Pathological Altruism

[laughing dog]

Which words did not you understand?

What do anagrams of iridium have to do with anything?

Nothing in particular. They are mind diversions.

 

[arkirk]

When the fire gets hot enough, you are going to want to jump out of it. But wait! Give me a break, Loren. You appear to have problems escaping a very narrow realm of thought...those devoted to calculating profit and justifying it. There are others that are deeper in the fire than you are. If you stay in the frying pan, it's a cinch you'll be cooked to death.

Instead of squabbles about evil Muslims, we need to be evaluating what our coastline will look like in 20 years...which cities will disappear. Even if global warming were not man-made (which it is) we still need to respond to the threat of rising sea levels. In the end, this is going to cost so much more than these petty wars, we should not waste any of our precious resources on these wars. The reason to have altruistic intentions is obvious....just plain survival. It's something a good many of us have to learn.

Pure evasion.

You said we need to do something even when the only proposed approaches have been shown to be detrimental. Your reply here doesn't even touch on this.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll take your lead paint and raise it by two rows and take one step to the right: Arsenic-based pigments. At least lead paint will only harm you if you eat it. Before they figured out the problem arsenic-based pigments were killing people who were simply in the room for long enough.

How is this (1) "pathological" and/or (2) "altruism"?

It was a subtopic--an example of something that was originally thought to be a good idea but later was found to be a bad idea.

You may enjoy the comfort of your frying pan. People who do enjoy it usually have a little human padding between themselves and the surface of the pan. They are riding the shoulders of those who have to stand on the hot surface. So far, the heat hasn't reached you yet. What is "detrimental" about getting out of the pan. Those most interested in leaving will lower those who choose to stay off their shoulders and down into the hot oil. It is kind of sad that you think things are really okay there.

I am not evading anything. You are evading the question of privilege. You do not know "all the proposed approaches" and even if they have drawbacks, they are at least an acknowledgement of a real problem we are facing. In a democratic sense, those on the bottom getting their feet burnt should have some say in getting us out of the frying pan. If we fail to cooperate, we all go down. Wake up, Loren!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Well I think it is time to talk about the altruism over Zyklon-B and how it was a government way to dispose of undesirables.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'll take your lead paint and raise it by two rows and take one step to the right: Arsenic-based pigments. At least lead paint will only harm you if you eat it. Before they figured out the problem arsenic-based pigments were killing people who were simply in the room for long enough.

How is this (1) "pathological" and/or (2) "altruism"?

It was a subtopic--an example of something that was originally thought to be a good idea but later was found to be a bad idea.

Which is so grossly off-topic. The topic is about trying to force good actions that are known to have bad consequences.

 

[Emily Lake]

Which is so grossly off-topic. The topic is about trying to force good actions that are known to have bad consequences.

Not necessarily known. But where the potential negative actions are reasonably foreseeable.

One might consider a gambler with a good heart. He has $10, and he sees that if he wins the jackpot, he'll have $1000. He knows that with $1000, he can afford to get his mother the $990 car repair that she needs. With the $10 that he already has, he can buy his daughter lunch. He really wants to help his mother out, he'd really like to be able to make sure her car runs smoothly and that she's safe on the road.

His motivation for gambling is well-intentioned. The outcome isn't known ahead of time, after all he might win. But it is reasonably foreseeable that he will lose and be unable to either repair his mother's car or buy his daughter lunch. So regardless of how well-intentioned his gambling is, it's reckless of him to take the bet. That his motivations are altruistic are irrelevant, because his short-sightedness and willful disregard of the consequences invalidates his intentions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because of altruistic reasons it stuck around in paint? If anything, altruism got it banned!

Lead paint was recommended and preferred for house paint despite being KNOWN to cause illness and injury, because it was believed to be safer from a public health viewpoint with respect to reducing contagion, and because of its durability.
http://www.leadlawsuits.com/index.php?s=699

That Lead Lawsuit link says that painting was preferred over wallpaper due to contagion issues, not painting with lead paint. Lead paint was preferred by painters due to its durability and ability to absorb lesser amounts of water.

Your link says governments began in the 30s telling parents to watch your children to make certain they don't eat paint chips. Recommended that baby and children furniture not be painted with lead paints.

