Author |
Topic: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics (Read 85336 times) |
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
  
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #300 on: Jun 28th, 2007, 4:19pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Learn something new everyday. Thanks for the knowledge, Callie. In my case, I was thinking, though, in terms of how these court TV shows get categorized, i.e. typically into small claims on the one hand and divorce court on the other. Judge Judy's show, as most of yous probably know, is the former.
...
O'Reilly and Sheindlin '08!!! 
 
Write it up or write 'em in! In any case, let's get it RIGHT! 
|
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #301 on: Jul 11th, 2007, 5:38am » |
Quote Modify
|
With ALL DUE respect, I must admit that I do not AT ALL agree with Mr. O'Reilly's position on health care. He's way too Libertarian about it. He exhibits all-or-nothing thinking about it. He minimizes the truly BAD state of affairs of our health-care system and then goes on to maximize what the tax burden would be. I rely on the unusual path of life I've taken for insight. South Korea has a brand of nationalized health care. It is very efficient and VERY affordable, and taxes in South Korea aren't a QUARTER or FIFTH of our taxes here (and, furthermore, they too have to blow a TON of money on the military to support mandatory service, protect their country from an imminent threat right across the border and help stabilize the peninsula). So,... WE COULD LEARN. Look, I'm not naive. I know we can't just snap our figures and, voila, by looking to another country, solve our problems. But, especially in the modern world, we need to get people on TV and the radio and in office who are less "provincially" minded. Adopting, say, South Korea's system isn't going to solve it all,... or anything, for that matter. We have our own set of problems and they run deep. But, we need to start putting people on TV and the radio and in office who, at least, know what I'm talking about here. I mean... I'm not so interested in solving American problems with, say, South Korean solutions. I'm more interested in pointing out a broader reality, say, that of a country that does something well, to affect the American mind in an immanent way.
Now,... I digress...  I have to use this as an opportunity to vent about Libertarianism. What a mess! It succeeds by packaging itself as the "have your cake and eat it too" party, hyper-conservative economics combined with a hyper-liberal ethics. This is bullshit! The best economics is a reasonably conservative economics. We need to cut the fat, for sure, but society requires its citizens to pool their resources to support infrastructure. But, its the hyper-liberal ethics that's REALLY got it wrong. We could learn A LOT from early Confucian as well as Wojtylian "ethics" here. In VERY short, a society that no less defends the "rights" of a show like Jackass, but is entertained by, say, looking inside the drawers of a dude who's shit his pants and watching the camera man puke or looking at a dude eating a snow cone made from his piss and puking (which is making me queasy just thinking about it), is a society on its way out. Our very own (in the West) Plato knew that a society can be no better than the individuals that make it up. What we in America have become individual-by-individual is... not that great anymore, and a "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't (directly, I guess) 'hurt' anyone else, i.e. lowest common denominator" ethics is only going to contribute to our becoming worse as a people. Moreover, this is more so the fodder that has us hated around the world, not so much George Bush or Republican politics, regardless of what Stuart Smally says. American hegemony is a bad thing only if what we're exporting is bad. The American way has spread. That used to be a good thing. But, now, peoples of other countries don't want poopy pants and his piss-flavored ice cone-eating friend and their over-the-top, messed-up, undisciplined, immature brand of freedom of speech coming to their country. And, yous know what? They're right.
...
I may have to announce my own Presidential candidacy here soon... 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #303 on: Jul 13th, 2007, 6:26am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 13th, 2007, 5:46pm, StegRock wrote:| Conspiracy theories appeal to intellectual vanity! |
|
I've been meaning to say this, but kept on forgetting... I don't want sk to have any hard feelings... This aphorism of mine that I posted was completely non sequitur. I did not think of it nor post it with sk's global warming cry in mind. I hope that you knew that, sk.  As regards the issue of global warming, unlike my position on health care, I'm very Bill O'Reilly about it. Global warming is happening. It really is undeniable. And, we humans should strive to minimize our contribution to global warming,... hell,... pollution, period, regardless of how much or how little we are actually an effectual factor, which, by the way, I think is overblown (convenient anthropocentrism as, I think, Callie noted). To whatever degree we are responsible (1%, 10%, 25%, 50%, whatever...), we should do our level best to reduce that percentage.
ANYWAY, I leave yous with yet another "inspired"  aphorism... 
Freedom does come from the mere proliferation of choices. The litmus test of freedom is not "multiple choice", so to speak. In fact, the greatest freedom may be found when there is no choice. 
Put that in you pipe or...  and smoke it!
