Monthly Archive for July, 2010

Moral Structure. Part 1 by Drafterman of AvC

Published
by
Me
on July 31, 2010
.


This is very long but in my opinion an excellent read, so I'll be publishing it in several parts.


Introduction

Definition of Morality
For the purposes of this paper, morality will be defined as a normative “code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.”[1] This definition establishes a goal of a pragmatic universal ethic. It is pragmatic in that this code can be used, in practice, as a guideline for determining what should and should not due. It is universal in that it applies to all people.

Meta-ethics
In attainment of the above goal, this paper will deal with meta-ethics. Associations between specific simple actions (killing, stealing, lying, etc) and their moral values are beyond the scope of this paper. This paper will discuss the morality of how people go about realizing their moral goals. The existence of a moral dictionary, where specific actions are assigned moral values, will be assumed. The actions discussed will reference the assumed moral value of their components, without reference to specific acts. The purpose in doing so is to provide a way of answering such questions as: “Do the ends justify the means?” and “Are intentions all that matter?” Given the intention, the means, and the consequences of an action, this paper will present a method for judging their overall morality.

Moral Values
The moral values used in this paper will be: Moral, nonmoral, and immoral. In the context of universal pragmatism, these values are defined as such:

Moral – Actions people are encouraged to take and praised or rewarded for taking.

Immoral – Actions people are dissuaded from taking and punished or scolded for taking.

Nonmoral – Actions that are neither encouraged nor dissuaded and neither rewarded or punished.

Composition of an Action
It is necessary to define what constitutes an action in the context paper. Actions will consist of the following components: Intention, Forethought, Outcome/Consequences and Outside Influences. For each action a Judgment will be rendered as to its overall morality.

Intention
Intention, will, or desire, is the cause of all morally relevant actions. For all such actions that people engage in, there is an intended goal. The morality of the intention is the perceived morality of the goal. If the actor has failed to consider the morality of their action, or is unable to determine the moral value of their intended goal, then their intentions are considered nonmoral, though the outcome and subsequent judgment may be different.

Forethought
Forethought involves reasoning that goes into the decision to engage upon an action beyond the trivial desire to do it. This includes validating, through rational means, the judgment of the morality of the goal; the consideration of what actions are required to bring about that goal, what other consequences those actions may have, as well as the direct consequences of achieving this goal; and what factors beyond our ability to directly control could affect the goal and how those factors can be mitigated.

Outcome/Consequences
The outcome, or consequences, of the act pertains to the overall, net morality of the action with regards to its consequences, direct or indirect; intended or unintended.

Influence of Misjudgment, Neglect, and Chance
Of the factors ideally considered in adequate forethought, which affected the outcome of the action? Did the actor misjudge the morality of his goal? Did the actor neglect to consider certain side-effects? Did chance or other factors outside the actor’s control interfere?

Judgment of Actions
Finally, the purpose is to take, as input, all of the above components of an action and to judge the action as a whole as moral, nonmoral, or immoral. In the following sections a method will be devised to this.

Summary
Based on the above components, we can construct all possible actions. Intentions have three possibilities: moral, nonmoral, or  immoral; Forethought can be performed or not; The outcome can be moral, nonmoral, or immoral; and misjudgment, neglect, and chance can each have an impact or not. This results in 144 possible combinations of actions, though not all are logically coherent.[2]

Caveats
In regarding forethought and the consideration of consequences we are limited by practical measures such as time and knowledge. For the purposes of this paper we will define forethought taken to be of a reasonable degree, such that if misjudgment and neglect are a factor, they should instead be considered elements of chance, outside the control of the actor. Consequences are a similar manner. Consequences don’t exist in a vacuum; for any given action the number of consequences can be considered infinite, depending on the degrees of indirectness that are factored. Again, we will use an undefined standard of reason and assume that the outcome has been defined as moral, nonmoral, or immoral in accordance with this standard.

To Be Continued With ...

Defining The Rules, Part 2.
Summary, Part 3.
Conclusion, Part 4.


Moral Structure. Part 1 by Drafterman of AvC

Published
by
Me
on July 31, 2010
.


This is very long but in my opinion an excellent read, so I'll be publishing it in several parts.


Introduction

Definition of Morality
For the purposes of this paper, morality will be defined as a normative “code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.”[1] This definition establishes a goal of a pragmatic universal ethic. It is pragmatic in that this code can be used, in practice, as a guideline for determining what should and should not due. It is universal in that it applies to all people.

Meta-ethics
In attainment of the above goal, this paper will deal with meta-ethics. Associations between specific simple actions (killing, stealing, lying, etc) and their moral values are beyond the scope of this paper. This paper will discuss the morality of how people go about realizing their moral goals. The existence of a moral dictionary, where specific actions are assigned moral values, will be assumed. The actions discussed will reference the assumed moral value of their components, without reference to specific acts. The purpose in doing so is to provide a way of answering such questions as: “Do the ends justify the means?” and “Are intentions all that matter?” Given the intention, the means, and the consequences of an action, this paper will present a method for judging their overall morality.

Moral Values
The moral values used in this paper will be: Moral, nonmoral, and immoral. In the context of universal pragmatism, these values are defined as such:

Moral – Actions people are encouraged to take and praised or rewarded for taking.

Immoral – Actions people are dissuaded from taking and punished or scolded for taking.

Nonmoral – Actions that are neither encouraged nor dissuaded and neither rewarded or punished.

Composition of an Action
It is necessary to define what constitutes an action in the context paper. Actions will consist of the following components: Intention, Forethought, Outcome/Consequences and Outside Influences. For each action a Judgment will be rendered as to its overall morality.

Intention
Intention, will, or desire, is the cause of all morally relevant actions. For all such actions that people engage in, there is an intended goal. The morality of the intention is the perceived morality of the goal. If the actor has failed to consider the morality of their action, or is unable to determine the moral value of their intended goal, then their intentions are considered nonmoral, though the outcome and subsequent judgment may be different.

