A certain point that comes up from time to time, in one or another form:


• "Even more amazing than the stupidity here is how outraged people are over this when much more horrible things go on all the time." (Giambattista (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2609234&postcount=18), August 25, 2010)

• "I wonder why Michael Vick is more important to PETA than this episode." (§outh§tar (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1510202&postcount=90), August 17, 2007)

• "The inhumane treatment of animals, esp. dogs and cats, in our cities and towns is almost worse than horrible ...and is damned sure worse than those fifty dogs of Michael Vick's." (Baron Max (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1518331&postcount=61), August 25, 2007)

It is a respectable point, but one without any real anchor. That is, certainly it might just be a cat in a bin, and what does that compare to fifty dogs facing euthanization after experiencing vicious cruelty at the hands of a human, or a little boy killed because a cop was afraid of a snake, or forty-seven dead civilians as a cost of war?

But the other edge of that rhetorical sword is a question of threshold: When is it acceptable to care?

People have passions, and many will take up a cause as a result of those passions. For some, the cause is animal neglect and abuse; for others, child abuse; still others might focus on war. Some, of course, will protest sound ordinances that might restrict where they can ride their motorcycle. The range of causes is almost as diverse as the people who undertake them.

But how do we measure those causes? Who pronounces them worthy? Certainly, a little boy killed by a cop shooting at a snake in a tree is of lesser magnitude—dispassionately speaking—than two hundred civilians destroyed in pursuit of one alleged terrorist. Certainly a cat thrown in a rubbish bin is of lesser magnitude than a child raped by her father.

Certes, there are others who disdain or despise certain causes for reasons of politic or magnitude, but a certain question persists: At what point are people allowed to care?

It seems that, often, many causes are ridiculed or diminished by others because it isn't important enough compared to other things going on in the world.

Should we fret about the cruelty of battery farming? Or should we ignore those problems—barring the occasional E. coli or Salmonella outbreak, as long as wars persist in the world, or children suffer grotesque abuse? Should we shrug off the story of how a guy once put a cat in a vise to hold it while he fetched his gun and shot the thing for pissing on his toolbox? After all, somewhere in town a wife is being beaten, and somewhere in the world a child is starving to death.

What is the threshold? By what standard do we give people permission to give a damn?

When is it acceptable to care??

Perhaps a better question is .. What does it mean to care?

Is it enough to just say or type "I care about xyz....."? Is saying it really caring?

If "caring" means just saying the words, then I suspect that I'm one of few people in the world that don't care! Almost everyone on Earth will claim to "care" about something or someone or etc., usually about almost every issue in the world.

But, ya' know, if all of those people really cared as they claim, would there be any problems on Earth? How could there be problems if all of those gazillions of people care?

Oh, heavens, .....you don't suppose ....oh, no, don't tell me, ..........when people say that they care, ....oh, no, .......they're lying?!?! Oh, say it ain't so!

No, I don't really care.

Baron Max

PS - and don't bother saying you miss me or any of that happy horseshit, because I might not be back again for another .......how long have I been gone??

Perhaps a better question is .. What does it mean to care?

'Tis a fair question, indeed.


PS - and don't bother saying you miss me or any of that happy horseshit, because I might not be back again for another .......how long have I been gone??

Suits me just fine. I haven't been counting the days.

What is the threshold? By what standard do we give people permission to give a damn?

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE UNITED NATIONS:

The United Nations "Council on Caring and Kindness", COCK for short, is the new UN council responsible for what and whom the world's people care about on a daily basis. This is necessary to ensure that all of the world's people think alike, talk alike, act alike and express the same concerns about the same things as everyone else on this miserable planet so that we can all be equally miserable about the same miserable things all the time.

The penalty for not caring exactly the same as everyone else shall be fifty (50) lashes with the cock o' nine tails for the first offense; two hundred (200) lashes for the second offense; and death by stoning for the third and final offense. As you can see, it is important for your continued good health to care exactly the same as your fellows.

It is also a COCK crime to care about something other than what is officially announced by the COCK. Those found caring about, or expressing sympathy for, something or someone not designated by the COCK shall be punished as noted above. Care allowances are limited, so wasting them on unauthorized people or issues is criminal.

Wasting care allowances by caring for, or having sympathy for, those who have been punished will also be punished as noted above. Caring and sympathy is ONLY for those authorized by the COCK.

Within only a few years, it is the COCK's hope that there will be peace and goodwill for all people who are exactly, precisely the same. It is also the COCK's hope that within a few years, those who are not the same will all be stoned to death and thus riding the world of those who care too little or too much or care about those not deemed worthy by the COCK.