Okay,... I gotta go to bed...  -> 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
steelkings
Guest
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #305 on: Jul 25th, 2007, 7:31am » |
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
Quote:| outside of a homosexual question asked, no one asked them anything really tough that would show where they stood morally. Did anyone ask about their views on abortion, seperation of Church and State, religous beliefs?? |
|
I think most are to concerned about the constant dismalting of the US constitution to worry about where canidates stand morally.
Two Wolves
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, "My son, the battle is between two "wolves" inside us all.
One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence,empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?"
The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #309 on: Apr 13th, 2008, 5:52am » |
Quote Modify
|
This is yet again one of a handful of posts I've been wanting to make for quite some time, but just haven't had the time and/or energy to get around to writing up. The politics thread here, by definition, isn't actually the ideal place for this post, but, with somewhat of an eye towards specificity that precludes posting this in "the Bleachers", this thread is about as close as I can get. Moving right along...
A couple months ago I was watching this show on ABC, "Primetime: What Would You Do?" In short, it's "Candid Camera", but for serious (hot-button) social issues. The "set-up" of the episode I caught was as follows... They had a guy behind the counter of a middle-America deli refusing service, very hostilely mind you, to a woman dressed in Muslim garb. The responses of the other patrons ranged from saluting the guy at the counter calling him a good American to cursing him out nastily. Some also tried to be of assistance to the woman. The majority, though, did nothing, and regretfully more people were supportive of the counter-worker than the Muslim patron. You can probably guess the demographic breakdown (let's say... it does nothing to help the serious problem we have in America of respect for elders, no less of holding our forefathers, moreover, of the "Greatest Generation" for all the great they accomplished, including making a safe and comfy country for us, in high esteem). There were post-interviews, and, of course, while the folks who did the "wrong thing" were wiping the egg from their red faces, the people who did the "right thing" basked in the sun of their moral righteousness. They were all pretty much a bunch of dipshits, in fact. No one had any sense of the middle ground. The depth of the comments were, to put it mildly, lacking. Don't get me wrong. It was a sad picture. I wonder, though, still in the wake of 9/11, is there not a sense of entrapment to this kind of "set-up"... brought on by this dis-ease of self-loathing we are suffering so terribly from in America anymore?
Anyway, I'd like to answer the question posed by the show, "What would you do?" First off, I would ABSOLUTELY come to the defense of the Muslim girl. How exactly? I don't know, but it would be forcefully and persuasively. HOWEVER, (depending on when they revealed the "game" to me) I would also (want to) point out to her that a re"consideration" of the American side of her Muslim-Americanness is probably in order. As for the reporter and the TV people, when the "game" was revealed to me, they would get a good chewing out. I would point out that this brand of TV journalism is pouring salt on a nasty wound that America is still working on dressing and that what took place here bore an eerie resemblance to the modus operandi of "divide and conquer". I would say that, if they insist on doing this kind of thing, to be fair and balanced, they ought to also set one up in a deli in an Arab neighborhood with a redneck-ish white guy wearing a "pro-Bush, support our troops, bullseye on Bin Laden" t-shirt getting harassed by a Middle-Eastern guy working the counter. I'm safely guessing that, after that show, you could stick a fork in that sought-after political m.o. I digress, though... The irony would be that Iraqi-Amercians would probably come to the guy's defense.
But, back to the Muslim-American woman, I would remind her of the great saying, which we are so quick to quote and admire... when it's easy, but just as quick to conveniently tuck away and forget about... when it challenges us, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." I would point out that, during this difficult post-9/11 period America is enduring, perhaps she might want to consider what she could do for "her country" and fellow countrypeople [as opposed to the "what her country and 'countrypeople' can do for her (and 'her people')" attitude that a number of Muslim-Americans have exhibited post-9/11 and, in any event, that was the implication of this piece that she participated in]. I would point out that there is something very simple that she could do, a very doable, yet very meaningful sacrifice that she could make. In public, she could lose the Muslim garb, mainly the headdress, which actually exemplifies a backwards mindset, at any rate. She, like many of you may be provoked to think at this very moment, would probably quip back that it's "required" by her religion or, at least, that it's frowned upon by Muslims if women don't cover their heads and skin and that, in any event, it's her "right" as an "American" (to dress this way). On the one hand, I would direct her back to the J.F.K. quote that, I'm sure, she finds inspirational and point to the tension between the two sides of her Muslim-Americanness. I would say to her that she may want to decide on this one in favor of her country, which grants her that very freedom (of religion) she is claiming a "right" to. On the other hand, I would also point out to her that, if her Islamic religion would not let her lose the garb, then she may want to consider that maybe, just maybe, there is something problematically dogmatic about her religion, at least, the way she is practicing it.
