I remember how angry my grandmother would get if she screwed up a cross stitch while making a sweater I would never wear.

It was brutal, she once stabbed the mailman in the neck.

Duality of man for the win.

What's up? I came as soon I as heard someone call... my, uh...

Oh. Nevermind.

/does this in every thread like this

Adam was but human--this explains it all. He did not want the apple for the apple's sake, he wanted it only because it was forbidden. The mistake was in not forbidding the serpent; then he would have eaten the serpent. -- Mark Twain

"The pitifulest thing out is a mob; that's what an army is--a mob; they don't fight with courage that's born in them, but with courage that's borrowed from their mass, and from their officers. But a mob without any MAN at the head of it is BENEATH pitifulness." - Also sprach Mark Twain

Lucifer effect turns submitter into a Subnitter

One time my grandmom knitted me a sweater with a submarine on it.

Sub-knitter?

I prefer "racist redneck half-wit syndrome".

Unavailable for comment

/moral high ground FTW

Sure subnitter doesn't prefer the old term "hunam mature"?

Lord of Allusions: I'm not listening to anyone below a nitter.

No kidding, that's worse than assistant crack whore.

Six of of ten things said by Mark Twain were not said by Mark Twain.

It's "Sub knitter", not "subnitter".

/Spelling nazi

/whistles nervously

Stanford Prison Experiment.

Others blame 150:1 inmate to guard ratio, constant rioting, and ongoing attacks from the outside (Source: Mother Jones, for gawd's sake), for the harsh treatment of inmates.

Hey, if it wan't for a religious fear of some all-seeing hoo-doo man in the sky, we'd all be spending every minute of every day just tying not to be slaughtered by the maniacs living next door.

Lord of Allusions: I'm not listening to anyone below a nitter.

FTG!

/G=Glory

Good name for a band, though

Elvis_Bogart: Hardship does not create evil...it unmasks it.

Man...that's some deep shiat for a Friday morning.

Elvis_Bogart: Hardship does not create evil...it unmasks it.

I don't think evil, per se actually exists. It's a way to describe a lack of goodness. Similar to how darkness does not actually exist, it's just a way to describe a lack of light, you cannot create darkness, only light. To make it dark, you turn off the light, not turn on the dark. Same way with cold... It doesn't exist, you cannot create cold, only heat. To make it colder, you remove heat, not create cold. That's the way I look at it anyway.

/worth about 2 cents

farked?

I had subnits once but used a piece of sharpened aluminium to dig them out.

craigdamage: Stanford Prison Experiment.


Yeah, it's old news. The Stanford Prison Experiment findings coupled with the Milgram Experiment findings show how far "good" people can go with a diffusion of responsibility. The military ranking structure just worsens it, just ask anyone about Mai Lai.


/It's sad to know what we're all capable of, given some prodding
//Slashies

Good job, Dr. University Researcher! You deserve it -


SCIENCE ACCOMPLISHED

robisfunky: Elvis_Bogart: Hardship does not create evil...it unmasks it.

I don't think evil, per se actually exists. It's a way to describe a lack of goodness. Similar to how darkness does not actually exist, it's just a way to describe a lack of light, you cannot create darkness, only light. To make it dark, you turn off the light, not turn on the dark. Same way with cold... It doesn't exist, you cannot create cold, only heat. To make it colder, you remove heat, not create cold. That's the way I look at it anyway.

/worth about 2 cents

But you can not have "warm" with out a "cold" to compare it to. The thing about duality is that it is easy to focus on the good stuff and forget about the bad. However if the bad didn't exsist we couldn't have the good.

Lord of Allusions: I'm not listening to anyone below a nitter.

Boo. Mods changed the headline. Does anyone have a picture so that people can continue to ridicule the subnitter?

Pocket Ninja: "If you give people power without oversight it is a formula for abuse," Zimbardo said to a stunned audience the included famous actors, entrepreneurs and politicians.

I like that it takes someone a degree, a long period of research, and a published book to arrive at this sort of world-tilting, radical conclusion. And "Lucifer Effect" rolls off the tongue almost as nicely as "Stockholm Effect," so at least this guy's bought himself a few more rounds of the talk shows and news broadcasts.

"Stunned"? Really? Really? My god, and I thought Bush was stupid. But yeah, it's amazing that it took them this long to come out with something we already knew. Well, maybe they spent all that time just trying to come up with something catchy, like "Lucifer Effect".

/Lucifer effect, now in anal rapage flavor

Nice one Bogart !

If those words are yours = truly awesome. If you borrowed it, good find!

Ethyl Engine: craigdamage: Stanford Prison Experiment.


Yeah, it's old news. The Stanford Prison Experiment findings coupled with the Milgram Experiment findings show how far "good" people can go with a diffusion of responsibility. The military ranking structure just worsens it, just ask anyone about Mai Lai.


/It's sad to know what we're all capable of, given some prodding
//Slashies

diffusion of responsibility is where an individual does not act in a situation because of the presence of others (where others are assumed to act first or "instead of me")...see also "pluralistic ignorance" or "social loafing".

Milgram's experiment ("shock") was on obedience to authority figures.

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: robisfunky:

But you can not have "warm" with out a "cold" to compare it to. The thing about duality is that it is easy to focus on the good stuff and forget about the bad. However if the bad didn't exsist we couldn't have the good.

That's just it. You don't have to have a 'cold' to compare 'warm' to, we just do it. What you are really talking about is 'more warm' or 'less warm'. Cold is something we made up to help describe it. There is no such thing as 'cold', only 'less warm'. There is no duality, because one thing exists, the other does not.

please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste

Rob, kungfujesus

Interesting points, man.

You know, I really hope the devil would think up something more nefarious than putting some skidmarked underwear on a guy's head.

yawn

Boing Boing liveblogged this.

lukelightning
"Six of of ten things said by Mark Twain were not said by Mark Twain."

- Mark Twain

FTFY

Billygoat Gruff: Unavailable for comment

/moral high ground FTW

Yes, terrorists are also awful wastes of oxygen. That doesn't make what happened at Abu Ghraib OK.

domenad: You know, I really hope the devil would think up something more nefarious than putting some skidmarked underwear on a guy's head.

Why? Damnation by small steps has the same result as damnation by one giant leap. More likely to happen, to. Does no one read Screwtape any more?

craigdamage: Stanford Prison Experiment.