TODAY'S PROCLAMATION:

The COCK issued the daily proclamation that all people all over the world should spend their COCK allowance today on expressing sympathy for Hia-Hunieatoni Mubutaumu of Yitumeninai, India. The little 2-year old contracted every known, horrible human disease by ignorantly playing in the open sewers near his hovel. While playing with one of the human turds floating in the sewage, he forgot for only a moment and put his fingers in his mouth. Within seconds, his entire body was filled with horrible diseases and he died after several days in horrible pain and suffering.

So please ignore the reports and rumors about the 42,387 black Africans in Darfur who starved to death yesterday - use your COCK allowance today on the little Indian boy. Use your COCK allowance in accordance with the COCK proclamations. And remember the penalties for not caring properly and in accordance with the proclamations of the COCK.

The COCK police will be taking random blood samples. If you are caring appropriately, the tests will prove it. If the same amount of COCK sympathy is not in your DNA sample as everyone else, you will be arrested, tried, convicted and punished right there on the street or in your office in front of all of your friends. So be sure to express the proper emotion and degree of caring and sympathy as directed by the COCK.

A new COCK proclamation will be issued each and every day for your attention and caring. Peace be unto you, brothers and sisters, and be sure to bow down on your knees and pray ten times per day for ten minutes in accordance with the COCK directives. Use your COCK allowances properly ...the COCK police are ever vigilant for people who are not using their full COCK allowance properly.

Thank you for caring properly,

(signed)
Mubi-Wooduhai-Muggibytia Nobuwata
Chairwoman for the COCK

What is the threshold? By what standard do we give people permission to give a damn?
I think the inverse square law applies. That is, the amount we care about a problem is inversely proportional to the inverse square (or cube or even order of magnitude) of the distance of said problem from ourselves. Thus we care more about the neighbor kid kicking our dog than some guy on the other side of the earth killing his whole family or even an entire village.

Of course the distance need not be solely geographic. For instance, a person who identifies himself largely by his religion might be extremely passionate about injustices commited against others of his religion anywhere on the globe. So the things we care about are a function of how we define ourselves.

I think the inverse square law applies. That is, the amount we care about a problem is inversely proportional to the inverse square (or cube or even order of magnitude) of the distance of said problem from ourselves. Thus we care more about the neighbor kid kicking our dog than some guy on the other side of the earth killing his whole family or even an entire village.

There is something to what you say, and I won't even quibble the shape of the curve.

But where, on that curve, does one's passion about a given issue become justified? That is, there are plenty who are disgusted at those who devote a certain amount of energy to various causes deemed frivolous compared to the rest of reality. A cat in the bin compared to hungry children in Appalachia? Just because I'm a cat person and have no relatives in Appalachia doesn't mean I can't see that the other is more important, in the grand scheme, than the one. But unlike some, I won't condemn a person for worrying about the cat—or a dog or hamster or whatever—just because somewhere in Darfur a child is dying.


If (condition) then (moral justification).

Some object; if the condition does not meet a certain threshold, then moral justification is refused. I'm curious about the threshold—where in what sociomoral spectrum does it occur, and how is that boundary decided?

There is something to what you say, and I won't even quibble the shape of the curve.

But where, on that curve, does one's passion about a given issue become justified? That is, there are plenty who are disgusted at those who devote a certain amount of energy to various causes deemed frivolous compared to the rest of reality. A cat in the bin compared to hungry children in Appalachia? Just because I'm a cat person and have no relatives in Appalachia doesn't mean I can't see that the other is more important, in the grand scheme, than the one. But unlike some, I won't condemn a person for worrying about the cat—or a dog or hamster or whatever—just because somewhere in Darfur a child is dying.


If (condition) then (moral justification).

Some object; if the condition does not meet a certain threshold, then moral justification is refused. I'm curious about the threshold—where in what sociomoral spectrum does it occur, and how is that boundary decided?

All of those words, Tiassa, all of that effort to type it all up, to post all of those words, yet........

You can't even explain what it means to care?

How do you measure "care"? If you and Joe Blow "care" about the kittens, does that mean that you both "care" equally? If you say, yes OR no, then it means that you can measure "caring". So, ...what is it?

How much "caring" is possible for one person? If a person "cares" about some issue, can he/she still go out and have fun on Friday night? How can one "care" about the black children starving in Darfur, yet still go out and have a big steak dinner with baked potato and wine?

I know when I care about something. But ....I don't know about how or when "you" care about something. Afterall, even right here at Sciforums, most have agreed that lying is perfectly acceptable behavior. So ....is Joe lying about caring?

What does it mean to "care"?

Baron Max

... So the things we care about are a function of how we define ourselves.

Define ourselves? What does that mean? How many people do you know who have "defined themselves"?

But back to the topic .......... WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO CARE?

Baron Max

What does it mean to "care"?

A fine question. Since you posed it, and made a claim—


I know when I care about something.

