What the hell is it...

[schpeelah]

My best understanding is that while trying curtail genetic diseases and other undesirable traits sounds reasonable enough in abstract, enforcing such policies involves giving the government powers it cannot be trusted with at this stage, and in the past all such programs involved rights abuses and racism. Like the Roma forced sterilization thing, for instance.

Indeed, there was a recent scandal where it came out that the only fertility clinic in Calgary, Canada has a policy of not letting people choose donors of a different ethnicity than their own. White people get a choice of 20 white donors, and that's white people.

[Occluded Sun]

I think you're ignoring the voluntary eugenics programs, like the system the Amish have set up to let prospective mates know if they both carry a recessive for one of the major genetic disorders they're more likely to have. They don't even reveal the test results, they just tell the elders whether the two are compatible; if they aren't, they break up.

And that's just an example of discouraging dysgenic breeding - eugenics can involve the encouragement of good breeding. There are also weird hybrids that confuse eugenics and eumemics, like those religious factions that intentionally try to have as many children as possible. (See also: Amish.)

If you believe children are entitled to assistance if their parents can't care for them, do you think anything should be done to stop people who can't care for children from having them?

Does your answer to the previous question change if the people in question belong to a movement like Quiverfull?

[Fwib]

I think you're ignoring the voluntary eugenics programs, like the system the Amish have set up to let prospective mates know if they both carry a recessive for one of the major genetic disorders they're more likely to have. They don't even reveal the test results, they just tell the elders whether the two are compatible; if they aren't, they break up.

I've heard of apps for Icelanders (who mostly are all related, apparently) and some subgroups of Jews (who may be rightfully worried about nasty recessives) to let each other know if they shouldn't marry or should at least get extra tests. Interesting to know the technophobic Amish got there first

[Occluded Sun]

The Amish aren't technophobic. But they highly prize community and stability. The local elders try out new stuff and determine if it's likely to disrupt their lifestyle - and then accept or ban it, locally. Nothing makes different Amish communities reach the same decisions, so although they tend to reach roughly similar conclusions there's actually a great deal of regional variation.

Many communities permit phones, but arrange for them to be outside the home so that incoming calls don't bother them and outgoing ones are hard to make. The barn or a nearby car are popular locations.

[Fwib]

I hadn't known that. Interesting.

[schpeelah]

How is banning technology because it would change their life too much not technophobic?

[Ancient History]

Eh. Western cultures ban technology all the time - like asbestos and radium water - or choose not to adopt certain technologies as standard, like three-wheeled cars or penile implants. That doesn't make them necessarily technophobic.

[erik]

How is banning technology because it would change their life too much not technophobic?

Not because it would change too much, but by their metrics it would change it for the worse, or so they believe.

There is a distinction.

[Kaelik]

The difference between a technophobe and a not technophobe is literally just that non technophobes reject only technology for which the benefits are not worth the costs, and that technophobes reject for the exact same reason but are wrong when they weigh those benefits and costs because they are distrustful of technology.

The only true test is offering them the same benefits without technology to see how they respond, and you'll notice that absent magic that is basically impossible for a lot of things.

Ultimately you must believe that someone is a technophobe because you believe they are basing their opinion on bias that they are not stating.

[Laertes]

It's worth remembering that in the case of the Amish, they have an extremely strong patriarchal society and the stories which have come out about the way they raise their kids - especially their daughters - make for extremely grim reading. As such it's generally not a case of "do you want a telephone or not" but "does your father / grandfather / big man in the village want you to have a telephone or not", where the views of the individual on technology or its benefits have little bearing.

I would posit (to distinguish my opinions from the facts) that the technophobia of the Amish and the desire for stability are both merely symptoms of a fear of loss of control. Not that this is unique amongst closeted rural religious communities, of course.

[Occluded Sun]

The difference between a technophobe and a not technophobe is literally just that non technophobes reject only technology for which the benefits are not worth the costs, and that technophobes reject for the exact same reason but are wrong when they weigh those benefits and costs because they are distrustful of technology.

No, the difference between technophobes and non-technophobes is that the former reject technologies because of irrational uncontrollable fear of them, and the latter do not.

They might reject technologies because they have different opinions than you about what's valuable, or because they possess information you lack, or lack information you possess.

Imagine that... people having different opinions than you, but somehow manage not to be subhuman wretches of wrongness.

[Kaelik]

The difference between a technophobe and a not technophobe is literally just that non technophobes reject only technology for which the benefits are not worth the costs, and that technophobes reject for the exact same reason but are wrong when they weigh those benefits and costs because they are distrustful of technology.