It is the same professor (in the article) who ran that study who was giving the lecture. He was part of the defense team for one of the soldiers accused.

I tend to call it "orders from superior officers, ikely Geoffrey D. Miller", but that's just me.

poundgrayly
Why? Damnation by small steps has the same result as damnation by one giant leap. More likely to happen, to. Does no one read Screwtape any more?

Screwtape Letters: What a great book.

Although I have to say that your statement probably won't be met with much approval in this context. Not to say it isn't true, but it's a whole different level of thought from putting skivvies on someone's head. I wouldn't expect much connection to be made.

Pocket Ninja: I like that it takes someone a degree, a long period of research, and a published book to arrive at this sort of world-tilting, radical conclusion. And "Lucifer Effect" rolls off the tongue almost as nicely as "Stockholm Effect," so at least this guy's bought himself a few more rounds of the talk shows and news broadcasts.

One of the reasons why it's not a "world-tilting, radical" conclusion today, is because he (Zimbardo, the guy in the article) managed to demonstrate it rather dramatically 37 years ago, in his now-famous Stanford Prison Experiment.

I thought the cause of the inhumane treatment was traceable to the fact that they really did stop thinking of the Iraqis as humans, moving down to the pronoun "it".

In other words, the Republican Party.

craigdamage: Stanford Prison Experiment.



Somehow I don't believe this woman was ever a "good soldier," or was corrupted by her place in the system, or whatever else supposedly happened. Evil little snot deserved whatever happened to her.

poundgrayly I read The Screwtape Letters, and they are much, much better than Narnia.

About the story, though, it says he was at an "elite technology, entertainment, and design conference in California?" Is, uh... is that really the venue for the message? I can see why they were stunned.

/Now THAT's entertainment.
//and technology and design.

Slightly off topic here, but I do hate it when ignorant people propagate misconceptions -- let alone a supposedly knowledgeable, published scholar does it...

Lucifer is not a name for the Devil. It refers to a Babylonian god, and the (supposed) arrogance of their king. It means something like light-bringer, and is also associated with the planet Venus -- the morning "star." The misconception was made by later, non-religious authors. Just like people have come to believe that the forbidden fruit of Eden were apples -- the bible never mentions what the fruit was, but religious painter had to depict something, and apples were a commonly recognized fruit.

/ Atheist.
// Never met a Christian who knew more about Christianity and the Bible than myself -- not because I know much, but because Christians know jack shiat about their own religion...

If you are an existentialist (someone who only believes mundane things provable by Science, Logic, or Reason can possibly exist) then this post wasn't written with you in mind.

For those who have experienced things that are not mundane, I would say to you folks that this "Lucifer Effect" and the pessimistic/nihilistic rendition of "Human Nature" actually have causal factors that are not inherent in certain social or professional relationships. However, certain mundane factors can increase the likelihood that a person fall under such influences.

I have been places where the 'feel' of the place put me in a different state of mind than I normally have. It's all about vibration.

If you have a house where lots of people were murdered over time repeatedly, and the house was occupied by the murderer for some time, years later if you went there, you'd feel uneasy and not know why.

My personal take on Abu Ghraib is that the land itself was already soaked with corruption, caused by Hussein's regime. Even a person of pure heart wouldn't be able to take the strain of such a place for long without being changed. But in the military, you follow orders no matter the consequences to your mind soul or spirit for being in the wrong place for too long. One has to have specific defenses to withstand such a bombardment of corruption.

In my view, the true nature of evil is corruption, taking something as it should be and twisting it into something else. And humans are easily corrupted without the proper defenses. However that does *not* make human nature equivalent to inherent evil intent. There are forces in this universe that can corrupt a human against his/her own will. However, if the human resists the corrupting force, it can't completely succeed. With time and prayer and meditation (or other methods) it can be healed.

I also firmly believe that anyone can be made to become a torturer *unless* said person would rather die than to commit such an act, even if it meant a slow painful death. One has to have a supreme will to allow yourself to be slowly tortured to death simply to refuse harming another person. But the two are the same. By refusing to harm another person as commanded by the authority figure, you are indeed resisting corruption.

Come to think of it, there was one man who was given the choice to either forsake his friends, his followers, and his own view of the universe or die. He chose death. Death was not able to hold onto him though. I believe this is the true nature of mankind, and that we are essentially socialized into obedience or disobedience, as long as we don't make our own choices, but base our choices on the acceptance or denial or antithesis of the choices given us. He made a new choice, one that had not been done before in recorded history. I choose to believe he is what mankind truly is, but is unaware of being.

But that's just my belief, I have the free will to believe this and you have the free will to think I'm batshaite insane.

I call it the Cheney effect.

buenohead: Although I have to say that your statement probably won't be met with much approval in this context. Not to say it isn't true, but it's a whole different level of thought from putting skivvies on someone's head. I wouldn't expect much connection to be made.

Perhaps not. "Just a little evil" and "it's not that bad" doesn't seem to be the cause for concern it once was.

Phil Zimbardo is definitely an alien.

/really--- i know the guy.

kregh99: In other words, the Republican Party.

Actually, it equally applies to the partisan idiots on the extreme ends of both parties.

Pavia_Resistance: The professor was on the Colbert Report discussing his book. Link (new window)

From the video:

Zimbardo: "Obviously you listened well in Sunday School."
Colbert: "I teach Sunday School Mother-F*cker"

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Stanford prison experiment FTL.

Eff Wikipedia. Here's the official Stanford prison experiment site: Link (new window). The slide show is fascinating.

techmom: cryinoutloud: Somehow I don't believe this woman was ever a "good soldier," or was corrupted by her place in the system, or whatever else supposedly happened. Evil little snot deserved whatever happened to her.

What do you base that opinion on?

c'mon techmom, now you don't want Farkers to leap to unfounded conclusions and overgeneralize?
/it is The Way of Fark

Duuuuude! :) Bringer of Light is the literal Latin translation of Lucifer. The latin word Lucifer was written over the Hebrew word for this king (I know you said he was a Babylonian god, but the texts I read indicated he was a great Babylonian King) (forgot his name) in the hebrew texts later used by the early christian church. Lucifer was the name of the planet Venus. It was called Bringer of Light because it was the brightest star in the sky.

