An impromptu Q&A with ERV!

OMG ... I want that half-hour back! I had to go an read that comment thread ...

TEH STOOPID, IT BURNS!!!!

Poof? Really? Ugh.

You do know that's a homophobic slur, right?

LEMON CURRY??

On behalf of poofters everywhere I demand you take that back! I want nothing whatsoever to do with that wanker (not that there's anything at all wrong with wanking).

Ah. Python! I lurve that sketch.

All is forgiven.

Is this the right site for an argument?

Rho must be a huge ERV fanboy if he plans ahead to audio bootleg your ordinary convo. ;)

I'm glad Rho did it, I would like more ERV Q&As....but...It's a bit creepy. I don't know the legality of surreptitiously recording a conversation in OK but it is kinda stalkerish. I wonder if he kept a personal copy.

Just knowing Rho is a Christian Creationist is creepy enough! Thanks for being in the front lines and battling those wonky wierdos.

"the legality of surreptitiously recording a conversation in OK"

One participant party in two party conversation aware of recording in OK, then no crime.<--Ahhhm uhhhh okie lawhur

Still creepy and I'm starting to think Rho has an Abbie hair doll under his pillow, but legal so far.

Do you think he makes his wife talk viral to him?

Hi all!

I don't know why Wells said that, but we WERE all the way at the back and Wells and Meyer were at the front. And you had plenty of time to go say hi to him before you and I started talking. After all, you had nothing better to do apparently than to be "jamming"... So don't go blaming that all on Wells, even though he's apparently the devil.

And I asked a good question!
And I'm no troll. I stick around to answer questions and challenges thrown my way, and usually outlast your commenters. So you might want to look into refining your definition of "troll".

And Cain @8, it's perfectly legal, and it wasn't a private conversation. I guess no one can prevent the gutter mind to do its thing, though.
Prometheus @10, I don't get this. How many times have I addressed ERV on my blog? Not that many, certainly not compared to other atheist bloggers or Romanist or Eastern Orthodox bloggers I've talked to. Maybe you're just trying to tarnish my rep. that's a loser tactic.

Peace,
Rhology

Rhology, is it a common tactic for you to make underhanded insults in your posts at those your talking to? This is the first time I've read one of your comments, and I count 3~4 ditchy dirtings.

@10 Prometheus
Hey Pro,

The guy who spends his free time recording people without their knowledge has been considerate enough to give you a lesson on loser tactics.

I hope you took notes.

@13 Cain,
Prove there's something morally wrong with what I did. There's nothing illegal about it certainly.
Or let me guess, just a naked assertion, spoken from On High by Pope Cain.
Yep, *I'm* taking notes.

I love christians, notice how rho notes that its basically ERVs fault that Wells might have missed her. Ergo, its ok for him to make shit up.

oh, and a christian wants someone to "prove" something morally right or wrong. That's rich.

@15 Lorax,
Not into proof, eh? Just prefer that everyone would just bow down to you and believe every word you say?

@14 Rhology
Honestly, I don't care.

This is ERV's Fun House of Horrors and she doesn't seem to mind; you obviously don't mind. Given those two facts, I don't have standing to be bothered by it that much.

That being said, what you did was fractally wrong. You denied free people the right to consent. You didn't know if all of the participants considered the conversation public. You could not have known what would be said before hand or what the participants might have not wanted to become public.
You denied free people the right to consent.

Doing this should make a moral person spend an afternoon in the shower, retching and scrubbing their skin off with pumice, trying to get clean again...but you seem to be cool with it.

What?

Anyway, this is one of the few states that allows that kind of 1p recording and the federal is the same. So far the fed in these cases does not trump states (at least in California two party cases.

It's still creepy not to tell people.

There is also a civil action when no waiver was signed and profit is derived therefrom by distribution. Usually a loser but still annoying/expensive.

I have represented a few big deal documentarians who screwed the pooch on that one and bloggers who generate their own media do it all the time.

The way to avoid the problem is to wear (or get your A.V. kids to wear) t-shirts with the notice of implied waiver printed on them.

It's hilarious when somebody realizes they have made a jackass of themselves and I can respond to 'cease and desist' with a photo of the complaintant standing next to the blogger wearing a shirt that says IMPLIED WAIVER and doing "thumbs up".

I just gave Rho and Erv free legals.WTF

I'm slipping, it must be all that bloody singing coming from Whoville.

Oh we are definitely in creepy country, but I dont care. The only point which I am annoyed about, is that you all might note, I never talk about my research on my blag.

I dont want to get scooped.

In a conversation with an Average Joe, irl, I dont mind talking about it because they arent in a position to scoop. I would rather not have my research plan broadcast over the internet, and Im glad I didnt go into as much detail as Rhos buddy was hoping.

@17 Cain,
You certainly seem like you care, else why even comment? How disingenuous.

You denied free people the right to consent.

Prove that's morally wrong.
If ERV had said "get lost" to me, I would've stayed to ask why, mocked her briefly for being a coward, then left. She didn't chicken out, but engaged me fully, so kudos to her. Sorry that you don't see open convo as open. Maybe you'd be better off in N Korea.

@19 ERV,
Im glad I didnt go into as much detail as Rhos buddy was hoping.

I assure you that V.V. was interested only as a matter of trivia, not b/c he's not insanely busy in his own PhD studies in IT.
Besides, I could easily have posted the rest of what you said, in the part where you described your research, but the purpose for posting it was for the debate.

Peace,
Rhology

@3
The word does exist outside of Monty Python, and just because they used it for humour doesn't mean that using it, especially as an insult, is acceptable.

Perhaps it's used less in the US, but in the UK it's still a common and insulting term.

Y'know, I used to have respect for you, Rho. I hope you believe that. But now... I couldn't care less about the recording (though I can appreciate how Abbie might). But between your comments here and in the old thread Abbie linked... Maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention, it's true I'm not a constant reader. Hell, maybe I already realized this and forgot, it's not even close to the first time I've given a believer/creationist way too much credit. Still, I thought you were better than this. I really did.