THAT would be to not skirt over things...
At this crucial time in our history, given its particular nature, to be sensitive to J.F.K.'s great proclamation is of utmost importance. We have to be wary of people who "Ask not what they can do for their country, but what their country can do for them." Consider the political issues of the day in light of J.F.K.'s maxim, and see what you see... with your eyes opened.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 13th, 2008, 4:57pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #311 on: Apr 13th, 2008, 5:13pm » |
Quote Modify
|
To put this in the venerable framework of Classical Chinese thought,  the Daoist/Laoist in me wants to applaud your move, but the Confucian in me knows that it won't make a difference. In pursuit of the almighty...  , out of greed or just necessity mind you, we, capitalist Americans, have become an extremely mentally lazy country. I don't see your response as pushing the intellectual envelope that needs to be pushed at this point in our history and "getting people thinking". Granted, I guess I did not make this clear, but, in fact, since it was set up such that the Muslim woman was not taking no for an answer,... she was, though in a calmer manner than the counter-guy, standing her ground,... I think your move would have just led to your being lumped in with one of the many people obviously disgusted by the counter-guy's behavior but ultimately labeled as just walking away and doing nothing.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #314 on: Apr 16th, 2008, 5:51am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 15th, 2008, 9:22pm, cwhams wrote:I think you are unfortunately correct...that is unless you were in the same restaurant and followed suit...and then rickpin did the same...hell we might even start a real movement here...thing is rickpin would probably be with his wife...and I'm thinking she would probably kick the shit out of the guy!  Then we would all be pretty amused...but would society really better off with either approach. |
|
Well, assuming you are not lumping mine in there, I too don't think either of those approaches are the way to go. I have to digress just for a moment, though... If Rick, I and whoever followed your approach as you suggest, C-Dub, only a one-sided statement would be made. I don't see where the lesson is for the girl and, then, eventually for the reporter, and, mind you, those are the harder, deeper lessons. Your approach is ultimately only giving a lesson to the obvious bastard, the set-up guy, the straw man, so to speak. That's easy. But, that's to miss the depth of the issue. An approach that has any chance of making a difference must go deeper. While I'm not a megalomaniac, not even a revolutionary, insofar as I do not strive for immediate, sweeping, societal change, I am an optimist, at least about the philosophy I espouse and the person I am. So, while my approach may not be your taste, C-Dub, I do ask that you please not tacitly lump it in with other approaches ultimately dubbed ineffective (on a societal level) as your post seems to intimate you've done. This topic on which I "took my time" (in both senses) and effort to post in a thoughtful and earnest manner is now taking on a "throw our hands up in the air" feel, which I, in all honesty, don't find fun. Thing is, I do believe that I and my approach (to living) can make a difference. And, I know I am changing the world. Thing is, you are, too; we all are. It's just that you need to realize it,... and in the realization comes the efficacy.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #316 on: Apr 16th, 2008, 5:12pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Backatchya, brother! Yours is nicely stated, too!
A few thoughts...
First, one of the sublime keys to disabusing "the inequities in a system that seems unfair and tilted" is to not lose sight of the fact that it is OUR system. Once we start refering to it as "a", "the", "this" or whatever "other's or others'" system, we're already objectifying it in a way that puts severe limitations on the efficacy of our efforts. Quick digression,... this is where an understanding of old JPII's  distinction of the subjectivity of the "I" extended outward to the subjectivity of the "we" comes in handy. Overall, this philosophy is captured well by the Classical Chinese philosophers,  the Tibetan Buddhists,  and the Catholic Personalists,  but, notably for the philosophers in the crowd, not so well by Heidegger.  While his development of the concept of "Dasein" ("Being here"), the correlate to the former above, is absolutely thoroughgoing, he drops the ball halfway ("there") and does little with the idea of "Mitsein" ("Being with"), the correlate of the latter.
Next, when I say that "with the realization comes the efficacy", what I do NOT mean is that, after the realization, you focus on changing "things" and "people (others)". What I DO mean is that, by seeing the world as a qualitative whole, by changing yourself, you, in fact, change the world; once that is realized, the groundwork for efficacy is in place. Now, you can extend (yourself) outward in that efficacious way that is the mark of Classical Confucianism.
