Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Taking advantage of other people's superstitions can be profitable. Being superstitious yourself, usually less so.
Time for skeptics to grow up?!
- Thread starter dann
- Start date
Taking advantage of other people's superstitions can be profitable. Being superstitious yourself, usually less so.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Definition of superstition: An irrational belief -- i.e., one held in spite of evidence to the contrary -- usually involving supernatural forces and associated with rituals.
How could this lead to literal financial poverty? Well, the believer could waste a lot of time, energy and money on the superstition at the expense of productive economic activity. And the most productive economic activity involves thinking. People may waste money on quack medicines or shamanic rituals. To be sure, there are certainly some superstitious rich people, but fewer scientists will be superstitious, and science is a big creater of new wealth.
But the other famines were Capitalist, right? And they died because of Capitalisms brilliant understanding of human nature, right?
Just another commie lie! Where would we be if capitalism did not understand human nature so well?
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
No. They can blame Sylvia too.
Capitalism means that the stuff produced by workers etc. does not belong to them, it belongs to the owner of the company they work for. Why do you seem to believe that the products belong to the people who produce them? Are you some kind of anarchist?
But you are right about production as the only new source of wealth. It’s just a pity that even as it is being produced, it belongs to somebody other than the guy who produces it. It belongs to the other guy who had him produce it. And you’re also right when you say that this does not reduce poverty. It is actually the capitalist way of causing it!
They share the blame, then.
What do you suggest we do with those who seek Sylvia's "services"?
Since they are to blame (but share the blame with Sylvia) for their own situation (being exploited by crooks like Sylvia), should we help them at all?
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 50,590
My wife is Congolese, and she informs me that:
1) The sense of family duty in Congo is so intense, that it can ONLY be trumped by an accusation of witchcraft. The families in question are living in crushing poverty and they have to make very difficult choices; if they just don't have enough to feed all the children in a large extended family then this superstition is the only way they can make the heart-rending choice to exclude the child of a cousin from their care without bringing down the wrath of their neighbors upon the rest of their family.
2) The current president of that country derives his entire powerbase from the uneducated and superstitious, generally from outside the capital city. When he came to power, one of his first acts was to clamp down on education and torture, harass and kill university students. In terms of available natural resources Congo is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but the superstition/ignorance enabled power structure is keeping all of that wealth out of the hands of the population at large.
It seems to me that skeptics are simply putting their talents to use exactly where they should be on this particular issue. Ignorance/superstition and poverty/oppression are intimately connected, and they feed off of each other. Both sides of the equation need action, but skeptics are much better equipped to address the former directly than the latter.
1) The sense of family duty in Congo is so intense, that it can ONLY be trumped by an accusation of witchcraft. The families in question are living in crushing poverty and they have to make very difficult choices; if they just don't have enough to feed all the children in a large extended family then this superstition is the only way they can make the heart-rending choice to exclude the child of a cousin from their care without bringing down the wrath of their neighbors upon the rest of their family.
2) The current president of that country derives his entire powerbase from the uneducated and superstitious, generally from outside the capital city. When he came to power, one of his first acts was to clamp down on education and torture, harass and kill university students. In terms of available natural resources Congo is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but the superstition/ignorance enabled power structure is keeping all of that wealth out of the hands of the population at large.
It seems to me that skeptics are simply putting their talents to use exactly where they should be on this particular issue. Ignorance/superstition and poverty/oppression are intimately connected, and they feed off of each other. Both sides of the equation need action, but skeptics are much better equipped to address the former directly than the latter.
Last edited:
Well put, Prometheus! This was the point I made one year ago, but unfortunately many people were unable to grasp it: The Africans don't want to abandon their (or their cousin's) children, and superstition is not what makes them abondon the kids, but since they cannot support them, they feel compelled to come up with an excuse for doing so. And sometimes - but not always, as other quoted examples showed, so your "ONLY" is a little exaggerated - the excuse is found in superstition.
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 50,590
dann,
Things are getting more and more desperate over there, so I don't doubt that people grasping for any excuses they can find. On the other hand, I don't think it's just an excuse. The superstition is genuinely believed by a lot of the people there--that's why it works as an excuse. While the real motive might be economic, at least some of the people doing this really believe the accusations they're levelling.
Oddly, it's the Christian missionaries who are most active in trying to stamp out belief in witchcraft. (My woo is better than your woo!).
My wife also tells me that it works two ways: sometimes people are accused of practicing witchcraft, but it's also common for the (mostly Christian) city-dwellers in Congo to denigrate rural people for believing in witchcraft rather than for practicing it, and that city families wanting, or needing, to shed themselves of the responsibility to care for rural cousins will sometimes use this instead.
To me, the notion that one can be ostracized either for being a witch or for believing that witches exist lends more creedence to the argument that the real motive is economic also.
Things are getting more and more desperate over there, so I don't doubt that people grasping for any excuses they can find. On the other hand, I don't think it's just an excuse. The superstition is genuinely believed by a lot of the people there--that's why it works as an excuse. While the real motive might be economic, at least some of the people doing this really believe the accusations they're levelling.
