1/31/08
How much can you whine about FoxNews?
On and on. But I don’t want an equity of incessant complacency toward other outlets, I just want my head to be given a rest. If CNN and FN, The BBC, etc., bother you so much, watch something else, or send a complaint to them, but why is it necessary to preface comments to the rest of us with how you “hate FoxNews, etc?” Not every thing needs to be about FoxNews.
1/30/08
Democrat vs. McCain: How should the Democrat campaign?
Well, it looks as if John McCain has a good chance of being the Republican Presidential Nominee. Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul having even less chance, with Paul having less of a chance than Huckabee.
On the Democratic side, it looks like Hillary has an edge over Barack Obama, but the final winners of either party's primary really can't be known this soon. Can it?
My present assumptions are a Clinton vs. McCain presidential campaign.
If the Republicans do put McCain on their ticket, will his cross party appeal greatly affect how the Democratic nominee campaigns? Should it? What strategy should that party's nominee employ against McCain?
On the Democratic side, it looks like Hillary has an edge over Barack Obama, but the final winners of either party's primary really can't be known this soon. Can it?
My present assumptions are a Clinton vs. McCain presidential campaign.
If the Republicans do put McCain on their ticket, will his cross party appeal greatly affect how the Democratic nominee campaigns? Should it? What strategy should that party's nominee employ against McCain?
1/28/08
Women are smarter than they believe
Do you get a lot of flack for this kind of gender research?
I study perceived intelligence. I don't research whether gender differences
in intelligence are innate. That always sparks controversy. But anytime you talk
about intelligence and gender, people will have strong feelings about it. Look
what happened to [Larry] Summers of Harvard [the former president of the
university was lambasted for suggesting that women are underrepresented in the
sciences at least partly due to inherent differences in intellectual ability
between the sexes]. I just let the data speak for itself. Nonetheless, sometimes
I think you have to be stupid, brave or just plain naive to work in this
area. -- Adrian Furnham, a professor of psychology at University College Londonhttp://www.newsweek.com/id/101079?g=1
I am confident to know that my intelligence is just high enough to know every
woman alive, not yet born, and dead is smarter than me.--WFG, dope on the internet.
Liberal Survey: An Alan Colmes Inspired Blog Posting
Alan Colmes’ liberal status, being often called into question, fairly or not, I thought I’d create a survey for liberals, whether just over half liberal, or completely liberal, so I have.
Please provide short but concise explanitory paragraphs with your answers.
1. What is your definition of liberalism?
2. What beliefs and ideas do you believe should not be part of liberalism?
3. How has liberalism changed, if at all, over a given period of time, and how would you rate that change?
4. Is liberalism your first philosophy?
5. If you were not a liberal first, what philosophy did you belong to before becoming one, and why did you become a liberal?
6. How strongly liberal are you?
7. Who are good examples of liberalism?
8. Who are bad examples of liberalism?
9. What are good ways to argue on behalf of liberalism?
10. What are bad ways to argue on behalf of liberalism?
11. In what direction should liberalism head, and how should liberals assist it toward that direction?
Please provide short but concise explanitory paragraphs with your answers.
1. What is your definition of liberalism?
2. What beliefs and ideas do you believe should not be part of liberalism?
3. How has liberalism changed, if at all, over a given period of time, and how would you rate that change?
4. Is liberalism your first philosophy?
5. If you were not a liberal first, what philosophy did you belong to before becoming one, and why did you become a liberal?
6. How strongly liberal are you?
7. Who are good examples of liberalism?
8. Who are bad examples of liberalism?
9. What are good ways to argue on behalf of liberalism?
10. What are bad ways to argue on behalf of liberalism?
11. In what direction should liberalism head, and how should liberals assist it toward that direction?
1/18/08
Vengeance rape: additional thoughts
As I understand it, there exists a type of justifiable action defense, meaning that what one does can be justified on the basis of security, fear, what have you.