No, the difference between technophobes and non-technophobes is that the former reject technologies because of irrational uncontrollable fear of them, and the latter do not.

They might reject technologies because they have different opinions than you about what's valuable, or because they possess information you lack, or lack information you possess.

Imagine that... people having different opinions than you, but somehow manage not to be subhuman wretches of wrongness.

Unsurprisingly you are an idiot. No part of what I said indicated that people who want different things are technophobes. Learn to read.

[Occluded Sun]

Unsurprisingly you are an idiot. No part of what I said indicated that people who want different things are technophobes. Learn to read.

technophobes reject for the exact same reason but are wrong when they weigh those benefits and costs because they are distrustful of technology.

The Amish don't reject phones in the house because they don't think the phones will work. It's not a matter of 'distrust'. They reject them because they don't approve of the way such phones would impact their lives.

Who are you to declare them wrong in weighing the benefits and costs?

[Kaelik]

The Amish don't reject phones in the house because they don't think the phones will work. It's not a matter of 'distrust'. They reject them because they don't approve of the way such phones would impact their lives.

Who are you to declare them wrong in weighing the benefits and costs?

1) You are an idiot. This could never possibly be stated enough.

2) At what point did anything I say in any way present the idea that I consider Amish technophobes? Nothing but you pulling it out of your ass? Oh, very well then. You are an idiot.

3) People weigh the costs and benefits of technology. Technophobes have an irrational distrust of technology. That is basically the definition. The way to see whether a person has an irrational distrust is to look at their actions and words and attempt to infer their bias from how it affects the things they say and do. A bias against the use of technology is going to cause people to incorrectly weigh the benefits against the costs, either by inflating the costs in their analysis, or by ignoring or marginalizing benefits, or both.

Thus, the statement: "[Technophobes] are wrong when they weigh [the] benefits and costs [of technology] because they are distrustful of technology." is an accurate statement about what technophobes do, and how to identify them.

[Laertes]

The Amish don't reject phones in the house because they don't think the phones will work. It's not a matter of 'distrust'. They reject them because they don't approve of the way such phones would impact their lives.

Who are you to declare them wrong in weighing the benefits and costs?

"The Amish" don't reject phones any more than "The Americans" reject privacy from government surveillance. A small ruling class, mostly made up of elderly men with more money than is normal for their community, consider it a threat to their control and have therefore rejected it on behalf of the rest of the community. The majority of the Amish - especially the women - have no say in the matter. Individual Amish people don't get to make the decision for themselves.

I mean, I get that you're privileged enough that you automatically think of yourself as being one of those who would get to make the decision on behalf of others and therefore don't see this as an unjust system, but if you say that "the Amish" have rejected telephones as if it was a unanimous decision amongst them, then that's factually incorrect.

[Occluded Sun]

"The Amish" don't reject phones any more than "The Americans" reject privacy from government surveillance. A small ruling class, mostly made up of elderly men with more money than is normal for their community, consider it a threat to their control and have therefore rejected it on behalf of the rest of the community. The majority of the Amish - especially the women - have no say in the matter. Individual Amish people don't get to make the decision for themselves.

Actually, they do, in that they decide to follow the decisions of their elders. And not only do they have the right to leave, they have the right to move to a different community where the standards are set differently - something which frequently happens, as there is a long-standing tradition of scattering communities to avoid inbreeding.

I'm sure you're very brave to stand up for all the oppressed Amish women you're imagining into existence, but I rather think the people themselves might take exception to your courageous defense. Perhaps you ought to test the matter by actually going to an area where they reside and offering to assist them in escaping their cultural prison? I'm sure you'll be able to smuggle them to freedom... once they stop laughing at you.

[DSMatticus]

Oh, phew. I was worried for a second there. I'm so glad Occluded Sun reminded me that abandoning your home, job, family, and financial support to go be somewhere else where you do not have a home, job, family, or any sort of financial support whatsoever is so easy. It turns out I don't need to worry about Amish women for the same reason I don't need to worry about minority ghettos - if they were really so bad, people wouldn't live there!

Though, I'm mostly amused that Occluded Sun is mocking the notion that Amish society is sexist, given the fact that women are almost universally not actually allowed to hold meaningful leadership positions within Amish communities. This is another one of those "this country was freer back when we had slaves and we arrested people for being gay" moments. But hey, they're still there, and if they haven't left that means it's totally what they want. It certainly doesn't mean that they have no other viable options, or that they are taught from a young age that their place is to be subservient to men, or something else horrifyingly abusive by any sane standards.

[Occluded Sun]

Though, I'm mostly amused that Occluded Sun is mocking the notion that Amish society is sexist

You see? You either have little to no comprehension of what's being discussed, or you're intentionally lying about it... in a way that makes you look like a fool.