Your link says the Federal Government suggest lead paint for interiors of buildings because of its durability. The durability would suggest that it was stay on the walls longer and not chip away. Public education worked in nearly eliminating lead ingestion to non-industry workers. The problem started when poorly maintained homes had the paint chipping away.

So according to your own link, the Government suggested this material because it was a more durable product, not because of disease prevention. Paint, in general was preferred to avoid disease issues related to wallpapers. So this was a quality of the product decision that didn't look down the road long enough (multiple decades), not an issue of an altruistic government.

As I said to Jimmy Higgins, you should perhaps do some research before you dismiss things simply because you don't wish to believe them true, or because they don't fit with your narrative. Whether you think it is "beyond comprehensible" or not, it still actually happened.

Maybe you should read your own research better.

1) Why did you rename the quote to call me "Mr. Baxter"? What sort of underhanded passive-aggressive bullshit behavior is that?

It isn't passive-aggressive, it is subtle.

If you have something to say, then please come out and say it.

Im too busy being subtle.

Your snide hints and condescending arrogance is tiresome. please be forthright in your dealings with me. I've asked this of you several times, and I have been very polite and straightforward with you. There's no call for such nastiness and repeated offensive behavior on your part.

Subtlety is nasty? I've thoroughly addressed your claims, in an up front manner, so I can only assume that you are grandstanding here to make it harder for people to take notice.

2) Lead paint was documented as causing illness in children in 1904. Ingestion of lead paint was known and documented to be a health problem in 1914. Painting was recommended to reduce contagion, and lead paint specifically was preferred due to its durability.

The government KNEW it was a health risk, and a risk specifically to children, but didn't start warning parents for another 15 years.

At what point are you going to get to the altruism here?

The risk wasn't considered as great as the benefit. It wasn't outlawed until the 70s.

The benefit was a materials property benefit, of which had nothing to do with prevention of disease, any paint would have offered that benefit.

So this whole altruism line of argument is baseless... which seems to support my earlier conclusion that your initial grandstanding was to help deflect from the reality that you have failed in offering a single instance of altruistic changes being made despite foreseeable consequences.

Lead paint was completely safe as long as you didn't ingest it, or inhale it when sanding it away. They didn't think of babies and toddlers nomming up their toys and furniture. Nor did they think of poorly maintained buildings a number of decades down the road.

Instead of playing anagrams with "iridium", you should try to actually think before you respond. Nothing you have posted remotely resembles an "altruistic" motivation.

What does this mean?

Well, ld is hoping you would offer an example of bad altruism that created foreseeable risks.

I am starting to think that you might define "altruism" after the fact, depending on whether the outcome was beneficial or not. I don't believe that any action of any government or corporation could possibly be considered "altruistic" by your standards.

You know what would be a good example of pathological altruism from the Federal Government? Trickle Down economics.

 

[arkirk]

I'll take your lead paint and raise it by two rows and take one step to the right: Arsenic-based pigments. At least lead paint will only harm you if you eat it. Before they figured out the problem arsenic-based pigments were killing people who were simply in the room for long enough.

How is this (1) "pathological" and/or (2) "altruism"?

It was a subtopic--an example of something that was originally thought to be a good idea but later was found to be a bad idea.

Which is so grossly off-topic. The topic is about trying to force good actions that are known to have bad consequences.

Pathological means harmful usually in the sense of a lasting consequence. Altruism is a motivation to do a good deed without reference to personal profit. When you start trying to force people to do things, you are on the road to pathological. If altruism is the motivation, almost always force is not in play. We can mistakenly do things "for the good of us all" which actually are not "for the good of us all." This is usually the result of insufficient knowledge. If a genuine altruist finds he is hurting others, his altruism would make him stop.

Policies created with altruistic intent can be flawed, but one who is steadfastly altruistic would change his course of action. If some policy comes first, then altruism goes out the window. I don't think the two words should be used together.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think we are at an impasse.

