individual actions?

An organization has a fixed amount of cash or resources which they can dedicate to addressing different issues at a given time. An organization therefore has to prioritize how much of those resources they dedicate to which issues.

An individual doesn't have this fixed amount of resources which the individual will necessarily be dedicating to all the problems the individual sees. You can't really quantify an individual's problem-solving resources, unlike you can those of an organization.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not making that claim. I've never said that "everyone should focus on only the worst discrimination there exists" or anything like that. Please quote me on that.

That was the argument TGD appeared to be making and you entered the argument in defense of TGD:s side.

To be more precise, the argument TGD appeared to be making was "discrimination against group X does not matter because group Y suffers worse discrimination". I pointed out that the logical conclusion of not addressing a problem because worse problems exist is that we can ultimately only address one problem at any given time. You seemed to disagree with this assessment, since it was at this point you entered to defend TGD:s side of the argument.

As far as that argument goes, here's my stance: this violates the concept of interpersonal comparisons of utility. In other words, people value things differently; therefore, to express one's preferences as being true for everyone is erroneous.

Since that isn't my claim, your criticism doesn't involve me, but yes I generally agree with your argument.

So what exactly are you arguing against then?

Basically, when you said, "And again you're assuming that there's some finite amount of time and resources that are reserved for fighting discrimination. This just isn't true."
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165918&view=unread#p3630129

I went, "WAT." And from there, we got involved in this rough and tumble. I think we both understand generally what we're talking about now.

In other words, people rationally "brush off" problems on the basis that there are worse problems because people have a scarce amount resources (including time) in order to deal with problems.

But here's the thing: there's no objective assessment of what constitutes as the "worst" problem. It all depends on perspective. If you're a black person, then you probably see racism against black people as the worst issue. If you're gay, you see discrimination against gay people as the worst issue. If you're an environmentalist, you see pollution and climate change as the worst issue. Etc and so on.

So there's really no "rational" basis to brushing off problems. It's one thing to say "I want to dedicate my finite personal resources to addressing problem X, so I don't have any resources left to address problem Y which I consider a lesser problem", and another thing entirely to say "I think problem X is worse, so problem Y doesn't exist/is irrelevant/people who care about problem Y are idiots". The former I can agree with, not the latter.

In other words, it's ok to prioritize your personal resources according to which problem you perceive as the worst, or which problem you see yourself having the best opportunities to address, or for some other reason. But it's not ok to argue that everyone should have the same priorities in addressing problems as you have.

Right, hence my "interpersonal comparisons of utility" response above. I wasn't stating that people value things equally, or should value combating discrimination A instead of discrimination B. I was merely explaining the decision-making process at the individual and organizational level, and how that relates to your post.


The TGD-BBS-natty dread argument:
Now, this is where we may butt heads because this is how my original argument bolsters TGD's point about the relative values of combating various types of discrimination:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165918&start=45#p3628968
"If the state's goal is to mitigate discrimination, then it makes sense to mitigate the effects of discrimination which create the most harm."

You stated that there are alternatives, and I agree that there are. But from a public policy perspective, it makes sense to mitigate the effects of discrimination which create the most harm. If TGD was taking this stance, then I guess he could use my argument as support; however, I have no idea what TGD thinks about any of this.

Exactly as I described it. "Whenever you decide to fight a certain kind of discrimination, you're foregoing the value of fighting discrimination elsewhere."

natty dread wrote:It's the same fallacy as when the music industry calculates how much piracy eats their profits. They assume that If the people who pirate their music didn't pirate it, they'd buy it instead, and then they base their loss of profit on those calculations and use them to argue for more strict IP laws. But it's flawed reasoning, because they don't know how many of those pirates would actually buy their products if they didn't pirate them.

Help me out here. How is this fallacy equivalent to whichever claim I've been making?

It's simple. You said that when you decide to use your resources to address problem A, you're then "foregoing the value of" addressing problem B.

But this assumes that you would have used those resources to address problem B in the first place. I'm saying that you can't make that assertion. The same way the music industry can't make the assertion that the people who pirate music would have bought it instead if they didn't pirate.

So the resources you use to address problem A are not resources taken away from addressing problem B, if you would not have addressed problem B either way.

Actually, the idea of opportunity costs doesn't assume that because costs are specific to time and place. It gets tricky, and I'll try my best to explain. But first:

"if you take away resources from fighting certain types of discrimination it does not necessarily free resources to fight another type of discrimination."
I agree that resources used for action A can't be used for action B at that time.


Therefore, the resources a person spends to fight for the cause of his choice are not resources away from other causes.
I disagree because it depends if the resources are re-usable, i.e. can be consumed repeatedly. Eventually though, resources have a "shelf-life," i.e. they can only be used so many times. Once a resource is gone, it can't be used for another cause; therefore, the resource used for cause A can't be used for cause B.

How does your response refute my argument (the underlined)?

I want you to be totally clear: what exactly does not apply to individual actions?

An organization has a fixed amount of cash or resources which they can dedicate to addressing different issues at a given time. An organization therefore has to prioritize how much of those resources they dedicate to which issues.

An individual doesn't have this fixed amount of resources which the individual will necessarily be dedicating to all the problems the individual sees. You can't really quantify an individual's problem-solving resources, unlike you can those of an organization.

Just because you can't quantify something, it doesn't mean that it's non-existent. Valuation is subjective; therefore, the utility (i.e. usefulness) of a resource is also subjectively determined. Labor and capital (i.e. both are resources) can be applied in many different ways.

Think about how you spend your income. Suppose it was decreased by 50%. At that time, you must choose how to allocate your resources. Would you strive to reduce the consumption of goods and services which were less valuable? Or would strive to stop spending money on more valuable goods and services?