The "Satan" figure in the Gnostic Texts is referred to as Sama-El or Samael. This literally translates to "Blind God". He didn't fall out of spite, but because he was blind... Essentially, he didn't know any better. His fall caused (according to the Gnostic Texts if read carefully) the manifestation of the Adversary, because Samael turned his back on God, and thus turned his face to something that didn't exist. This is the Adversary, the source of Corruption.

The word "Satan" is a variant form of an Ancient Scribal Aramaic term, an archery term meaning "To miss the mark". It was being used in a spiritual context, so the implied meaning was "To miss the sight of God" or to misperceive. The Ancient Scribal Aramaic word itself is "sta", and the variant translating to "Satan" in context means "To Intentionally misunderstand or misperceive".

The word "Sta" in ancient scribal aramaic is also the original root word where we get the word "sin" from. To sin is to miss the mark.

Again, I personally believe these gnostic texts, but that is because I can back up what they say with my own personal experience.

I'm willing to bet that 99% of you a) haven't had such experiences, and b) haven't read the texts I'm referring to (but not listing by name).

Again, this is only my opinion.

Voxton: Slightly off topic here, but I do hate it when ignorant people propagate misconceptions -- let alone a supposedly knowledgeable, published scholar does it...

Lucifer is not a name for the Devil. It refers to a Babylonian god, and the (supposed) arrogance of their king. It means something like light-bringer, and is also associated with the planet Venus -- the morning "star." The misconception was made by later, non-religious authors. Just like people have come to believe that the forbidden fruit of Eden were apples -- the bible never mentions what the fruit was, but religious painter had to depict something, and apples were a commonly recognized fruit.

/ Atheist.
// Never met a Christian who knew more about Christianity and the Bible than myself -- not because I know much, but because Christians know jack shiat about their own religion...

Voxton: Lucifer is not a name for the Devil. It refers to a Babylonian god

In Christianity, other gods are the devil.

Baal = Baalzebub = Beelzebub

Claiming "it's human nature" is another way of saying "humans are assholes".

It's wrong. We are not assholes by nature. Those of that become assholes decide to be assholes.

If you're an asshole, don't blame your species for your decision.

jaedreth: If you are an existentialist (someone who only believes mundane things provable by Science, Logic, or Reason can possibly exist) then this post wasn't written with you in mind.

Man, you ain't kidding.

Ant: Voxton: Lucifer is not a name for the Devil. It refers to a Babylonian god

In Christianity, other gods are the devil.

Baal = Baalzebub = Beelzebub

Only because the Early Roman Catholic Church made it so without Jesus' permission.

Did Jesus ever tell the Church to treat all other religions as evil and to persecute them, execute their members, or force them to convert on threat of death?

No. I know for a fact he didn't. In fact, Jesus never taught a religion. He taught principles and techniques. That's all he taught. And he was crucified for it. Then someone else made a religion out of him. Personally, I think he's the victim, not Christians.

FTFATechnology, Entertainment and Design conference

Wait, What does this have to do with prison

/Oh the new reality show that'll come out soon...
//I see.

"Who you say made you do it?"



/probably not obscure

I worked in several prisons. Prison is a place where everyone's true colors are laid to bare. Inmates and CO's. It was an eye-opener, I tell you.

Don't do things that could land you in prison. It's not an education you need or want.

robisfunky: kungfu jesus with a side of lime: robisfunky:

But you can not have "warm" with out a "cold" to compare it to. The thing about duality is that it is easy to focus on the good stuff and forget about the bad. However if the bad didn't exsist we couldn't have the good.

That's just it. You don't have to have a 'cold' to compare 'warm' to, we just do it. What you are really talking about is 'more warm' or 'less warm'. Cold is something we made up to help describe it. There is no such thing as 'cold', only 'less warm'. There is no duality, because one thing exists, the other does not.

Well maybe there is no warm, just more or less cold. You can not say that warm is any more or less important then cold. Life appears to nothing more then complex dualities. You can't have more of something without their being less of another. There are very few mobius strips when it comes to the physical and metaphysical world. We have good and bad, hot and cold, up and down. One without the other makes no sense, it needs context.

However, this does not mean that I hold to a completely dualistic nature of the world, rather that duality is simply used to define or describe phenomena or events. I like to think of things as a coin. You have two sides, heads and tails; however they are really no different, they are still the same coin. I think events in life are truly unbiased; it is up to our own sentience to apply a good or bad, or a hot and cold.

studebaker hoch: Claiming "it's human nature" is another way of saying "humans are assholes".

It's wrong. We are not assholes by nature. Those of that become assholes decide to be assholes.

If you're an asshole, don't blame your species for your decision.

claiming it's human nature is another way of saying "despite everything we know about human beings, from all of our collective years of historical experience and the best objective science we can muster, some people are still going to do horrible things to each other and there really is nothing that we can do about it except try not to be one of those people."

robisfunky

That's just it. You don't have to have a 'cold' to compare 'warm' to, we just do it. What you are really talking about is 'more warm' or 'less warm'. Cold is something we made up to help describe it. There is no such thing as 'cold', only 'less warm'. There is no duality, because one thing exists, the other does not.

Kelvin would like to have a word with you.

Well of course Phil Zimbardo identified this...

..after all, he is the Devil.

/Srsly
//C'mon, just look at the guy....slick-back hair, Evil Guy (tm) facial hair....it all fits.

cryinoutloud

Somehow I don't believe this woman was ever a "good soldier," or was corrupted by her place in the system, or whatever else supposedly happened. Evil little snot deserved whatever happened to her.

By "good soldier" do you mean someone who is willing to kill people? Because it seems to me that's exactly what she is.

Face it folks, 90% of Americans think they are God's chosen people, superior human beings, and the dominant nationality, language, and religion on the planet. It's not that we torture people, really. It's more that we torture animals who look like people because we genuinely care enough to force them to become human, i.e. LIKE US.

jaedreth: If you are an existentialist (someone who only believes mundane things provable by Science, Logic, or Reason can possibly exist)

I dont think that word means what you think it means... so fail. As an existentialist, I assure you it has nothing to do with science or the mundane. Please try again, this time with feeling.

