Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
To dig up the origins of this discussion - back to Cappy's original disgust and shock at how petty people can be, referencing mocking Youtube videos.
I call up the old idea that the human mind can only support so many empathic connections. I.E, there are only so many people you can care about, identify with, recognise as being human. Generally, this figure hovers around two-three hundred. Likewise, every person has a threshold of interaction you have to pass to become "human" in their eyes.
Now a quick reality check - I'm not saying the 201st person you meet is an animal to you, or that you're somehow alien until you pass the interaction threshold. More that you're just another face in the crowd, someone the average person couldn't care less for.
The Internet exacerbates this. A person on a screen, a username on a forum, a drawn character, even someone in a video - generally speaking, this level of interaction doesn't cross the human barrier - subconsciously, you don't make the same level of empathic connection. Which is why people can watch things on video they wouldn't be comfortable with in front of their face. It also explains the numerous webcomic strips with a theme of taking flaming forum users to meet one another IRL, and their subsequent shame for their actions.
In short, people don't treat one another as decent human beings on the Net because on some level, they don't recognise that they -are-.
As for the ass who originally taped his disabled brother, or similar, there's all sorts of explanations. Often kids with disabled families get neglected attention-wise by the parents, as the disabled kid has more needs. Or it could be a reaction to the disability, something they don't understand, can't cope with in a caring/empathic way, so they respond by closing up and mocking it. Human mind doesn't like not knowing what to do.
As for the fantasy/reality debate, this is a tricky one. As far as I can perceive, we seem to be seeing the usual liberal/conserative split. One side says fantasising about something wrong is wrong in itself - see the Bible, and impure thoughts equalling sin, committing adultery in one's heart, et cetera et cetera.
The other holds that a fantasy, as it has no real-world implications, and harms no one, cannot be morally condemned. Or, at least, should not.
The paradox these two sides are mostly concerned with is whether one can be considered a morally good person, and still fantasise about doing morally bad things. JohnDoe seems to be saying you can't. You fantasise about bad things, you're verging from the path of good morals.
He's also brought up the claim that a person is born with a specific moral code - ingrained within, presumably, some kind of soul, or DNA coding.
On top of this, he's mentioned that a strict moral code is a hindrance to making a reasonable decision.
This seems to have been leapt upon by Cappy, for one reason or another. I don't think he's thought about things very carefully.
Having a strict moral code implies you deal in absolutes. Either something is right, or it is not. See the Ten Commandments, Seven Pillars, etc. See also the example of the land of Wu, tarring all murders with the same brush.
Being reasonable implies you're willing to compromise, to listen to reason, to adjust your position on what is right and what is not. I think it should be fairly clear that dealing in absolutes and being reasonable are therefore mutually exclusive, and thus that having any kind of strict moral code excludes you, at least in whatever areas it is strict -in-, from being reasonable.
The picking upon of his example by Cappy, in fairness, seems like someone being an ass. The clear point of the piece is as follows.
Strict morals, at least the kind he's talking about, presume generalisations. Such as "Murder is always wrong". In the situation with the girl given, murder is quite clearly -not- wrong, or at least, in general view, as well as immediate emotional reaction. It highlights the problem with generalisations, common in strict moral codes.
In what seems to be an acknowledgement of my own point here, before I've had the time to make this mammoth post, Cappy has included the following.
To be open-minded yet strict with your moral code personally isn't nearly impossible, it's highly possible, just not as common as it should be. )
One can be open-minded - that is to say, tolerate other people having a belief that is not your own, and still keep to a strict moral code. However, one cannot be open to negotiation on the issues covered by your moral code. That is to say, you won't change your mind or your stance on certain issues. The world effectively demonstrates there is -never- a 100% right answer. There is no such thing as a universal law for every situation. There's not even a universally "right" solution to every problem. (Except in Maths). What I'm trying to say is, even if a strict moral code gets the "right" answer in 99% of situations, it won't always be right. See the Wu example.
I personally think this is because it's trying to force an absolute (I.E, murder is always wrong) upon the world. Now, absolutes are very nice - people love absolutes, they're the mental equivalent of security blankets. But the world isn't absolute. As Heraclitus (don't laugh at the name) started saying approximately two and a half thousand years ago - everything is in a constant state of flux, everything changes. As we perceive it, anyway.
Then we factor in the nature of the world - strict moral codes might work well for small societies that have very little contact with one another. Christianity and Islam work very well when not brought into contact with each other. In the increasingly-small modern world, though, all societies, all cultures will clash. Clinging to "strict" codes must be a relic of the past. It's an age of compromise, of empathy, of seeing everyone else's point of view. Maybe some countries haven't quite noticed yet (America), since 90% of America is still American. But over here in Europe, we're a mess of cultures, all blended together into one teeming mass of humanity. There's no room for clinging to "strict" ideas, because you're so much more likely to come into contact with the one thing that proves them wrong.
Ahem. Anyway. Back to fantasy vs reality.
I'm not going to step into the juvenile pothole of "fantasising about something leads directly to doing it". But, I think you'll agree, it certainly makes it easier.
How do you get better at anything? Practice. Repetition. The first time you do anything, from opening a tin of beans to driving a car, you suck at it. It's weird, and new, and unfamiliar, and you've got a mental leap to make. This is exaggerated in something we're not "supposed" to do. For example, for those of us that game, how did you feel the first time you shot someone in a video game? I'm not talking about Doom, or Quake - the first time you played a modern shooter, with enemies that look human, and shot someone.
Think about scenes like the scripted set-pieces in the Call of Duty series - stabbing guys in the neck in Modern Warfare 2. I for one strongly remember the rappel sequence in the final mission, where the poor grunt gets a knife in the neck, and stares into your eyes as he dies. Chilling.
Anyway, the point I'm moving towards is that our society instills us with a kind of programming against "bad acts". Or "crimes". Or "sins". Probably rightly so. We call it morality most of the time
. This leaves us, in most cases, with a strong resistance to performing things we think are bad.
Now, it is my belief, that exposure of any kind to people performing these acts leads to a slow erosion of that resistance. I seriously hold that someone who's played lots of Call of Duty would find it easier to pick up a gun and shoot someone than someone who has not. I don't think they'd find it easy.. or be immune to the emotional feedback from killing, or be more likely to do it. Just that they'd find it easier.
It makes sense on a logical level. Morals are formed from what you see other people doing. You see people killing all the time? Your anti-killing moral gets degraded. This is especially true for those who start on, say, 18-rated shooters at age 5.
Yes, you know on an intellectual, conscious level that what you're seeing is not real. But subconsciously, deep in the way you think, so subtle you don't even know it's happening - you're being changed by what you see and do.
Fantasising is just creating those images in your head. In fact, there's even an argument to say that because fantasy revolves around you and those inside your "human circle", it's even more personal, and has an even -stronger- effect.
All one has to do is take everything I just wrote about murder, and make it about rape. See people doing it, read about people doing it, imagine yourself doing it. You're eroding your own resistance to an act you'd naturally gravitate away from. This is also why, I believe, we get the Crescendo effect. People start at vanilla porn, but soon, it's not enough of a thrill, they go kinkier.. and before you know it, you're rubbing yourself with a chicken while being spanked by latex-wearing foot-rubbing dwarves.
Ok. Breathe. Image out of head. The point is made, though. We get the thrill by bumping up against our inhibitions. But the more we bump, the more we rub them away.. vicious cycle.
That was the weekly Pale channel, tune in next week. If you read this in one sitting.. I salute you, Sir. Or more likely, Miss!
P
