|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 14, 2011 18:00:11 GMT -5
I understand what you're saying, and you're right, it doesn't have to be that way. And it is important to maintain your empathy, even if other people clearly display a lack of it. I don't think that Goldberg, however, did Weiner any favors by conflating what he did with Strauss-Kahn. Weiner's behavior was juvenile and stupid. I can feel bad for his fall (a little bit), and certainly feel terrible for his wife. I feel no urge to engage in ad hominem attacks on his character, or be overly harsh. He's got family and friends for that, and he broke no laws. Strauss-Kahn, on the other hand, well, to feel empathy for him, who has seemingly shown no remorse, and who freakin' raped and sodomized someone? A thousand times no. To conflate the two because of a shared psychological problem undercuts the seriousness of what Strauss-Kahn did; there is no out for him. Weiner might have embarrassed himself, his family, and his coworkers, but Strauss-Kahn violated and abused a woman. Both need to be held accountable, but not to the same degree; otherwise it becomes utterly meaningless. Here's what grates me: Weiner is getting villified, asked to resign. Strauss-Kahn actually has people defending him! Granted, their defenses are batshit insane, but still! Oh, and Ben Stein? Fuck you. You make me wish I'd never seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Oh, totally agree. To compare the two equally doesn't make sense. But maybe that was his point. To show that one 'deserves' hate and disgust to the nth degree more than the other, and like you say, to hold them both accountable to the same degree would make it meaningless. Just goes to show you the extremes of psychological disorders. There are some functional OCD people, and then there are others whose disorder takes over their lives to where their's is a very narrow existence - at least in normal eyes. I haven't read Ben Stein's opinion. Maybe I don't want to? I'd go on the record to support Weiner's decision to stay or leave the House. I mean, I didn't think Clinton should have resigned, and what he did was 'worse', although not illegal either.Agree. Leave it up to Weiner and the voters of NY. Same with any politician who engages in "victimless" (legally, anyhow) crimes. Both Weiner and S-K are 100% accountable for their actions, but the severity of their actions - many miles apart! And I defintely agree that it is important to maintain empathy - even for the likes of S-K, or Ben Stein, or whomever. Being hateful, judgmental, moralistic, etc . . . really, you only hurt yourself. But being straightforward (not sugar-coating) about what you see, and making decisions NOT to be around abusive people? A-OK.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 16, 2011 12:14:54 GMT -5
Bah. Weiner pulled out. (Sorry. - I am 12, and it's good thing I am not running for office.)
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 16, 2011 19:45:51 GMT -5
Bah. Weiner pulled out. (Sorry. - I am 12, and it's good thing I am not running for office.) Ha! You are pretty good at being 12. All the pressure must have gotten to the guy.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jun 18, 2011 15:32:43 GMT -5
So, call me a elitist liberal, but can I tell you how damn sick I am of stupid? I was on weather.com, just to see if we might get any rain in the near future (that would be no, unfortunately, and made the mistake of letting my eyes drift over to the comments section. I mean, it's not you tube, it's not ain't it cool news, and of course, there were a HUGE amount of comments saying "god will fix global warming" "humans don't have anything to do with climate change," "it doesn't matter if the world's ending if you're 'saved,'" and a lot of sniping at "liberals" promoting the "climate change myth." On the freakin' WEATHER CHANNEL website!!! Is there not one safe place? (Except here, of course.) I'm not saying that every culture doesn't have its fringe element, its conspiracy theorists, and that's not a bad thing. If nothing else, it's a pressure valve, and, at best, it can serve as a way to draw attention to underhanded policies/behavior. Part of why conspiracy theories thrive, in my opinion, is because people believe (not wrongly) that those in power are not being forthcoming, or telling the whole truth. But what seems to be happening is that people are creating their own separate realities, discounting facts, and enforcing their beliefs on others, sometimes with terrible consequences. And to have people in the public eye endorsing such beliefs (ie, that climate change is a myth)...well, you don't need some all powerful deity to destroy the earth, we'll just do it ourselves. And when the ice caps melt and the whole world is submerged in water, before I drown I will swim over to Glenn Beck and anyone else promoting junk science and bullshit and kick their ass before I go.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Jun 18, 2011 15:58:21 GMT -5
So, call me a elitist liberal, but can I tell you how damn sick I am of stupid? I was on weather.com, just to see if we might get any rain in the near future (that would be no, unfortunately, and made the mistake of letting my eyes drift over to the comments section. I mean, it's not you tube, it's not ain't it cool news, and of course, there were a HUGE amount of comments saying "god will fix global warming" "humans don't have anything to do with climate change," "it doesn't matter if the world's ending if you're 'saved,'" and a lot of sniping at "liberals" promoting the "climate change myth." On the freakin' WEATHER CHANNEL website!!! Is there not one safe place? (Except here, of course.) I'm not saying that every culture doesn't have its fringe element, its conspiracy theorists, and that's not a bad thing. If nothing else, it's a pressure valve, and, at best, it can serve as a way to draw attention to underhanded policies/behavior. Part of why conspiracy theories thrive, in