I find it amusing that the Christianly moral Rho seems to think consent isn't a consideration in morality. Since sex between a husband and wife is moral in Christianity, does this mean Rho thinks a husband forcing his wife to have sex isn't rape?

Rho insult count: 6

@15 Lorax,
Not into proof, eh? Just prefer that everyone would just bow down to you and believe every word you say?

That sound you just heard Rho, was my point whizzing by your head.

@22 rrt -
Could you be more specific?

Does anyone here think that it was immoral to secretly record Sally Kern making homophibic slurs left and right and post it on YouTube? If so, here is your chance to demonstrate moral consistency and condemn that action.

Otherwise, what's sauce for the goose...

A veneer of self-righteous civility laid over sneering behavior? Attempting to deflect the responsibility for Wells' lie onto Abbie? Adopting the "it's legal!" defense in an argument that isn't about legality? Blowing off the notion of consent altogether?

Dam10n,

No, it was not immoral.
'Course, if atheism is true, nothing is moral OR immoral. Everything just IS.
Anyway, I think your comment is directed at others here, so there you go.

rrt,
You think *I'm* sneering? You clearly haven't read the way ppl treat me around here, or if you have you're a blind fanboy to say something so ridiculous.
And I asked very specifically no less than twice for an accuser to prove that it was immoral; didn't just say "it's legal!". I'm gonna guess you're the fanboy type. See ya.

Rho insult count: 8

If avoiding an answer is a positive, then Rho does think that a husband making his wife have sex against her will isn't rape. Rape is immoral, but consent doesn't define immoral behavior!

No, I think you're sneering while feigning civility and convincing yourself that makes you the better man. Add whining about insults while dishing them. And I THOUGHT I detected an implication that atheists couldn't debate morality. Bonus contempt for flat-out stating that immediately before proceeding to demand atheists debate morality.

DAM10N #26

"Does anyone here think that it was immoral to secretly record Sally Kern making homophibic slurs left and right and post it on YouTube?"

Different privacy expectations. It is a situational ethic and trust issue.

Popular Democratically Elected Public Official at Public Municipal Town Hall Meeting as Speaker, Promotes Public Political Agenda.

Blogger with a dog, a pipette and a dream shoots the shit about viruses with some acquaintances after a lecture.

Don't be oblique DAM10N.

You know creepy.

If Abbie was at the lectern, okay then.

It is the difference between taping my rendition of "Hey Big Spender" at an American Idol audition versus secretly taping it from the next stall at a port authority bathroom while I'm singing it on the toilet.*

Rho insult count: 9

How often do you 'bug' casual conversations? Does getting ready for a social setting usually involve a trip to Radio Shack or is this just reserved for Erv.

*I can't go potty unless I can visualize the choreography of Bob Fosse. See, it's fun to share trust with friends.

@29 ragarth,
Waah, I'm so sorry I hurt your widdwe feewings. Seriously, read some other threads I've engaged on this blog. The over/under on profanities hurled my way is 30.
And LEGALLY, consent of both parties is unnecessary in OK.
MORALLY, make the argument that consent of both is necessary. I'm waiting.

@30 rrt,
And I THOUGHT I detected an implication that atheists couldn't debate morality.

You can debate it, sure. But you have no means within an atheistic universe to come to any objective answer one way or the other. See Hume's Guillotine.

@31 Prometheus,
There were at least 5 ppl in the group and ppl passing by all the time. Not a private setting. Just leave it alone.

@20 Rho:

I assure you that V.V. was interested only as a matter of trivia, not b/c he's not insanely busy in his own PhD studies in IT.
Besides, I could easily have posted the rest of what you said, in the part where you described your research, but the purpose for posting it was for the debate.

You missed the point here -- Abby wasn't/isn't worried about your friend; it was a conversation where (you let her believe) the listeners were people unlikely to steal her research.

But this conversation was secretly recorded and made available to the public, which certainly DOES include people who might steal Abby's research.

If she *had* gone into greater detail, and someone managed to scoop her research, she'd obviously be harmed. This kind of thing is part of why your recording WOULD be illegal in many states; it's deception that can be quite harmful (even if you don't intend that harm). And of course if you're generally morally opposed to lying, this would qualify as a lie of omission.

Ugh. Scratch the surface and every damn time... But don't worry, my disgust couldn't possibly have anything to do with you, Rho, oh no. It's all my bad. You can't expect much from an amoral beast like me.

@31 Prometheus,
"There were at least 5 ppl in the group and ppl passing by all the time. Not a private setting. Just leave it alone."

But I can't. It is too fascinatingly weird and you just keep making it creepier and creepier by trying to sound de rigueur about it.

How many is too many? Too few? How many random pedestrians are required for non-creepy secret tape recording? Are you just miked all the time like Nixon or a Co-ed Web Cam or what?

"at least5 ppl in the group and ppl passing by all the time" hmmmmm sounds like the girl's gang showers at Falls Creek Baptist Camp.....better go with the parabolic and a fake FBI badge.

You sure have been shrugging a lot lately. Or perhaps I simply never noticed your nonchalance before.

Murray-- I got a LOT of Baileys for Christmas. Baileys and knives...

*shrug*

"'Course, if atheism is true, nothing is moral OR immoral. Everything just IS."

This is true regardless of whether we live and atheistic or theistic universe. Even if god(s) exist an prescribe morality, prescriptive statements are semantically distinct from existential or factual statements. A statement like "you can't kill" doesn't translate to "killing is wrong". I would argue that the latter is a meaningless phrase.

#38 Tyler DiPietro

'"killing is wrong".I would argue that the latter is a meaningless phrase.'

Not necessarily, it just begs a "compared to what?" response to reveal the origin of the proposition in some sort of metaphysics.

Still a blind alley but you've gotta let him drive it into the wall.

#37 ERV

I got electric socks. Made fun of them. 20 degrees dropping to 4 tonight. I was a fool. Hail electro-socks.

"Not necessarily, it just begs a "compared to what?" response to reveal the origin of the proposition in some sort of metaphysics."

Well, I've never seen anyone able to embed a metaphysics where a statement like "killing is wrong" refers to actual facts, rather than just being deceptively structured like a factual statement.

