Why is being a victim so comfortable?

[PhotoTraveler]

I think the best example of this is those who when there is a thread about a future product, say a new lens or new body always have to jump in and say "what's wrong with what we have" "A good photographer doesn't need that" "it won't make you better" "what doesn't the current setup provide you" "I do fine with this, why can't you".

Often coming from someone with an entry level camera who jumps in on a thread about a pro camera or a pro lens. They seem to have great angry towards the idea of products existing above theirs and people owning them.

 

[pog]

Ken_5D wrote:
...

This really is not debatable... because both are statements of
personal choice.

...

The people who are careful or precise with their language tend to avoid making needlessly inflammatory posts... such posts get few replies since there's really nothing to get upset about. It's easy to forget these...

OTOH, the other kind of posts are extreme flamebait... in a matter of hours, threads reach 150 posts... all filled with outrage, futile logic or further flamebait. It's hard to miss these...

I think the majority of level-headed folks, upon switching systems, simply go about their business, shooting pictures and asking questions about their new gear. Either way, I think the "victims" are just a minority... loud but still very much outnumbered. It would probably be best to ignore them...
--
pog



http://gallery.gopog.net/

 

[Barry Pearson]

PhotoTraveler wrote:
[snip]

Often coming from someone with an entry level camera who jumps in
on a thread about a pro camera or a pro lens. They seem to have
great angry towards the idea of products existing above theirs and
people owning them.

And perhaps lack the appreciation that photographers have vastly different requirements and abilities, and therefore their own views are only relevant to a minority of photographers?

 

[Chato]

Sometimes the dicussions get heated on topics and I think I know
one reason.

Victim language often creates room for debate.. and yet the OP then
can feel like its their decision that is being questioned so they
have to retaliate.

Lets take a common statement on two of the forums I hang out on:

A) "Sony lenses are too expensive"

Or

B) "I went to Canon because Sony lenses are too expensive."

The first statement is false... Sony lenses must not be too
expensive for many people as they keep selling them.

This makes no sense. Sony lenses may or not be too expensive, the
fact that people buy them means nothing. I still buy gasoline and
can give you reasons why it "is too expensive."

Be curious to see what it is. Gas is too cheap, especially in the
US.

Sure I can back it up, but only in terms of profit margin. If Europeans are paying more or even Much more that was the choice of government. Here, it's the choice of refiners who are charging 10, 20 percent more for the same product that cost them the same price.

I'm not adding a "moral" judgment into the price. If you want to debate the philopsphy of gas price is a separate issue.

Until the day people stop buying it, it's too cheap. And
that's what the poster is getting at in this case. You can't say
"sony lens prices are too high" since clearly people are buying
them. If people were not, Sony would make adjustments.

The second statement seeks to blame a choice on a false premise.

You haven't defined anything yet. So all the above (and below) are
not based on clear definitions that we can all agree with. Once
there is a basic understanding, only then can you continue your
argument.

In both cases... there is room for debate

If the OP says

C) "I don't want to pay Sony prices"

Or

D) "I went to Canon because didn't like the Sony lens prices"

This really is not debatable... because both are statements of
personal choice..

No their not. They are statments of fact. The facts have yet to be
defined or determined.

"I went to Canon because Leica lens prices were too expensive."

That is a true statement which I can back up. The normal follow-up
would be debatable.

You cut out the second part of my statement. The OP stated that Sony lenses are "too expensive." As opposed to what? What are the prices of Sony lenses? In fact they are about the same price or cheaper than Canon or Nikon. So he stated a logical premise:

"Sony lenses are too expensive"
"I went to Canon because Sony lens prices are too expensive."

Are they expensive vis á vie Canon?

Are Leica lenses expensive vis á vie Canon?

Quality was never brought up - You brought it up - Thus the second part of my statement

"Are Leica lenses so much better than Canon lenses, that they are worth or not worth the price differential is a matter of choice."

He postulated that someone was swtching from Sony to Canon because of cost. But what are the actual costs? If cost is the Criteria then my statement makes sense, AND I can back it up - i.e. Leica lenses DO cost far more than Canon. Can he back up the claim that Sony lenses cost more than Canon? I don't think so...

(In fact they are less)

Dave

No you can't. Unless Canon starts making leica lenses (as in
exactly the same as the leica lenses, mount and all), you can't
make such a statement. You simple can't make a comparison. You can
feel that somehow Canon lenses are cheaper, but there is no fact
there since unless two items are identical, they cannot be truly
compared. One could very easily show that Canon is ripping people
off because of what you get for the price you paid for the lens.
There is endless parameters one could compare and base conclusions
on. In this case, the simple matter that neither company makes
lenses in the other companies mounts is a big one.