Oddly, it's the Christian missionaries who are most active in trying to stamp out belief in witchcraft. (My woo is better than your woo!).
My wife also tells me that it works two ways: sometimes people are accused of practicing witchcraft, but it's also common for the (mostly Christian) city-dwellers in Congo to denigrate rural people for believing in witchcraft rather than for practicing it, and that city families wanting, or needing, to shed themselves of the responsibility to care for rural cousins will sometimes use this instead.
To me, the notion that one can be ostracized either for being a witch or for believing that witches exist lends more creedence to the argument that the real motive is economic also.
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 44,024
What's the big deal about why do I think that? I have my reasons to think that. What you wrote gave me the impression that that's what you think. I never claimed that I was 100% positive that that was your claim. Obviously that's not what you think. Will that make you happy? I was wrong, I got it. Now what is your claim then? In other words, when you say stuff such as
"Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner? Or do they really believe that these children would be so much happier if they were starving without the added insult of being called witches?"
1) What makes you believe skeptics are unaware of this?
2) What is that thing or action that skeptics are not taking in order to better treat such problem?
Last edited:
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
Are you ready to define what you regard as poverty yet, or are you still in Humpty Dumpty - Land?
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
If you eliminated private property he wouldn't own it either, would he? What have I said that suggests anarchy? The guy (singular) who produces it? Most products in a modern economy are produced by cooperation among many people. If you want to produce something all by yourself, you can do that, and you will own it. I choose to sell my time to a company in exchange for money. I do part of the processing of the products that my company produces. I am very good at one part of the process and can add more value that way than if I tried to do every step myself, including sales. The result is that I make a lot of money doing something pretty easy, Going into business for myself would be harder and probably less lucrative in my case. All the tools and space I use are provided by the company. All I have to do is learn my job and do it to the best of my ability.Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
If you are a skeptic you already know how we help such people. We expose people like Sylvia Brown so that anyone willing to listen to a skeptic can learn that it is a scam.
If people continue to believe after that, it's unfortunate, but they can't say nobody told them.
There is a proverb about this: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
I would like to call your attention to part of the article you linked:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-36844_ITM
Please reconsider your commitment to Marxism in the above context. I think that you are simply trying to win the argument here, not find the truth.
I'm not advocating Ann Rand's version of Utopia, but something more like modern Denmark, the UK, USA Singapore, Japan, or other modern developed welfare states which harness the creativity of entreprenuers and efficiency of markets to increase wealth.
Last edited:
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
dann's a real fan of Castro's Cuba. Why he hasn't moved there is anyone's guess. No internet but, otherwise, a paradise or so he says. Still, good to get back home to heat in the winter and electricity, huh, dann? But, oh that Fidel, he sure has one great thing going there!
Nor do I!
Exactly! I never meant to imply that they had a mere instrumental attitude to their religion: They are indeed true believers, but in this context they refer to their religion as an excuse for actions that they themselves would not ordinarily condone. The JREF fundamentalists, however, try to make it appear as if religion were the cause of this deplorable behaviour, which is, in fact, caused by their inability to feed their children. This is what makes the Time to Grow Up sneer so cynical.
I agree. It is much easier to live with the idea that the child you abandon is a witch - if only you are able to persuade yourself that it is so.
Last edited:
As usual Slimething prefers strawmen and hyperbole to solid arguments. Let's ask him to provide us with a quotation where I say that Cuba is a paradise! Just one, please!dann's a real fan of Castro's Cuba. Why he hasn't moved there is anyone's guess. No internet but, otherwise, a paradise or so he says. Still, good to get back home to heat in the winter and electricity, huh, dann? But, oh that Fidel, he sure has one great thing going there!
I have been on the internet almost every time I was there. And I receive a lot of emails from ordinary people in Cuba, but only a minority have easy (= affordable) access to the internet.
This problem may be fixed when a new cable connecting Cuba with Venezuela helps circumvent the American blockade/embargo of Cuba, but even so it is a poor country where you would not expect everybody to be able to afford a computer of their own.
Well, the world is a nice and orderly place when you see it through the glasses of Slimething's fundamentalism: Poor people abandon their children due to religion, and Third World countries are poor due to religion ... or maybe due to communism ... as if every child in Guatemala, Honduras, Congo or Afghanistan is on the internet on a daily basis ...
If I had the choice between the Danish and the Cuban winter this year, I'd prefer the latter, I think. Swimming in the ocean on January 3 is something I'll have to dream of this year in the cold, dark Danish winter, but unfortunately I cannot afford it this time! I'll have to make do with central heating, which is a very poor substitute.
And to those of you who haven't followed this thread from the beginning: The logical next step in Slimething's line of 'reasoning' at this stage will be to accuse me of being poor, unemployed, and “living off others”.
See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2232734#post2232734
Slimething: “dann has no money. (…)It is fairly obvious that dann is living off others. (…)dann has been told to grow up and get a job himself several times too many.“
Now I guesshis suspicion has been confirmed! the reason why he cannot go is that his Nanny Bush won't let him ...