I mean, it looks like you should be able to do it. And most people seem to want to be able to do it. But I've never seen it done successfully.

Tyler,

You are right, it is always going to involve a phony "fact" scenario that is a thin mask for a magic observer/judge/"natural law' continuum. They aren't successfully embedding they are confounding. I'm just saying you shouldn't deprive someone of the opportunity of spinning their wheels in the mud.

Rho lives for that crap, we didn't get him anything for Saturnalia and here we are picking on him again.

@rho #32
Hurt my feelings? Whenever did I say that! It seems to me you're presuming yourself as having far more value than you actually possess.

"MORALLY, make the argument that consent of both is necessary. I'm waiting."

So in other words, you do indeed think rape within marriage is morally acceptable, since you're insisting that I prove to you that it's not.

Rhology

Could you tell us why you did not advise ERV that you were recording the conversation.

Seems to me that would have been nothing more than a common courtesy.

@33 Rob W,
Like I said, very little content about her research was made available, b/c I cut off most of it after our debate was over. She DID go into greater detail, and I didn't make that public. Your concern is unfounded.

And of course if you're generally morally opposed to lying, this would qualify as a lie of omission.

I don't see how that follows. You'll have to make the argument.

@34 rrt,
You have shown that you don't understand what I'm saying. Have a good one.

@38 Tyler,
A statement like "you can't kill" doesn't translate to "killing is wrong". I would argue that the latter is a meaningless phrase.

Yes, I know you would in an abstract blog comment, but you don't live like that. You live like there actually are rights and wrongs, but you don't talk that line when it's convenient for you and when it makes your atheism look that much more hard-core. How do I know you don't live like that? B/c you're not in jail.

@43 Moishe,
Others around here could learn alot from you, Moishe. You didn't assume that I'm the devil incarnate; you didn't know, so you asked a question. I commend you, even though such is nothing more than a common courtesy; most everyone in these comboxes lacks such.
I didn't advise her b/c I was wearing the wire for my personal benefit, to be able to look back on convos I'd had that night and relisten to them, learn from my mistakes and learn about what worked. I didn't expect to make any of it public, but I thought the convo with ERV was very listenable and so decided to do so. There's nothing illegal in the slightest about that. Further, I'm under no obligation to inform anyone that they're being recorded; be proud of what you say in public, or don't say it! And the convo was in public.
Finally, the Bible, which is my authority for morality, commends "exposing...fruitless deeds of darkness" (Eph 5:18) and shutting the mouths of unbelievers who blaspheme and argue that God is irrelevant or non-existent or whatever it may be. Shutting their mouths by argumentation and reason (not by violence). Since ERV's arguments turned out to be just as bad face-to-face as they are on 'paper', I figured it would be helpful to disseminate that.

Peace,
Rhology

No, Rho. I understand EXACTLY what you're saying, and I understand EXACTLY what you're implying. It's the same old exhausted song. But two can play your game. So I'm an amoral beast, free from prison thanks only to my wits (oh, the trail of untraceable bodies I've left!) And you can keep telling yourself everyone is mistaken but you.

@30 Prometheus - "Popular Democratically Elected Public Official at Public Municipal Town Hall Meeting"

Really? I was almost sure that was a private meeting of rabid homophobes talking amongst themsevles.

"Someone taped a speech Kern made in January to a Republican club in Oklahoma City and sent it to a national gay rights group. Kern said earlier that the speech was about 30 minutes; a segment of about three minutes was posted about 10 days ago on YouTube." -http://newsok.com/article/3217675/1205877152#ixzz0c214yCMy

The moral principle here (Rho's nihilistic comments notwithstanding) is that it may be immoral to record someone who does not have a reasonable expectation that they are going to be recorded. Two different people recorded ERV when she debated Charles Jackson, and no one was covert about it. Either participant had the chance to approve or disapprove of the recording.

In this case, ERV was taped (just like Kern) without foreknowledge or consent. The only distinction here that ERV was speaking to a smaller private group rather than a larger private group. This is not a distinction which makes a difference, from where I'm sitting. Either it is wrong to covertly record people without their consent, or else it is not. If it is, then Oklahoma law needs to catch up.

Now there are those who will say it is acceptable to record and braodcast public figures on account of First Amendment considerations (the principles behind a free marketplace of ideas) especially when public figures are speaking on their areas of expertise. I'm somewhat sympathetic to this view myself.

Here, Kern was speaking in her role as a homophobic legislator (her major public role) while ERV was speaking in her role as a vocal and well-known advocate for scientific thinking and research (her major public role). So that criterion isn't going to help us much, here.

Moreover, they are both in a situation where they might easily have said something profesionnally damaging, indeed, Kern arguably did so. So that criterion isn't going to help us here, either.

The whole point in this comparison is that you have to apply your moral principles consistenly across the board. I was thrilled when Kern was covertly recorded, while I was disturbed and a bit creeped out when ERV was covertly recorded. However, I have to put my personal feelings aside if I'm going to do moral reasoning of any sort.

#46 DAM10N

Sorry I thought you were talking about a previous event where she claimed to have been "secretly" recorded.

The event you are talking about was a county party club meeting. They are held on set days all over Oklahoma. The Dems and Repubs from Oklahoma County both meet in the Oklahoma Room at Boulevard Cafeteria they are not only public but the public is encouraged and invited to attend. Lectern, microphone, scheduled speaker advertised, bring a friend, donations solicited, complimentary corn bread and beans, carrot cake or whatever.

She stepped up to the lectern and spoke into the mike presenting a prepared speech from her notes(apparently she brought source material with her).

I think when making a presentation at a public venue, into a microphone, with a lot of people holding up their cell phones at your face, your expectations of privacy are limited and your expectation of being recorded and or repeated are high (unless you have previously copyrighted what you are saying and indicate that).

Sally is not a bad example of what you are getting at because I dislike her. She is bad example because she isn't comparable.

If Sally was having a conversation with acquaintances in the halls of the legislature and one of them was wearing a gold plated tiny dead fetus lapel pin that was a cleverly disguised mike and posted a recording on you tube....

Creepy.

Probably unethical.