Finally, I (too) am of the mind that actions speak louder than words. And, yes, subtler, "quieter" actions can oftentimes be more effective. But, that is not a rule, either. You want to be able to discern when you need what kind of action. At the end of the day, it is "whatever works". In any case, though, speaking itself is a form of action. Hence, the mental cramp... when to use words and how to speak them efficaciously?!?! My approach above isn't so much "statement-making" as it is genuinely didactic and ultimately "thought-provoking" (and, thus, as somewhat of a matter of fact, "efficacious"). It is also even-handed and not... 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
MordecaiCourage
Guest
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #317 on: Apr 16th, 2008, 5:28pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
I can only tell you this Steve. If you had come to my defense in a similar situation as you say you would have come to the Muslim girl's defense.... I would have thanked you for making that stance. That stance would have earned you a few moments to say what is on your mind about that incident. But....the second you started telling me to (re)consider the American side of my Muslim-Americanness, I would probably start looking around for another hidden camera, believing I was on the new reality series titled "Who Asked You?" If this girl wanted a lesson in how to blend in to her new society, she probably would have taken a course somewhere or at the very least...asked for your opinion!!!! Most likely she is here because she doesn't want to have to justify why she practices a particular custom...she probably heard that about America, and it sounded pretty good to her. Isn't there enough Dr. Phils out there, or do we as a people think that we need to fix everyone? I don't see your response as even-handed, although I believe you do. Just asking..and yes I know it's a somewhat shallow response...not at all what you're looking for or hoping to gain from your thoughtful message above. I am hoping that you will not take this as an attack on you...but merely a view from different eyes. So......let me have it as you see fit. 
This is a good thought you have Steve...and is exactly what I would have said about all this if I only thought it first!!!
"by seeing the world as a qualitative whole, by changing yourself, you, in fact, change the world"
or
as my (His) twist on it would be. First..remove the beam out of your own eye so you can see more clearly to help others remove the speck from theirs. Now that would change the world!
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 16th, 2008, 10:37pm by MordecaiCourage » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #318 on: Apr 16th, 2008, 11:32pm » |
Quote Modify
|
First off, I don't know what your problem is... Based on that post, I don't even know why you decided to chime in, Ken. That would be one I'd write... and then backspace over. But, that's okay. It's all good... I've got my sifter (read on)... Look, I'll take wisdom whencever it comes. In fact, I'm constantly seeking it. Anything that anybody has devoted some serious, well-organized thought to, especially if it's a present matter at hand, I'm open to hearing out. The peripheral point being, I don't go around to random Muslim women wearing their traditional garb and lecture them. But, as the saying goes,... "if the opportunity presents itself (which, for this particular issue, has not to me as of yet; that's why I "simply" share it as food for thought with you all here)..." Anyway, I, for one, am a big boy. I can sift out the valuable nuggets from the horseshit. As far as I can tell, the only people who would rather not hear someone, whose thoughts are reasonable and fair-minded, out are those who can't handle it, who don't want to be pressed to think about their actions critically, who don't want to engage in critical self-reflection, who are insecure, who are jealous, who aren't caring, who are generally speaking avoiders, and the reasons for that would be a mix: psychological, emotional, spiritually dogmatic, intellectual, mental, circumstantial and so on. I would rather live in a "world" where people feel free to share their thoughts, at least their well-thought-out ones, and, then, like mature adults filter out the good stuff from the not so good stuff than in a "world" where people just clam up (out of fear of,... eh-hem,... making someone THINK,... the  horror). Heck, in this case, as you yourself say, it was the price to pay for the assistance I gave her, which she also did NOT "ask for" (as if that somehow gets us anywhere; that "Who asked you?" thing is ultimately just indicative of cynicism). But, when you wrote, "That stance would have earned you a few moments to say what is on your mind about that incident," that turned out to not really be true. What you really meant to write was: "That stance would have earned you a few moments to say what is on your mind about that incident as long as it was something soft and fuzzy and agreeable to me and didn't challenge me (to think)." Why put qualifications on what you want to hear (at least, in that kind of situation)? The only answer is that there are some things you don't want to deal with. As long as it is not mean-spirited, nasty name-calling or vulger trash-talking, which my spiel certainly was NOT, if someone had a genuinely thought-through thought on a present matter at hand, wouldn't you rather hear it and have the opportunity to process it than not hear it at all? In general, I would rather hear a person out and then discard the crap afterwards than cut off the path to understanding. Hell, I might just learn something.  I mean, in a somewhat related manner of speaking, wouldn't you rather have tried and failed than not have tried at all? In a sense, your post just says, "Don't be you, Steve," and, "This is where my limit for people to be themselves around me lies." This post of yours, Ken, is very revealing.
In closing...
The sincere version...
on Apr 16th, 2008, 5:28pm, MordecaiCourage wrote:| "by seeing the world as a qualitative whole, by changing yourself, you, in fact, change the world" |
|
The cynical version...