And now I’m not just an unemployed bozo, a poor simpleton, a commie living off others etc. Now I’m also a Castroist! Unfortunately I know very little about the guy. He is/was well-known for making hour-long speeches, but so far I haven’t read (or heard) a single one of them. I’ll look them up and add a suitable quotation to my sig line if I can find any!
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
Dann, are you going to define "poverty" or not? Stop wasting our time if you are not, OK?
Yes, that's true. You can't make people not believe.
But is that enough for you? If they won't see the light - the candle in the dark, so to speak - you will just let Sylvia Browne and her ilk continue to scam them?
You also should not forget that I already live in the happiest country in the whole wide world!!!:
This is the link to the map of happiland on CNN Go down to: Web Extras --> Map: Happiness levels of countries.
Just like these guys?
http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/sweatshops/ I guess that they seriously consided going into business by themselves before they decided that selling their time to a company in exchange for money was a much better road to prosperity in their case! All they have to do is do their job to the best of their ability. All the tools and space they use are provided by the gracious owners of the means of production.
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
Instead of writing stupidities about my penultimate post, try keeping current. What is your definition of "poverty"?
This, http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/poverty/, for instance, is poverty. Why try to explain it away with "(if you can define poverty in functional terms) to the 2.5 - 4 sigma region under a standard bell curve", as if poverty did not exist and as if it were so terribly hard to define?
Last edited:
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
I didn't ask you how CNN defines poverty, not that you provided that either. How do you define poverty?
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
See? This is your brain working as a lawyer again. You are looking for evidence that supports your position and ignoring evidence that does not. It's confirmation bias. Yes there are sweatshops. They seem pretty bad until you consider the alternative.
Liberal economist Paul Krugman explains why sweatshops are better than the alternative
Here is another one by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
You can lead a woo to knowledge, but you can't make them think.
BTW, I agree with your position... and my position was made clear early on in this resurrected thread. Poverty may make people look for reasons to not raise children (children that may not have been born except for some missionaries proclamations against birth control)-- poverty does not make people accuse other people of being witches. However there's one little passage in the bible that does... and has been responsible for quite a bit of suffering through the ages. Superstition is the most direct cause of these childrens' abandonment. We've always had poor-- some sell their children's labor, others put them in institutions... but unless you live in a culture where it's thought that people can be witches (or possessed by demons), you don't have people labeled as such and caused to suffer because of such accusations. These kids aren't just tossed away... they may well believe that they are possessed with evil. This treatment smacks of the dark ages when religion ruled. Africa needs to experience an "age of enlightenment"-- and "age of reason". They also need to have groups that teach them actual facts about things like birth control, aids, reading, life skills, and critical thinking-- not more missionaries encouraging the breeding of more people so they can be tossed out and then raised by those who exchange care for belief in their dogma.
Last edited:
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps she could be prosecuted under fraud laws?
If there are loopholes in the laws, maybe they need to be tightened.
But banning something isn't always the best answer. Religious freedom is one of the most cherished ideals in America. I am an atheist, and to me religions seem like a kind of scam.
In this case it is likely that most of Sylvia's victims will fight tooth and nail to protect her, just as the followers of a cult will fight for its leader. Occasionally a few will wake up, but most will go on thinking that they are getting a good deal, and I am reluctant to tell people what they can or cannot spend their own money on.
This may be similar to the prohibition of drugs. The cure could be worse than the disease. Woo-woo and drug abuse may be social diseases, but it doesn't follow that a ban is necessarily the best solution.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Great points. Developed countries have lower birth rates. If people didn't have children they can't afford to provide for, then maybe if dann's theory is right, children would no longer be accused as witches. They could use help in the family-planning area. If missionaries distributed condoms instead of preaching against birth control, it would help a lot.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
You should go back and read her clarifications from the beginning, Poppycow. They are hilarious!
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
I don't understand your reluctance to define what you mean by poverty. (Actually, yes I do but I'm being disingenuous to show you up.) It's at the very crux of your argument. One might even conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. That you are merely whining because you want attention! FSM forfend!
This is your brain!
This is your brain on Liberalism:
So Asia is on track. I guess that Asian kids working in sweatshops are too then – according to Liberalism!
Now let's take a look at Poppycock's first painting of Liberalism, shall we?
Now that's Liberalism for you! Isn't it a blessing?!
I think that I prefer the alternative to Liberalism!
I fully understand Slimething's reluctance to prove his lies. If he cannot, he cannot! Come on, Slimething, just a single quotation?!
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Isn't it ironic that in a thread called 'Time for skeptics to grow up?!' that the starter of thread is now resorting to the grade-school tactic of name-calling?
The alternative to Poppy's sweatshops:
http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/workandwealth/0-contents.html
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Dann: If you will read the Krugman and Kristof articles without prejudice, I will try to read this article without prejudice, although it is very long. I think it might take me several days. I don't promise to agree with it, but I will try to read it. OK? The Krugman and Kristof articles combined I think are much shorter, so this is a fair deal, no?