What's the point here? What exactly are you trying to get out of this?

[DSMatticus]

I'm sure you're very brave to stand up for all the oppressed Amish women you're imagining into existence

Well that was hard.

[Ancient History]

[MGuy]

Though, I'm mostly amused that Occluded Sun is mocking the notion that Amish society is sexist

You see? You either have little to no comprehension of what's being discussed, or you're intentionally lying about it... in a way that makes you look like a fool.

What's the point here? What exactly are you trying to get out of this?

Just how far is your head shoved up your own ass?

[Koumei]

Just how far is your head shoved up your own ass?

Are you familiar with the ouroboros?

[Mistborn]

You see? You either have little to no comprehension of what's being discussed, or you're intentionally lying about it... in a way that makes you look like a fool.

What's the point here? What exactly are you trying to get out of this?

The thing is that you're the person who looks like an fool here. Because since you've started posting here you've been wrong. You've been consistently wrong because you subscribe to an ideology that causes you to draw conclusions about the world that are wrong.

I know I keep ragging on this but you still haven't walked it back so it's still a valid point, you see America as a freer country 150 years ago when people still had literally actually slaves. That strongly suggests that you have a view of liberty that as Abraham Lincoln so deftly put it " for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor". Which is a view of the world that is both wrong and monstrous.

[Laertes]

The thing is that you're the person who looks like an fool here. Because since you've started posting here you've been wrong. You've been consistently wrong because you subscribe to an ideology that causes you to draw conclusions about the world that are wrong.

I know I keep ragging on this but you still haven't walked it back so it's still a valid point, you see America as a freer country 150 years ago when people still had literally actually slaves. That strongly suggests that you have a view of liberty that as Abraham Lincoln so deftly put it " for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor". Which is a view of the world that is both wrong and monstrous.

This is all true and is all a good example of why I'm coming to believe that you should never argue with a person who holds an ideology. Occluded Sun is a good example: instead of arguing forward from evidence to conclusion like most people, he's arguing backwards from conclusion to evidence.

An honest person would reason:

Code: Select all

The testimonies of women who have left Amish communities are overwhelmingly negative
AND
Their leaving was generally due to fortuitous circumstances, not merely based on discontent
THEREFORE
This can be said to be a more-or-less representative sample of the experiences of women in Amish communities
THEREFORE
The experiences of women still in the Amish communities are probably similarly negative
THEREFORE
Amish communities cannot be said to be desirable models for society

On the other hand, Occluded sun's reasoning seems to go as follows:

Code: Select all

My ability to freely make decisions without taking other people's views into consideration is the highest good
AND
If I were an Amish patriarch, other people would not be able to decide the extent to which technology exists within my life
THEREFORE
Amish communities can be said to be a desirable model for society
THEREFORE
The experiences of all people in Amish communities must be positive
THEREFORE
Ex-Amish survivors testimonies must be either lies; or if they cannot be claimed to be lies, they must be unusual and not the normal experiences within that community

This is a view which is epistemologically closed: there is no way to affect it with any amount of evidence, be it data or anecdote, because it's not built on evidence; rather it's derived backwards from a desired conclusion which cannot change and cannot be affected. This is why you cannot argue with Occluded Sun, or indeed anyone else whose views are ideological, and which is why he's currently on ignore.

[Occluded Sun]

I don't see how arguing that a group of people are oppressed and are unable to make choices about their lives, and then countering any reports of people who are happy with the choices they made with the assertion that they're brainwashed, represents reasoning from evidence to conclusion. Quite the opposite.

I find the Amish way of life alien and in some ways rather disturbing. Yet I've had enough exposure to them and accounts about and from them, to recognize that they really do prefer that lifestyle. They not only encourage people to find out what the outside world is like, they mandate that their young people spend time living like "the English". If people do become unhappy after deciding to join the community, there is an entire buffer population of Mennonites who are basically Amish-Lite. Culturally they're much more like mainstream society, enough that they're practically invisible to people who know nothing about them, but they're also enough like the Amish (being another descendant of the Anabaptists) for refugees to feel comfortable with them. And historically they've been a primary destination for people who do decide to leave.

The proportion of kids who decide to leave the Amish has shrunk with each generation. They're quite a bit more tolerant and accommodating than the Hollywood-style stereotype people have of them, even though some of their beliefs and practices strike me as insane. (In fairness, that's also true of every flavor of Christianity I'm aware of, in addition to the non-Christian faiths I'm familiar with. They're just a less familiar and thus stranger-seeming kind of crazy.)