Good argument for becoming a 2p state.

I'll bet Sally would vote for it....and file frivolous lawsuits based on a complete misunderstanding of what privacy means and the legislative intent.

"I'm not telling them what to do" Fess up Abbie. You can control viruses with your mind. rofl

I'm pretty sure we are both talking about the time that Kern spoke to the College Republicans club at the University of Central Oklahoma. I do not think it was reasonable for her to assume she was being openly recorded, on that particular occasion, because it is usual for the A/V club to be upfront about that sort of thing. I suppose what you are saying is that she ought to have *presumed* that someone might well have been covertly recording her remarks, since she was a public figure speaking out on a controversial topic to an audience that was not entirely sympathetic. Surely, though, this was true of ERV as well.
The only significant difference you've brought out here is that Kern's remarks were prepared in advance while ERV's were informal. I'm not sure if this is really enough of a distinction to make a difference when it comes to the expectation of privacy. In my view, both women could reasonably have expected that no one was recording them, because it is sneaky and underhanded to do so covertly. Or, both women might have reasonably suspected that someone sneaky and underhanded might be in the room. Either way, I donât think you cannot hang the morality of such recording on the pre-preparedness of the remarks.

Probably unethical.

Prove it.

Moreover, ERV knew for sure that Rho was in the room. That right there ought to have put her on alert for foul play. The guy lives to expose naturalists for the reprobate heathens that we really are. ;)

Public Official giving prepared remarks at a public event, dude. You can't get around that fact.

I'd also argue that both recordings proved so useful and informative (to fans and foes alike) that you have to weigh that on the side of of the 1p law. Granted that expectations of privacy were violated, and that is iffy and creepy at best, but both women stood by what they said with pride.

Moreover, the fanboys get the chance to hear Rho and ERV might sound in a real-life unscripted encounter, which I thought was just downright fascinating. She tries to be sweet and patient and pedagogical well past the point that he has given up the pretense of having an exhange of ideas.

Rhology, teh xian troll, does like to claim a higher morality than us non-believers owing to his superior 'knowledge' of the "Word of God" but if his 'knowledge is so great - why can't he get the verse correct when he quotes his holy text?

Finally, the Bible, which is my authority for morality, commends "exposing...fruitless deeds of darkness" (Eph 5:18) and shutting the mouths of unbelievers who blaspheme and argue that God is irrelevant or non-existent or whatever it may be. Shutting their mouths by argumentation and reason (not by violence). Since ERV's arguments turned out to be just as bad face-to-face as they are on 'paper', I figured it would be helpful to disseminate that.

Ephesians 5:18
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery NIV

or the old version
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess KJV

The verse Rho quotes is Eph 5:11

Why can't this biblical 'scholar' get his verses right if he thinks they are so pertinent to his secretive recording of an opponent? Why should anyone pay attention to a person who not only constantly lies in his posts but has exposed himself as being more ignorant of his own holy book than some random atheist?

Furthermore, and relevant to Rho's failure to answer a question about whether his wife is allowed to refuse him sex, the entire chapter of Ephesians that he attempted to use as the basis for his argument - <"Shutting their mouths by argumentation and reason" - calls upon the new believers to provide examples of morality by acting and living in a moral manner - NOT by arguing with the non-believers.

stogoe -

- Kern is a public official supporting homophobia
- ERV is a public spokewoman supporting science

(As to who has more readers who hang on her every word, I'm going with ERV and the more public figure here. Kern only gets publicity when someone stages a publicity stunt.)

- Kern was at a public meeting
- ERV was at a public meeting

Like Prometheus, you are left only with the distinction between prepared remarks and unprepared remarks, and maybe the size of the crowd. It is easy enough to demonstrate that sometimes prepared remarks are made to a large crowd with the reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g. CFR meetings, AOK meetings, any party strategy meeting) so this is not a good enough distinction to hang your hat on here.

If you look at the First Amendment jurisprudence on point here (e.g. the Pentagon Papers and cases following) you'll notice that public figures are not limited to public officials, but rather anyone who speaks out on a public issue, like, say, the importance of learning and teaching science.

She tries to be sweet and patient and pedagogical well past the point that he has given up the pretense of having an exchange of ideas.
*curtsy*

I dont think Rho planned in advance to record a conversation with *me*. I think he just wanted to record Meyer, and subsequently got the idea to record me, since he was already set and ready to go. I do think that his intentions for doing so were malicious, but, considering I have nothing to hide (other than my research, which is damaging to my career, but in a very different way than letting out a Kern-esque 'IM NOT REALLY CURING AIDS I THINK HOMOZ ARE WORSE THAN TERRORIST AND I WANT THEM TO DIE LULZ!') I really dont care.

It just comes off as weird.

I would LOVE to have Rho upload Meyers talk, though!

Unless he didnt record it, and he did wire himself for the sole purpose of taping a conversation with ERV :-/

Let me be clear that I'm not saying that covert recording is generally a good idea. I am saying that in these two cases, the recordings were both interesting and useful to the relevant public and the speakers both stood proudly by their comments. Only Kern was professionally damaged, and then only with minority of tolerant voters in her district. As a consequentialist, then, I have to balance a lack of harm against the good that came of these recordings. There may be a good case for 2p laws, but we'll not find it here.

*Bows to ERV*

Seconds request to upload the Meyers talk. I missed that one. :(

p.s. Anyone know where I can pick up a gold human fetus lapel pin?

Rhology is a funny guy (outside of the potentially creepy aspect). He thinks he's being rational, even when he's spouting nonsense, like the whole "you're intelligent, therefore the viruses are intelligently designed" blather.

Quotes from his thread:

"I don't accept the standard for truth you're presenting here. I prefer explanatory power and logical consistency, etc."

"I don't know, and I'm sorry to tell you that asking about 'predictions' all the time is uninteresting to me."

FSTD-worthy? I report, you decide.

If it WASN'T morally unethical to record her conversation with you without her consent, then why didn't you just tell her you were recording it?

Why did you feel the need to record it surreptitiously? Is it because she might have asked you not to? Is it because you thought there was a chance she DIDN'T want you to record her?

