On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 12:46:55AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > Ever since then, I have a fear of my kids and heights. I can take > heights quite well, I just can't stand seeing my kids at the edge. > So, I get nervous when they are at a second story railing, even though > I can at the same time, calculate that the danger is in an acceptable > range.
... > Its a trueism of therapy that one cannot control one's feelings > rationally. One can put limits on one's behavior, but overcoming > a phobia is not just a matter of learning how to think rationally. > Since my particular fear was well grounded, and strongly imprinted, I > lived with moderating it, instead of being able to totally eliminate > it. What do you mean by "moderating it"? Do you prevent (or try to prevent) your children from doing things they want to do that you know (rationally) are reasonably safe (by some statistical measure), because you have an irrational feeling of nervousness based on your unfortunate experience? I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was claiming people could control their feelings. I certainly don't think that. But people can control their actions. Anyway, I had two main points in this discussion, the first one was my original point, and the second one came up a little later: 1) No one has the right to take (sacrifice, destroy, etc.) something that does not belong to them, no matter how much they may want to (this is more or less the "rule of law" upon which much of our civilization depends) 2) No matter how much you may desire something, if what you want is opposed to physical law, you will lose. And the looser form of that statement: if what you want is diametrically opposed to the way things usually work in the world, it is extremely unlikely you will win. > The other thing that I noticed is that my parenting didn't work out > quite as I expected. I would have predicted that outcome! Children are definitely hard to predict. But my own actions are frequently predictable (at least by me), and in certain situations, I know with high certainty what actions I would take. > Having said that, I've often seen the arguement used as a "shut up, > you have no idea" arguement. I disagree with that. I've been able > to talk about my experiences with others that have not had those > experiences and I don't dismiss their views. If someone makes a > suggestion that I consider impractical, I point it out to them, but > I don't reject their arguements out of hand. Even though I'm an > experimentalist, I realize that theorists do have their place. :-) I saw the smiley, but I think you have over-simplified. This is not a conflict between experiment and theory, but rather between theory and theory. Gary has NOT performed the experiment of having his child taken for ransom to see if he would try to pay with all the money from a bank. Rather, he has hypothesized what he would do in such a situation. My point was that he probably would not do what he said he would, in short, because it would not be feasible (which would stop him in the short term from doing something irrational) and is unlikely to achieve his goal (which would stop him once he manages to calm down and behave rationally). > As far as his actions being logical; I cannot see how one can > determine a priority list by logic alone. Lets give another example > of the bank robbery scenario. Folks have been strapped with > explosives and forced to go into a bank and demand money or else. I > don't think that it is illogical to go along instead of refusing and > being killed. I do think it is moral to sacarifice one's own life to > save the lives of others...and if more than one life is saved, one can > may a calculation based on all lives being equal to state that it is > the logical conclusion that one should sacrifice one's own life. But, > a person who values their own life more than they value anothers is > not inherently illogical. A person who runs from a live grenade when > he sees it instead of throwing himself on it to cut the number of dead > to just one is not inherently illogical. She is not heroic, and it > might be possible to call her cowardly, but I cannot see how someone > who saves their own skin is acting inherently illogically. I agree. But this is all irrelevant to my point. I made no claim about people acting logically or illogically. That person does not have the right to take another's life to save their own. They may do it anyway, but it is wrong. Whether or not it is logical for them to do that, I don't really have an opinion. > Given that, let us consider the case of a parent who values their > children's lives over their own. That is not inherently illogical > either. Although I don't know for sure what I would do until I face > it, if you ask me would I rather watch my children die and live or > die, knowing they would be fine, my reaction is the second choice, > hands down. I think that many parents have this set of priorities. > So, someone who sees a risk to their top priority may very well > be willing to sacrifice any number of things that have secondary > priorities. I would predict that sacrifice for many parents that I know, given that in the particular case their sacrifice is feasible (practical, possible, etc). > But, I think your critique doesn't adress his main point, he is > willing to harm others by stealing in order to save his children's > lives. My original point addressed it. It is wrong. I didn't make a logical/illogical claim. > Lets grant him the leeway of a gedunkin (sp) experiment here, Does that have anything to do with donuts and coffee? :-) (gedanken) > because it allows us to see a point. Parents, such as Gary, are > willing to harm society in order to protect their kids. I would argue > that this is not an illogical set of priorities. It is certainly predictable in many cases. > places where there have been rashes of kidnappings for money...as a > means of financing rebels, terrorist, criminals...pick your name. > I'd argue that it is better for the government to work to fight the > kidnappings for money instead of working on a PR campaign to convince > parents that they must let their kids die for the sake of society. Agreed. That is a case where the right policy can increase both liberty and safety in the longer-term. Did you think I would disagree? I don't see how you would deduce my disagreement with that from what I wrote. Or if that observation had a further unstated point, you lost me. > I thought about this, and its not so clear. Since Gary stated the > Patriot Act was way over done, he has given bounds to his opinion. I disagree. The Patriot Act was quite broad and often ambiguously worded (since it was rushed through). I have only read portions of it. I don't know how much Gary has read, but I doubt more than a few paragraphs. So his statement does not do a good job of providing bounds to his opinion. > Taking his statement literally, I find that I can find examples where > I'd agree to temporarily restrict everyone's freedom for safety. Unless a very large super-majority agrees with you, you would be wrong to do so. You would be taking something that you do not have the right to take. Besides being unjust, it is also likely to be inefficient -- wasting your time on short-term, trivial matters instead of applying yourself to long-term, meaningful measures. An example is provided by all the restrictions on what may be carried on a plane and all the searching that is done before boarding. This is a colossal waste of time and resources that could be better used elsewhere. A much more effective policy is secured cockpit doors and armed pilots, combined with the known policy to shoot down any planes that veer significantly off course with no explanation and no radio contact. Even though the latter was finally implemented (more or less), we are still stuck with the former. > For example, I have little trouble with the grounding of all airlines > for several days after 9-11. It clearly was a restriction on > liberties. Teri and I, for example, couldn't take a trip we had > scheduled. Temporary curfews in areas hit by disasters and the use of > National Guard to restrict freedom of movement in those areas until > conditions improve also sounds reasonable. > > Another one is checking for banned items at concerts. When its done > on private property, and the folks are willing to offer one's money > back, the potential for opression is much less of course. While I > might want to bring food into a concert, I can see why they want you > to buy their food. Also, I know how many knives are checked at the > gate at, for example, a Lynard Skinner concert, and I'm just as glad > that drunk guys had to check their knives....as well as their extra > booze. I would disagree with all of those. I don't think they are particularly effective at accomplishing useful goals, they are probably wasting time and resources that could better be used elsewhere, and worst of all, they may foster a false sense of security. > So, I can think of a number of temporary restrictions on everyone's > liberty in the name of safety that I'd find acceptable. I would have predicted you would have that opinion! (It follows from some other opinions you have expressed in the past) > but I'd be surprised if you would think my examples presented a > massive risk to our liberty. Massive risk? No. But I think they are all inefficient (not for the best, unwise, net loss, etc.) restrictions. I don't mean to say that ALL restrictions are bad, but in almost every case I can think of where restrictions are for the best, they should be of the "must do something in addition if you want to do this" type rather than absolute "you cannot do this, period" restrictions. And even then, the good ones are very rare. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
