Plush toys are somewhat neutral, aren't they? I mean, the animals, anyway.
Friendship bracelets are cool girl toys.. Maribou pointed out earlier that girls also get to do (are downright expected to do!) crafts like cross-stitch or crewel or latchhook stuff. Which, I suppose, has upsides.
Searching Amazon for the next best thing, it looks like the version from the 70's and 80's was better. People keep complaining about the quality and how it's not as good.
The dolls that have zippers and buttons and loops and shoelaces and velcro qualify as good gender-neutral dolls.
Though I had a Raggedy Andy when I was a toddler and it disturbed my Grandfather to no end. My parents, being pretty progressive for the 70's, explained "it's his little man!"
Eventually I was able to irritate my Grandfather because I did nothing but play "those video games".
This ties into Sam M's comment. It's a mini-grownup tool more than a toy... but the fruits of the EZ bake oven were, theoretically, not bad.
The stuff *I* had was bad but I suspect that that was more due to the makeshift recipes kids tried to come up with after the three included packets of cake mix disappeared.
Generally, people tend to treat my female kids like small adults.
This is a really good point.
I originally had a paragraph about how boy toys are ways for boys to sublimate the instinct to go to war and girl toys are training for girls in the art of boy management and thus society gets perpetuated.
It was really overwrought, though, and I deleted it.
I don't mind you calling it "relativistic" because, well, if different people have different moral obligations due to their moral starting points, then it does look a lot like relativism.
I'll point out an example that (I hope!) you've used before. We all have been present when some college student type says "an eye for an eye? a tooth for a tooth? That's barbarianism!" We know, you and I, that it is our job to take a deep breath and hope that someone else stands up and explains the historical context of "eye for an eye" and talks about how, before, it was tribalism and the rule of law was "payback is a bitch" and people would kill over eyes and lost teeth and kill entire families for revenge of a murder and kill entire villages for revenge of a family and if nobody stands up and says that then we have to.
Today? We know what Tevye knows.
Is that relativism? It feels differently than hard relativism seems to.
As for the Revelation of God, I haven't seen it. If you have, good on you (though, sometimes, I wonder if someone who actually has experienced the Revelation of God wouldn't act indistinguishably from someone who hasn't but that's, as we've hammered out, *MY* problem).
And I can't just take your word for it because, at that point, it becomes the Revelation of Bob and I'm Protestant enough to know that I must be my own priest/seer.
What do I think? I think I'll have a glass of wine.
No. Erm, my focus is primarily on negative rights, that is, rights that do not infringe upon your rights when I exercise my rights. When it comes to "positive rights" I am much more hard pressed to see them as anything but obligations imposed by "us, as a society" for the good of, among others, "the children" (and many of these are, indeed, public goods and others of them are, indeed, crap).
The person's "ground" of morality is dependent upon each and every individual.
There are situations where Person A could do Action X and it would be perfectly moral (even admirable!) while Person B could do Action X and we'd see it as immoral. It can also be dependent upon Time T.
how does one avoid his “moral code” becoming nothing more than a collection of ad hoc “moral” sentiments?
By stating loudly and repeatedly that they are more than a collection of ad hoc "moral" sentiments and questioning the character of people who probe deeper?
The Law defines what’s Wrong: all else is allowed.
In practice I agree, but then we see a handful of things that are absolutely legal and absolutely immoral. We don't have to go back that far in American history to find an example or two. As such, I don't see "consensus" as, necessarily, a good yardstick of what morality consists of unless we're all willing to agree that morality is a construct similar to "gender roles".
Evolutionarily Useful but not indicative of any deeper/greater truth.
When you say "JBird’s dressing me down for my dissing of Hisself", that's not exactly what happened.
I dressed you down for crappy dissing of Hisself. You mock Obama not because of what he has done but because of what he *IS*.
Again: I wonder if someone who happened to have an (R) after his name wouldn't be applauded BY YOU for doing the things that Obama has done because your criticisms of him have very little to do with his actions as Executive but instead with the things he probably thinks given his background.