If so, then you recorded the conversation without her consent PRECISELY because you knew it was something she likely didn't want you to do. In effect, you deliberately misled her about your intentions during the conversation, which is more or less effectively lying. Is lying not morally wrong?

(After-the-fact rationalizations about not publishing PART of the conversation seems overly convenient, don't you think? Were you also aware ahead of time that that portion of the conversation was particularly sensitive, or was it perhaps only a happy coincidence that the description of her research was not salient to your immediate point?)

I wired myself to record any convos I might have afterward with people hanging around, since in the past they've proven to be fun and exciting, and usually worth listening to again.

I thought this time it was even better than most, and with someone who's fairly well-known (ERV and rbroughton) so there you go.

I think I might have Meyer's talk from that night; I'll try to find it and I'll upload if I can find it.

If it WASN'T morally unethical to record her conversation with you without her consent, then why didn't you just tell her you were recording it?

You made the claim it's unethical. Substantiate it.
Since I don't think it's unethical, why would I notify anyone?

Why did you feel the need to record it surreptitiously? Is it because she might have asked you not to? Is it because you thought there was a chance she DIDN'T want you to record her?

Make the argument that this is a relevant concern, or should be.

In effect, you deliberately misled her about your intentions during the conversation, which is more or less effectively lying. Is lying not morally wrong?

Sorry, you can't read my mind. This is false.

Were you also aware ahead of time that that portion of the conversation was particularly sensitive, or was it perhaps only a happy coincidence that the description of her research was not salient to your immediate point?)

It was a happy coincidence, but if ERV spouts off massively detailed reports of her research to perfect (and more or less hostile) strangers like me in a public setting, that's not my problem. But my goal is to show how badly her position stood up under scrutiny, not to harm her personally.

And yes, oops, it was Eph 5:11, not 18. I always confuse those. Thanks for the correction, but don't commit the genetic fallacy as you seem about to do.

Peace,
Rhology

I guess the thing to do from now on for any of you who ever speak to Rho in person is to assume he's taping you and use the occasion to tell him about the sex slaves chained to the walls of your basement and how you drink the blood of aborted foetuses. If anything, it should provide some entertaining material for his blog.

Rhology

Thanks for your reply. I take it, then, that you would have no objection to someone recording your conversations without advising you that they were so doing?

Why can't this biblical 'scholar' get his verses right

In all fairness Somerville, it could have been a typo, or he was quoting from memory. I wouldn't make a big deal about it.

I got him on a bigger one once though. I asked him how we can know that Jesus was really tempted by the devil in the desert for 40 days when it was supposedly just Jesus and the devil. He replied that the apostles would have asked him where he was for those 40 days. But then I had to point out to him that chronologically, the 40 days in the desert happened before he met the apostles.

Sorry, Rho, you got your reply to Somerville in before I could hit the "Post" button.

I take it, then, that you would have no objection to someone recording your conversations without advising you that they were so doing?

Depends. What were they going to use it for?

40 days - I get it, so somehow you know Jesus never talked about that with His apostles, after the fact. Your inane objections rarely disappoint, TommyKey.

Not that many, certainly not compared to other atheist bloggers or Romanist or Eastern Orthodox bloggers I've talked to.

I really hope you didn't spend too much time with Lucian!

40 days - I get it, so somehow you know Jesus never talked about that with His apostles, after the fact. Your inane objections rarely disappoint, TommyKey.

I didn't say that. I merely pointed out you got the chronology wrong.

But since there were no witnesses, if Jesus did tell the apostles the story, how can we be sure it is true? It's not enough to just say "Well, because he's like JESUS, man!"

Rhology,

You've stopped insulting others, thank you. Given that, I think we can have a more serious discussion. First in response to the issue with ERV, it's my opinion that people who are holding private conversations have a certain expectation to privacy, and this includes not having the informational content of your conversation recorded for public consumption (ie, recording for your own private purposes is fine, and public posting of your voice that contains no information is fine such as an artistic recording, but posting a private conversation online for anyone to hear is immoral). This changes for a public forum where the speaker has no assumed right to privacy. That said, your recording of her is of no concern to me, the only issue is your posting her statements openly online. If the statements she made were of a public nature, then you are morally fine (by my standards), but if the conversation was private, then I would consider you to have acted immorally.

Of greater interest to me is your statement that consent is not a factor in morality. I base my morals primarily upon what is best for both self and society, and from there expand my moral outlook to define the interaction of those groups. In cases where a clear-cut answer is not given, consent becomes the defining factor (I posit that societies can consent, individuals can consent, and individuals can consent to themselves). This said, your view is in direct opposition to mine and provides me with a distinct chance to potentially broaden/challenge my own personal set of morals.

To test this, I'd like to turn a more adult eye to the situation I was teasing you with earlier since it really does represent an excellent moral dilemma for you. To rephrase, a husband and wife are in bed, the husband wants sex, but the wife isn't in the mood so the husband forces himself upon her against her will. In this circumstance, the couple are married, and they are both opposite sex, so there is no moral dilemma other than the lack of consent from the wife. Do you consider the husband's actions immoral? And how come?

Thank you.

Of greater interest to me is your statement that consent is not a factor in morality.

Ragarth, let me save you the trouble. For Rho, morality is defined by god's commandments to us, which are in the Bible for all of us to see. So, what is best for the "self" or "society" in your eyes is irrelevant. I'm sure Rho will add anything I might have missed.

Rhology

Depends on what they were using it for?

Would you not like to know you were being recorded independent of what it was being used for?

ragarth,

OK, your opinion, fair enough. But why 'cram it down my throat'? Why judgmental?
The convo was not private.

I base my morals primarily upon what is best for both self and society

1) My educated guess is that you have no reason to do so, except that you like it that way.
2) How do you define "best"?
3) Who counts in "society"?
4) Why should anyone agree with your moral outlook?

Pick some other example than marital relations and I can take it more seriously. ERV and I are not married.
Y'all seem perversely interested in my sexual and marital outlook; I can only speculate as to why, but I won't. Read Ephesians 5 and that'll be a great start. If you want commentary, see MacArthur's. (That is, if you're really interested in what I have to say, and aren't just being puerile.)