Quote:| First..remove the beam out of your own eye so you can see more clearly to help others remove the speck from theirs. |
|
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 16th, 2008, 11:34pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
MordecaiCourage
Guest
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #319 on: Apr 17th, 2008, 12:19am » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
on Apr 16th, 2008, 11:32pm, StegRock wrote:| First off, I don't know what your problem is... |
|
I don't have a problem with the post...that is why I stated that it was a "thoughtful message"
Quote:| Based on that post, I don't even know why you decided to chime in, Ken. |
|
because I was intrigued by your post, and I DO have a voice of my own and an opinion of my own, and it is every bit as valid as anything you yourself have written or thought.
Quote:| That would be one I'd write... and then backspace over. But, that's okay. It's all good... I've got my sifter (read on)... Look, I'll take wisdom whencever it comes. In fact, I'm constantly seeking it. Anything that anybody has devoted some serious, well-organized thought to, especially if it's a present matter at hand, I'm open to hearing out. |
|
Now are you hearing ME out, or are you on the defensive? I have not bashed you if you read closely. I am merely pointing out that most people, yourself included, don't want the advice that they don't ask for. I stated in a few different ways that this was not a personal attack...yet you still percieve it to be one. Quote:| The peripheral point being, I don't go around to random Muslim women wearing their traditional garb and lecture them. But, as the saying goes,... "if the opportunity presents itself (which, for this particular issue, has not to me as of yet; that's why I "simply" share it as food for thought with you all here)..." |
|
which is what I am doing also, dishing up food.
Quote:| Anyway, I, for one, am a big boy. I can sift out the valuable nuggets from the horseshit. As far as I can tell, the only people who would rather not hear someone, whose thoughts are reasonable and fair-minded, out are those who can't handle it, who don't want to be pressed to think about their actions critically, who don't want to engage in critical self-reflection, who are insecure, who are jealous, who aren't caring, who are generally speaking avoiders, and the reasons for that would be a mix: psychological, emotional, spiritually dogmatic, intellectual, mental, circumstantial and so on. |
|
You forgot those people who didn't ask for your opinion.
Quote:| I would rather live in a "world" where people feel free to share their thoughts, at least their well-thought-out ones, and, then, like mature adults filter out the good stuff from the not so good stuff than in a "world" where people just clam up (out of fear of,... eh-hem,... making someone THINK,... the horror). |
|
I agree.
Quote:| Heck, in this case, as you yourself say, it was the price to pay for the assistance I gave her, which she also did NOT "ask for" (as if that somehow gets us anywhere; that "Who asked you?" thing is ultimately just indicative of cynicism). |
|
That cynicism should have made you think, because it IS actually one of many tools used in the art of language to help one understand another's point-of-view. Sarcasm is another....... 
Quote:| But, when you wrote, "That stance would have earned you a few moments to say what is on your mind about that incident," that turned out to not really be true. What you really meant to write was: "That stance would have earned you a few moments to say what is on your mind about that incident as long as it was something soft and fuzzy and agreeable to me and didn't challenge me (to think)." Why put qualifications on what you want to hear (at least, in that kind of situation)? |
|
Steve, believe it or not, I too am a big boy. So when I make a point or a statement...I say EXACTLY what I mean. I am in complete control of what I say and of my emotions and I do not need anyone trying to second guess what I say and I definately do not need anyone to ''qualify'' what I say.
Quote:The only answer is that there are some things you don't want to deal with. As long as it is not mean-spirited, nasty name-calling or vulger trash-talking, which my spiel certainly was NOT, if someone had a genuinely thought-through thought on a present matter at hand, wouldn't you rather hear it and have the opportunity to process it than not hear it at all?
|
|
Sure.....if I asked for it, or if the person giving me the wisdom knew me and we "had it like that".
Quote:| In general, I would rather hear a person out and then discard the crap afterwards than cut off the path to understanding. |
|
In general...yes!!! But do you think that telling a complete stranger from a different culture, different religion, heck....a different world even, as a "general" situation? You are reasonable Steve. If you tell me that a situation like that is in any way "general" in nature, then I'll just have to take your word for that.
Quote:| Hell, I might just learn something. I mean, in a somewhat related manner of speaking, wouldn't you rather have tried and failed than not have tried at all? |
|
This is valid perhaps in your ''general" terms...not in mine. Quote:| In a sense, your post just says, "Don't be you, Steve," and, "This is where my limit for people to be themselves around me lies." This post of yours, Ken, is very revealing. |
|
Funny thing...or better yet, the ironic thing about your rebuttal to me here is that it tells me.."Don't be you, Ken," which is as you say Steve, very revealing.
