Is it possible to oppose something that pleases you?

For example, you take a test at a school. The school has a rule that instructors must clearly and correctly specify, on the test, the number of marks that each question is worth. After the test, the instructor draws attention to one and only one question from the test. The instructor cannot find anything wrong with the question, but is concerned about a lack of statistical correlation between having a high mark on the test and getting that question right. The instructor unilaterally and retroactively deletes that one question from the test.

After the test, you discover that -- coincidentally -- you got that particular question wrong, so the deletion improves your mark and you are pleased about that. However, you also oppose the decision because:

1. In your opinion, the deletion would mean that the number of marks that the question is worth was not correctly specified on the test.
2. In your opinion, the deletion is a violation of the school's rule about specifying the number of marks that each question is worth.
3. You believe that the rule is a good rule.

And even then, movie special effects can make the impossible look quite possible.

are you referring to something that is unknown?

Examples of what used to be called "physics"--a popular term, oh, back before the Eisenhower administration:



:rofl:

WTF are you talking about?

Just askin'

You have a friend that's totally smashed. She grabs your junk. Do you fuck her brains out?

Having sex with someone who is incapable of giving consent is a felony.

Boojatta's example was labyrinthine and abstract in the extreme. My example makes perfectly clear that his question is answered in the affirmative. It's quite possible to be opposed to something that gives one pleasure.

It's first come, first served. At least, that is my understanding. Doesn't make much sense to me, but then, hey, pot is illegal, too.

Also, sentences with as many commas as that last one are somehow legal.

Sometimes liberals are just as stupid as conservatives. I guess that everyone is stupid sometimes.

Unless you had good reason to be sure that the other person involved had no intention of pressing charges him/herself.

I could frame someone for rape by getting myself drunk and then seducing them while they are sober?

If you are right, this law invalidates all rape data here in the U.S.

I was taught in school that, at least in the state of Pennsylvania, the law says that if both parties are intoxicated and one later wants to press charges for rape, criminal prosecution will proceed. Maybe the teachers who told me that were wrong or lying. But it is my understanding that that is how the law works in this state.

Conceivably, one could intentionally get drunk, have sex with a sober person, and then press charges. Again, the law makes no sense to me. I didn't write the law, and I didn't vote for it. But as far as I know, that's what it says.

I was thinking that not all of the rape convictions are really rapes.

But now that I think about it, so many rapes go unreported, the numbers are probably higher than the data suggests.

A sad and disturbing situation.

This is frequently brought up when this issue is discussed: "But what if they're BOTH drunk?" Thing is, more often than not, one person is WAY more intoxicated than the other in these situations. Alcohol is the no. 1 date rape drug.

to the mortgage interest deduction (aka - middle class welfare) and still take advantage of it?

Can you be opposed to a capital gains tax cut if you earn capital gains?

I'm a homeowner and take advantage of the deduction, but I also think it's unfair as hell to renters, who tend to be lower income. Ditto on the capital gains.

if most of the class missed a question, the teacher would review it, and if it seemed badly written, confusing or just plain wrong, they had the option of deleting it from the test. We all thought that was very fair. What difference does the number of marks make per question, if the deletion applies to everyone? Percentage correct or incorrect is what matters.

but it might be more accurate (for me, at least) to say that it's possible to oppose something that benefits me. Something to which I was opposed on principle wouldn't please me, even if I availed myself of it, and even if it were pleasurable.

you may not want to, but you can take action for what is right.

Moral judgment does not rest on our desires, because from "I like this" it simply does not follow that "This is right."

that there is no chance of controversy on this matter in the DU Religion/Theology forum, then perhaps you should consult with cosmik debris via private messaging. Note in particular the words Who are we trying to please? in the post at the following link:
Wrong for whom?

Note: this is intended to call out neither you nor cosmik. It's simply an attempt to point to what seems to be (unless I am mistaken) a conflict of views that suggests that the "of course" wording might be inappropriate in this venue.

More substantively, the fact that we do casually use words like "want" and "please" when it comes to referencing people's moral preferences doesn't alter the distinction--it just shows that language is imprecise.

You should pay special attention to this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=171304&mesg_id=171380

You have entered the tedious, fruitless, and frustrating world of Boojatta.

All hope abandon, ye who enter here.

I think human behavior is similar to Optimality Theory. That's a theory of phonology in which all "rules" are actually constraints, all constraints are universal, and the differences between languages and dialects is in how the constraints are ranked. Since some output is necessary when speaking, when two constraints are in conflict the higher ranked is satisfied; those it dominates are violable. You only see how the lower-ranked constraints work when the higher-valued constraints are all satisfied. In strict OT, constraints are all negative, and it can be a bear to word them (think of a phonology as a sieve--things fall out by default, unless something stops them).

Values aren't universal. Good child-rearing involves instilling the culturally appropriate values in them. Ideally, you have so say over the ranking. In my experience, most political/ideological/social fights boil down not to different values, but different ranking of values. Abstracting away from context and getting at the underlying difference in ranking is usually hard, but once it's done most of the time enemies can discuss their differences, understand what they really are, and work to a satisfactory compromise--because they know what the problem really is. This doesn't always happen--sometimes there really are differences in value sets; sometimes there are just differences in understanding how a value applies, so it's best to avoid fuzzy terminology ("seek justice", "love your neighbor") in favor of the specific ("seek economic equality" versus "seek uniform application of rules", if not more specific).

Most people express satisfaction when their values are met, which is to say, their top-ranked values are met.

To your example. "Maximize grade" (avoid failure) versus "Faithfulness to rules" (avoid violation of rules). Two people can have both values, but have them ranked differently; or one person can change his/her ranking of rules over time. Now I'm a "faithful to rules" person; I think I might have been a "maximize grade" person in high school. Of course, even then I still followed the rules, and got pleasure out of following them ... when my grade wasn't at risk. Now when I take a class I still go for a high grade, but wouldn't violate the rules to achieve it.