Peace,
Rhology

@tommykey #73

I'm not a bible scholar, therefore I can't state unequivocally that the hypothetical situation I gave him isn't covered in the bible, however it's important to note that the bible is composed of a finite number of words and therefore has a finite amount of moral coverage. The breadth of potential situations is infinite, however, and so the bible cannot cover every possible situation that can arise. Therefore, if Rhology has truly studied and understands biblical morality then he should be able to extrapolate and explain how said morality applies to a situation not clearly covered in the bible.

Moishe,

Why is "what I like" relevant?

@Rhology #75

I wasn't being judgemental about your recording ERV. :-p I was being judgemental about your use of insults in previous posts. I'm also not being judgemental about your particular set of morals, I'm expressing interest in them as an attempt to better my own.

1) For morals to have a reason, they must have an objective. This is something I worked with for a while: "What is the purpose of morals?" Because if you can define *why* we have morals, then that should theoretically lead naturally into what makes a good set of morals. Since morals have historically tended to define both our social and personal actions in such a way as to improve or maintain the quality of the society or individual, then it can be said that morals exist to either improve or maintain the quality of society and the individual. So working from there, the 'quality' of an individual can be expressed in terms of health, happiness, and creativity, same for society, so morals should act to improve these qualities.

2) I'll admit, my choice of the term 'best' wasn't the best choice. :-) Since I generally consider the term 'best' to reference a single action/object that is superior than the rest for a particular set of criteria, the word 'best' does not actually fit very well with what I was saying and is therefore a poor choice of words on my part. What is good for the goose isn't always good for the gander, what helps one individual will not universally help everyone, and therefore what is 'best' for a person is unique to that individual. This is why I define close call issues in terms of consent, because it leaves an amount of judgement as to what is 'best' for the individual up to that individual without having said individual infringe upon others.

3) This is another really neat discussion! We all define our societies, and in this way my brand of morality is pretty universally applicable to defining the morality of others. People who define their society as their nation would seek those actions that are best for their nation (war, etc) whereas those who define society as their religion/gang/company will seek those actions that better those societies. It's my opinion that in today's world we are all so deeply interconnected in resource exchange and social interaction that the best society to choose is the whole of human society. I'm still considering whether the whole of the ecosystem we exist within should be included as well since we get into some weird issues such as eating our fellow social members. :-)

4) In a way, a lot of people already do. Yes, we tend to use heuristics to define morality (thou shalt/shalt not do this, etc) but these 'rule of thumb' methods of deciding what's good and bad for self and society tend to fit with the cultural ideal of what that society thinks is best for self and society. The bigger challenge is getting people to leave behind heuristic methods of defining morality and instead develop generalized rulesets that converge upon those heuristics, and convincing people to broaden their definition of what their society is.

My example has nothing to do with ERV. :-) I don't presume to know whether your recording of her was moral or not because I don't know everything about it. I don't know if your mic was hidden or obvious, I don't know if she was talking to just you or a group. I quite simply do not possess enough info to judge. I will say that if she were making her statements publicly instead of privately (such as a private discussion at a cocktail party) then I see no issues with your actions. My example was nothing more than a tool for me to more deeply understand the particular facet of your morals dealing with consent so that I can challenge my own. Since you don't want to discuss that one, let's do another:

Two friends are sitting around eating snacks. Friend A offers B some Doritoes. B refuses, so A forces him to eat the Dorito by shoving it in his mouth. Is A being immoral? Howcome?

Not as emotion-evoking as the last, but still the same core: Someone didn't consent to an otherwise perfectly moral act.

Rhology

You said that you would "like" or prefer to be advised you were being taped depending on what it was being used for. That is why what you "like" (or prefer)is relevant.

The only way you are going to know what it is going to be used for is to be given the opportunity to ask what it is being used for. The only way you are going to get the opportunity to ask that question is to be advised that you are being recorded.

So, given that, would you still have no objection to your conversation being recorded without being so advised.

ragarth,

Again I note your extreme sensitivity to insults from me and unreasonable overlooking of your compatriots around here.

Now, when atheists start talking about metaethics, I ask a lot of "Why?"s, so you'll have to bear with.

1) so morals should act to improve these qualities.

Why?

2) the word 'best' does not actually fit very well with what I was saying and is therefore a poor choice of words on my part.

OK, fair enough. :-)

what helps one individual will not universally help everyone

But this is the very question at hand - the definition of "help", so this begs that question. Please watch out for that.

3) We all define our societies

And thus there isn't an objective, overarching prescriptive morality. If atheism is true. (Fortunately, it's not.)

People who define their society as their nation would seek those actions that are best for their nation

1) You said "best" again.
2) Why SHOULD they?

It's my opinion that in today's world we are all so deeply interconnected in resource exchange and social interaction that the best society to choose is the whole of human society.

Now, what if it were my opinion that in today's world we are all so deeply interconnected in resource exchange and social interaction that the best society to choose is ME? What is morally wrong with that? Am I wrong? How can you know?

I don't presume to know whether your recording of her was moral or not because I don't know everything about it.

I thank you for the consideration that only Moishe so far has offered here.

don't know if your mic was hidden or obvious,

Hidden.

I will say that if she were making her statements publicly instead of privately (such as a private discussion at a cocktail party) then I see no issues with your actions.

They were public, in a public place, no less than 5 ppl present.

Friend A offers B some Doritoes. B refuses, so A forces him to eat the Dorito by shoving it in his mouth. Is A being immoral? Howcome?

If atheism is true, there is no way to answer that question other than "I like it" or "I don't like it", much like one would esteem (or not) the taste of broccoli.
On Christianity, yes, he would be immoral b/c he did not ask consent and inflicted pain.

Someone didn't consent to an otherwise perfectly moral act.

1) She didn't protest either. She didn't have opportunity.
2) My motives were what I've stated them to be, and nothing else.
3) I broke no law.
4) I have not injured her.

You have a ways to go, but first and foremost you need to ground your moral theory better. Problem is, I suspect you're an atheist, so you have quite a hill to climb.