Forethought
Forethought involves reasoning that goes into the decision to engage upon an action beyond the trivial desire to do it. This includes validating, through rational means, the judgment of the morality of the goal; the consideration of what actions are required to bring about that goal, what other consequences those actions may have, as well as the direct consequences of achieving this goal; and what factors beyond our ability to directly control could affect the goal and how those factors can be mitigated.

Outcome/Consequences
The outcome, or consequences, of the act pertains to the overall, net morality of the action with regards to its consequences, direct or indirect; intended or unintended.

Influence of Misjudgment, Neglect, and Chance
Of the factors ideally considered in adequate forethought, which affected the outcome of the action? Did the actor misjudge the morality of his goal? Did the actor neglect to consider certain side-effects? Did chance or other factors outside the actor’s control interfere?

Judgment of Actions
Finally, the purpose is to take, as input, all of the above components of an action and to judge the action as a whole as moral, nonmoral, or immoral. In the following sections a method will be devised to this.

Summary
Based on the above components, we can construct all possible actions. Intentions have three possibilities: moral, nonmoral, or  immoral; Forethought can be performed or not; The outcome can be moral, nonmoral, or immoral; and misjudgment, neglect, and chance can each have an impact or not. This results in 144 possible combinations of actions, though not all are logically coherent.[2]

Caveats
In regarding forethought and the consideration of consequences we are limited by practical measures such as time and knowledge. For the purposes of this paper we will define forethought taken to be of a reasonable degree, such that if misjudgment and neglect are a factor, they should instead be considered elements of chance, outside the control of the actor. Consequences are a similar manner. Consequences don’t exist in a vacuum; for any given action the number of consequences can be considered infinite, depending on the degrees of indirectness that are factored. Again, we will use an undefined standard of reason and assume that the outcome has been defined as moral, nonmoral, or immoral in accordance with this standard.

To Be Continued With ...

Defining The Rules, Part 2.
Summary, Part 3.
Conclusion, Part 4.


Surfing

Published
by
abufares
on July 31, 2010
.
I've been out of it... Blogging that is, among other things.

Work surrounded me, trapped me in and overwhelmed me by its utter persistence and futility. I was fed up with the whole work ethic crap. We were naturally built to have fun, you know, like eat, sleep, make love then eat and sleep some more. Some bastards came along the way, maniacally obsessed with control and psychotically enticed by the prospect of turning everybody's life around them into a miserable and grim existence and... and they managed to fuck it up for the rest of us. Feasting till we drop on our backs was deemed inappropriate behavior. Climbing trees to find a solid branch for an early afternoon nap became a waste of time. Spotting a sonsie female while drinking from a spring and jumping her turned into "a thou-shalt-not". Chains were conceived and forged, taboo, religion, labor, military, slavery and ultimately capitalism took over, brutalized our ingrained indulgence and sodomized our innate wantonness. With the rise of civilization came the demise of man. And woman of course.

So I decided to take a vacation.


Strange things afoot?

Published
by
Synthaetica
on July 31, 2010
.

Not really.

Same stuff, different day, just maybe in a slightly different way.

I guess, if anything, I simply got tired to playing the Bullshit Game. That gets capital letters because it’s that game you have to play when almost everything in your life is bullshit. At least the job’s okay. ;-/

I’ve left ThinkAtheist and started my own show, as indicated by the introductory episode last Wednesday night. My plan is to use this new show to branch into some other aspects of free thinking beyond Atheism, to include Humanism and Secularism: two very misused and woefully misunderstood concepts. I plan on having some guests, and former participants of the old show will still be coming around to my new place to participate from time to time.

Moving forward with life, things have changed here locally, and my online empire expands slowly but inexorably towards the ultimate goal of controlling all WTF molecules on the Internet.

Also, I thought it might be fun if I figure out how to fix the problem with all the missing images from the old posts up here. Luckily, in their absence, there’s so much entertaining text! Yay! Win!

Thanks for being here, catch you on the flip-side.

"The Mosque at Ground Zero"

Published
by
Holy Prepuce
on July 30, 2010
.
“Stop the mosque at Ground Zero,” screams the right-wing Internet campaign!

Newt Gingrich has weighed in: “Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.”

As has Sarah Palin: “This is not an issue of religious tolerance but of common moral sense. To build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks.”

We can quibble, of course, about whether 45 Park Place is “at Ground Zero,” whether Cordoba House will be a “mosque,” and whether it constitutionally could be prohibited. But arguing about these points may be counterproductive, because to do so risks conceding that they matter. It gives credence to the idea that if this is a “Ground Zero Mosque” and can be legally prohibited, then prohibiting it could be the right thing to do.

Gingrich and Palin certainly seem to think stopping Cordoba House is the right thing to do. Here is what I would like to ask them:

Newt and Sarah, let us assume arguendo that Cordoba House is “at Ground Zero,” that it is a "mosque," and that it legally could be prevented. Please tell me which one or more of the following statements you agree with:

1. No general moral right exists to build a house of worship on one’s own land; or

2. Such a general moral right exists, but it does not apply in this case because:

a. Islam--the religion as a whole in all its variants--was responsible for 9/11, and a mosque at the site of 9/11 would therefore profane the dead; or

b. Islam is a profane religion, and to allow a mosque on the “hallowed ground” of 9/11 would therefore profane the dead; or

c. Islam is the enemy of the United States, and it is therefore an act of surrender to allow a mosque at the site of an enemy attack; or

d. All Muslims bear collective guilt for 9/11, and as a result have forfeited this general moral right; or

e. Not all Muslims bear collective guilt for 9/11, but because 9/11 was committed in the name of Islam, to become or remain a Muslim is implicitly to approve of 9/11, an immoral belief that forfeits the general moral right.