/rollo may ftw

Nopokerface: Others blame 150:1 inmate to guard ratio, constant rioting, and ongoing attacks from the outside (Source: Mother Jones, for gawd's sake), for the harsh treatment of inmates.

Clarifying point (for the pretty clear majority who haven't read the book): 150:1 ratios, constant rioting, and ongoing attacks are discussed as catalysts for the behavior by Zimbardo. These factors fed the anxiety and fear of the soldiers, making the effects of weak leadership, ambiguity of the mission, and breakdown of the chain of command even worse.

MrBonestripper: Well of course Phil Zimbardo identified this...

..after all, he is the Devil.

/Srsly
//C'mon, just look at the guy....slick-back hair, Evil Guy (tm) facial hair....it all fits.

And his name is a anagram of "Hard Zombi Lip". Coincidence? I think not!

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: jaedreth: If you are an existentialist (someone who only believes mundane things provable by Science, Logic, or Reason can possibly exist)

I dont think that word means what you think it means... so fail. As an existentialist, I assure you it has nothing to do with science or the mundane. Please try again, this time with feeling.

/rollo may ftw

My bad.

/so much fail... I had actually heard the term contextually used both to support and deny empiricism, and got confused some years ago. I guess I am an existentialist. Cool. So what I meant to say (if I could get my memory to work right) is a word that means one that believes only in empiricism, which would probably be an empiricist...

//hopefully less fail this time

YixilTesiphon: Yes, terrorists are also awful wastes of oxygen. That doesn't make what happened at Abu Ghraib OK.

Yet, this really isn't about terrorist or Abu Ghraib, its really all about power structure and how the Standford Experiment shows how abuse will almost always happen when you put people in positions of absolute power with no accountability.

jaedreth: My bad.

/so much fail... I had actually heard the term contextually used both to support and deny empiricism, and got confused some years ago. I guess I am an existentialist. Cool. So what I meant to say (if I could get my memory to work right) is a word that means one that believes only in empiricism, which would probably be an empiricist...

//hopefully less fail this time

existentialists, many of whom are also phenomenologists, are also empiricists (where empiricism means simply observation, sense data, experience, etc.)

you're most likely thinking of logical positivism.

"Someone told me once that there's a right and wrong, and that punishment would come to those who dare to cross the line...

...Consequences dictate our course of action and it doesn't matter what's right. It's only wrong if you get caught." MJK

I always love these conversations - a certain percentage of people will assume that Lucifer is a term from the bible.

If you think so...please quote the place in the bible where that is from (hint: it's not there).

I don't think this guy's entirely full of it. Spend 5 hours at a dirty daycare taking care of a bunch of hyperactive, snotty, under-10 brats and see how nice a person you are afterwards.

I have such a mind-crush on Zimbardo... sigh...

Donald_McRonald: Boing Boing liveblogged this.

Oh, that how internet board work....

boatman: I always love these conversations - a certain percentage of people will assume that Lucifer is a term from the bible.

If you think so...please quote the place in the bible where that is from (hint: it's not there).

what's the catch or technicality you're hanging your claim on? a basic search brings up that it's stated in Isaiah 14:12 of the King James Version.

Yes, I am an existentialist and a phenomenologist. I verify every psychic experience I have for consistency with a number of trusted sources before I believe the psychic sense. And I also apply logical process to determine what is necessarily true of said experience, and discard that which is not necessarily false or true, unless it can be validated by means other than logic. Again, I use a number of different trusted sources, take their points of view into consideration, and analyze.


you're most likely thinking of logical positivism.

Yes, I am. Thank you. Honestly I don't remember much from Philosophy class.

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: robisfunky: kungfu jesus with a side of lime: robisfunky:

But you can not have "warm" with out a "cold" to compare it to. The thing about duality is that it is easy to focus on the good stuff and forget about the bad. However if the bad didn't exsist we couldn't have the good.

That's just it. You don't have to have a 'cold' to compare 'warm' to, we just do it. What you are really talking about is 'more warm' or 'less warm'. Cold is something we made up to help describe it. There is no such thing as 'cold', only 'less warm'. There is no duality, because one thing exists, the other does not.

Well maybe there is no warm, just more or less cold. You can not say that warm is any more or less important then cold. Life appears to nothing more then complex dualities. You can't have more of something without their being less of another. There are very few mobius strips when it comes to the physical and metaphysical world. We have good and bad, hot and cold, up and down. One without the other makes no sense, it needs context.

However, this does not mean that I hold to a completely dualistic nature of the world, rather that duality is simply used to define or describe phenomena or events. I like to think of things as a coin. You have two sides, heads and tails; however they are really no different, they are still the same coin. I think events in life are truly unbiased; it is up to our own sentience to apply a good or bad, or a hot and cold.

I have to disagree. Cold (just like dark) does not exist. It is a construct of our minds. When we talk about warm and cold, we are talking about molecular motion. The faster molecules move, the warmer they become. You can create heat by making molecules move faster, you CANNOT create cold by any means (it does not exist), all you can do is either stop creating the heat or move the heat from one place to another (like how a refrigerator works, they do not create cold, they remove heat, that's why it's so HOT behind a fridge or air conditioner) notice that when you run a heater, there is no accompanying COLD area created. Same with light, you cannot CREATE dark, you can only create light. Light is a stream of photons, that's all. Dark is NOT a stream of anything- it DOES NOT EXIST, it is simply a way to describe a small amount of LIGHT which DOES exist). If you do not believe this here is a challenge:

1) Create cold. A heater can easily create heat, without creating 'cold'. An air conditioner cannot create 'cold' only move the heat from one place to another.

2) Create darkness. Again, there is no device than can create 'dark', only devices that can create light.

Heat is fast moving molecules. Light is a stream of photons. Notice there is no need to mention the absence of 'cold' or 'dark' in these definitions. To really define 'cold' all you can say is that it means 'less heat', to really define 'dark' all you can say is that it means 'less light'. See?

It's wrong. We are not assholes by nature. Those of that become assholes decide to be assholes.


Please. Take away the trappings of civilization and we are ALL assholes doing whatever we have to to survive.

I think we have progressed as a race DESPITE our nature. Frankly, it's a miracle, and we are not out of the woods yet.

boatman: I always love these conversations - a certain percentage of people will assume that Lucifer is a term from the bible. If you think so...please quote the place in the bible where that is from (hint: it's not there).

