Don't just hold opinions, think about them constantly. Reexamine them. Test them. And change them when it's merited!
Nov 26, 2006
I just stumbled upon Philosophy, etc. and the Carnival of the Citizens. CoC is a brand-new blog carnival for discussing issues and viewpoints civilly — and hopefully to gain the participation of people from all points of the spectrum of thought. Discussions will range from philosophy, to politics, to ethics; and people are urged to bring their deliberative spirit. Quoted from the CoC's homepage:
- You should welcome comments that offer reasonable dissent and counter-arguments.
- Dissenting comments should still aim to be generous, helping the other to see flaws in their previous view, rather than trying to embarrass them or otherwise score cheap points.
- You should be open to the possibility of changing your mind, if presented with sufficiently compelling reasons.
- The discussion should be viewed as a collaborative effort of inquiry, rather than an adversarial dispute, or a brute assertion of conflicting beliefs or values.
- Above all, you should exhibit good will and respect towards your fellow citizens and interlocutors — e.g. refrain from impugning their intellectual honesty without good reason.
Plenty of blogs assert this viewpoint or that, and then proceed with mudslinging and meanness in the commentary. On the one hand, these are peoples' individual blogs. They should be allowed to not only hold any viewpoint, but state it. They can set any tone of discussion they wish on their blogs. However, it's disappointing to me when a blog whose initial writing, topics, or viewpoint I hold interesting, descends into what I perceive as the same inflexibility of thought and commentative demagogery as those blogs (and groups) who hold opposing viewpoints. Granted, no one has cornered the market on either civil discourse or infantile behavior; but it seems that there are so few opportunities to speak with people who hold wildly differing or even opposing viewpoints and actually exchange information as opposed to insults and bons mot. This carnival could be very interesting. Here's hoping that it gets off to a strong start.
Keywords: | society | philosophy |
Permalink
The Dalai Lama's instructions for life (2006).
Nov 15, 2006
Spread this far and wide, and good karma will come your way.
- Take into account that great love and great achievements involve great risk.
- When you lose, don't lose the lesson.
- Follow the three R's: respect for self; respect for others; and responsibility for your actions.
- Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.
- Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
- Don't let a little dispute injure a great relationship.
- When you realize you've made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it.
- Spend some time alone every day.
- Open your arms to change, but don't let go of your values.
- Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer.
- Live a good, honorable life. Then when you get older and think back, you'll be able to enjoy it a second time.
- A loving atmosphere in your home is the foundation for your life.
- In disagreements with loved ones, deal only with the current situation. Don't bring up the past.
- Share your knowledge. It is a way to achieve immortality.
- Be gentle with the earth.
- Once a year, go someplace you've never been before.
- Remember that the best relationship is one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other.
- Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.
- Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon.
Keywords: | responsibility | philosophy | ecology |
Permalink
It's Girl Scout Cookie season again...dammit.
Nov 13, 2006
Trancejen lets us know that, in her neck of the woods, it’s Girl Scout Cookie season.
I spent two years in Brownies. (I stopped attending once I figured out that the girls did artsy-craftsy things while only the boys got to go camping, learn carving, or make anything cool.) I had the joy of selling Girl Scout cookies, and participated in the various candy, jewelry, and magazine sales throughout primary school and middle school. I didn’t enjoy it because I felt that I was imposing on people: so often, the people who bought something on these sales did so because they felt sympathy for us kids, or because they were related to us, or…who knows why else. It’s easy enough to find cookies, magazine subscriptions, even costume jewelry elsewhere, in a wider selection, for lower prices. Sympathy sales don’t give a realistic picture of life as an adult:
you come up with an idea (a product, a service, whatever)
you try and convince others that your idea is a good one
you try and get them to buy said product or service from you
if you’re in the corporate world, there’s a higher-than-average chance that your idea will be rejected / stolen / changed beyond recognition and then misapplied
if you’re doing business for yourself, there’s a higher-than-average chance…of the same, really. Except that if you’re working for someone else, you might get paid for some of the time you spent developing the idea
And why is it that I only ever see kids up to about age 12 (with their parents) selling these cookies? I never see older kids selling these cookies. Is it because the Girl Scouts know that, by age 13, a) sympathy-sales pretty much evaporate because by age 13 the kids have, for the larger part, lost their cute; b) by age 13, most girls have outgrown the fantasy that relatives buy things from them because they’re such excellent salespeople; or c) some other, utterly unrelated reason?
I have no clue. I’m just speculating.
In other news, there was a minor miscommunication about the start date for my new job. They didn’t want me to start today, but next Monday. Thus, it appears that I’ll have a week off, followed by a three-day week (which means a VERY anemic first-paycheck-from-the-new-job, just in time for next month’s rent.)