In your closing remarks about the beam quote...you do realize you are calling God a cynic don't you? Those are His words, not mine. I just happen to be on board with it 100%!
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 17th, 2008, 12:24am by MordecaiCourage » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #320 on: Apr 17th, 2008, 12:39am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 16th, 2008, 5:28pm, MordecaiCourage wrote:| Most likely she is here because she doesn't want to have to justify why she practices a particular custom...she probably heard that about America, and it sounded pretty good to her. |
|
Oh, come on... America, "the free for all" (that's going to spell our demise)... That doesn't justify not thinking things through and trampling on (common)sensibilities. In any event, wouldn't her heeding (something along the lines of) my suggestion be kicking it up a moral notch? And, wouldn't her being able to do so be substantive evidence of the openness and flexibility of her religion that many Muslims claim is the case and which the world oh, so would like to see? But, no, in aMErica it's all about ME, ME, ME and MY rights. Just another excuse to not be a little more thoughtful (on a truer, deeper level). America has been "de-MORAL-ized"! Has the concept of sacrifice lost all salience in aMErica? She can be a Muslim, and she can be so quite openly (MUCH more so than a Christian or Jew in an Islamic state). But, making a rather, relatively speaking, small sacrifice for the country she inhabits would be taking the high road and would put Islam in a good light, all in one fell, and fairly small, swoop. You know... the kinds of sacrifices that AmeRICA was built upon and her (America's, that is) rights are predicated upon. Going back in time on this very thread, it's that "freedom to"/"freedom from" distinction rearing it's head again (see pages 6 and 7 to see what I am referring to). Take all of aMErica's "freedom tos" without "consideration" for America's (implied) "freedom froms"! That's the ticket! Your freedom to practice your religion whatever it is implies others' freedom from you forcing your religion in (in unreligious venues), but we typically skirt that second, more challenging part. But, ultimately, it's all supposed to be low-key. Things will work just fine if it's kept low-key. Now, I'm not saying that the Muslim girl was forcing her religion on us. I'm just taking this a few more logical steps...
Quote:| I don't see your response as even-handed, although I believe you do. |
|
Thank you for the condescending "although I believe you do (as if I am stuck in my own little invalid world)," but, Ken, could you please explain to me how my response is NOT even-handed? Furthermore, what would be a more even-handed response, besides doing what amounts to nothing that is?
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #321 on: Apr 17th, 2008, 2:13am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 17th, 2008, 12:19am, MordecaiCourage wrote:I don't have a problem with the post...that is why I stated that it was a "thoughtful message"
because I was intrigued by your post, and I DO have a voice of my own and an opinion of my own, and it is every bit as valid as anything you yourself have written or thought. |
|
Uh-huh... Okay...
Quote:| Now are you hearing ME out, or are you on the defensive? |
|
A little of both...
Quote:| I have not bashed you if you read closely. I am merely pointing out that most people, yourself included, don't want the advice that they don't ask for. |
|
Yea,... okay,... whatever... The point is, in terms of making a difference, moot, and it, this "Who asked you?" mentality, is actually what has gotten us off the beaten track (see below). In the meantime, it's really a meaningless point (and, in any event, one you yourself are not even adhering to,... not that you should, but...).
Quote:| I stated in a few different ways that this was not a personal attack...yet you still percieve it to be one. |
|
Yea, I do... It's always, so to speak, "personal" (and I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way; it should be). We are persons, right? What else really can it be? The mirage is that it is not. As long as you can avoid name-calling and such, which we both to our credit  have done, and can hash it out man-to-man, person-to-person, so to speak, the "personal" side is irrelevant. It just is what it is.
Quote:| You forgot those people who didn't ask for your opinion. |
|
Here we go with this inane "Who asked you?" BS again... I don't subscribe to it, so I can go on posting. If you really do, though, then silence (here and in general) is your only option. So, shut up!
Quote:
You canNOT (really) agree with that AND your "Who asked you?" philosophy. They are contradictory and mutually exclusive.
Quote:| Steve, believe it or not, I too am a big boy. So when I make a point or a statement...I say EXACTLY what I mean. I am in complete control of what I say and of my emotions and I do not need anyone trying to second guess what I say and I definately do not need anyone to ''qualify'' what I say. |
|
Yea, and my interpretation of what you said is accurate. You would have given me a few moments to speak, but you would have stopped listening or, perhaps, even walked away when you heard something you didn't like, despite its reasonableness.