Peace,
Rhology

What I want to hear:

Dear ERV--
It would have been really fucking funny if you had said something damning in our discussion, but really I was just recording our discussion for my own personal use. In retrospect it was unnecessarily sneaky of me, and I didnt mean to creep you out by posting our discussion online, but I didnt really mean anything by it.

My bad, I hope this doesnt negatively impact conversations we have in the future.
Thats it. Thats all I want to hear.

@78 ragarth
I'm not sure your analogy maps well to this situation. In your analogy Party B has already refused something, then Party A inflicts that something on to party B. This would be an apt analogy if ERV had refused to be recorded but Rho did anyway.

Maybe a closer analogy, regarding consent, to this situation would be.

If I asked my sister for $1 I know she would give it to me. Instead of asking for a dollar I could also just take it from her wallet. The outcome is the same in either situation but one is moral while the other is not. The only difference between the two is that of consent.

Incidentally, I don't think you refining your first analogy was necessary. It was not about Rho and ERV making sweet sweet love down by the fire (Abbie, you're welcome for that image ;) It was about a hypothetical married couple and only regarded the place of consent in morality. Everyone who read your comment understood that, including Rho.

He was just being intentionally obtuse. Which, by the way, is a type of lying.

Dear ERV--
It would have been really funny if you had said something damning in our discussion. In fact, you did, in losing the argument. Really I was just recording our discussion for my own personal use. In retrospect it was unnecessarily sneaky of me, and I didn't mean to creep you out by posting our discussion online, but I didn't really mean anything by it other than the stated reasons that your posse has wrung out by means of mockery and self-righteous whining.

I hope that's close enough for you. If not, I'd welcome an argument as to why it was wrong of me to do this, which you've not yet even attempted.
And I hope this doesn't negatively impact conversations we have in the future.

Peace,
Rhology

"Yes, I know you would in an abstract blog comment, but you don't live like that. You live like there actually are rights and wrongs..."

And how I personally live has nothing to do with my argument, which as usual you completely avoided dealing with.

which as usual you completely avoided dealing with.

Which is of course neither right nor wrong of me to have done. So why complain about it?

@Rhology #80

Alas I have no reason to debate them and so paid them no heed after a little bit. I guess you could say I 'tune out' arguments coming from my 'side' because they're kind of pointless to me. Talking with other atheists is akin to mental masturbation for me. :-)

1)If morals have historically acted to improve the quality of an individual, and I have no vested interest in changing the historical objective of morality, then it serves to maintain that historical objective. Since the key term in that previous phrase was 'quality' then we should define those qualities that are valid. I threw out a few quick examples but it was by no means meant to be exhaustive. I think we can all agree, however, that health and happiness are valid pursuits in western culture and tend to promote the quality of an individual and society. Creativity is a bit more difficult, this is a quality that enhances the fitness of a society and individual to deal with problems as well as providing the society with the capacity to enhance other qualities in the future.

2)"But this is the very question at hand - the definition of "help", so this begs that question. Please watch out for that." Clarify please, I don't understand the context of this statement.

3)I'm not going to debate the truth or nontruth of atheism or theism since that is a completely different conversation. :-) However, the variation in what is good for one but not another culture is why heuristic morality can fail when applied to wildly different cultures. Generalized rule-sets are better at describing things than a heuristic model of morality, therefore the 'holy grail' of morality is a generalised rule-set, in my opinion. This is why I'm constantly challenging myself- parts of our discussion here will go in shaping my morals when it comes to things like drug-use even though we're not discussing drug-use.

4) It's human nature. We are a tribal species, we rely upon each other to improve the value of the self. An aboriginal tribe working together can both keep each other alive and maintain a higher quality of life through distributed labor and knowledge better than a single individual can do on their own. For this reason we work to better society in an attempt to better ourselves, when this social paradigm breaks down we no longer relate ourselves as belonging to that society, and work against it (such as riots). (note the different use of the word 'better' than the initial. This is the english language, many words are complex and usable in different ways. The context here is different from my initial use of it.)

5)Then your morality becomes not one of both self and society but one entirely of self. It's my opinion that the postulate does not lead to conclusion, but ignoring that, the answer depends on how you act upon your new set of priorities. If you choose to divide from society, then you are cutting yourself off from the advantages of society and therefore reducing your capacity for health, longevity, and happiness. You won't have another individual to help you if you're mauled by a bear, you won't have access to bullets or medical aid- those are all aspects of our society. If on the other hand you mean to use society to better only yourself, then this is a more viable option. The problem arises when everyone starts exhibiting a selfish behavior of this type, then the social structure you're leaching off of breaks down due to insufficient supply of resources and assistance to meet demand. This is why I believe in a balance of society and self, since both require the other to maintain optimum happiness, health, etc.

6)If atheism is true, there is no way to answer that question other than "I like it" or "I don't like it", much like one would esteem (or not) the taste of broccoli.
On Christianity, yes, he would be immoral b/c he did not ask consent and inflicted pain.

Your comparing apples and oranges; your statement here is senseless. Atheism is as comparable to Christianity as Theism is comparable cows. Atheism is a super-set, theism is a super-set. Humanism is a subset and Christianity is a subset, therefore you would need to say "If Humanism is true, there is no way to answer that question other than "I like it" or "I don't like it"..." Which, if you know anything about humanism is patently false. (ie, Atheism makes as much a moral claim as Theism, which is none. Only subsets of atheism and theism such as Christianity and humanism make moral claims.)

"Which is of course neither right nor wrong of me to have done. So why complain about it?"

You are correct that it is neither right nor wrong, but it does illustrate an inability to address the content of my argument. You wouldn't like that, would you? ;)

That'll need to be my closing statement. I go to work soon and won't have time to respond to another post. Be well.

DAM10N, and I guess ragarth who ignores other atheists because he knows everything they do.....? *High Five*

The case at hand is pretty sketchy whether you like Deontological or Consequentialist ethics.