And still, if a Leica lens gives you a performance/quality and such
of 8, and a canon lens gives you a 2. But the Leica lens cost
twice what the canon lens does, the Leica lens is 2x the value.

Again a classic fault of posters here is going on about value
something gives, but the reality is they are wanting stuff to be
cheaper. Not more value.

Are Leica lenses so much better than Canon lenses, that they are
worth or not worth the price differential is a matter of choice.

And now you are getting back to the OPs point. It's a
choice/personal opinion, not fact, thus your comment about Leica
being more expensive than canon is not fact, but opinion.

 

[Chipsthe1]

I too have noticed your perfection. Indeed, increasingly perfect...

Dave

Now if I can convince that rascal Dipic

--
Shoot lots of pictures, always fill the frame

 

[Mark56519]

I'm not sure where "over here" is for you. I'm from the USA, and we are famously reluctant to take responsibility for just about anything, but we still have one of the highest incarceration rates on the planet, not to mention being one of very few countries still fond of the death penalty.

So though people of course SAY that they aren't responsible, we as a society don't generally let them off. What we do, though, is show recognition that, yes, problems/environments earlier in your life can affect how you act later in your life. I don't think that's a controversial insight. But we still (generally) hold people responsible for their actions. We don't let drunk drivers off just because their Dad was an alcoholic, or whatever.

So I think in this case, people pay too much attention to Americans attempts to rationalize their behavior, and too little attention to how punishment-oriented our culture actually turns out to be. Heck, a sizeable part of our population opposes the HPV vaccine because they'd prefer young women to risk cancer than to have sex. That says a lot.

 

[Chato]

I can't figure out why fan boys get so upset when anyone says
something bad about their favorite camera or company.

Who cares if someone wants to buy a Sony or Canon camera. I guess
too many people are insecure about what they bought and need to
constantly justify it in their minds. In sales training they always
tell you to follow-up when people buy a big item because often a
few days later buyers remorse sets in.

I must say though everytime a see a thread like this it is good for
a great laugh so keep them coming.
--
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/

Ken 5D started a number of threads attacking the Nikon 40D series.
Particulerly the review of it's latest incarnation. He feels that
people don't get it. The camera is crippled by inherent problems in
it's design.

And he feels that those who think the review was fair, the camera
functional, are not logical. for not admitting the "obvious" flaws
that he see's.

In other words, his opinions are fact, while other people just have
opinions.

It may be that his opinions ARE facts, but then again, he's
unwilling to admit that some of the opinions that other people have
may also be based on reality. It's convenient to mention the poster
who was wrong that the 40Dx was by far the cheapest in it's league.
But that is not, and was not the basis of the entire discussion.

This is called, "Shooting down a straw man."

Dave

Those were my opinions...

YES....

And I am far from perfect in avoiding this trap.

But I try... and I fail

but as someone who works in a field where you try to balance
business needs with creating a good product.. I do have questions
about the D40 and the level of triming of features... But that
comes from my opinion of what makes for a good base set of features.

But nikon is never the reason I choose a Canon or a Sony or a KM
like I did. I am the reason... I chose the KM because I thought
it had the best features for me.

Anyway I was just looking at language and how we say things that
might invite debate where we assume there should be none.

I do state my opinions with confidence and in a way I expect that I
will bring discussion.. and I am more than willing to take what
they have to give in return...

Interesting story from a Dad

As I write this my 3.5 year old comes in and says "Mommy made me
cry, go talk to her." As is common in our house I talked the kid
because the parents always back each other up. And I said "Mommy
loves you and thinks you have eaten enough crackers.. She didn't
make you cry.. you decided to cry"... (she doesn't get it all) but
she did go to her mom and declare "I am done crying..."

How many 3 yr olds do you know end tantrums that way? We are
trying to teach her early what we didn't learn for 30 years.. that
even if things happen we don't like WE always get to choose how we
react.

------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

I'm not challenging your right to your opinion. Nor am I saying that your critique was devoid of facts. I'm pointing out that you are illustrating your point and those debates with a red herring.

A red herring that happens to be true, but had little to do with what you postulated and "almost" nothing to do with the responses you got.

In addition, from time to time I get a rant out of my system. I don't repeat the rant on multiple threads. But once again that's your right, and even if I could I wouldn't stop you.

Dave

 

[Chato]

Often coming from someone with an entry level camera who jumps in
on a thread about a pro camera or a pro lens. They seem to have
great angry towards the idea of products existing above theirs and
people owning them.