I’m sure that Gingrich and Palin would deny believing any one of these statements, if each were put to them in isolation. But if they are sincere in calling for the project to be stopped, they must believe at least one.

Unless of course, they don’t, and they’re just pandering.

There is a separate line of argument in the anti-mosque talking points, which holds that whether or not Cordoba House can be stopped by its opponents, the builders should have the “sensitivity” not to build it. The idea being that so long as some Americans, particularly survivors of the 9/11 dead, are offended by the construction of Cordoba House, its builders have an ethical obligation to prevent that offense by cancelling the project.

The difficulty is, though, that to take offense at the building of a “Ground Zero Mosque,” one must logically believe one or more of statements 2a, 2b, or 2c. If Islam as a whole is not responsible for 9/11, is not a profane religion, and is not the enemy of the United States, then a “Ground Zero Mosque”--unless built in explicit celebration of the attacks--is not offensive. (A 9/11-celebrating mosque would of course be a different story, but so would a 9/11-celebrating ice cream stand or waterslide.)

So those who advance the sensitivity argument on the basis that they personally take offense are merely affirming their beliefs in statements 2a, 2b, or 2c, with the added implication that “even a Muslim should recognize these things about his religion.”

But what most intrigues me about the sensitivity argument is those who purport to raise it only on behalf of others. Such a person says in essence to the builders, “look, you and I both know that your entire religion is not profane, not the enemy, and not responsible for 9/11. But these people... they're hurting. They’ve lost loved ones, they've been through a trauma--if they believe those things about Islam, let's not rub their noses in it."

After all, the general proposition--that looking out for people’s feelings is usually the right thing to do--is uncontroversial. But could this duty really extend to respecting others’ feelings when they are born from prejudice? Even if the prejudice is against you? That seems a step too far. Which is why I have my suspicions that, from people who have thought it through, the “sensitivity” argument in the end reduces to a general condemnation of Islam.

Unless of course, it doesn’t, and they’re just pandering.

UPDATE: a conservative friend pointed out to me that the Anti-Defamation League has come out against Cordoba House as well, and he asks whether I am “implying that it is acceptable for a civil rights organization such as the ADL to be against the mosque, but it is not acceptable for conservative politicians to take that stand?” To answer in no uncertain terms: no. I was unaware when I wrote this post of the ADL’s position, which I find equally unsupportable, and indeed more troubling coming as it does from an organization dedicated to fighting anti-religious bias.

I would put the same questions to ADL director Abraham Foxman. And in particular, to his statement that “building an Islamic center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain--unnecessarily--and that is not right,” I would respond as follows: Explain to me, Mr. Foxman, why a victim would feel pain at the building of an Islamic center unless he believes that “Islam”--all of it--is the same entity that carried out 9/11? And assuming you can’t, tell me why it is “not right” for the builders of Cordoba House to ignore those victims’ bigotry.

© 2011. Visit Holy Prepuce! to read and post comments and for copyright disclaimer. Or "like" Holy Prepuce! on Facebook.

"The Mosque at Ground Zero"

Published
by
Holy Prepuce
on July 30, 2010
.
“Stop the mosque at Ground Zero,” screams the right-wing Internet campaign!

Newt Gingrich has weighed in: “Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.”

As has Sarah Palin: “This is not an issue of religious tolerance but of common moral sense. To build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks.”

We can quibble, of course, about whether 45 Park Place is “at Ground Zero,” whether Cordoba House will be a “mosque,” and whether it constitutionally could be prohibited. But arguing about these points may be counterproductive, because to do so risks conceding that they matter. It gives credence to the idea that if this is a “Ground Zero Mosque” and can be legally prohibited, then prohibiting it could be the right thing to do.

Gingrich and Palin certainly seem to think stopping Cordoba House is the right thing to do. Here is what I would like to ask them:

Newt and Sarah, let us assume arguendo that Cordoba House is “at Ground Zero,” that it is a "mosque," and that it legally could be prevented. Please tell me which one or more of the following statements you agree with:

1. No general moral right exists to build a house of worship on one’s own land; or

2. Such a general moral right exists, but it does not apply in this case because:

a. Islam--the religion as a whole in all its variants--was responsible for 9/11, and a mosque at the site of 9/11 would therefore profane the dead; or

b. Islam is a profane religion, and to allow a mosque on the “hallowed ground” of 9/11 would therefore profane the dead; or

c. Islam is the enemy of the United States, and it is therefore an act of surrender to allow a mosque at the site of an enemy attack; or

d. All Muslims bear collective guilt for 9/11, and as a result have forfeited this general moral right; or

e. Not all Muslims bear collective guilt for 9/11, but because 9/11 was committed in the name of Islam, to become or remain a Muslim is implicitly to approve of 9/11, an immoral belief that forfeits the general moral right.

I’m sure that Gingrich and Palin would deny believing any one of these statements, if each were put to them in isolation. But if they are sincere in calling for the project to be stopped, they must believe at least one.

Unless of course, they don’t, and they’re just pandering.

There is a separate line of argument in the anti-mosque talking points, which holds that whether or not Cordoba House can be stopped by its opponents, the builders should have the “sensitivity” not to build it. The idea being that so long as some Americans, particularly survivors of the 9/11 dead, are offended by the construction of Cordoba House, its builders have an ethical obligation to prevent that offense by cancelling the project.

The difficulty is, though, that to take offense at the building of a “Ground Zero Mosque,” one must logically believe one or more of statements 2a, 2b, or 2c. If Islam as a whole is not responsible for 9/11, is not a profane religion, and is not the enemy of the United States, then a “Ground Zero Mosque”--unless built in explicit celebration of the attacks--is not offensive. (A 9/11-celebrating mosque would of course be a different story, but so would a 9/11-celebrating ice cream stand or waterslide.)