[Neoteny]

Perhaps I misread both of you and my reply was completely non sequitur. Carry on.

[pmchugh]

WALL OF TEXT

[Frigidus]

WALL OF TEXT

tl;dr

[natty dread]

As far as that argument goes, here's my stance: this violates the concept of interpersonal comparisons of utility. In other words, people value things differently; therefore, to express one's preferences as being true for everyone is erroneous.

Ok, at least we agree on that.

"If the state's goal is to mitigate discrimination, then it makes sense to mitigate the effects of discrimination which create the most harm."

You stated that there are alternatives, and I agree that there are. But from a public policy perspective, it makes sense to mitigate the effects of discrimination which create the most harm. If TGD was taking this stance, then I guess he could use my argument as support; however, I have no idea what TGD thinks about any of this.

Well, as far as policy-making goes, it doesn't necessarily consume more resources to create policies that address multiple types of discrimination. For example, let's say you enact a policy that forbids discrimination of group A. Then a certain amount of resources is required to enforce the policy. But if you instead enact a policy that forbids discrimination of group A and group B, does it mean that more resources are required to enforce the policy?

I'd say, not necessarily, it depends on the situation.

How does your response refute my argument (the underlined)?

Your argument doesn't address the fact that if the resource wasn't going to be used for cause B either way, then using the resource for cause A does not reduce the resources available for cause B.

Even if the resource has a "shelf-life", that just means that the alternative for the resource being used for cause A is the resource going wasted or being used for cause C - keeping in mind that in this scenario it's a given that the resource won't be used for cause B.

Just because you can't quantify something, it doesn't mean that it's non-existent. Valuation is subjective; therefore, the utility (i.e. usefulness) of a resource is also subjectively determined. Labor and capital (i.e. both are resources) can be applied in many different ways.

Sure, ok.

Think about how you spend your income. Suppose it was decreased by 50%. At that time, you must choose how to allocate your resources. Would you strive to reduce the consumption of goods and services which were less valuable? Or would strive to stop spending money on more valuable goods and services?

Well, assuming that I'm a rational actor, I would reduce the consumption of goods and services which were less essential for me in that situation.

If I'm not a rational actor, there's no telling what I might do. I might spend the whole amount on lottery tickets.

[BigBallinStalin]

Think about how you spend your income. Suppose it was decreased by 50%. At that time, you must choose how to allocate your resources. Would you strive to reduce the consumption of goods and services which were less valuable? Or would strive to stop spending money on more valuable goods and services?

Well, assuming that I'm a rational actor, I would reduce the consumption of goods and services which were less essential for me in that situation.

If I'm not a rational actor, there's no telling what I might do. I might spend the whole amount on lottery tickets.

Rational choice theory, as far as I understand it, would accept both as rational. Your choices reveal how you value goods and services in the ex-ante. Afterward, you might realize you made a mistake in allocation your income; however, that's just the ex-post of the exchange/decision.

Either way, you're still choosing to curtail consumption in accord with how you value those goods and services at that time.

In other words, the law of diminishing marginal utility still applies to organizations as well as individuals.


(I'll respond to the rest later).

[BigBallinStalin]

As far as that argument goes, here's my stance: this violates the concept of interpersonal comparisons of utility. In other words, people value things differently; therefore, to express one's preferences as being true for everyone is erroneous.

Ok, at least we agree on that.

"If the state's goal is to mitigate discrimination, then it makes sense to mitigate the effects of discrimination which create the most harm."

You stated that there are alternatives, and I agree that there are. But from a public policy perspective, it makes sense to mitigate the effects of discrimination which create the most harm. If TGD was taking this stance, then I guess he could use my argument as support; however, I have no idea what TGD thinks about any of this.

Well, as far as policy-making goes, it doesn't necessarily consume more resources to create policies that address multiple types of discrimination. For example, let's say you enact a policy that forbids discrimination of group A. Then a certain amount of resources is required to enforce the policy. But if you instead enact a policy that forbids discrimination of group A and group B, does it mean that more resources are required to enforce the policy?

I'd say, not necessarily, it depends on the situation.

Sure, it depends on the means; however, it doesn't follow that "it doesn't necessarily consume more resources to create policies that address multiple types of discrimination." Why? Because it still depends on the means. It depends on enforcement, and the available resources for enforcement.

How does your response refute my argument (the underlined)?

Your argument doesn't address the fact that if the resource wasn't going to be used for cause B either way, then using the resource for cause A does not reduce the resources available for cause B.

Even if the resource has a "shelf-life", that just means that the alternative for the resource being used for cause A is the resource going wasted or being used for cause C - keeping in mind that in this scenario it's a given that the resource won't be used for cause B.

You can only do so many things for a certain period of time.

Just because you can't quantify something, it doesn't mean that it's non-existent. Valuation is subjective; therefore, the utility (i.e. usefulness) of a resource is also subjectively determined. Labor and capital (i.e. both are resources) can be applied in many different ways.

Sure, ok.

Think about how you spend your income. Suppose it was decreased by 50%. At that time, you must choose how to allocate your resources. Would you strive to reduce the consumption of goods and services which were less valuable? Or would strive to stop spending money on more valuable goods and services?

Well, assuming that I'm a rational actor, I would reduce the consumption of goods and services which were less essential for me in that situation.

If I'm not a rational actor, there's no telling what I might do. I might spend the whole amount on lottery tickets.

Rationality depends on one's subjective valuation and the limits of one's knowledge at a specific time and place for a specific action.

So, sure, it may not be rational for you to spend all your remaining income in lottery tickets. Back to the point, diminishing marginal utility applies to individuals as well as organizations.