On one side of this debate are some people who believe that there exists at least some people who at least some of the time, allow their desire to pursue an action that is intended to be beneficial blind them to reasonably foreseeable negative consequences. I fall on this side of the argument. I believe that the risk of this occurring is large in the arena of politics, where people's ideologies and political beliefs might lead them to discount concerns and risks being raised by their opponents without due consideration.

On the other side of the debate are some people who appear to believe that such things cannot and do not happen. They appear to believe that if an action has a negative outcome, then it was either not well-intentioned, or it was an honest accident. The appear to be using post-hoc rationalization to define the decision-making process.

Given the chasm between these two approaches, and the apparent inability to gulf this divide through discussion, I am going to claim that it is an insurmountable gulf. Nothing can be done to bridge this gap.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I see the debate as more this:

I think we are at an impasse.

On one side of this debate are some people who believe that there exists at least some people who at least some of the time, allow their desire to pursue an action that is intended to be beneficial blind them to reasonably foreseeable negative consequences. I fall on this side of the argument. I believe that the risk of this occurring is large in the arena of politics, where people's ideologies and political beliefs might lead them to discount concerns and risks being raised by their opponents without due consideration.

On the other side of the debate are some people who appear to believe that such things cannot and do not happen. They appear to believe that if an action has a negative outcome, then it was either not well-intentioned, or it was an honest accident.are assuming that all government programs do great harm. And that lead paint has something to do with all of this.

Hitler.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think we are at an impasse.

On one side of this debate are some people who believe that there exists at least some people who at least some of the time, allow their desire to pursue an action that is intended to be beneficial blind them to reasonably foreseeable negative consequences.

*goalpost shift*

I fall on this side of the argument.

I believe that the risk of this occurring is large in the arena of politics, where people's ideologies and political beliefs might lead them to discount concerns and risks being raised by their opponents without due consideration.

Trickle Down Economics would be a perfect example of this.

On the other side of the debate are some people who appear to believe that such things cannot and do not happen.

Never ever, double ever happen.

They appear to believe that if an action has a negative outcome, then it was either not well-intentioned, or it was an honest accident. The appear to be using post-hoc rationalization to define the decision-making process.

Well asbestos and lead paint are clear examples of not supporting that.

Given the chasm between these two approaches...

IE, Lambchops can not provide a single example of this endemic liberal disease.

...and the apparent inability to gulf this divide through discussion, I am going to claim that it is an insurmountable gulf.

IE, couldn't demonstrate my point, therefore we are at an impasse. Zapp Brannigan couldn't have said it better.

Nothing can be done to bridge this gap.

Honestly, I don't think anything about wilder from the truth. Something could be done about the gap, but the goalpost shifting is becoming too arduous for you to admit error to cross over the sock gap.

 

[arkirk]

I see the debate as more this:

I think we are at an impasse.

On one side of this debate are some people who believe that there exists at least some people who at least some of the time, allow their desire to pursue an action that is intended to be beneficial blind them to reasonably foreseeable negative consequences. I fall on this side of the argument. I believe that the risk of this occurring is large in the arena of politics, where people's ideologies and political beliefs might lead them to discount concerns and risks being raised by their opponents without due consideration.

On the other side of the debate are some people who appear to believe that such things cannot and do not happen. They appear to believe that if an action has a negative outcome, then it was either not well-intentioned, or it was an honest accident.are assuming that all government programs do great harm. And that lead paint has something to do with all of this.

Hitler.

I am still trying to figure out what the "Hitler" is about.

I frankly consider what paragraph 1 above is about is more about runaway advertising pushing bad products by extoling how beneficial they are. The lead producers, cigarette companies, and asbestos companies all knew well in advance of legislation their products were hurting and killing people. Their smiley faces and their talk were lies. Lies are not "altruism." During the debate on these issues, the involved companies argued that to severely limit these products would be "detrimental." That has not proven to be the case.

There definitely are shades of gray in many social and environmental propositions. We do not live in a perfect world where we can know it all. The vast majority of alleged blindness is not blindness at all but carefully propounded propaganda to keep DETRIMENTAL PRODUCERS OF FAULTY GOODS in business and making money. Having been a skeptical observer of this kaleidoscope of commercial lies for over fifty years, I am well aware of how vicious the struggle to stay on top economically has been and remains today.