So those who advance the sensitivity argument on the basis that they personally take offense are merely affirming their beliefs in statements 2a, 2b, or 2c, with the added implication that “even a Muslim should recognize these things about his religion.”

But what most intrigues me about the sensitivity argument is those who purport to raise it only on behalf of others. Such a person says in essence to the builders, “look, you and I both know that your entire religion is not profane, not the enemy, and not responsible for 9/11. But these people... they're hurting. They’ve lost loved ones, they've been through a trauma--if they believe those things about Islam, let's not rub their noses in it."

After all, the general proposition--that looking out for people’s feelings is usually the right thing to do--is uncontroversial. But could this duty really extend to respecting others’ feelings when they are born from prejudice? Even if the prejudice is against you? That seems a step too far. Which is why I have my suspicions that, from people who have thought it through, the “sensitivity” argument in the end reduces to a general condemnation of Islam.

Unless of course, it doesn’t, and they’re just pandering.

UPDATE: a conservative friend pointed out to me that the Anti-Defamation League has come out against Cordoba House as well, and he asks whether I am “implying that it is acceptable for a civil rights organization such as the ADL to be against the mosque, but it is not acceptable for conservative politicians to take that stand?” To answer in no uncertain terms: no. I was unaware when I wrote this post of the ADL’s position, which I find equally unsupportable, and indeed more troubling coming as it does from an organization dedicated to fighting anti-religious bias.

I would put the same questions to ADL director Abraham Foxman. And in particular, to his statement that “building an Islamic center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain--unnecessarily--and that is not right,” I would respond as follows: Explain to me, Mr. Foxman, why a victim would feel pain at the building of an Islamic center unless he believes that “Islam”--all of it--is the same entity that carried out 9/11? And assuming you can’t, tell me why it is “not right” for the builders of Cordoba House to ignore those victims’ bigotry.

© 2011. Visit Holy Prepuce! to read and post comments and for copyright disclaimer. Or "like" Holy Prepuce! on Facebook.

Science literacy in Australia and the US

Published
by
Efrique
on July 30, 2010
.
A survey (pdf) commissioned by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies of Australian science literacy has somewhat mixed results.

(Update: See also an ABC News (Australia) report on it here. )

The report on the survey, which was conducted just over a week ago by Auspoll, seems show some disturbing results, though others are mildly encouraging.

For example, 30% of Australians think humans and dinosaurs coexisted, and 39% don't realize it takes a year for the Earth to orbit the Sun. On the other hand, I found that 13% of people knew that 3% of the world's water was fresh surprisingly high.

The survey replicates a survey conducted in 2009 by Harris Interactive for the California Academy of Sciences. The press release (which contains all the information I can find online) only describes a brief subset of the results, but I have compared everything I have information on.

Steve Novella commented on the US survey last year; his questions and criticisms would apply to both surveys.

Summary of the results of the Australian poll (correct answers underlined):
Q1: How long does it take for the Earth to go around the Sun?
 One Year: 61
  One Day: 28
One Month:  2
 One Week:  1
 Not Sure:  8

Q2: Is the following statement true or false? The earliest humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs.
   False: 70
    True: 30
Not Sure:  0

Q3: What percentage of the Earth’s surface is covered by water?
  0-25% :  0
 26-50% :  2
 51-60% :  4
 61-69% :  9 
    70% : 41
 71-80% : 33
 81-100%:  6
Not Sure:  6

Q4: What percentage of the Earth’s water is fresh water?
      0%  0
      1%  5
      2%  5
      3% 13
  4%-10% 23
 11%-25% 19
 26%-50%  9
 51%-60%  3
 61%-70%  1
 71%-80%  0
81%-100%  0
Not sure 22

Q5: Do you think that evolution is occurring?
Yes, I think evolution is currently occurring:       71
No, I do not think evolution is currently occurring:  8
No, I do not believe in evolution:                   10
Not Sure:                                            11

Q6: Do you think that humans are influencing the evolution of other species?
Yes, I think humans are influencing the evolution of other species:       77
No, I do not think humans are influencing the evolution of other species:  7
No, I do not believe in evolution:                                         9
Not Sure:                                                                  7

Q7: In your opinion, how important is science education to the Australian economy?
Absolutely essential: 42
Very important:       38
Somewhat important:   16
Not at all important:  2
Not Sure:              2


One highly amusing outcome of this survey is that even though only 71% of people think "evolution is currently occurring", 77% think that "humans are influencing the evolution of other species". Presumably at least six percent of people think humans are affecting evolution while isn't happening. The cognitive dissonance must be astounding.

Here's the corresponding information I was able to pull out of the Calacademy press release:
- 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun.
- 59% of adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time
- 47% of adults can approximate (within 5%) the percent of the Earth's surface that is covered with water.
- 15% of respondents answered this question with the exactly correct answer of 70%
- Less than 1% of U.S. adults know what percent of the planet's water is fresh (the correct answer is 3%).
- Science eduction: Essential or Very Important to the US economy: 77%

The Calacademy press release didn't mention the evolution questions, but we can do a comparison with another Harris Interactive poll (pdf) which suggests that rates of "do not believe in evolution" and "not sure" in Question 5 above are about half of the equivalent rates in the US, roughly consistent with other figures I have seen.

Here's a graphic showing a comparison of the corresponding the percentage of correct answers from the two surveys on Questions 1-4 and the percentage rating science education as "essential" or "very important" for the national economy:



(Graphic generated in the free statistical package R)

Australia is outperforming the US (pretty handily on some questions), but that may not be saying a whole lot.

Grammar Nazi

Published
by
PsychoAtheist
on July 28, 2010
.
This pretty much describes how my boardroom would work:



'Pacifically' - I hear that almost daily and it grinds my teeth!

Biography of a Song – "My Daughter"

Published
by
Riker
on July 28, 2010
.
Okay. If you're here you most likely know me, and at least have some vague idea, thanks to a relentless barrage of twitter and facebook messages, that: 1. I'm in a songwriting contest, and 2. I use twitter and facebook messages way too much for your taste.