Look in the Vulgate. Isa 14:12. It's the Latin translation of the Hebrew word "heylel": "shining one", "morning star".

The KJV brought "Lucifer" over from the Latin, other translations don't (e.g. NRSV: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!")

Tyrone Slothrop: robisfunky

Kelvin would like to have a word with you.

Thanks for proving my point

"The Kelvin scale is a thermodynamic (absolute) temperature scale where absolute zero, the theoretical absence of all thermal energy, is zero (0 K)."

Notice how defining even absolute zero rests on saying it is an ABSENCE of thermal energy. It not saying it exists unto itself, to describe it, all you can do is say that it refers to an ABSENCE of that which does exist.

/c'mon Farkers, you guys are smarter than this.

robisfunky: If you do not believe this here is a challenge:

1) Create cold. A heater can easily create heat, without creating 'cold'. An air conditioner cannot create 'cold' only move the heat from one place to another.

2) Create darkness. Again, there is no device than can create 'dark', only devices that can create light.

Actually, with a level of technology we do not currently possess, it is theoretically possible to *create* cold and dark, but it would be tenement to the same thing. You could, with sufficient technology, directly extract energy states from matter and collapse existing light waves, creating cold and dark. However the means of doing so still technically *moves* the energy away from particles instead of adding energy to particles, so your logic still applies and is still valid even if we *did* have the technology to *create* cold and dark.

robisfunky wrote: To really define 'cold' all you can say is that it means 'less heat', to really define 'dark' all you can say is that it means 'less light'. See?

So if 'heat' is the average kinetic energy of molecular motion and 'light' deals with the number of photons in a given area, what does 'good' deal with? Simply saying "a is not b", or "is less b" doesn't do a bit of good if you don't know what is being measured. What measurement does 'good' deal with?

Billygoat Gruff: Unavailable for comment

/moral high ground FTW

You could have just said; "If you can't beat them, join them."

I rode a tank
Held a generals rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, whats puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah


/Why for no generals held accountable?

robisfunky:
........Heat is fast moving molecules. Light is a stream of photons. Notice there is no need to mention the absence of 'cold' or 'dark' in these definitions. To really define 'cold' all you can say is that it means 'less heat', to really define 'dark' all you can say is that it means 'less light'. See?

the argument you are making one of causation or explanation for these physical states. that's one approach, sure. but i'll tell you, cold exists, and it's not "merely" a construct of mind (as if somehow those are less "real" than physical objects or states). Cold exists. i felt it on my face and in my bones when i was starting the car this morning. i could care less if the definition is less heat or caused by polar bear farts.

This one is easy. Good is a lack of corruption. Evil is the presence of corruption. Corruption is the damaging and twisting of something natural from its natural state. So Good is being in one's natural state, and Evil is being twisted out of one's natural state. Essentially those who commit "evil" acts are all technically insane. You have to be 'not right in the head' to do that sort of thing.

poundgrayly: robisfunky wrote: To really define 'cold' all you can say is that it means 'less heat', to really define 'dark' all you can say is that it means 'less light'. See?

So if 'heat' is the average kinetic energy of molecular motion and 'light' deals with the number of photons in a given area, what does 'good' deal with? Simply saying "a is not b", or "is less b" doesn't do a bit of good if you don't know what is being measured. What measurement does 'good' deal with?

Mad-n-FL: Why for no generals held accountable?

One was. Probably not enough.

Interestingly enough that happens here at Fark too.

All it takes is a post about a child's death - a family dying in a fire - what have you: and you all become instant douches. Although I'm not sure if it comes into play so much elsewhere. You want validation. Sheep.

E Arkhe: I don't think this guy's entirely full of it. Spend 5 hours at a dirty daycare taking care of a bunch of hyperactive, snotty, under-10 brats and see how nice a person you are afterwards.

Thats why god invented duct tape.

Kid being loud - duct tape his mouth

kid have a runy nose - duct tape it (can not be done in conjuction with the loud kid solution)

kid running around = duct tape his legs

kid groping other kids - duct tape hands

crazy hype kid - duct tape to a wall.


/this is why people never ask me to watch their kids.

What you are calling "Cold" is a sensory state. Our particular neurology is wired to react based on a regulated "norm", that is a zone of input that is neutral to the senses of the body. If you go too far beyond said norm in one direction, you get one extreme (heat) and if you go too far in the other direction you get another extreme (cold). Our neurology works this way in all things, because our bodies require our environment to meet a baseline of requirements. Thus it creates the illusion of duality. Whether it is the absence, presence, or overabundance of food, stimulus, or thermal energy we get the wide range of hunger, satiation, stuffed, sensory deprivation, pleasure, comfort, pain, cold, and hot. He is talking about what exists outside of our neurological preconditions but at the layers of the physical world itself.

You can measure atomic energy states. And you can measure temperature. But "Hot" and "Cold" are both in direct relation to our physical neurology and the physiological tolerances of our human bodies.

Bartleby the Scrivener: robisfunky:
........Heat is fast moving molecules. Light is a stream of photons. Notice there is no need to mention the absence of 'cold' or 'dark' in these definitions. To really define 'cold' all you can say is that it means 'less heat', to really define 'dark' all you can say is that it means 'less light'. See?

the argument you are making one of causation or explanation for these physical states. that's one approach, sure. but i'll tell you, cold exists, and it's not "merely" a construct of mind (as if somehow those are less "real" than physical objects or states). Cold exists. i felt it on my face and in my bones when i was starting the car this morning. i could care less if the definition is less heat or caused by polar bear farts.

jaedreth: What you are calling "Cold" is a sensory state. Our particular neurology is wired to react based on a regulated "norm", that is a zone of input that is neutral to the senses of the body. If you go too far beyond said norm in one direction, you get one extreme (heat) and if you go too far in the other direction you get another extreme (cold). Our neurology works this way in all things, because our bodies require our environment to meet a baseline of requirements. Thus it creates the illusion of duality. Whether it is the absence, presence, or overabundance of food, stimulus, or thermal energy we get the wide range of hunger, satiation, stuffed, sensory deprivation, pleasure, comfort, pain, cold, and hot. He is talking about what exists outside of our neurological preconditions but at the layers of the physical world itself.