But, for that defense to have validity, the defendant must be able to show that the evidence to support it existed, and was known by him, prior to his having committed the action he's on trial for, as well as show that his action was reasonable among and compared to however many possible choices he had. There's probably more to it, assuming I'm even remotely close, but what bothers me is how it seems his supporters will put themselves in his position, and try to act as if they are in the same circumstances as him, when a majority of them could not have his knowledge of the crime which his criminal act was an apparent vengeful response to. He is largely being excused by information known after the fact, information that a humane person would see as irrelevant if they were watching the second alleged rape happening, and they would ask for proof of crime and guilt thereof for the first crime.
But, for that defense to have validity, the defendant must be able to show that the evidence to support it existed, and was known by him, prior to his having committed the action he's on trial for, as well as show that his action was reasonable among and compared to however many possible choices he had. There's probably more to it, assuming I'm even remotely close, but what bothers me is how it seems his supporters will put themselves in his position, and try to act as if they are in the same circumstances as him, when a majority of them could not have his knowledge of the crime which his criminal act was an apparent vengeful response to. He is largely being excused by information known after the fact, information that a humane person would see as irrelevant if they were watching the second alleged rape happening, and they would ask for proof of crime and guilt thereof for the first crime.
1/17/08
Vengeance rape
I've heard some people defend the step-father's action: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/406426.html
Here is my reponse to them.
Most people observing a person being chased, with no knowledge as to why, have a natural concern for that person, for he's both in apparent danger and possibly undeserving of his situation.
Similarly, most people observing a person being sexually assualted, but with no knowledge as to why, feel concern for that victim, a label they would apply to the subordinate subjects in both examples, and with the incomplete knowledge they have, would be correct in doing so. Most people would also assume him to be innocent.
In both examples, an observer naturally feels empathy for the victim, whether he's being chased or sexually assualted, but generally don't for the aggressor because it's not assumed that he'll be justified after the fact, thereby making his action at present appear to be inappropriate to the observer.
What those who've condoned the step-father's action are arguing is that an act which they would normally consider criminal and abhorrent to think of, let alone watch, is good if there's an acceptable, to them, excuse, even given belatedly. After all, if the step-son deserved it, he deserved it no matter when the rationalization is given, right?
That means I could rape someone and be a hero to them, because they would probably not know my actual reason at the time, as long as I give a good excuse later.
In other words, they are inhumane morons.
Here is my reponse to them.
Most people observing a person being chased, with no knowledge as to why, have a natural concern for that person, for he's both in apparent danger and possibly undeserving of his situation.
Similarly, most people observing a person being sexually assualted, but with no knowledge as to why, feel concern for that victim, a label they would apply to the subordinate subjects in both examples, and with the incomplete knowledge they have, would be correct in doing so. Most people would also assume him to be innocent.
In both examples, an observer naturally feels empathy for the victim, whether he's being chased or sexually assualted, but generally don't for the aggressor because it's not assumed that he'll be justified after the fact, thereby making his action at present appear to be inappropriate to the observer.
What those who've condoned the step-father's action are arguing is that an act which they would normally consider criminal and abhorrent to think of, let alone watch, is good if there's an acceptable, to them, excuse, even given belatedly. After all, if the step-son deserved it, he deserved it no matter when the rationalization is given, right?
That means I could rape someone and be a hero to them, because they would probably not know my actual reason at the time, as long as I give a good excuse later.
In other words, they are inhumane morons.
1/5/08
On Defining Patriotism
The patriot accepts and loves his nation.
The patriot tries to change his nation out of his love for it.
Where it becomes difficult to exemplify patriotism in these two forms is in reconcilling the conflict between not only their contradictory natures, but between that of two perspectives on the nature and behavior of one's nation, where one believes it is either mostly good or bad (whether in action, character, or behavior), or both, based on the present, past, and probable, or potential, of his nation.