my opinion, is because people believe (not wrongly) that those in power are not being forthcoming, or telling the whole truth. But what seems to be happening is that people are creating their own separate realities, discounting facts, and enforcing their beliefs on others, sometimes with terrible consequences. And to have people in the public eye endorsing such beliefs (ie, that climate change is a myth)...well, you don't need some all powerful deity to destroy the earth, we'll just do it ourselves. And when the ice caps melt and the whole world is submerged in water, before I drown I will swim over to Glenn Beck and anyone else promoting junk science and bullshit and kick their ass before I go. Start with the people in the NYT and NPR editorial positions who decide that every dissenting voice is as valid as the consensus of 99.99999% of the climatologists on the planet, and that political opinions have equal validity to scientific ones in matters of science. Julia, I'll help, I've got me some damned good kickin' boots, too.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jun 18, 2011 16:13:11 GMT -5
So, call me a elitist liberal, but can I tell you how damn sick I am of stupid? I was on weather.com, just to see if we might get any rain in the near future (that would be no, unfortunately, and made the mistake of letting my eyes drift over to the comments section. I mean, it's not you tube, it's not ain't it cool news, and of course, there were a HUGE amount of comments saying "god will fix global warming" "humans don't have anything to do with climate change," "it doesn't matter if the world's ending if you're 'saved,'" and a lot of sniping at "liberals" promoting the "climate change myth." On the freakin' WEATHER CHANNEL website!!! Is there not one safe place? (Except here, of course.) I'm not saying that every culture doesn't have its fringe element, its conspiracy theorists, and that's not a bad thing. If nothing else, it's a pressure valve, and, at best, it can serve as a way to draw attention to underhanded policies/behavior. Part of why conspiracy theories thrive, in my opinion, is because people believe (not wrongly) that those in power are not being forthcoming, or telling the whole truth. But what seems to be happening is that people are creating their own separate realities, discounting facts, and enforcing their beliefs on others, sometimes with terrible consequences. And to have people in the public eye endorsing such beliefs (ie, that climate change is a myth)...well, you don't need some all powerful deity to destroy the earth, we'll just do it ourselves. And when the ice caps melt and the whole world is submerged in water, before I drown I will swim over to Glenn Beck and anyone else promoting junk science and bullshit and kick their ass before I go. Start with the people in the NYT and NPR editorial positions who decide that every dissenting voice is as valid as the consensus of 99.99999% of the climatologists on the planet, and that political opinions have equal validity to scientific ones in matters of science. Julia, I'll help, I've got me some damned good kickin' boots, too. You've put your finger directly on a problem I hadn't even thought of within this context. While it is important to contextualize things and present a balance of viewpoints, that does not mean that all of them should be given the same weight, nor that reason can overcome beliefs that are sunk into the mental foundation of the individuals. So I woudn't mind adding in a good portion of the Enlightenment philosophers who thought that reason could overcome, well, anything, if not for an ass-kicking, at least a good dunking.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 18, 2011 20:58:10 GMT -5
Start with the people in the NYT and NPR editorial positions who decide that every dissenting voice is as valid as the consensus of 99.99999% of the climatologists on the planet, and that political opinions have equal validity to scientific ones in matters of science. Julia, I'll help, I've got me some damned good kickin' boots, too. You've put your finger directly on a problem I hadn't even thought of within this context. While it is important to contextualize things and present a balance of viewpoints, that does not mean that all of them should be given the same weight, nor that reason can overcome beliefs that are sunk into the mental foundation of the individuals. So I woudn't mind adding in a good portion of the Enlightenment philosophers who thought that reason could overcome, well, anything, if not for an ass-kicking, at least a good dunking. Not only is it impossible for reason to overcome all beliefs, I don't even think it SHOULD do so. Overall my feeling is: To understand about the physical world (the whats, the hows, the wheres, the whens, the tangible stuff), read a science book (and use your head), don't read a philosophy text or religious text. To understand the spiritual world (the whys, the meanings), read a philosophy or religious text (and use your heart), don't read a science book. The reason your emotions and your fears and your religious texts don't give you the answers about things like climate or evolution is that they CAN'T. They aren't meant to; you will never, ever, find the right answer there. And the reason your intellect and your reason and your science books don't give you answers about things like the existence of God or the meaning of life, is that they CAN'T. They aren't meant to; you will never, ever, find the right answer there. Now, I speak in generalities here, as they are gray areas, and many things in life that require the judicious application of all your capacities. But basically, that's my two cents on this kind of thing. To use an imperfect analogy: People are, in essence, using their eyes to figure out how something sounds, when they should be using their ears . . . and then they're telling you there is no noise, because they can't hear it.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 21, 2011 8:48:15 GMT -5