I digress... I guess right there we've hit on my frustration. We're stuck on all this peripheral stuff, not on my core argument, which I think is sound. We are arguing right now not about what I asserted (in response to the Muslim girl and the reporter), but rather that I made an assertion at all. That's where it definitely goes from being an objective argument to a personal attack.
Quote:| Sure.....if I asked for it, or if the person giving me the wisdom knew me and we "had it like that". |
|
That's your limitation, not mine. But, again, is it really even yours? Do you really subscribe to this "Who asked you?" philosophy, or would you rather live in a "world" where people feel free to share their thoughts, at least their well-thought-out ones, and, then, like mature adults filter out the good stuff from the not so good stuff than in a "world" where people just clam up? Again, the two don't mesh.
Quote:| In general...yes!!! But do you think that telling a complete stranger from a different culture, different religion, heck....a different world even, as a "general" situation? You are reasonable Steve. If you tell me that a situation like that is in any way "general" in nature, then I'll just have to take your word for that. |
|
I don't quite understand the logic of all this. But, in specific response to the question you ask, YES, why not (as long as what I'm going to say is reasonable, fair-minded and not mean-spirited)? That's, in fact, how people across cultures learn about and from one another. Regardless of our litigiousness, you can't live life constantly worried about liability, so to speak, especially when you are not being unreasonable.
Quote:| Funny thing...or better yet, the ironic thing about your rebuttal to me here is that it tells me.."Don't be you, Ken"... |
|
This got all screwed up because you yourself broke the very rule on which your post was predicated, your "Who ask you?" rule, right off the bat. I mean... I don't care that I didn't ask. But, for the record, I didn't ask. But, you still volunteered your quite critical opinion of that fact THAT I made an assertion, which is fine by me (though, I think, off-point), except that it is what you are accusing me of doing. Hence, the logical mess we find ourselves in, your positing the "Who asked you?" rule caused me to posit the "Don't be yourself" rule, which I then broke in the very same way you broke yours. The problem is, though, as I pointed out, with the rules themselves, not really our breaking them. In light of the circumstances here, that was inevitable given their nature.
Quote:| ...which is as you say Steve, very revealing. |
|
GOOD!!! Getting to know you... Getting to know ALL about you... 
Quote:| In your closing remarks about the beam quote...you do realize you are calling God a cynic don't you? Those are His words, not mine. I just happen to be on board with it 100%! |
|
Newsflash, if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not on board, at least, not 100%. And, yes, more could be read into my "cynic" comment, but that's a WHOLE nother discussion. ...  ... Let's NOT go there "here" and now. 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #322 on: Apr 17th, 2008, 5:51am » |
Quote Modify
|
This may seem totally non sequitur, but, in a small, innocuous way, it pithily speaks to that frustration  of mine that I mention above...
on Apr 16th, 2008, 5:28pm, MordecaiCourage wrote:| This is a good thought you have Steve...and is exactly what I would have said about all this if I only thought it first!!! |
|
(First, thanks for the compliment, man.)
Now, Ken, what is this "all this" to which you are referring???
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #323 on: Apr 17th, 2008, 7:45am » |
Quote Modify
|
Since I encouraged you all to revisit some past posts regarding the "freedom from"/"freedom to" distinction,...
on Apr 17th, 2008, 12:39am, StegRock wrote:| Going back in time on this very thread, it's that "freedom to"/"freedom from" distinction rearing it's head again (see pages 6 and 7 to see what I am referring to). Take all of aMErica's "freedom tos" without "consideration" for America's (implied) "freedom froms"! That's the ticket! Your freedom to practice your religion whatever it is implies others' freedom from you forcing your religion in (in unreligious venues), but we typically skirt that second, more challenging part. |
|
... I thought I should add some points of further clarification, just in case.