The least complicated premise is that of the conservative patriot. To him, his nation is mostly good in action and behavior. That allows this form of patriot to need only speak positively of his nation. Since he is inclined to see few faults with his nation, he will likely reject attempts to defend against those faults.
The more difficult premise is that of the dissenter's patriot. To him, his nation needs to improve. He has to argue where his nation has failed to live upto its ideals, and how it can return to that status.
Within both forms of patriotism is an internal struggle:
Some conservative patriots are obstinate to change, even retrograding their nation to a time and form that perverts and destroys the most laudable, commendable aspects of their nation, harkening it to a form best suited to the world of the stereotypical neanderthal.
Some liberal patriots try to mold their nation into something it never has been, and something not all, perhaps not most, believe it should be. While their desire fulfilled might make for an improvement of their nation, by some chosen measurement, it is still dubious to claim love of nation as it is while simultaneously defining that nation as something it is not. Their love of nation is not false, it is only not that it is expressed to an as yet non existent nation, a nation of preferred hypothetical form. It is a love not unlike parents for their, in this case imperfect and short of their full potential, children.
What all patriots share in common is the motivation to do the most good for their nation.
The final thought to ponder, for now, is which form of patriotism is the most objective, and if that really matters more than subjective left and right evaluations which might be no less legitimate.
The patriot tries to change his nation out of his love for it.
Where it becomes difficult to exemplify patriotism in these two forms is in reconcilling the conflict between not only their contradictory natures, but between that of two perspectives on the nature and behavior of one's nation, where one believes it is either mostly good or bad (whether in action, character, or behavior), or both, based on the present, past, and probable, or potential, of his nation.
The least complicated premise is that of the conservative patriot. To him, his nation is mostly good in action and behavior. That allows this form of patriot to need only speak positively of his nation. Since he is inclined to see few faults with his nation, he will likely reject attempts to defend against those faults.
The more difficult premise is that of the dissenter's patriot. To him, his nation needs to improve. He has to argue where his nation has failed to live upto its ideals, and how it can return to that status.
Within both forms of patriotism is an internal struggle:
Some conservative patriots are obstinate to change, even retrograding their nation to a time and form that perverts and destroys the most laudable, commendable aspects of their nation, harkening it to a form best suited to the world of the stereotypical neanderthal.
Some liberal patriots try to mold their nation into something it never has been, and something not all, perhaps not most, believe it should be. While their desire fulfilled might make for an improvement of their nation, by some chosen measurement, it is still dubious to claim love of nation as it is while simultaneously defining that nation as something it is not. Their love of nation is not false, it is only not that it is expressed to an as yet non existent nation, a nation of preferred hypothetical form. It is a love not unlike parents for their, in this case imperfect and short of their full potential, children.
What all patriots share in common is the motivation to do the most good for their nation.
The final thought to ponder, for now, is which form of patriotism is the most objective, and if that really matters more than subjective left and right evaluations which might be no less legitimate.
1/4/08
Criticisms of the US; should I just be thankful for any compliment?
For years, justified or not, I've heard and read far more negative criticisms and insults about the US than compliments, which are often followed up by compliments about the people of the US, about the mountains and rivers, etc., of the nation. Am I too sensitive in thinking that such compliments are patronizing? I think this because the weight and frequency of the negative criticims and insults are much greater than that of the compliments which follow, and because those compliments are often highly vague and broadly applicable. I know some distinction is made, usually, between the people and their government, but I'm not sure its correct to make that separation, given that the US is governed by a democratic system, meaning the government comes from us.
To use an imperfect analogy, imagine that your parents are criticised daily, but you are called decent and your house is praised, how would that make you feel?
Perhaps the worst is being condescended to when I bring this up.
To use an imperfect analogy, imagine that your parents are criticised daily, but you are called decent and your house is praised, how would that make you feel?
Perhaps the worst is being condescended to when I bring this up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)