1p recording in such a context creates paranoia that chills the expression of ideas. Although ideas can be super yucky in application, like Bratz dolls or dirty bombs, people that advance them have good intentions ( Bratz=theyâre fun and sassy! Dirty bombs=Allah Akbar!). People also have a right to the fruits of their mental or physical labor âcause it makes âem happy whereas slavery makes people sad. An expectation of privacy in certain contexts lets us bounce the idea for our Bratz doll or dirty bomb off of people we trust to: 1. not rip off our labor 2. transmit our cogitation to those that would 3. Or merely out us as douche bags for generalizing.

This is a general mutual social benefit/compact that works in third party consequences and in the intent test so it is neither utile nor well intentioned to thwart it by playing with your Wild Planet Ultimate Spy Watchâ¢.

Now, the post modernists and descriptive ethicist have a ton of existentialism in their constructs that will put it the in the same category as a rape.

Since, except for Roland Barthes and maybe Derrida, they are kinda silly, letâs leave them out of this.

For those playing ball Rho Style (this will encompass descriptive ethics....kinda maybe) .

I donât think he gets Ephesians because both Ephesians and Corinthians want him to avoid Ervâs darkness and blot it out with his own shininess. He is supposed to stick his fingers in his ears and go "lalalalalalalalGOD!" Not get her to talk louder into the pretty flower for the folks at home.

Looks like Rhoâs problems are in Proverbs 18:8 and in a lot of other places.

In the bible the word variant that occurs about a half dozen times is רָ×Ö´××.

It is a complex little word that is derived from a primitive root which meant âgo aboutâ or âride aroundâ that morphed into tale bearer, gossip etc. some translations use slanderer to encompass the negative connotation but that also gets the meaning wrong. The corollary in modern Hebrew slang is shtinker=rat fink.

So what we see in the application of âDuh lawz fresh fum godz haidâ is that he abhors those who do not keep confidences or, to embrace the poetry inherent in the King James Version âSnitches get Stitches!".

ragarth,

1) Begging the question on "improve". No, if atheism is true we can not all agree that health and happiness are valid pursuits. You need to prove your argument, not assume it. That's what I meant in 2).

4) Here you run afoul of Hume's Guillotine. And you beg the question with "higher" and "better". You need to argue for those with objective backing, not assume them. You may safely presume that I will always for the sake of argument assume the position of the opposite for your moral assumptions, since we're talking about morality ON ATHEISM.

5) I'm glad that's your opinion. Please substantiate it with an argument and facts. If you can't, admit that on atheism there is no objective morality and thus no reason to make moral statements.
So what if no one helps me? Doesn't that improve the gene pool, since I was too weak to make it?
Don't appeal to "we're better than that" like Dick Dawk does. Explain how you know what better is.

6) I'm talking about your position and my position. I note your fast avoidance of the question.

Nice talking to you. I'm sorry you felt the need to assume so much.

@87 Tyler,

So what? give me an argument why that would be bad.

@89 Prometheus,
You're one of my favorites. I hope you enjoyed typing all of that weirdness.

"@89 Prometheus,
You're one of my favorites. I hope you enjoyed typing all of that weirdness."

No no no, Don't address me directly. Use your light on my fruitless deeds of darkness lest ye be corrupted...testing one two is my lapel on?

Oh well, squeezed all the fun out of this one and Erv's traffic is through the roof.

She's following it up with a slap fight between causation and the "This I know because my syndrome tells me so" gang.

Hope I've got popcorn at the house.

"So what? give me an argument why that would be bad."

Come on, Rho. You know as well as I do that argument on the internets is almost always driven by mutual egotism. People argue to prove that their e-penises are large. Are you admitting that you have a small e-penis?

Yeah, but Tyler, maybe he's just not that turned on by you. I recall in the past he complained about not having enough interaction with Abbie.

Who could NOT be turned on by me??? I'm so dead sexy.

Rho-- Thank you. You shouldve just asked, I would have said okay.

Prometheus-- *HIGH-FIVE* Laughin all the way to the bank mother fucker! I dont think the CFSers are going to bite, though. Apparently, the WPI has spammed their press release on every blog discussing this... but mine... Its kinda like how the HIV Deniers never really hang around here, for some reason... some strange reason...

If it's any consolation, I saw oregano spouting forth on In The Pipeline as well.

The only point which I am annoyed about, is that you all might note, I never talk about my research on my blag

Another concern, though I'm not necessarily saying that Rho would do it, is when Person A tapes a convo with Person B without Person B knowing it, and then makes it public months later, there is the concern that Person A could edit the recording here and there to make it sound like Person B was confused by a question or laughed inappropriately, for example, to make Person B look bad to Person A's target audience. Not everyone can remember the precise details of verbal conversations months earlier and often can at best state "I don't remember the conversation being like that" without being 100% certain.

While I agree that what Rho did was not illegal nor immoral, given that he and ERV are acquainted with one another, it would have been an act of common courtesy to inform her that she was being taped and if she was okay with it.

Since Rho has admitted he feels no need to inform another party they are being recorded, would he (a) truthfully answer if the other person asks him if he intends to record the convo, and (b) be willing to turn the mic off if the person states that he or she is not comfortable with being recorded? If he feels that his Ephesians escape clause absolves him of basic common courtesy because he believes that the person he is recording is a godless evilutionist to whom such courtesies need not apply, it would be informative to know if he interprets that Biblical passage in such a way as to answer no to (a) when the answer is in fact yes.

Personally, though without having had the pleasure of meeting him myself, I give him the benefit of the doubt that he would answer truthfully, but it would be informative to have it here for the record as there is a good chance some among you here will interact with him in public in the future. Of course, if this has already been addressed above and I overlooked it, I apologize for that.

(a) truthfully answer if the other person asks him if he intends to record the convo, and (b) be willing to turn the mic off if the person states that he or she is not comfortable with being recorded?

Yes to both, b/c I'm a nice guy.

Oh, and here's the recording of the Monday night Meyer lecture, directly preceding the discussion ERV and I had. Upon request from ERV.

Thank you, Rho!

That was very nice of you :)

You're welcome.
Please excuse the occasional shoe-squeaking... there were IIRC ppl moving up and down the aisle sometimes and I had to shift my feet. And I'm fidgety by nature.