Oh, holy poop. This one was a doozie. Another round of SpinTunes is behind me, so it's time for another song bio. The song, if you haven't heard it, is available for listening here: http://spintown.bandcamp.com/track/my-daughter

Also, people should go to http://spintunes.blogspot.com and vote for their three favorite songs. The votes are incredibly important this round; only 2 people are left competing as this round closes, but alternates may need to be chosen for the final battle, and who is selected depends on popular vote.

The Round #3 Challenge

"Happy to Sad in 4 Seconds". They fucking meant it. We were to write a song about birth, normally a joyous occasion... but we were to make it a real tear-jerker. Now, I'm a generally positive guy. I'm pretty damn upbeat. I don't write sad songs. When I try to write sad songs, they end up being paradoxically happy-sounding. But... once I got over the initial "Hrrg. How am I gonna write a sad sad song?"...I realized my incredible good fortune and got right to work.

First off, I loved the specificity of this topic; the fastest route to writer's block is a wide-open road. Being tightly focused meant I could design the song from the get-go and not waste any time thinking about what the hell I was gonna write. In fact, quite the opposite to the last song, my hook and melody were in my head as I was driving home from the wine bar, again,* and music would be applied later. The song was formed and the story laid out and I rested easy for the week.

Second, I mentioned incredible good fortune earlier. Lemme e'splain...

...no, will take too long; lemme sum up**:

A lot of you involved in the contest are hearing my music for the first time, and so far, you've only been exposed to schizophrenic prog-rock. This is a style of music that only started coming out of me recently. I have a much longer history with other very different styles. I used to play in a bar band. We used to play in an Irish Pub, owned by real actual Irish people. I'm a good part Irish. Irish folk music is in my blood, man. Some of my favorite music to play. I've secretly wanted to do an Irish folk song since the beginning of SpinTunes, but the challenges as I envisioned them just didn't lend themselves to the genre.

BUT.

Whose music is incredibly well suited to long-form storytelling? Whose music has the capacity for soul-rending heartache? Whose music is not laced with twang and pickup trucks***?

The fucking Irish, that's who.

Round 3 was a gift. I finally got to change gears, and you'll notice I did *everything* differently this time.


The Song Bio

In Rounds #1 and #2, I took chances topically and musically in an effort to be seen as a creative, out-of-the-box thinker. I thought that would give me a leg up against so many competitors that were more experienced than me. It seemed to work on half the judges, and work poorly on the other half, thereby leaving me comfortably, but not impressively, in the middle of the pack. So I knew that if I wanted a chance to get anywhere near the upper half, I would have to hit this topic head-on; besides, if you're going for full-frontal saddity, you don't want to distract from the sadness with cleverness. it would... you know, distract from the sadness...

One thing that adds to sadness, I've learned, is doubt. Negatives have an ironic tendency to feed back positively upon each other, so I knew this song would need a good bit of ambiguity in its lyrics. Since my hook gave away the fact that the daughter was indeed born, I needed to introduce doubt as to whether the sadness was going to come from a tragic loss of another, or from his own failure to be a father or to want to assume the task of fatherhood at all.

The lines she was far more ready than I and would she read blame in my eye were there to force the listener to be a little unsure of who he really cared about. I think he wanted his wife that he already knew and loved, just a little more than he wanted to have a child. Especially regarding the 'blame' lyric.

I struggled with this in particular, because I knew it needed to be included, but I didn't want to detach the listener from the father. This song thrives on empathy, and any concept that breaks your feelings for the character would take you right out of it. But in itself, the idea of blame is a very strong one. We know it's possible that the daughter could apply blame to herself once she understands the circumstances of her birth. So with a positive spin, that lyric about her reading blame in her father's eye could be seen as him worrying that she'll read too much into his eyes, and he can't bear to think of the pain it would cause her to blame herself for her mother's death.

The negative spin, of course, is that human minds are nasty things, and I promise that everyone who goes through something like this will be shocked and disgusted to have at least one thought that they would hate themselves for having. A brain cannot simply shut down its recognition engines when approaching a sensitive subject, and therefore it's inevitable that at some point, a father in the circumstances of the song will recognize that his child's birth was responsible for the loss of his wife. As distasteful as it is to say, and I think this adds to the sadness of the situation, is that the father can obviously love his daughter with all his heart, but on some level recognize that a small part of him does blame her for his loss. He hopes he will be able to hide it, so she doesn't read it in his eyes when the talk finally happens.

My closing lines were included out of necessity in my mind; in the song, I made a choice that some people might find odd: I skipped over the actual death of the mother. You'd think this would be the best place to draw out the tears, and I had indeed written lyrics that covered this part of the story... but my song was already approaching seven minutes in length and I knew I couldn't cut any other parts without seriously reducing the integrity and coherency of the song. So I included the last part as a little epilogue, to allow the listener to go back and fill-in the details: the mother survived the birth itself, and got to meet her daughter before the complications took her life. They had, for a heart-breakingly temporary moment, been a family.

Way to twist the fucking knife, Kev.


The Music

There's not nearly as much to say in this section, as the song is very uncomplicated. I love layering sounds and I love harmonies, but none of that seemed appropriate for a song that's designed to convey the loneliness of loss, so I made an early decision not to harmonize at all, and use a bare minimum of instruments. I actually had a cheap bodhran in my bedroom, a leftover from the bar band days; the skin was coming loose from one side and it was a little floppy, but it was close enough to functional to do the job I needed. But, despite being a far simpler song than my previous efforts, this was the first one that required me to place a call for outside help. There was one instrument I really needed to seal the deal.