I am concerned that this thread title is an oxymoron. Altruists are not permanent altruists. Altruism is but one of many motivations humans feel and act upon. For my part, I believe the more empathetic altruism there is, the more just society will be. Many arguments based on self protection, as in an industry, pretend to altruism when they really are self serving lies. Once we sort this out, we can clearly see that actual altruism is rarely pathological and never pathological on a social scale.

Having testified in countless hearings on environmental matters, I have heard this type of rhetoric so many times in the past, coming from players who are fast and loose with their science and factual data, and really just seeking a license to destroy some aspect of our environment...for profit. Altruism has to be the basis of an environmental advocate's actions or he/she becomes dishonest. From the outside they may appear clean and yet be genuine scoundrels. I don't blame anybody for being suspicious of people who claim to be altruists, but one cannot dismiss the altruism of those who practice it or call such people crazy.

 

[Emily Lake]

*goalpost shift*

This is very frustrating. How do you think that I've shifted goal posts at all? Please provide my posts that give you the impression that I've shifted goals.

Trickle Down Economics would be a perfect example of this.

So if you have a perfect example, then why have you not put that forward? Why spend so much time playing games simply because you don't like the examples that I've come up with? You've approached this as if my lack of examples that you approve of somehow makes the entire concept invalid, and you've argued against the concept on the grounds that I can't provide to you an example that you accept. But if you have an example in mind already, that actually does support the concept, then why are you arguing against the concept in this fashion? Why not just present that idea five or six pages ago and save us both a headache?

 

[arkirk]

This is very frustrating. How do you think that I've shifted goal posts at all? Please provide my posts that give you the impression that I've shifted goals.

Trickle Down Economics would be a perfect example of this.

So if you have a perfect example, then why have you not put that forward? Why spend so much time playing games simply because you don't like the examples that I've come up with? You've approached this as if my lack of examples that you approve of somehow makes the entire concept invalid, and you've argued against the concept on the grounds that I can't provide to you an example that you accept. But if you have an example in mind already, that actually does support the concept, then why are you arguing against the concept in this fashion? Why not just present that idea five or six pages ago and save us both a headache?

Romney didn't get elected, so that makes it possible for him to get busy with the "job creators" and clean up the mess. The reason it is not all neat and tidy today...the sucker was a liar. All the "job creators" will maybe settle down to their altruistic task as soon as they get a Republican congress and president. Everybody, the Koch's are coming to the rescue. It may get a lot hotter and wetter, but at least we can have enough money in our pocket to go to McDonalds. :laughing-smiley-014

The fact is there are a lot more examples on non-altruistic self servers running everything than about anything else.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I see the debate as more this:


Hitler.

I am still trying to figure out what the "Hitler" is about.

So are historians: http://www.historytoday.com/ian-kershaw/hitler-myth

(It's just a derail)

 

[RavenSky]

I think we are at an impasse.

On one side of this debate are some people who believe that there exists at least some people who at least some of the time, allow their desire to pursue an action that is intended to be beneficial blind them to reasonably foreseeable negative consequences. I fall on this side of the argument.

. That still isn't "pathological altruism" though.

 

[RavenSky]

Since the thread has now been declared an impasse, I conclude that there is no such thing as "pathological altruism" but that capitalism (producers of lead-based paint and asbestos) may at least be pathological.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You may enjoy the comfort of your frying pan. People who do enjoy it usually have a little human padding between themselves and the surface of the pan. They are riding the shoulders of those who have to stand on the hot surface. So far, the heat hasn't reached you yet. What is "detrimental" about getting out of the pan. Those most interested in leaving will lower those who choose to stay off their shoulders and down into the hot oil. It is kind of sad that you think things are really okay there.

I am not evading anything. You are evading the question of privilege. You do not know "all the proposed approaches" and even if they have drawbacks, they are at least an acknowledgement of a real problem we are facing. In a democratic sense, those on the bottom getting their feet burnt should have some say in getting us out of the frying pan. If we fail to cooperate, we all go down. Wake up, Loren!

1) We aren't saying the frying pan is a good thing. We are saying to look before you jump to see if you're going to jump into the fire.