You can measure atomic energy states. And you can measure temperature. But "Hot" and "Cold" are both in direct relation to our physical neurology and the physiological tolerances of our human bodies.


yes, i understand that. my claim is that the scientific measurement of all those things you mentioned keep me at a distance or are abstracted from the direct experience of being-cold, being-hungry, and so on...

kungfu jesus with a side of lime

Think of it like this: Let's say I'm standing right in front of you. You could call me 'Rob' no problem, I clearly exist. Now if I left the room, you could refer to my absence as 'anti-Rob'. Does anti-Rob really exist, or is it just a way to describe the absence of Rob? If you wanted to 'create' Rob, you could just call me into the room, there I'd be. If you wanted to 'create' anti-Rob, how would you do that without having to deal with Rob? Rob does not require anti-Rob to exist, in contrast anti-Rob's existence is merely a description of the abssence of Rob. If you believe anti-Rob exists just as Rob does, you are letting your mind trick you.

jaedreth: This one is easy. Good is a lack of corruption. Evil is the presence of corruption. Corruption is the damaging and twisting of something natural from its natural state. So Good is being in one's natural state, and Evil is being twisted out of one's natural state. Essentially those who commit "evil" acts are all technically insane. You have to be 'not right in the head' to do that sort of thing.

Please define the natural state, and enable me to understand when it is being violated or corrupted. I am sure you can tell me when you think something is evil or bad, that doesn't do me any good, unless I place you incharge of my moral decsion making process (which I have not). How about a shark eating a person, will that person think of that event as evil (no they will be dead and inside a shark) they may. Does the shark think of it's actions as evil, I would assume not. We could say that eating someone is the sharks nature, so it cant be bad. What if I assume it is my nature to be bad, and it is my nature to hurt you. Then you would see it as corrupt, while I would see it as normal. I imagine it becomes a problem based on perspective and relates to the human dilema of subjectivity vs objectivity (Rollo May ftw again).

jaedreth tries to define "good": This one is easy. Good is a lack of corruption.

So you've taken the "a is not b" approach. Ok. So you defined "corruption" as "damaging or twisting something from its natural state". Define "natural state". I'll use a flamethrower to make a point here: the natural state of a fertilized egg is in the mothers womb. Does that mean that abortion is evil?

The reason that I do this is that the definition of "good" keeps getting pushed farther and farther out, with few terms being defined. How do I measure "natural state"? The "natural state" of a human is to be naked. After all, that's the way we were born. So why were the inmates at Abu Grahib humiliated when their clothes were removed?

You two are not talking about the same things.

One is talking about the existence of the *experience* of cold and hot, light and dark, and clearly they exist. The other is talking about the physical existence of such entities, and from a physics standpoint, they do not exist objectively. It's the old subjective vs objective debate that no one ever wins.


Bartleby the Scrivener: jaedreth: What you are calling "Cold" is a sensory state. Our particular neurology is wired to react based on a regulated "norm", that is a zone of input that is neutral to the senses of the body. If you go too far beyond said norm in one direction, you get one extreme (heat) and if you go too far in the other direction you get another extreme (cold). Our neurology works this way in all things, because our bodies require our environment to meet a baseline of requirements. Thus it creates the illusion of duality. Whether it is the absence, presence, or overabundance of food, stimulus, or thermal energy we get the wide range of hunger, satiation, stuffed, sensory deprivation, pleasure, comfort, pain, cold, and hot. He is talking about what exists outside of our neurological preconditions but at the layers of the physical world itself.

You can measure atomic energy states. And you can measure temperature. But "Hot" and "Cold" are both in direct relation to our physical neurology and the physiological tolerances of our human bodies.


yes, i understand that. my claim is that the scientific measurement of all those things you mentioned keep me at a distance or are abstracted from the direct experience of being-cold, being-hungry, and so on...

techmom: robisfunky: /c'mon Farkers, you guys are smarter than this.

Forgive them...

/it's ok, I understand
//there, there

lol, you're mean
/I like it ;-)

jaedreth: You two are not talking about the same things.

One is talking about the existence of the *experience* of cold and hot, light and dark, and clearly they exist. The other is talking about the physical existence of such entities, and from a physics standpoint, they do not exist objectively. It's the old subjective vs objective debate that no one ever wins.

You are absolutely correct. I am not speaking of the subjective sensation of 'cold', like someone mentioned they know cold exists because it was cold in their car this morning. That's subjective. I am referring to the objective nature of what they actually are. I guess it's difficult to get away from our subjectivity. Oh well. Interesting stuff nonetheless.

Voxton:
/ Atheist.
// Never met a Christian who knew more about Christianity and the Bible than myself -- not because I know much, but because Christians know jack shiat about their own religion...

I generally find that the average internet athiest is about as knowlegable of Christianity as the creationists are of science.

ALL of us have Evil rooted deeply. It is just a part of being human. Who among us hasn't thought of killing another person who crossed them? Who hasn't been tempted to steal, cheat, lie, violate or hurt other people? Evil is a part of us, and always will be.

As it is written: There is none righteous, not even one.

Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

robisfunky: kungfu jesus with a side of lime

Think of it like this: Let's say I'm standing right in front of you. You could call me 'Rob' no problem, I clearly exist. Now if I left the room, you could refer to my absence as 'anti-Rob'. Does anti-Rob really exist, or is it just a way to describe the absence of Rob? If you wanted to 'create' Rob, you could just call me into the room, there I'd be. If you wanted to 'create' anti-Rob, how would you do that without having to deal with Rob? Rob does not require anti-Rob to exist, in contrast anti-Rob's existence is merely a description of the abssence of Rob. If you believe anti-Rob exists just as Rob does, you are letting your mind trick you.

So when you watch the weather do you worry about the speed and activity of atoms, or do you focus on what clothes to wear. I think arguing the symantics of what hot is simply ignores the neurological phenomina, that effects most people. Do you think of emotions as chemicals in the brain, or as affective actions and expressions towards others. While we could break down all activity into it's wonderfully understod quantum particles, it does not change how we experience things.

/how would you use physics to describe good vs bad, which is the real purpose of this discusion.
//get a brain boran
///I do like science

Donald Rumsfeld is Lucifer? Who knew?