—by all means, start us off on that exploration. How do you know? What are your criteria?

It's always right to care. We shouldn't have to qualify every statement about such an event with 'I know there's much worse shit going on, but...'

Yes, I care about the people dying of AIDS, too. But that's not what this topic is about.

—by all means, start us off on that exploration. How do you know? What are your criteria?

To me, caring is any emotion that elicits action. Whether the feeling is good or bad is irrelevant, it instills a desire to either preserve or change the situation at hand.

That doesn't mean we're capable of fulfilling that desire, and when we can't we tend to have feelings of aggression or depression (generally speaking of course).

So how do I know when I care? It's at any point when I feel something... anything really.

So why do particular issues take precedence over others? That's a hard question to answer... typically it seems whenever a person has a incident in their life that impacts them emotionally and is incapable of providing a solution at the time. When a similar incident presents themselves with promise of resolve, most will take action to see such a solution comes to be.

I think at this point they don't care because the issue effects them directly (chances are it doesn't)...but to avoid the same feeling of helplessness they once experienced, or to prevent others from the same fate.

For instance, I believe curing cancer, aids, starving children and all that are very important problems that need to be addressed. Yet the only things I'm willing to donate any time to involves veterans of war and poverty stricken families, because I've had personal experience with both.

Originally Posted by Baron Max: What does it mean to "care"?


A fine question. Since you posed it, ...

Hmm, you post a long, drawn-out, wordy topic, but ...don't know enough about the topic to even be able to define the main idea of the topic? You haven't changed a bit, have you. :)

However, since you can't even define or explain your own topic.....

Perhaps "caring" is when one allows their emotions to overwhelm their good sense and logical, rational reasoning.

As far as I can tell, "caring" does no good for anything. If something is wrong, then logically one should take action to stop it or to prevent it from happening again. But the emotion of "caring" is probably more harmful than good. If they "care" too much, involving too much emotion, then the "fix" they propose might be more harmful than the original event.

The Islamic radicals "care" so much about their religious beliefs that they're willing to wear suicide vests and kill themselves along with those they disagree with. Is that "caring" for their beliefs? Even if it kills others?

A preacher in Florida "cares" so much about the freedom of religion in the USA, just like those Muslims at ground zero in NYC, that he's going to show them the true ideals of religious freedom in the USA ...he's going to burn a bunch of Korans on 9/11. It's his way of "caring" and supporting the religious freedoms of Muslims in NYC. Nice preacher, huh?

Perhaps "caring" is more harmful than good?

And please don't mistake action with the emotion of "caring" ...they are NOT the same thing.

It's always right to care. ....

Islamic extremists "care" enough about their beliefs to use explosives to kill people they don't like. Is that "right"? I mean, you just said, "It's always right to care." So.......?

Baron Max

However, since you can't even define or explain your own topic.....

Perhaps "caring" is when one allows their emotions to overwhelm their good sense and logical, rational reasoning.

At the most basic level, caring is an electrical condition occurring within the human brain. More applicably, it is a form of accommodation and assimilation of information according to an individual's priority structure.

More to the topic, though, I do wonder about those whose response to a particular sense of outrage is to point to other outrages, especially when it's not so much an occasion of competing causes, but rather the need to ridicule a cause.

No, I can't explain why Sarah McLachlan crusades against animal cruelty instead of joining Mia Farrow in yelling at Steven Spielberg about Darfur. Nor can I prescribe for people the priorities they are allowed. After all, sure, the Darfur situation is an atrocity, but does that mean Myanmar must wait? And where does Tibet occur on the list? Mexican drug wars, Saudi oppression of women, American bungles in Afghanistan ... and that's all a far cry from abused or abandoned children in my own community. Or hungry children in Appalachia.

To the one, I can see how the appalling spectacle Michael Vick created grabbed people's attention. To the other, even I, who counts a cat among my family, am puzzled by the international outcry about the cat in the green bin in England. Which brings us back to Sarah McLachlan, so pardon me if I move on from that.

At what point do some people allow other people to care? Perhaps it seems strange for Bob Barker to remind people every chance he gets to disable a pet's reproductive capability when children are beaten, neglected, abandoned, raped, starved, or otherwise abused in this country. But does that mean he shouldn't do it? Does that mean he shouldn't care? If nobody pays attention to Condition A because Condition B is more important, what happens next? Do we really need to be armpit-deep in yowling, feral cats, or chased down the street by a pack of wild Labrador retrievers before we decide to do something about the problem? Would an "urban hunt" be the solution? A thousand sportsment with trophies of Yorkshire terriers and Tabbie Persians on their walls?

Should Americans stop whining about Barack Obama because at least he's not Mamoud Ahmadinejad? Should we stop fretting about healthcare, salaries, and a troublesome unemployment rate because, hey, at least we ain't in Zimbabwe?