And perhaps lack the appreciation that photographers have vastly
different requirements and abilities, and therefore their own views
are only relevant to a minority of photographers?

Are those owners of dSLR's who always refer to those with a P&S as needing to go out and get a "real" camera. And it's converse, I've been attacked for saying a machine is a P&S, because the poster regards the very term as being insulting. In fact, I've seen both kinds of attacks on the same thread...

Dave

 

[Kaikopere]

So I think in this case, people pay too much attention to Americans
attempts to rationalize their behavior, and too little attention to
how punishment-oriented our culture actually turns out to be.
Heck, a sizeable part of our population opposes the HPV vaccine
because they'd prefer young women to risk cancer than to have sex.

First of all, nice trolling with a gross generalizations that have no basis in reality, and congratulations, you've pushed my button and got me hook line and sinker.

You think that folks objecting to the government mandating that they inject unnecessary medications into their children is because they think getting cancer is better than premarital sex? How about the recent rash of findings that medicine approved by the FDA can still kill people and have side effects like increasing your risk of heart attack (which still kills way more people than cervical cancer)? How about the fact the the governer that pushed this nonsense has ties to folks whose financial interests would be served by a mandate to vacinate everyone in the state with a vaccine that only they make? How about the fact that the vaccine is only good against a few strains out of hundreds of strains of HPV, isn't 100% effective against those strains, and that HPV is only one of the potential causes of one type of cancer that is easily detected and treated?

What kind of weirdo thinks that the government forcing parents to offer their children up for medical experimentation is a good idea? Maybe another good idea would be to give all girls under 18 mandatory birth control. Most aren't having sex according the the surveys, but we probably should give all of them the hormones just in case. A lot of those girls get scared when they get pregnant and either don't receive appropriate prenatal care or get abortions, both of which are more probable risks to the girl's health than cervical cancer.

I'm more than happy for my tax dollars to go toward making that vaccine available to any girl or woman that wants it. I think it's a really really bad idea to force an untried vaccination on people for a disease that can't be transmitted by say, an infected person taking an international flight, or by serving food to a restaraunt full of people, or by simply attending class with other children.

I think you're a victim of cable news poisoning. If there's one thing that I can say about American culture, it's that my personal experience of Americans doesn't even come close to what is presented in the media and on the Internet. To attempt to describe American culture as anything other than extremely diverse is ridiculous.

 

[Glen Barrington]

The uninformed are always more self righteous that their level of ignorance warrants.

----
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington

 

[PhotoTraveler]

If you were born in the US, and probably if you immigrated too, you have already been inoculated for many things. This is just one more.

At some point it doesn't matter what some group of people want. A society is going to do what is right, and if that means making people resistant to a form of cancer, then that is what we do. Not making everyone happy is not an excuse for not doing something.

And to the OP that person is correct. Many people in the US oppose such things because they think it will cause un-married folk to have more sex, which they find evil for them to do. Same thing with those who want condoms to be banned from being distributed. Because it's apparently better that a person has unprotected sex and gets a disease than it is for them to have sex and have a much better chance of not getting something.

Also, we are all guinea pigs to everything. You never know what is going to kill you, and there is no safer path. Only eating natural foods gives you no better chance, who knows what is in those, they don't even get checked for being bad. I personal want natural medicines banned. And all forms of medicine, man made or natural have to go through rigorous testing no matter what. The planet is covered in natural stuff that will kill you. Poisons, Radon Gas, bears, big rocks in high places, Venomous snakes, folk music.

 

[Mark56519]

My last sentence was based on the people I've met who said "that vaccine would encourage young girls to sin." I've heard it with my own ears. I've also seen clips of religious leaders saying much the same thing. That isn't generalizing--it's just saying what I've heard from people who believe that the HPV vaccine, along with condoms and sex ed, encourages and condones sin.

 

[Hennie de Ruyter]

At the time of purchasing my 300D it was the cheapest option available in South Africa. One cut-price chain store not really into cameras started selling these. They did not sell Nikon D70. My decision was based on price only. I am not rich. As time went by I purchased extra lenses and thus got locked in.

Will I therefore claim that Canon is better than Nikon. No. It was simply a price driven decision. Do I like my 2 Canon DSLRs. Oh yes!! But I have no experience of other makes so I cant really critisize them. I am convinced that many (not all but a large group) critisize equipment they have never used.

If I had bought that D70 3 years ago I would have been a Nikon fan and equally happy! But I could not then afford it.

 

[Chato]

If you were born in the US, and probably if you immigrated too, you
have already been inoculated for many things. This is just one more.