Sidney Robert Brown is one of my best friends****, and is a former bandmate from the bar band days I spoke of above. He played darts at the bar when I was just playing music there with a couple friends, but our band started expanding as we focused our intentions a little more. He was introduced to me just as 'Rob'. It came up that he was a bit of a fiddle player. With that, we incorporated him into the band.

Before we all really got to know him personally, we always just referred to him as "fiddlin' Rob", and... true story - To this day, even though we've been great pals for years and his name is Sid Brown, he's still listed in my phone as "Rob Fidlin".

Anyway, as soon as I got the challenge I called Sid up and told him I was going to use him in my song. He was excited, I was excited, and we banged out the entire thing on the Saturday before the deadline. It was really fun to collaborate on a project, and that was the one thing that kept me going through the process, because, if I didn't mention it before... this song really fucked me up. It was hard to write, it was hard to record... not logistically, but emotionally. I cursed myself for coming up with distasteful ideas. I cried thinking about what I was writing. I still cry when I hear the song. But working with Sid was fun and immensely enjoyable. It allowed me to finish.

If I manage to make the cut and get into the finals here, I owe a lot to Sid. Thanks, buddy. May the Force be with you.*****

* - Just because I'm at the wine bar EVERY TIME a challenge is revealed does not mean I'm a lush.
** - HALLO!!! (yadda yadda yadda) Prepare to die.
*** - Damn, Country... you were thiiiiiiis close...
**** - and in another recent matter of convergence, he's also a co-founder of www.starwarsvsstartrek.com
***** - see previous footnote.

Biography of a Song – "My Daughter"

Published
by
Riker
on July 28, 2010
.
Okay. If you're here you most likely know me, and at least have some vague idea, thanks to a relentless barrage of twitter and facebook messages, that: 1. I'm in a songwriting contest, and 2. I use twitter and facebook messages way too much for your taste.


Oh, holy poop. This one was a doozie. Another round of SpinTunes is behind me, so it's time for another song bio. The song, if you haven't heard it, is available for listening here: http://spintown.bandcamp.com/track/my-daughter

Also, people should go to http://spintunes.blogspot.com and vote for their three favorite songs. The votes are incredibly important this round; only 2 people are left competing as this round closes, but alternates may need to be chosen for the final battle, and who is selected depends on popular vote.

The Round #3 Challenge

"Happy to Sad in 4 Seconds". They fucking meant it. We were to write a song about birth, normally a joyous occasion... but we were to make it a real tear-jerker. Now, I'm a generally positive guy. I'm pretty damn upbeat. I don't write sad songs. When I try to write sad songs, they end up being paradoxically happy-sounding. But... once I got over the initial "Hrrg. How am I gonna write a sad sad song?"...I realized my incredible good fortune and got right to work.

First off, I loved the specificity of this topic; the fastest route to writer's block is a wide-open road. Being tightly focused meant I could design the song from the get-go and not waste any time thinking about what the hell I was gonna write. In fact, quite the opposite to the last song, my hook and melody were in my head as I was driving home from the wine bar, again,* and music would be applied later. The song was formed and the story laid out and I rested easy for the week.

Second, I mentioned incredible good fortune earlier. Lemme e'splain...

...no, will take too long; lemme sum up**:

A lot of you involved in the contest are hearing my music for the first time, and so far, you've only been exposed to schizophrenic prog-rock. This is a style of music that only started coming out of me recently. I have a much longer history with other very different styles. I used to play in a bar band. We used to play in an Irish Pub, owned by real actual Irish people. I'm a good part Irish. Irish folk music is in my blood, man. Some of my favorite music to play. I've secretly wanted to do an Irish folk song since the beginning of SpinTunes, but the challenges as I envisioned them just didn't lend themselves to the genre.

BUT.

Whose music is incredibly well suited to long-form storytelling? Whose music has the capacity for soul-rending heartache? Whose music is not laced with twang and pickup trucks***?

The fucking Irish, that's who.

Round 3 was a gift. I finally got to change gears, and you'll notice I did *everything* differently this time.


The Song Bio

In Rounds #1 and #2, I took chances topically and musically in an effort to be seen as a creative, out-of-the-box thinker. I thought that would give me a leg up against so many competitors that were more experienced than me. It seemed to work on half the judges, and work poorly on the other half, thereby leaving me comfortably, but not impressively, in the middle of the pack. So I knew that if I wanted a chance to get anywhere near the upper half, I would have to hit this topic head-on; besides, if you're going for full-frontal saddity, you don't want to distract from the sadness with cleverness. it would... you know, distract from the sadness...

One thing that adds to sadness, I've learned, is doubt. Negatives have an ironic tendency to feed back positively upon each other, so I knew this song would need a good bit of ambiguity in its lyrics. Since my hook gave away the fact that the daughter was indeed born, I needed to introduce doubt as to whether the sadness was going to come from a tragic loss of another, or from his own failure to be a father or to want to assume the task of fatherhood at all.

The lines she was far more ready than I and would she read blame in my eye were there to force the listener to be a little unsure of who he really cared about. I think he wanted his wife that he already knew and loved, just a little more than he wanted to have a child. Especially regarding the 'blame' lyric.

I struggled with this in particular, because I knew it needed to be included, but I didn't want to detach the listener from the father. This song thrives on empathy, and any concept that breaks your feelings for the character would take you right out of it. But in itself, the idea of blame is a very strong one. We know it's possible that the daughter could apply blame to herself once she understands the circumstances of her birth. So with a positive spin, that lyric about her reading blame in her father's eye could be seen as him worrying that she'll read too much into his eyes, and he can't bear to think of the pain it would cause her to blame herself for her mother's death.

The negative spin, of course, is that human minds are nasty things, and I promise that everyone who goes through something like this will be shocked and disgusted to have at least one thought that they would hate themselves for having. A brain cannot simply shut down its recognition engines when approaching a sensitive subject, and therefore it's inevitable that at some point, a father in the circumstances of the song will recognize that his child's birth was responsible for the loss of his wife. As distasteful as it is to say, and I think this adds to the sadness of the situation, is that the father can obviously love his daughter with all his heart, but on some level recognize that a small part of him does blame her for his loss. He hopes he will be able to hide it, so she doesn't read it in his eyes when the talk finally happens.