Just how does this idea that people are somehow wrong to care about something because there are worse things going on in the world actually work?

...I do wonder about those whose response to a particular sense of outrage is to point to other outrages, especially when it's not so much an occasion of competing causes, but rather the need to ridicule a cause.

Pointing out the hypocrisy? I know that's usually what I'm trying to do when I do that. Not to ridicule, but to point out another perspective ...and point out their hypocrisy.

Someone makes a post about a girl throwing puppies into a raging river. The expressed "outrage" seems so hypocritical. If the cruel death of a few little puppies is so horrible for them, why aren't they outraged every single day of the year at the thousands, perhaps millions, of puppies/dogs that are killed by city governments all over the world? See? Or is it being manipulated by the news media?

And with regard to the above comments; I'm still wondering what "caring" means. For example, if "caring" is in limited supply in the human body/mind, then perhaps it's not hypocrisy at all, but a special mechanism in the mind that sets priorities for "caring". Don't want to use up all of that limited supply of "caring", do we? Like the Star Trek episode "The Empath", we don't want to "care" so much that we kill ourselves with it. "Here Lies Joe Blow; Died From Caring Too Much."

But then, I'm not so sure that "caring" is not the direct result of being manipulated by outside sources such as the news media or by posts on Sciforurms or YouTube or such as that. If the media had not posted about the girl throwing the little puppies in the river, would those "caring" people have still "cared" about all the little puppies in the world? If so, how do they respond to that "caring"?


... At what point do some people allow other people to care?

See? You keep using that term "care", yet you can't explain it or define it or measure it. Tiassa, I don't like you and never did, but in this instance, I'm not trying to hassle you or ridicule you, I'm trying to point out the basic problems in your posts/ideas/thoughts. "Caring" must be more than just posting ones outrage on some silly Internet site like Sciforums. Surely "caring" means more than that.

So see why I keep asking? What does "caring" mean? Or is it really just posting or saying that you "care" ...and that's it? And if people claim that they "care", how can you know they aren't lying? As we've seen right here at Sciforums, most members agree that it's okay to lie. So....?

"...allow other people to care?" Allow them? How can you stop them from "caring"? And how can you stop them from being hypocritical in their "cariing"? See? If you don't even know what "caring" is, how can you use surgery to cut it out or your permission to stop it? What does it mean to "care", Tiassa. Until you can answer that question, none of your posts about it mean anything.


... Just how does this idea that people are somehow wrong to care about something because there are worse things going on in the world actually work?

They aren't wrong, but they ARE often hypocritical. Obsessing over the horrid plight of one little puppy's death is, at best, idiotic when compared to the horrid deaths of the millions of other puppies and dogs in the world. And if they don't know about the other little puppies in the world, then that makes them even worse than idiotic! Or else they were just manipulated by the media.

How can one be so upset by the one little puppies death while completely ignoring the thousands of others? See? Hypocrisy! And then, when it's pointed out to them, Tiassa makes a big issue out of it and posts a thread about "carring" when he can't even define "caring" and seems to consistently ignore the whole question.

If someone "cares", then they should "care" the whole way, about the whole issue. If they don't "care" about it all, then they're simply being what most people are .....freakin' hippo-fuckin'-critters, and it should be pointed out so that all can see it clearly.

So, ...what does it mean to "care", Tiassa? And is there a limited supply of "caring" in the human mind?

If "caring" is limited, then people should be careful about "caring", prioritize "caring", lest they run out of "caring". You can't "care" about one stranger on the other side of the world without "caring" for ALL of the strangers ....without being a hippo-critter.

Hey, Tiassa, what does it mean to "care"? How can we even talk about it when we don't even know what the hell it is or how to measure it? What does it mean to "care"?

Baron Max

Just how does this idea that people are somehow wrong to care about something because there are worse things going on in the world actually work?

"Idea?" Huh?

The way it works is that you trot it out and club people over the head with it whenever they are complaining about anything you don't want them to complain about. That's it.

I'd sort of expected that most people understood that by age 10, somewhere around the 10,000th time their parents tried to cajole them into eating yucky vegetables by invoking starving children in <destitute-third-world-country>.

The way it works is that you trot it out and club people over the head with it whenever they are complaining about anything you don't want them to complain about. That's it.

I'd sort of expected that most people understood that by age 10, somewhere around the 10,000th time their parents tried to cajole them into eating yucky vegetables by invoking starving children in <destitute-third-world-country>.

I would not disagree. But I'm curious as to why some people continue to use this approach, and what they hope to accomplish by it.

Islamic extremists "care" enough about their beliefs to use explosives to kill people they don't like. Is that "right"? I mean, you just said, "It's always right to care." So.......?