2) You're still trying to evade here, in effect saying it's better to jump because it's doing something.

3) I don't even see where you think privilege enters into it. The issue is "help" which does more harm than good.

 

[arkirk]

You may enjoy the comfort of your frying pan. People who do enjoy it usually have a little human padding between themselves and the surface of the pan. They are riding the shoulders of those who have to stand on the hot surface. So far, the heat hasn't reached you yet. What is "detrimental" about getting out of the pan. Those most interested in leaving will lower those who choose to stay off their shoulders and down into the hot oil. It is kind of sad that you think things are really okay there.

I am not evading anything. You are evading the question of privilege. You do not know "all the proposed approaches" and even if they have drawbacks, they are at least an acknowledgement of a real problem we are facing. In a democratic sense, those on the bottom getting their feet burnt should have some say in getting us out of the frying pan. If we fail to cooperate, we all go down. Wake up, Loren!

1) We aren't saying the frying pan is a good thing. We are saying to look before you jump to see if you're going to jump into the fire.

2) You're still trying to evade here, in effect saying it's better to jump because it's doing something.

3) I don't even see where you think privilege enters into it. The issue is "help" which does more harm than good.

1. Who is "we?" Why do you imagine I haven't already looked. Why do you de facto assume I would willingly jump into the fire just to "do something?"

2. What I have pointed to is not evasion on my part but rather your evasion and attempt to discredit others on the basis of the notion they aren't careful enough and couldn't know enough to take effective action. That is just an assumption on your part and nothing else.

3. Your arguments all seem to aim at disempowering the common man using the type of innuendo that is common to the upper classes. The whole notion of pathological altruism is just one such device. The other is that environmentalists have "twisted" or "skewed" perceptions of reality.

4. If not altruism, what would you have a common citizen practice...aggression, competition, well what and where do we turn when we depart altruism? What is left is a state of mind that is detrimental to communication. That tends to stall needed action.

Incidentally, it may be possible to crawl far enough out on the handle that one may land on the ground and not in the fire...if they had a brain or a plan or could think for themselves...and do it RIGHT AWAY!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) We aren't saying the frying pan is a good thing. We are saying to look before you jump to see if you're going to jump into the fire.

2) You're still trying to evade here, in effect saying it's better to jump because it's doing something.

3) I don't even see where you think privilege enters into it. The issue is "help" which does more harm than good.

1. Who is "we?" Why do you imagine I haven't already looked. Why do you de facto assume I would willingly jump into the fire just to "do something?"

When I pointed out the problem of doing the wrong thing you complained that the alternative was to do nothing.

2. What I have pointed to is not evasion on my part but rather your evasion and attempt to discredit others on the basis of the notion they aren't careful enough and couldn't know enough to take effective action. That is just an assumption on your part and nothing else.

You still haven't addressed the issue--you objected to the doing nothing even if the proposed course of action was bad.

3. Your arguments all seem to aim at disempowering the common man using the type of innuendo that is common to the upper classes. The whole notion of pathological altruism is just one such device. The other is that environmentalists have "twisted" or "skewed" perceptions of reality.

I'm not trying to disempower anyone. I'm just not falling for the notion that emotions trump facts.

4. If not altruism, what would you have a common citizen practice...aggression, competition, well what and where do we turn when we depart altruism? What is left is a state of mind that is detrimental to communication. That tends to stall needed action.

In other words, emotional arguments trump reason.

Incidentally, it may be possible to crawl far enough out on the handle that one may land on the ground and not in the fire...if they had a brain or a plan or could think for themselves...and do it RIGHT AWAY!

And we aren't objecting to looking for better answers.

 

[arkirk]

Loren: You keep talking about emotional arguments trumping reason , also emotion trumping facts. You seem oblivious to the idea of rationally considered intent. Otherwise, you are merely engaging in thinly veiled ad hominem attacks on my reasoning ability, not showing any actual counter to my ideas, just discounting them. I am NOT SELLING THE NOTION THAT EMOTIONS TRUMP FACTS. You are selling the notion that FEAR AND SUSPICION TRUMPS FACTS. Along with that notion is the unspoken imperative..."The frying pan is where you are and you had better stay there!"