Keywords: | marketing | childhood |
Permalink
or, Fallacious Logic for Breakfast.
Oct 28, 2006
- Homosexuality is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
- Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
- Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
- Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
- Straight marriage will be less meaningful if homosexual marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
- Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Homosexual couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
- Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
- Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
- Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
- Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Keywords: | sociology | politics | civil rights |
Permalink
Everything happens. Sometimes, there's a reason. Everything is connected. Sometimes, it's with duct tape.
May 20, 2006
The following email has been making the rounds as of late. It is about 85% accurate, and the inaccuracies are possibly due to mistranslations from an editorial published in April 2006, in the Spanish-language magazine Discovery DSalud. The text of the email has changed slightly as such things do. (This is what some people would call “revisionist”, others would call “the editorial process”, and still others would say “just shut up already”.) The text of the email follows:
Do you know that ‘bird flu’ was discovered in Hong Kong 9 years ago?
Do you know that barely 100 people have died in the whole world in all that time?
Do you know that it was the Americans who alerted us to the efficacy of the human antiviral Tamiflu as a preventative?
Do you know that Tamiflu barely alleviates some symptoms of the common flu?
Do you know that its efficacy against the common flu is questioned by a great part of the scientific community?
Do you know that against a supposed mutant virus such as H5N1, Tamiflu barely alleviates the illness?
Do you know that to date Avian Flu affects birds only?
Do you know who markets Tamiflu? Roche Laboratories.
Do you know who bought the patent for Tamiflu from Roche Laboratories in 1996? Gilead Sciences Inc..
Do you know who was the then president of Gilead Sciences Inc.. and remains a major shareholder? Donald Rumsfeld the present Secretary of Defense of the USA.
Do you know that the base of Tamiflu is crushed aniseed (Star Anise)?
Do you know who controls 90% of the world’s production of this tree? Roche.
Do you know that sales of Tamiflu were over $254 million in 2004 and more than $1000 million in 2005?
Do you know how many more millions Roche can earn in the coming months if the business of fear continues?
So the summary of the story is as follows:
Bush’s friends decide that the medicine Tamiflu is the solution for a pandemic that has not yet occurred and that has caused a hundred deaths worldwide in 9 years. This medicine doesn’t so much as cure the common flu. In normal conditions the virus does not affect humans.
Rumsfeld sells the patent for Tamiflu to Roche for which they pay him a fortune. Roche acquires 90% of the global production of crushed aniseed, the base for the antivirus.
The governments of the entire world threaten a pandemic and then buy industrial quantities of the product from Roche.
So we end up paying for medicine while Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush do the business.
Urban-legend sites including Snopes.com and About.com have further information about the email text, and about its claims.
More..!
Keywords: | science | conspiracy |
Permalink
Roses are red | Violets are blue | I can't find fulfillment | So I'll settle for you
Nov 08, 2005
I've been listening to Bittersweet Symphony
by The Verve on infinite repeat. It's nice, repetitive, fractal sounds with enough interesting peaks to keep my brain harmlessly occupied. Listening to music is like giving a small child a pair of socks so that they'll quietly amuse themselves and let you get something productive done: my hindbrain merrily trances out, and I can concentrate and do...whatever. Coding. Writing. Information organization. Cleaning (okay, so that's more along the lines of giving said baby some candy so that they won't grump and cry — but same principle.)
While reading reviews of the album, I notice that someone had the song played at their wedding reception. What?!?? The orchestral backing tracks are nice; and it's not a song that talks about someone dying or running off with their best friend's girlfriend's dog or what have you. But...what?!?? Stop and check out the lyrics, folks. "It's a bittersweet symphony, this life | Trying to make ends meet, trying to find somebody, then you die | I'll take you down the only road I've ever been down...I can't change | But I'm here in my mold...I can't change my mold, no no no no no no...". The words are spoken by a person who feels like they're trapped in a role society made for them and they're unable to find the strength (or courage, or just plain old intestinal fortitude) to do anything other than “what's right”. Either they can't find the gumption to change or they've been trying to change for so long and seen no effect whatsoever...they're tired, and not feeling incredibly hopeful about making any difference in the future. Playing a song like this at one's wedding seems more than a bit desultory. Good grief. Just write a poem on a cocktail napkin, it's cheaper than the full reception:
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I can't find fulfillment
So I'll settle for you
This is on par with all of us raging fools who thought that the Police's "Every Breath You Take" was a song about love and devotion when it's really about love and devotion's scary inbred kinfolk Obsession and Stalking. (In my — many of our — defence, we were about 11 when the song came out.)
Keywords: | lyrics | language |
Permalink
4 of 8 pages « First < 2 3 4 5 6 > Last »
Click here to join