Baron MaxThe caring was not a problem, it was the what was done about the caring. At least, many people can care about what terrorists claim to care about without acting the same way about it, even if they feel extremely strongly about it. It's ideas that get lopped onto the feeling or not lopped onto the feeling that are the problem.

... But I'm curious as to why some people continue to use this approach, and what they hope to accomplish by it.

1. To point out the obvious hypocrisy involved in the various statements of "caring".
2. To point out the possible/probable dishonesty and/or insincerity of the person claiming to "care". I.e., can this be the first time that such happenings has ever come to their attention?
3. To point out the obvious and blatant manipulation by the various news media. I.e., puppies are being killed by the thousands every day, yet people claim to care ONLY when the news media reports tells them to "care".
4. To point out that "caring" means more than just expressing ones outrage or horror or disgust on some Internet message board. Especially if it's in response to some news media report (reacting to the manipulation and continuing that same manipulation!).

Baron Max

At the most basic level, caring is an electrical condition occurring within the human brain. More applicably, it is a form of accommodation and assimilation of information according to an individual's priority structure.

More to the topic, though, I do wonder about those whose response to a particular sense of outrage is to point to other outrages, especially when it's not so much an occasion of competing causes, but rather the need to ridicule a cause.

No, I can't explain why Sarah McLachlan crusades against animal cruelty instead of joining Mia Farrow in yelling at Steven Spielberg about Darfur. Nor can I prescribe for people the priorities they are allowed. After all, sure, the Darfur situation is an atrocity, but does that mean Myanmar must wait? And where does Tibet occur on the list? Mexican drug wars, Saudi oppression of women, American bungles in Afghanistan ... and that's all a far cry from abused or abandoned children in my own community. Or hungry children in Appalachia.

To the one, I can see how the appalling spectacle Michael Vick created grabbed people's attention. To the other, even I, who counts a cat among my family, am puzzled by the international outcry about the cat in the green bin in England. Which brings us back to Sarah McLachlan, so pardon me if I move on from that.

At what point do some people allow other people to care? Perhaps it seems strange for Bob Barker to remind people every chance he gets to disable a pet's reproductive capability when children are beaten, neglected, abandoned, raped, starved, or otherwise abused in this country. But does that mean he shouldn't do it? Does that mean he shouldn't care? If nobody pays attention to Condition A because Condition B is more important, what happens next? Do we really need to be armpit-deep in yowling, feral cats, or chased down the street by a pack of wild Labrador retrievers before we decide to do something about the problem? Would an "urban hunt" be the solution? A thousand sportsment with trophies of Yorkshire terriers and Tabbie Persians on their walls?

Should Americans stop whining about Barack Obama because at least he's not Mamoud Ahmadinejad? Should we stop fretting about healthcare, salaries, and a troublesome unemployment rate because, hey, at least we ain't in Zimbabwe?

Just how does this idea that people are somehow wrong to care about something because there are worse things going on in the world actually work?

I think it's a cop out. You don't feel like doing something about a problem, or would rather not hear about it? Just point out that there's much worse shit going down somewhere across the world.

Many people can and do empathize with others that are having problems but are not able to help others because they are not there to do so in many instances.

Some send whatever they can to help out if possible.

There are those who are "desensitized" about what happens to others and never care at all about what happens to them.

Why people do what they do is primarily based upon how they were treated, where they live and how things happened to them during their lives.

Many people can and do empathize with others that are having problems...

How do you know that? And if "many" do empathize, does that mean that "many" don't? How many is "many"?

I daresay that if you asked 1,000 people at random, almost all of them, by far the greater percentage, would say that they "care" for their fellow humans, and they empathize with the plight of others. But do they?

I mean, think about it for a moment; ...if all of the people who CLAIM to care or empathize or express an interest in helping others - if all those people actually DID care, then I doubt that there'd be so much misery, poverty, conflict, war, sickness and hunger in the world. That tells me that people who claim to "care" are simply lying ...simply saying what is expected of them ...simply following the dictates of their childhood indoctrination.

Hell, just think ...if all those people who CLAIM to care actually helped the needy people within, say, a 500 meter radius, then there'd probably be few or no problems in the world. See? People claim to "care", yet there are umpty-eleven needy, destitute, sick, poor people right there in their own neighborhood. What does that tell you about people who CLAIM to "care"?


There are those who are "desensitized" about what happens to others and never care at all about what happens to them.

So those people who don't express care and sympathy for people, for strangers, on the other side of the world are, what, ...defective? Or is it that the childhood indoctrination didn't quite take thoroughly enough? Or perhaps they are more rational, logical, reasoning individuals who see things as they are?


Why people do what they do is primarily based upon how they were treated, where they live and how things happened to them during their lives.

How do you know that? And as noted above, if asked, I think that a vast, a great, a high percentage of people in the world would CLAIM to care.