There is a diference between society having a right to protect itself against infectious diseases and imposing its ideas on others.

I would approve of society making this and other vacines available for free, but oppose a mandatory vacination against a disease that is not "infectious."

There is a difference between This disease and small-pox or polio. Society has a right to protect itself, but not a right to choose For you in sitautions which are not a threat to society per-se.

If society decides that florinating water is tremendously beneficial, there is no way to floridate water without people who oppose this also having to drink it. That's too bad, they can always drink bottled water.

There is a big gray road which from time to time gets violated, and society imposes its views on others. No one said things are going to be easy...

I would agree to mock those who oppose this vacine on "moral" grounds. But mocking is one thing, imposing my views on them is another. These children, when they become legally adult (and I for one wouldn't oppose them having the ability to choose even before they are adults) can decide to take advantage of this vacine - or not.

Dave

At some point it doesn't matter what some group of people want. A
society is going to do what is right, and if that means making
people resistant to a form of cancer, then that is what we do. Not
making everyone happy is not an excuse for not doing something.

And to the OP that person is correct. Many people in the US oppose
such things because they think it will cause un-married folk to
have more sex, which they find evil for them to do. Same thing
with those who want condoms to be banned from being distributed.
Because it's apparently better that a person has unprotected sex
and gets a disease than it is for them to have sex and have a much
better chance of not getting something.

Also, we are all guinea pigs to everything. You never know what is
going to kill you, and there is no safer path. Only eating natural
foods gives you no better chance, who knows what is in those, they
don't even get checked for being bad. I personal want natural
medicines banned. And all forms of medicine, man made or natural
have to go through rigorous testing no matter what. The planet is
covered in natural stuff that will kill you. Poisons, Radon Gas,
bears, big rocks in high places, Venomous snakes, folk music.

 

[Kaikopere]

", a sizeable part of our population opposes the HPV vaccine because they'd prefer young women to risk cancer than to have sex."

How does that correspond to "I overheard a few people and saw a guy on TV expressing that opinion"? That phrasing gives the impression that the country is overrun by Christian crazies. I'm fairly sure that the "crazies" factions of the secularists, christians, environmentalists, racists, socialists, communists, PETA supporters, capitalists, libertarians, et. al. are generally all about the same size in this country. The only reason that folks can even attempt to describe them as reflecting American culture is because they're allowed, if not encouraged, to express their crazy ideas in this country. If you want to extrapolate to an entire culture what opinions you see expressed most often, I assume you believe that "a sizeable part" of the Iranian population is in favor of nuclear weapons, Israeli genocide, and doesn't believe the Holocaust happened.

 

[Chato]

position of the Republican Party of Texas is that the United States was and is a Christian Country whose chief law is derived from the Bible.

"That phrasing gives the impression that the country is overrun by Christian crazies."

Yes, I do believe we are. When the President of the United States thinks it's a good idea to have an open debate on Creationism vs Evolution, and see's no problem with teaching this in the public schools, the future off rhe Republic is in danger.

Dave

", a sizeable part of our population opposes the HPV vaccine
because they'd prefer young women to risk cancer than to have sex."

How does that correspond to "I overheard a few people and saw a guy
on TV expressing that opinion"? That phrasing gives the impression
that the country is overrun by Christian crazies. I'm fairly sure
that the "crazies" factions of the secularists, christians,
environmentalists, racists, socialists, communists, PETA
supporters, capitalists, libertarians, et. al. are generally all
about the same size in this country. The only reason that folks can
even attempt to describe them as reflecting American culture is
because they're allowed, if not encouraged, to express their crazy
ideas in this country. If you want to extrapolate to an entire
culture what opinions you see expressed most often, I assume you
believe that "a sizeable part" of the Iranian population is in
favor of nuclear weapons, Israeli genocide, and doesn't believe the
Holocaust happened.

 

[Mark56519]

What I meant by "sizeable" was essentially "large enough to make a difference." I wasn't speculating whether the percentage was 5% or 30% of the population. But since this is the same demographic that torpedoed the morning-after pill being over-the-counter, and that is trying to curtail condom availability and sex ed, (and evolutionary theory, and the age of the earth, and the scientific method, etc etc) I conclude that they still are, well, sizeable enough to make a difference in the country, and not always for the better.

Communists and the other groups of extremists may be as few in number, but they lack the funding and access to the White House that the group you refer to as "Christian crazies" has. But I retract the word sizeable, since you find it objectionable, and will just stick with "significant."

And in parting, I want to point out that the term "Christian crazies" wasn't mine. I know plenty of Christians who aren't crazy, and a few crazies who aren't Christian.