My closing lines were included out of necessity in my mind; in the song, I made a choice that some people might find odd: I skipped over the actual death of the mother. You'd think this would be the best place to draw out the tears, and I had indeed written lyrics that covered this part of the story... but my song was already approaching seven minutes in length and I knew I couldn't cut any other parts without seriously reducing the integrity and coherency of the song. So I included the last part as a little epilogue, to allow the listener to go back and fill-in the details: the mother survived the birth itself, and got to meet her daughter before the complications took her life. They had, for a heart-breakingly temporary moment, been a family.

Way to twist the fucking knife, Kev.


The Music

There's not nearly as much to say in this section, as the song is very uncomplicated. I love layering sounds and I love harmonies, but none of that seemed appropriate for a song that's designed to convey the loneliness of loss, so I made an early decision not to harmonize at all, and use a bare minimum of instruments. I actually had a cheap bodhran in my bedroom, a leftover from the bar band days; the skin was coming loose from one side and it was a little floppy, but it was close enough to functional to do the job I needed. But, despite being a far simpler song than my previous efforts, this was the first one that required me to place a call for outside help. There was one instrument I really needed to seal the deal.

Sidney Robert Brown is one of my best friends****, and is a former bandmate from the bar band days I spoke of above. He played darts at the bar when I was just playing music there with a couple friends, but our band started expanding as we focused our intentions a little more. He was introduced to me just as 'Rob'. It came up that he was a bit of a fiddle player. With that, we incorporated him into the band.

Before we all really got to know him personally, we always just referred to him as "fiddlin' Rob", and... true story - To this day, even though we've been great pals for years and his name is Sid Brown, he's still listed in my phone as "Rob Fidlin".

Anyway, as soon as I got the challenge I called Sid up and told him I was going to use him in my song. He was excited, I was excited, and we banged out the entire thing on the Saturday before the deadline. It was really fun to collaborate on a project, and that was the one thing that kept me going through the process, because, if I didn't mention it before... this song really fucked me up. It was hard to write, it was hard to record... not logistically, but emotionally. I cursed myself for coming up with distasteful ideas. I cried thinking about what I was writing. I still cry when I hear the song. But working with Sid was fun and immensely enjoyable. It allowed me to finish.

If I manage to make the cut and get into the finals here, I owe a lot to Sid. Thanks, buddy. May the Force be with you.*****

* - Just because I'm at the wine bar EVERY TIME a challenge is revealed does not mean I'm a lush.
** - HALLO!!! (yadda yadda yadda) Prepare to die.
*** - Damn, Country... you were thiiiiiiis close...
**** - and in another recent matter of convergence, he's also a co-founder of www.starwarsvsstartrek.com
***** - see previous footnote.

Mass with the Pop(e)star Benedict can cost up to 23 euros

Published
by
rmonteux
on July 28, 2010
.
Making the headlines in the UK are the currently planned admission fees for the services with Pope Benedict XVI during his state visit in mid-september. The attendees are intended to be charged for the open air show on the 16th of september in Glasgow Bellahouston a sum of € 23, and for an evening prayer [...]

More religious healing (child abuse) in Oregon

Published
by
Asleepius
on July 27, 2010
.
Viewing pictures of victims of acts of questionable morality (and even use of the word 'victim') increases the likelihood of making emotive rather than rational judgements of the culpability of the actors/perpetrators. However, an Oregonian op-ed, about an 8 month girl whose parents preferred Christ's healing power to that of doctors, shows the astonishing effects of faith in the form of a huge haemangioma that may cause the girl to lose sight in the affected eye (image from Clackamas County Sheriff's Office and linked from oregonlive.com).


Perhaps the only way such treatment could not be labelled child abuse is a distinction between acts and omissions. As Jonathan Glover (whose tidy desk policy speaks to his philosophical credentials) states:
...in certain contexts, failure to perform an act, with certain foreseen bad consequences of that failure, is morally less bad than to perform a different act which has the identical foreseen bad consequences. It is worse to kill someone than to let them die. (Glover, J. Causing Death and Saving Lives. 1977. Penguin. p.93).
The doctrine of distinction between acts and omissions is often invoked, for example, to explain why we are less morally culpable for the death of a child in Africa through failure to give to charity than we are for deliberately running over a child in our country. In such cases the remoteness of cause/effect is frequently invoked to explain our moral hunch that the latter is grossly more culpable than the former. However, if my child has crawled into the path of my car as I reverse, and I am fully aware of that, then I am no less liable for resultant injury than ifI intentionally place the child there just before backing the car out. There is no remoteness of cause and effect to invoke the acts/omissions distinction of crawling versus being placed there, just as no distinction can be made in the Oregon cases of blinding a child versus letting the child go blind through failure to seek medical help.

However, the courts in Orgeon continue to protect parents who, for faith reasons, do not seek medical treatment for their children. According to the state medical office, more than 20 childen of parents who belong to the same church as the girl pictured above have died of treatable illnesses. My suspicion is that the courts think little of leniency to those of faith (not unlike Cherie Blair showing clemency to a man who broke another's jaw in a fight, simply because he was a man of faith; AC Grayling's take on the matter here). Whilst it is always reprehensible for religious persons to be treated more leniently by the criminal justice system than the non-religious, it's particularly ironic to adopt such a position when faith itself is the cause of the criminality! Maybe photos such as that above can help combat such misplaced tolerance towards the results of 'faith', no matter how emotive they may be.