And once again we come up against the questions: What does it mean to "care"?
How do you measure "caring"?
If people claim to "care", how do you know they aren't just spouting the party line or saying what they've been indoctrinated to say?
Is "caring" unlimited? I.e., if memory serves, over 3 billion people on Earth live in poverty and with daily

hunger all the their lives. Can one person "care" for those 3 billion without running out of "care"?

No one is really going to answer any of those questions or those points, are they? No, I doubt it. But my guess is that people will continue to make statements about "caring" and will continue to think the other people really "care" and that those who don't "care" are defective. And all of that without even the slightest shred of scientific evidence of "caring". And this place makes claims to being scientific and full of logical and reasoning individuals?

Baron Max

Pointing out the hypocrisy? I know that's usually what I'm trying to do when I do that. Not to ridicule, but to point out another perspective ...and point out their hypocrisy.

And what do you accomplish by that?


Someone makes a post about a girl throwing puppies into a raging river. The expressed "outrage" seems so hypocritical. If the cruel death of a few little puppies is so horrible for them, why aren't they outraged every single day of the year at the thousands, perhaps millions, of puppies/dogs that are killed by city governments all over the world? See? Or is it being manipulated by the news media?

And as I told you three years ago (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1518157&postcount=57):


Max, do you really think about every issue every day? No. I'm pretty damn sure you don't, because, technically, it's impossible.

For many people, when an issue is put before them by the news, it's the first time they've thought about it either ever or for a while.

And your response was the same line you're pushing now:


"Maybe they should do more thinking and less posting and talking, huh?

Surely you're not suggesting that people react without thinking, are you, Tiassa? Because that's exactly what it seems you're saying ...or at least excusing actions without thought."


For example, if "caring" is in limited supply in the human body/mind, then perhaps it's not hypocrisy at all, but a special mechanism in the mind that sets priorities for "caring". Don't want to use up all of that limited supply of "caring", do we? Like the Star Trek episode "The Empath", we don't want to "care" so much that we kill ourselves with it. "Here Lies Joe Blow; Died From Caring Too Much."

But then, I'm not so sure that "caring" is not the direct result of being manipulated by outside sources such as the news media or by posts on Sciforurms or YouTube or such as that. If the media had not posted about the girl throwing the little puppies in the river, would those "caring" people have still "cared" about all the little puppies in the world? If so, how do they respond to that "caring"?

Your cynicism is ridiculous.

Theoretically, it actually is possible to die from caring too much. One can work themselves up to a heart attack, for instance. Or go out and get themselves killed by falling off a building trying to stop a suicide, or smashing their car into a tree because they've been driving too long or being too distracted.

But people are only as manipulated by outside sources as they are by the rain. I see this all the time living where I do. It rains, people use umbrellas. I hate umbrellas. They're a pain in the ass to carry and keep track of, and they provide minimal protection at best against the rain. Yet millions of people around the world use them.


You keep using that term "care", yet you can't explain it or define it or measure it. Tiassa, I don't like you and never did, but in this instance, I'm not trying to hassle you or ridicule you, I'm trying to point out the basic problems in your posts/ideas/thoughts.

That you don't like my explanation of caring doesn't mean it isn't there. This is a common sleight people seem to think works: If you don't like the answer, ignore it and repeat the question.


"Caring" must be more than just posting ones outrage on some silly Internet site like Sciforums. Surely "caring" means more than that.

Sure. Sarah McLachlan makes weepy television commercials, and probably donates some money. Mia Farrow yells at Steven Spielberg, and probably donates some money. Sean Penn moves to Haiti; Wyclef Jean accuses him of being a cokehead. People show their compassion in many ways, some rhetorical and some demonstrative.

Some people care about an issue enough to write about it on the internet; we don't know what else they do. Others care enough about the fact that people care to complain about it on the internet. Life goes on.


So see why I keep asking?

Sure. Seems like neurotic cynicism.


What does "caring" mean? Or is it really just posting or saying that you "care" ...and that's it?

Diverse people, diverse outcomes.


And if people claim that they "care", how can you know they aren't lying?

We don't. Certainly, there are some cues. Some might claim to care about certain outcomes, and work to prevent those outcomes by advocating the conditions that bring them about. In such cases—and the American evangelical Christian right wing is often an obvious example—it isn't so much that they don't care, but that a neurotic complex hides from them the actual object of their caring because their pride would buckle if they actually looked it in the eye.


Allow them? How can you stop them from "caring"?

That reminds me of a stripper I once dated. She, too, couldn't see beyond such questions. Sure, you might not be able to stop them, but why object? Why condemn? Why do you care enough to make what you acknowledge is a futile gesture of opposition?