So, call me a elitist liberal, but can I tell you how damn sick I am of stupid? I was on weather.com, just to see if we might get any rain in the near future (that would be no, unfortunately, and made the mistake of letting my eyes drift over to the comments section. I mean, it's not you tube, it's not ain't it cool news, and of course, there were a HUGE amount of comments saying "god will fix global warming" "humans don't have anything to do with climate change," "it doesn't matter if the world's ending if you're 'saved,'" and a lot of sniping at "liberals" promoting the "climate change myth." On the freakin' WEATHER CHANNEL website!!! Is there not one safe place? (Except here, of course.) I'm not saying that every culture doesn't have its fringe element, its conspiracy theorists, and that's not a bad thing. If nothing else, it's a pressure valve, and, at best, it can serve as a way to draw attention to underhanded policies/behavior. Part of why conspiracy theories thrive, in my opinion, is because people believe (not wrongly) that those in power are not being forthcoming, or telling the whole truth. But what seems to be happening is that people are creating their own separate realities, discounting facts, and enforcing their beliefs on others, sometimes with terrible consequences. And to have people in the public eye endorsing such beliefs (ie, that climate change is a myth)...well, you don't need some all powerful deity to destroy the earth, we'll just do it ourselves. And when the ice caps melt and the whole world is submerged in water, before I drown I will swim over to Glenn Beck and anyone else promoting junk science and bullshit and kick their ass before I go. Speaking of destroying the earth... In light of the red comment above, isn't it kinda scary how we have heard nothing much lately about the Fukushima disaster? Not to mention the nuclear plants on alert near Omaha. One is completely surrounded by water from the Missouri River, which is still rising from recent rains in the Dakotas. enenews.com/Are some things just to scary to contemplate?
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 21, 2011 8:49:30 GMT -5
You've put your finger directly on a problem I hadn't even thought of within this context. While it is important to contextualize things and present a balance of viewpoints, that does not mean that all of them should be given the same weight, nor that reason can overcome beliefs that are sunk into the mental foundation of the individuals. So I woudn't mind adding in a good portion of the Enlightenment philosophers who thought that reason could overcome, well, anything, if not for an ass-kicking, at least a good dunking. Not only is it impossible for reason to overcome all beliefs, I don't even think it SHOULD do so. Overall my feeling is: To understand about the physical world (the whats, the hows, the wheres, the whens, the tangible stuff), read a science book (and use your head), don't read a philosophy text or religious text. To understand the spiritual world (the whys, the meanings), read a philosophy or religious text (and use your heart), don't read a science book. The reason your emotions and your fears and your religious texts don't give you the answers about things like climate or evolution is that they CAN'T. They aren't meant to; you will never, ever, find the right answer there. And the reason your intellect and your reason and your science books don't give you answers about things like the existence of God or the meaning of life, is that they CAN'T. They aren't meant to; you will never, ever, find the right answer there. Now, I speak in generalities here, as they are gray areas, and many things in life that require the judicious application of all your capacities. But basically, that's my two cents on this kind of thing. To use an imperfect analogy: People are, in essence, using their eyes to figure out how something sounds, when they should be using their ears . . . and then they're telling you there is no noise, because they can't hear it.Oh, that is perfect!
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jun 21, 2011 17:51:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 21, 2011 18:44:52 GMT -5
FOR ME: I'm doing this because I want to be a Mom, and there always have been, and there always will be, kids who needs moms. That's plenty enough, right there. Whether or not I inspire anyone, or the social, political, or environmental context in which I'm doing this . . . I don't give any of that a second thought. I think the writer of the article shares the same primary reason for wanting to adopt: "I am adding children to my family because I want them . . " Yep. She has interests that have gotten her thinking about it all in a wider context though, and she writes about it in an interesting way. Thanks for sharing the article, Liz.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 21, 2011 18:56:42 GMT -5
Liz - since you've been to Athens and you have an interest in this topic, I thought you might be interested in this article:
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jul 7, 2011 21:11:05 GMT -5
Dang it. In other words. The earth is doomed, unless we can get past this transition period. Go us! Of course, I am taking the most simplistic message of the movie and distilling it to 'let's buckle down and do this'.....but some would say I'm a dreamer....
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jul 8, 2011 16:53:55 GMT -5
Dang it. In other words. The earth is doomed, unless we can get past this transition period. Go us! Of course, I am taking the most simplistic message of the movie and distilling it to 'let's buckle down and do this'.....but some would say I'm a dreamer.... Karen -- Is that really a 3 hour movie? Can you summarize?
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jul 9, 2011 5:28:40 GMT -5
Liz - since you've been to Athens and you have an interest in this topic, I thought you might be interested in this article: Yay, that's awesome! Go, Athens!
|
|