on Feb 28th, 2005, 3:45pm, StegRock wrote:| I am observing what is going on over in Lebanon. They are in the nascent stages of regaining, or at least fighting to regain, their autonomy and at this stage SO VERY focused on their "freedom from" (Syria). They are NOT thinking about rights or entitlements. They are just thinking about being "free from". Eventually, though, and this is just a natural progression, if people are successful in gaining their "freedom from", they start to take it for granted, which we in America have done. Granted, this takes a long time (at least in terms of human lives). But, eventually, people then start to become focused on their "freedom to"... now that they are "free from". They want to explore the far reaches of their freedom; they want to know all their freedoms: they want to push the limits of their "freedom to". This is where we currently are in America. Our feverishly pursuing "freedom to" lends itself to an inherent neglect of "freedom from", which, in any event, we already take for granted and has fallen into the deep recesses of the backs of our minds (though 9/11 was a bit of a wake-up call; I say "a bit of" because where we are in our history and with respect to "our" brand of freedom is stemming the lesson). But, in this context, eventually the "freedom to" mindset starts encroaching on people's "freedom from" and "freedom from" comes back into focus and the pendulum swings back. But, eventually, we once again become comfortable with our "freedom from" and "freedom from" gives way again to "freedom to". This back-and-forth, give-and-take quite literally, "to-and-fro" so to speak, is how freedom meanders through history. They seem to be two sides of a coin which have a difficult time coexisting. Maybe they just cannot. Or, maybe, just maybe, the (ubiquitous) realization of this phenomena (by many) can help us make them (better) coexist. The ultimate truth is that "freedom from" is the FUNDAMENTAL of the two: "freedom from" lays the necessary groundwork for "freedom to". "Freedom to" is a sufficient condition, but "freedom from" is the necessary condition: strictly speaking, without "freedom from" there is no "freedom to". |
|
(Picking up from there...)
If there is "freedom to", there is "freedom from", and not vice-versa. For those logicians out there, remember how modus ponens and modus tollens work. (Putting this in slightly more concrete terms,...) Without "freedom to (sleep)" there can still be "freedom from (the noise that prevents you from sleeping)". (Maybe you have to go to work or you are hungry and cannot sleep or whatever.) This is derived from the conditional "if there is freedom to sleep" (the "sufficient" condition), there is "freedom from the noise that prevents you from sleeping" (and a bunch more factors; I'll get there in a sec) (a "necessary" condition). But, without "freedom from (the noise that prevents you from sleeping)" there is no "freedom to (sleep)" (by modus tollens). In that sense, "freedom froms" give you the (logically) necessary condition(s). "Freedom to sleep (at a given time)" entails "Freedom from all the factors that would prevent sleeping (at that given time)", but to say that the latter entails the former is a bit strange. Though, logically I suppose you could say it. Ultimately, they are logical equivalents. Here is the way to think about it: 1+1+1+1+1=5 where "1+1+1+1+1" is the "freedom from" and "5" is "freedom to". It is in this sense that "freedom froms" are prior to and, thus, comprise/predicate (you might, in a creative move, even be able to say "implicate") "freedom tos". Remove any one of those "1's", the "freedom froms", and you don't have "5", the "freedom to". "Freedom tos" do not comprise/predicate(/implicate) "freedom froms"; they imply them. BUT, all this is to hash out the logic of it all. BOTTOM LINE, the "freedom from/freedom to" distinction is a perspectival one. A "freedom to" frame of mind is one of entitlements, whereas, a "freedom from" mindset is one of responsibility.
...
Okay,... moving right along... 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
steelkings
Guest
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #324 on: Apr 17th, 2008, 10:05pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
Quote:
In a sense I would have been with the majority. I would have been taken by suprise. I would have felt sorry for both of them. Her because of the injustice being served upon her. Him for the acting out on the feeling of hate. I understand that feeling as I have prejudged people in the past based upon their outward appearance. Most of the time that feeling isnt proven one way or the other. I deal with alot of inner city children and its easy to prejudge peoples attitude based solely upon how they are dressed. However, When you are wrong it becomes hard to justify it. So by the time I would have figured all this out the situation would have gone full course and been over. Sorry. Now probably the best thing I can do in this situation is go home and share the experience with my kids. As our only hope as a civilization is through the education of our children.
Quote:| Where is the life?" is "in my little Gino's belly".) |
|
Hey, Thats really cool Steve. With the irrational nature of children I fear you may be a little too educated to be a parent but then I remembered you and Gino had the practice chicken  you rescued from the streets of Hawaii. So you will be fine. If you can take any advice from a guy that has raised three of his own, it would be a simple as this. If you provide your child with three things: Love, a sense of trust and a little fun in life, you will be eventually gifted a tee shirt that reads "Worlds Greatest Dad".
Quote:
BTW. Howdy yall. Just checking in from far and away. For those that understand, Im still parked in the same spot.. 
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 17th, 2008, 10:19pm by steelkings » |
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Games
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
Ah, yes... that was the word I was looking for.
Loved watching them squirm a bit with some of the questions they were getting. I only caught the last 45 minutes or so. All in all though, outside of a homosexual question asked, no one asked them anything really tough that would show where they stood morally. Did anyone ask about their views on abortion, seperation of Church and State, religous beliefs?? I know a few offered up their faith within their answers, but it seemed everyone kinda dodged the personal issues. Just curious what ya'll thought. I do love that forum.