You care enough to condemn people for caring. But why? To use your example:


They aren't wrong, but they ARE often hypocritical. Obsessing over the horrid plight of one little puppy's death is, at best, idiotic when compared to the horrid deaths of the millions of other puppies and dogs in the world. And if they don't know about the other little puppies in the world, then that makes them even worse than idiotic! Or else they were just manipulated by the media.

Sure, people are often hypocritical, but we can set that aside for the moment. Don't worry, we'll come back to it.

The millions of other animals suffering horrid deaths in the world are what they are. There are diverse causes leading to such outcomes. In truth, people can't wrap their heads around the whole thing any more than they can the fact of starving children around the world. But Bob Barker reminds to spay and neuter, which cuts the number of animals society feels the need to put down. Sarah McLachlan campaigns against animal abuse, which cuts the number of animals that society feels the need to put down. No one person can contain and manipulate all the information needed to prevent tragic outcomes.

But when it comes to a Michael Vick, or a girl throwing puppies in the river, or even some batty lady cramming a cat in a bin, such incidents put a face to a problem. And it's not a problem with the animals. It's a human problem. And human problems are much more affecting to most people than animal problems. Colloquially, people see these humans as psychopathic, though that's generally an inaccurate formal diagnosis. But there is, in these incidents, an observable measure of human cruelty, and that is largely what people are responding to.

And there is a "no-kill movement" working to change animal shelters around the United States; it's having its effect in King County, Washington (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004276339_euthanasia12m.html), where officials are working to find ways to drastically reduce the number of animals euthanized by shelters. In the end, though, the vast majority of these animal deaths is the product of human problems. Still, though, it's a different issue compared to Michael Vick, or the Bosnian teenager, or the British lady.


If "caring" is limited, then people should be careful about "caring", prioritize "caring", lest they run out of "caring".

People do prioritize, Max. Indeed, that seems part of what you're complaining about.


You can't "care" about one stranger on the other side of the world without "caring" for ALL of the strangers ....without being a hippo-critter.

It's not an invalid proposition, but it also addresses a complex psychological arrangement. People's priorities are constructed according to diverse components and methods. Certes, there is hypocrisy about many people's outlooks. I would even accept that some degree of hypocrisy is a universal human trait. But your assessment of hypocrisy is not definitive; in the end, it comes down to how one arranges their priorities that determines if and how much one is hypocritical. And I don't blame you for not proposing a solution to that.


Hey, Tiassa, what does it mean to "care"? How can we even talk about it when we don't even know what the hell it is or how to measure it? What does it mean to "care"?

For the time being, I stand by my earlier explanation.


1. To point out the obvious hypocrisy involved in the various statements of "caring".

Apply your principle to your own crusade against hypocrisy.


2. To point out the possible/probable dishonesty and/or insincerity of the person claiming to "care". I.e., can this be the first time that such happenings has ever come to their attention?

Rather, to point out one's presumption of dishonesty or insincerity. Whether or not a given occasion is the first time seems irrelevant.


3. To point out the obvious and blatant manipulation by the various news media. I.e., puppies are being killed by the thousands every day, yet people claim to care ONLY when the news media reports tells them to "care".

Depending on the circumstances, you might be referring to different issues. Or, perhaps, it is simply a matter of how acutely a given circumstance expresses the issue.


4. To point out that "caring" means more than just expressing ones outrage or horror or disgust on some Internet message board. Especially if it's in response to some news media report (reacting to the manipulation and continuing that same manipulation!).

In some cases, online expression is the first, obvious, or even only outlet people perceive. To the other, though, can you really say, without doubt, that this is the only thing any one person is doing? And when it comes to a Michael Vick, or Bosnian teenager, or British lady, what, really, do you expect people at large to do? Shall we all fly to Europe to stage interventions? Maybe we can get a TV show on A&E.

So, you have a complaint. What solution do you suggest?
____________________

Notes:

Ervin, Keith. "Euthanasia rate at animal shelters falls to all-time low". The Seattle Times. March 12, 2008. SeattleTimes.NWSource.com. September 15, 2010. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004276339_euthanasia12m.html

Ah, Tiassa, you just had to get into making snide personal comments and personal attacks, huh? You just can't have a discussion with anyone without doing that, can you. Other people get banned for it, but... Oh, wait, you're a moderator, you can get away with breaking the rules. No hypocrisy around this place, nosireebob!


People do prioritize, Max. Indeed, that seems part of what you're complaining about.

Well, there you go, Tiassa, you've answered the very issue that you raised in the OP. Which makes me wonder why you posted this thread in the first place.