 

[Mark56519]

How about the tetanus vaccine? How about bicycle/motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, prostitution, and so on? None of these harm anyone but ourselves (though we by our decisions may harm others), but social conservatives aren't up in arms to defend our freedom to choose for ourselves.

The only issues that social conservatives are concerned about are those that happen to intersect with the subject of sex--the HPV vaccine, the morning-after pill, and condom availability. In other words, though "freedom" and "safety" are tossed around as guiding principles, their ostensibly medical objections map perfectly to the social conservative agenda. Sex is bad, at least outside of marriage. Condoms are bad. The morning after pills is bad. The HPV vaccine is bad. Janet Jackson's nipple on TV was damaging to our children. Justice's bared breast on a statue is bad, and has to be covered. But violence in the media? The death penalty? Police brutality? Hate crimes? Torture in government facilities? Detention without trial? White supremacists caught with chemical weapons? Not such a big deal, in comparison to sex. What people get upset over, and what seems innocuous to them, says a lot about their character. We aren't doing so well these days.

 

[Chato]

How about the tetanus vaccine? How about bicycle/motorcycle
helmets, seatbelts, cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, prostitution,
and so on? None of these harm anyone but ourselves (though we by
our decisions may harm others), but social conservatives aren't up
in arms to defend our freedom to choose for ourselves.

I agree, Social Conservative are the biggest hypocrites in the market.

Does that mean that I also have to be a hypocrite?

The only issues that social conservatives are concerned about are
those that happen to intersect with the subject of sex--the HPV
vaccine, the morning-after pill, and condom availability. In
other words, though "freedom" and "safety" are tossed around as
guiding principles, their ostensibly medical objections map
perfectly to the social conservative agenda. Sex is bad, at least
outside of marriage. Condoms are bad. The morning after pills is
bad. The HPV vaccine is bad. Janet Jackson's nipple on TV was
damaging to our children.

And?

Justice's bared breast on a statue is
bad, and has to be covered. But violence in the media? The death
penalty? Police brutality? Hate crimes? Torture in government
facilities? Detention without trial? White supremacists caught
with chemical weapons? Not such a big deal, in comparison to sex.
What people get upset over, and what seems innocuous to them, says
a lot about their character. We aren't doing so well these days.

And?

NB. This vacine should not be mandatory. Society has NO right to make me take a vacine for a disease like the above. Society does have a right to protect itself from a disase that I can pass to others by the simple act of exisiting.

I understand and agree with your points about those who seek to mandate THEIR ideas onto me. That is no excuse for me to impose my ideas onto them.

Certain things that I see as beneficial, I will push as hard as possible, stopping short at the point of mandating them. So this and other vacines for the same class off diseases should be free and easily avaiblable.

Certain vacines should be free AND mandatory. Because we have a right to protect ourselves.

Dave

 

[Ken_5D]

position of the Republican Party of Texas is that the United States
was and is a Christian Country whose chief law is derived from the
Bible.

"That phrasing gives the impression that the country is overrun by
Christian crazies."

Yes, I do believe we are. When the President of the United States
thinks it's a good idea to have an open debate on Creationism vs
Evolution, and see's no problem with teaching this in the public
schools, the future off the Republic is in danger.

Actually,

I think if one side assumes that shutting down all discussion is proper that the future of the Republic is in danger.

I have had no problem reconciling my religious beliefs with Science. That fact is that the majority of those kids in those classes are Christian and are getting one story at school and may be getting another outside of school.

There are some interesting issues brought up by "Intelligent Design" that can create some good discussion. And it is better to address them than ignore them in the proper pursuit of science.. some of their issues are far from proof of a god.. but they might create a need to revisit some assumption we have had.

This will never happen if one side is so arrogant to think they have a lock on the truth.. and anyone who thinks Science is an absolute truth.. vs a changing understanding of our world that only gets better when challenged is unaware of the history of Science... From Newton to Hawking and Greene it only changes when discussed.

BTW... Not all, but a good measure of basic western law does come from the Bible and the overwhelming majority of the nation believes in some kind of God... So It is only right to discuss it at some level in a complete education..

And while I have no problem... with my kid getting the Vaccine when older... (she's 3 now) I will be damned it I think the State especially a Govenor with ties to the maker.. has the right to Mandate it.

There are wackos on both sides of these issues.. from those that assume pretending teenagers will never have sex to those academics that recently told a highschool assembley they should have sex and that drug usage was ok.

Most of us are in the middle... we hope out kids will wait because of all the risks and issues.. but think it is smart to be prepaired. It is the extremes that get the news space because they are extreme... the average is never news.

------------

Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com