Late to the party, but just wanted to point out that it's the Stanford Prison Study, not the Stanford Prison Experiment...it's not a true experiment as nothing was manipulated, nor was anything measured. This was just Zimbardo trying to make his own Milgram experiment, and as he's still milking it 30+ years later I'd say he succeeded.

/social psychologist
//when Zimbardo shows up at a convention talk, it's like Snoop Dogg rolled into the room
///in the "cloud of weed smoke" sense, not the "coolest guy in the room sense"
////it is human nature to slashie

kungfu jesus with a side of lime:
So when you watch the weather do you worry about the speed and activity of atoms, or do you focus on what clothes to wear. I think arguing the symantics of what hot is simply ignores the neurological phenomina, that effects most people. Do you think of emotions as chemicals in the brain, or as affective actions and expressions towards others. While we could break down all activity into it's wonderfully understod quantum particles, it does not change how we experience things.

/how would you use physics to describe good vs bad, which is the real purpose of this discusion.
//get a brain boran
///I do like science

Good point, I digress. I really cannot directly relate good/evil to hot/cold, it simply seemed analagous in my mind-which is why in my original post I said I 'think'. That has nothing to do with the hot/cold or light/dark discussion which I 'know' to be correct. To discuss this, you have to stop being subjective, subjectivity has no place in the discussion of 'what is heat/light'. The question is not 'what is your personal experience of heat or light' the question is 'what IS heat/cold, or light/dark'.

itzhak: One of the reasons why it's not a "world-tilting, radical" conclusion today, is because he (Zimbardo, the guy in the article) managed to demonstrate it rather dramatically 37 years ago, in his now-famous Stanford Prison Experiment.

And the rest of the scientific community is awaiting the research, writings, and discussions that should follow otherwise legitimate, worthwhile psychological and social studies.

Ethyl Engine: craigdamage: Stanford Prison Experiment.


Yeah, it's old news. The Stanford Prison Experiment findings coupled with the Milgram Experiment findings show how far "good" people can go with a diffusion of responsibility. The military ranking structure just worsens it, just ask anyone about Mai Lai.


/It's sad to know what we're all capable of, given some prodding
//Slashies

Yeah, RTFA. The scientist being referred to is the man who was in charge of the Stanford Prison Experiment.

techmom: I just wanted him to admit that his insightful analysis was entirely based on the fact that she is lacking a peener. As opposed to, oh, all the other soldiers involved with the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Yep, I agree techmom. Cryinoutloud chose to say this only about the woman, not the men. And Cryinoutloud is just like the entire military system that chose to punish her instead of her boss, a man, who told her to do these things and by the way also got her fricking pregnant.

/grr.

Very late to the discussion, but just wanted to add ...

Though I agree that cold is simply the absence of heat and dark the absence of light, Evil is not merely the absence of Good. That would imply that evil is the natural state and that an infusion of good is required to alter this state.

Good and evil require context and intent. My most simplified, boiled-down definition of Evil (sans any religious overtones) is doing what you want at the expense of what another needs.

A lion tearing out the throat of a lamb is not evil. The lion needs to kill in order to survive.

Gross profits from a necessity (i.e. heat) is evil, as you are knowingly depriving those in need in order to profit from those who can bear your inflated pricing.

An over-simplification, I know. But true, nonetheless.

--be seeing you

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9

So the 9/11 hijackers and the guys who sawed off a journalists head were unavailable for scrutiny and judgment? Cool how that works. People who are supposed to be bad guys get a free pass if the politics of the season require it.

More like Neoconservative brainwashing.

""Because I had seen those cells before at Stanford. The power is in the system. It's not bad apples, but bad barrel makers.""


Uh-Oh!! Someone didn't understand the Stanford prison experiment (hint:it has nothing to do with proving power corrupts people)

robisfunky Notice how defining even absolute zero rests on saying it is an ABSENCE of thermal energy. It not saying it exists unto itself, to describe it, all you can do is say that it refers to an ABSENCE of that which does exist.

/c'mon Farkers, you guys are smarter than this.

Oh for the love of...
Warm and cold are both arbitrary measures to explain temperatures. Of course they exist, they're just arbitrary and extremely subjective. It's the same way with darkness, good, and evil. The definition depends on the person and it can't really be quantified, but of course they exist.

The amusing thing is that you're using an extremely arbitrary meaning of the word "exist", which is clearly a word you don't really understand.

PadreScout:: "Because I had seen those cells before at Stanford. The power is in the system. It's not bad apples, but bad barrel makers."

Uh-Oh!! Someone didn't understand the Stanford prison experiment (hint:it has nothing to do with proving power corrupts people)

Umm! Did you really just say that the professor who was cheifly responsible for conducting the Stanford prison experiment doesn't understand the Stanford prison experiment??
And just out of curiosity what do you think it proved?

jaedreth: Essentially those who commit "evil" acts are all technically insane. You have to be 'not right in the head' to do that sort of thing.


It is amazing how many people cannot wrap their mind around this.

Well, there's another explanation, but you won't see it because:
1. only people in the biz recognize it
2. can't offend any unions, or uniformed services, because they're all "heroes" (you know, like McCain is a hero?)

Confused?
A very large percentage of the bad people were, in civilian life... guess: prison guards. They didn't need to "learn it", or "get stressed out", or "be corrupted", or "suffer burn-out".
They're used to torturing detainees and getting away with it, and they brought it with them.

Maybe, at our core, people are just a bunch of shaitcock animals.

/and if so...can I be a kitty?

Elvis_Bogart: Hardship does not create evil...it unmasks it.


Most insightful Weeners in the thread.

+LOTS

SquirrelHill: Good job, Dr. University Researcher! You deserve it -


SCIENCE ACCOMPLISHED

"It'll make you win at things you're not supposed to win at! Like yelling! Brawndo will make you win at yelling!"

/Or Science!
//Brawndo will make you win at science!

TheCommunistCow: robisfunky

The amusing thing is that you're using an extremely arbitrary meaning of the word "exist", which is clearly a word you don't really understand.

Think so? A good rule of thumb: when you go to define a term, and the only way to accurately define it is to refer to it as the ABSENCE of something else, what you are attempting to define probably does not actually exist (see 'absolute zero' from an earlier reply) If you cannot wrap your mind around this concept. That is your problem. I think it is you, my friend, who does not understand what 'exist' means.