And, yes, it is and was mostly what I'm complaining about - both in this thread as well as the threads that the OP mentions. And, Tiassa, if you acknowledge and accept the prioritizing, then you surely shouldn't complain if others prioritize a little differently than you do. Oh, sure, you CAN complain, but then doing so just makes it perfectly obvious that you're a freakin' hippo-critter. They are doing the same thing as you, just a little differently, that's all. Or, wait, perhaps you're saying "I'm right, and if you don't agree with me, then you're wrong!" No, surely you couldn't be saying/implying THAT. (Seems to me there was a thread about that issue, but you closed it after only a couple of hours or so!?)

But see, that's at the heart of the OP itself ...prioritizing empathy. And, of course, the good ol' "I'm right, you're wrong!" In the OP you asked how people could react differently about an issue, yet here, in this post, you answer that very question!

Come to think of it, the basis for almost all of the posts at this is "I'm right, you're wrong!" ...LOL!


So, you have a complaint. What solution do you suggest?

Whenever anyone claims that they care about something outside of their immediate circle of influence and association, we call them a dirty, rotten, stinkin', lousy, malicious liar and then challenge them to a duel with swords or pistols or clubs with nails embedded in them.

Baron Max

What about those clubby-bladed things on Star Trek? Don't mean to blow my own horn here, but I'm pretty sure I'd be an Admin now if I could claw my way up through the ranks with one of those; I'm good with the torn-shirt fighting and dirty tricks.

Ah, Tiassa, you just had to get into making snide personal comments and personal attacks, huh? You just can't have a discussion with anyone without doing that, can you. Other people get banned for it, but... Oh, wait, you're a moderator, you can get away with breaking the rules. No hypocrisy around this place, nosireebob!

I would ask what you're on about, Max, but that would be futile. Instead, my advice is to take it up with the administration.


Well, there you go, Tiassa, you've answered the very issue that you raised in the OP. Which makes me wonder why you posted this thread in the first place.

And, yes, it is and was mostly what I'm complaining about - both in this thread as well as the threads that the OP mentions. And, Tiassa, if you acknowledge and accept the prioritizing, then you surely shouldn't complain if others prioritize a little differently than you do. Oh, sure, you CAN complain, but then doing so just makes it perfectly obvious that you're a freakin' hippo-critter. They are doing the same thing as you, just a little differently, that's all. Or, wait, perhaps you're saying "I'm right, and if you don't agree with me, then you're wrong!" No, surely you couldn't be saying/implying THAT. (Seems to me there was a thread about that issue, but you closed it after only a couple of hours or so!?)

Perhaps you could clarify your argument a little?

Why complain that other people's priorities are different from yours? Does the fact of their priorities automatically make them hypocrites?


But see, that's at the heart of the OP itself...prioritizing empathy. And, of course, the good ol' "I'm right, you're wrong!" In the OP you asked how people could react differently about an issue, yet here, in this post, you answer that very question!

An interesting reading. Perhaps you might explain what you're talking about?


Whenever anyone claims that they care about something outside of their immediate circle of influence and association, we call them a dirty, rotten, stinkin', lousy, malicious liar and then challenge them to a duel with swords or pistols or clubs with nails embedded in them.

That's useful.

Perhaps you could clarify your argument a little?

Sorry, Tiassa, you ain't worth the effort. But if you really want to know, read my other posts.

Baron Max

I would argue that caring what the news or the tabloids care about is not really 'caring' - it's just responding to an emotional prompting. Moral masturbation. Nothing provides moralistic stimulation like the media (just look at what Paris and Lindsey got up to this time).

We like things that rile us up emotionally and we respond because we like to act like good people. The public arena lends itself an aura of extra importance, and everything in the spotlight seems to carry greater significance.

The rest of the time, "morality" is just a vestigial organ excreting good intentions.

Surely, the unimpressive boring everyday things, like how I treat my neighbour's cat or its disagreeable owner, isn't that important? (Excuse me while I just put this cat into that bin there.)

Here in South Africa there's a very popular idea that "it's not wrong unless you get caught" - and even then, getting caught is the real crime.

Humans have an incredible corporate capacity for good and evil. We all recognise that at some level. But the global village stretches beyond our reach, so we rely on broadcasting our indignity to make up the distance. Public outcries soothe individual impotence. Social media helps us justify this moral megalomania: "Anonymous is not pleased", so we can feel pleased about our global indignity and global outrage.

But while certainly providing moments of humanistic euphoria, that kind of exaggerated responsibility is paralysing to most people. We can feel everything but do nothing. And whether it's a cat, 50 dogs or a million Jews, agonising over their demise is pointless unless you treat them better yourself. Whatever their relative value to you, the moral burden is always the same.

Instead, a global outcry often only amounts to vague personal mumbles of disapproval, perhaps a publicity stunt or two, and in the end it's all up to local laws and authorities.

I think the only way to judge is by looking at our own threshold for caring and avoiding double standards. "Caring" is a word that should only be used in retrospect, in gratitude, and from someone else. If it's not an action, it shouldn't be used as a verb.