More religious healing (child abuse) in Oregon

Published
by
Asleepius
on July 27, 2010
.
Viewing pictures of victims of acts of questionable morality (and even use of the word 'victim') increases the likelihood of making emotive rather than rational judgements of the culpability of the actors/perpetrators. However, an Oregonian op-ed, about an 8 month girl whose parents preferred Christ's healing power to that of doctors, shows the astonishing effects of faith in the form of a huge haemangioma that may cause the girl to lose sight in the affected eye (image from Clackamas County Sheriff's Office and linked from oregonlive.com).


Perhaps the only way such treatment could not be labelled child abuse is a distinction between acts and omissions. As Jonathan Glover (whose tidy desk policy speaks to his philosophical credentials) states:
...in certain contexts, failure to perform an act, with certain foreseen bad consequences of that failure, is morally less bad than to perform a different act which has the identical foreseen bad consequences. It is worse to kill someone than to let them die. (Glover, J. Causing Death and Saving Lives. 1977. Penguin. p.93).
The doctrine of distinction between acts and omissions is often invoked, for example, to explain why we are less morally culpable for the death of a child in Africa through failure to give to charity than we are for deliberately running over a child in our country. In such cases the remoteness of cause/effect is frequently invoked to explain our moral hunch that the latter is grossly more culpable than the former. However, if my child has crawled into the path of my car as I reverse, and I am fully aware of that, then I am no less liable for resultant injury than ifI intentionally place the child there just before backing the car out. There is no remoteness of cause and effect to invoke the acts/omissions distinction of crawling versus being placed there, just as no distinction can be made in the Oregon cases of blinding a child versus letting the child go blind through failure to seek medical help.

However, the courts in Orgeon continue to protect parents who, for faith reasons, do not seek medical treatment for their children. According to the state medical office, more than 20 childen of parents who belong to the same church as the girl pictured above have died of treatable illnesses. My suspicion is that the courts think little of leniency to those of faith (not unlike Cherie Blair showing clemency to a man who broke another's jaw in a fight, simply because he was a man of faith; AC Grayling's take on the matter here). Whilst it is always reprehensible for religious persons to be treated more leniently by the criminal justice system than the non-religious, it's particularly ironic to adopt such a position when faith itself is the cause of the criminality! Maybe photos such as that above can help combat such misplaced tolerance towards the results of 'faith', no matter how emotive they may be.

Pat Condell – A God Of Life

Published
by
PsychoAtheist
on July 27, 2010
.
Another fine offering from Pat Condell:



Don't sit on the fence Pat, say what you really mean!

When Is It Alright to Kill?

Published
by
sapblatt
on July 27, 2010
.

Thoughts on ending suffering and moral dilemmas 

Killing is wrong. Is killing always wrong?

Compassion is good.What is compassion? Is ending suffering compassionate?

Is prolonging life compassionate?

Suffering is bad. Are we compelled to end suffering? 

Dry River - White Mountain National Forest - New Hampshire

This past week while hiking in the Dry River Wilderness in the White Mountain National Forest I came upon an unusual site – a bird that was hiding head first under a rock near bridge. I figured it was injured or less likely seeking shelter from the recent downpours. I tossed a small stone near it to see it I would move – the bird only ruffled a couple of tail feathers. I left it alone and continued to hike across the bridge. 

The downpours continued and I abandoned my hike about thirty minutes later and began heading back over the same route. I was very curious to see if the bird was still there. It was and it had moved about two feet away from the rock it had been hiding under and I could now clearly tell that it was a yellow shafted flicker and that it was severely injured. I am not a veterinarian, nor do I play one on TV – but if I had to hazard a guess I would say the bird had a broken wing. It pained me to see it struggling to move as it arched its neck back to try and flip over as it could barely walk and certainly could not fly. 

Dry River Trail

This bird was obviously not going to make it. The cycle of life and death is rapid and constant in the deep forest – it would only be a matter of time before this injured avian would be found and become easy prey for a fox or some other predator. 

It should be noted by my readers that I am writing from an atheist perspective – I have no thoughts of “playing god” or of being superior. As an often empathetic person I struggled with the desire to end the bird’s suffering immediately with a large rock or to let the bird await its likely violent fate at the hands/paws/teeth of a predator. I waited around for about ten minutes watching the bird and thinking about my two distinct choices. When it was time to move on I had done nothing – which was the choice to let nature take its course. 

Would it have been unethical for me to end this wild bird’s suffering? As painful as it was I did euthanize my dog (and sadly I probably should have 3-5 days earlier) a few years back when it became obvious that she was suffering and would not improve. My immediate family wanted to end my mother’s terminal illness “quicker” in her closing days after she had slipped into a coma – but we were legally prevented from taking such action. There is a distinct human desire to want to control things that cannot be controlled. 

Injured bird

In the end I did nothing beyond think. I did not execute/euthanize the bird much like we only medicated my dying mother as we let her cancer run its course. Of course, potential prison sentences played into that decision – not so with the injured bird. I continued to think about this as I ambled back to the trailhead – a good thought exercise with no easy answers and no guarantee of how I would handle a similar situation in the future – kind of hope it never presents itself to me again. 

As with most pieces at Symptom of the Universe I am seeking discussion from all types. What are your thoughts? What do vegans and vegetarians think? What do the religious think? What do other freethinking atheists think about the ethics of ending misery and suffering?

 If you liked this post you may like some others I have penned on atheism and veganism. By “like” I mean you may want to engage in discussion – agreement does not enter into why I do this! 

http://sapblatt.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/atheism-%e2%80%93-savior-of-the-world/

http://sapblatt.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/atheism-is-not-a-choice/

http://sapblatt.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/meat-is-murder/

http://sapblatt.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/meat-is-murder-part-ii/

Follow Symptom of the Universe on Twitter: http://twitter.com/sapblatt


Filed under: Commentary, Life

Two For One

Published
by
PsychoAtheist
on July 26, 2010
.


Jesus and Mo never fail to get me chuckling.