Best thread I've seen on Fark in a while. Thanks guys.

Just a thought: Go over to /b/ and have a look at how people can behave when there are no consequences ...

If you have to work hard to be a good person, it's because you aren't one.

For good people, being good comes naturally. They don't an incentive.

It's like being nice when you want something. It isn't.

If you have to work hard to be a good person, it's because you aren't one.

For good people, being good comes naturally. They don't an incentive.

It's like being nice because you want something. It isn't.

uh, need....they don't need an incentive.

/sigh

TheCommunistCow

can you MEASURE or OBSERVE cold? Can you MEASURE or OBSERVE dark? No, you cannot. You can only MEASURE heat ot light, not the absence of them.

/ok lights out to this thread
//hey, did I just create dark???
//*snerk*

Science, in the end it will do what ever you want it to, just like asian girls.

/don't be scared, I wont hurt you, it's ok me big american man

Zimbardo strikes again. I got this book. I read about 20 pages. Then I tossed it. Not that he isnt smart, but talk about piling in so much crap that was unnecessary. He wrote it as if it were for research scientist only. Anyway. Zimbardo is a weird bastard. He went through a period in the 80s where he wore a cape, and looked much like dracula.

boobsrgood

If you have to work hard to be a good person, it's because you aren't one.

Actually, I give more credit to the person who has to overcome a foul disposition than the naturally sweet tempered. I have to work hard at my job. It doesn't mean I don't deserve my title.

What is a good person anyways? I can have:

Good motives with disastrous results
Kind pharmacist accidentally donates wrong dose/type of medicine, killing patients.

Lousy motives with good results
Inventor saves thousands of lives with super-widget invented solely to embarass rivals.

Which is really better?

FarkinHostile: ALL of us have Evil rooted deeply. It is just a part of being human. Who among us hasn't thought of killing another person who crossed them? Who hasn't been tempted to steal, cheat, lie, violate or hurt other people? Evil is a part of us, and always will be.

As it is written: There is none righteous, not even one.

Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Well if you want to know what the Gnostic texts say about that, it's very interesting.

Our souls are, according to Pistis Sophia, forged from three parts: 1) Power of Christ, 2) Presence of the Holy Spirit, and 3) Some part of the Archon who specifically forged the soul. Essentially souls have different 'flavors' based on which Archon crafted the soul. These Archons are a control element in our universe. They aren't good or evil, but they also aren't in any way enlightened.

Our spirits are, according to the Gospel of Philip, way too high in vibration to put into a human body of this plane. If you put the spirit in the human body as is, it comes flying out, and the human either dies, or does not become sentient but is an animal. The *solution* to making humans is to wrap a counter-feigning spirit around the human spirit. That way it balances out to a lower vibration that will actually remain in the human body. This counter-feigning spirit is composed of, guess what folks, evil!

So it isn't the true nature of human kind to be evil, evil was used to put the true *us* in our bodies. Evil ties us to our bodies. So it comes to how you define "human".

We were, essentially, according to the Gnostic texts, created this way because we couldn't exist here any other way. The Mind and the Soul attune to one's alignment in the struggle between the light and darkness within.

Phocas, I kinda think C), good intentions with good results, such as in Iraq, are even better, so I'll go with that.

Abu Ghraib was horrid, and I'm glad we prosecuted and publicized this stuff. Truly a big improvement from Saddam's butchers, who were rewarded rather than punished.

craigdamage: Stanford Prison Experiment.

Interestingly enough the Stanford prison experiment was commissioned by the DOD, they noticed that the soldiers they put on guard duty at the various military prisons, despite formerly being promising career soldiers, largely ended up as worthless discipline problems after a few tours.

Milligram and his experiment told them why, about as clearly as humanly possible, they just found the answer inconvenient so they ignored it. Thus Abu Gharib

FarkinHostile: ALL of us have Evil rooted deeply. It is just a part of being human. Who among us hasn't thought of killing another person who crossed them? Who hasn't been tempted to steal, cheat, lie, violate or hurt other people? Evil is a part of us, and always will be.

Conflict stems from weakness, hate from fear. Put a man alone on the moon with only plants to eat, how 'bad' can he be?

Thanks for havinf the balls to state the trught smitty.

Scientist blames "Revenge for 9/11" for turning American soldiers evil at Abu Ghraib. Submitter prefers the old term: "Americans LOL"

Fixed.

But if you were TOLD these brown people were the enemy, and it's your JOB to beat these poeple... who's at fault? You, or the one who told you they were the enemy?

punistation asked an insightful question: But if you were TOLD these brown people were the enemy, and it's your JOB to beat these poeple... who's at fault? You, or the one who told you they were the enemy?

The one who said it was your job to beat these people. It comes for a society that has forgotten, "But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you..."

poundgrayly: punistation asked an insightful question: But if you were TOLD these brown people were the enemy, and it's your JOB to beat these poeple... who's at fault? You, or the one who told you they were the enemy?

The one who said it was your job to beat these people. It comes for a society that has forgotten, "But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you..."

Society functions on a principle of obedience to customs and traditions. Governments function on a principle of obedience to law.

Neither have a built in mechanism for Mercy.

In order for a Government or Society to have Mercy, *every single person* involved in said government or society must have Mercy in his/her heart. One person with any amount of social or political power can corrupt any system designed to be merciful.

The true culprit in all this is Free Will. Deal with it.

The fact any of you gave (or still give) 2 craps about those ass-clowns being held in Abu Ghraib or Gitmo cracks me up. I've got better things to be outraged about. Like how my furnace filter should last 3 months, but I have to change it after only 2 months. Now THAT pisses me off. Shove metal rods up their dicks, for all I care.

robisfunky: Elvis_Bogart: Hardship does not create evil...it unmasks it.

I don't think evil, per se actually exists. It's a way to describe a lack of goodness. Similar to how darkness does not actually exist, it's just a way to describe a lack of light, you cannot create darkness, only light. To make it dark, you turn off the light, not turn on the dark. Same way with cold... It doesn't exist, you cannot create cold, only heat. To make it colder, you remove heat, not create cold. That's the way I look at it anyway.

/worth about 2 cents

Other way around. When people aren't actively doing something bad, that's pretty good. It's when people decide to do "good" ("We're, um, liberating them. That's it."), that these bad things happen.