This is the thing that irritates me. I get asked a question. I posted a link to an essay where I thought I answered the question. Now the question gets re-asked.
Did my essay *NOT* answer the question?
I am not saying that the conclusions I reached need to followed by everybody else, forever, amen. I'm just saying that this is the framework that makes sense to me in the absence of a God.
Is my answer *NOT* that? Does it not answer the question? I like to think that it's more readable than Voegelin... Is it not?
More than a handful of initial premises are untestable in theory and, from a pragmatic point of view, lead to good-enough conclusions ("Did you eat today? Does it seem likely you'll eat tomorrow? Awesome.") that once we claw our way up to the point where reason is a luxury we can afford that we're more likely to see evidence that does not cohere with our moralities as obviously incoherent rather than an opportunity to, once again, engage in rationality and reshuffle absolutely everything that got us to where we are today.
(That was actually more of a callback joke with a bit of a barbed point than a direct command, for the record.)
This leads me back into the whole "translation" thing where some say that this or that language has an untranslatable word.
That strikes me as exceptionally unlikely given what I've seen language do. Maybe it takes two words, maybe it takes a sentence, maybe it takes a paragraph... but you can pretty much translate anything.
(Wittgenstein said that if a lion could speak, we could not understand him but if my cats are any indications lions would say such things as "FOOD!" and "leave me alone" and "I want a backrub"... all of which are translatable in theory.)
Which brings me around to the point that it's more than possible to make a crude facsimile of an argument for the benefit of lay peeps while, at the same time, improving their vocabulary for next time.
The metaphysics is that there are universal moral laws, categorical imperatives, or fully general moral principles that remain true independently of situational contexts.
I don't know how to get there from here. From here it just likes like there might be universal laws, categorical imperatives, and whatnot but we may also be getting one hell of a false positive and, jeez louise, if those things were real you'd think that more people would be able to write down what they are... so those things being a mirage we're running toward rather than an actual oasis would be a rational conclusion to reach as well.
I’m curious about your route to where you’ve reduced morality to choices.
I'm much closer to moral nihilism than not. I saw the interesting portion of the debate not being over the nature of the rules (if they existed) but in the whole "free will" thing.
I mean, if we don't have free will and we're just a fairly complicated bunch of billiard balls bouncing off each other, then morality is phlogiston. It's ether. It's a mortar concept we invented to fill in gaps in our knowledge.
If, however, we can choose between X and Y, then that's where morality resides.
To answer the query, I got there by climbing (or crawling) up.
"Rationally" strikes me as the weak point here because (much like morality) it is a vector rather than a destination and, as such, two rational people can reach mutually exclusive (rational!) conclusions rationally.
On “Societal Constructs Often Result In Sub-Optimal Leisure Options”
Plush toys are somewhat neutral, aren't they? I mean, the animals, anyway.
Friendship bracelets are cool girl toys.. Maribou pointed out earlier that girls also get to do (are downright expected to do!) crafts like cross-stitch or crewel or latchhook stuff. Which, I suppose, has upsides.
"
Searching Amazon for the next best thing, it looks like the version from the 70's and 80's was better. People keep complaining about the quality and how it's not as good.
This is a bummer.
"
The dolls that have zippers and buttons and loops and shoelaces and velcro qualify as good gender-neutral dolls.
Though I had a Raggedy Andy when I was a toddler and it disturbed my Grandfather to no end. My parents, being pretty progressive for the 70's, explained "it's his little man!"
Eventually I was able to irritate my Grandfather because I did nothing but play "those video games".
"
This ties into Sam M's comment. It's a mini-grownup tool more than a toy... but the fruits of the EZ bake oven were, theoretically, not bad.
The stuff *I* had was bad but I suspect that that was more due to the makeshift recipes kids tried to come up with after the three included packets of cake mix disappeared.
"
Generally, people tend to treat my female kids like small adults.
This is a really good point.
I originally had a paragraph about how boy toys are ways for boys to sublimate the instinct to go to war and girl toys are training for girls in the art of boy management and thus society gets perpetuated.
It was really overwrought, though, and I deleted it.
On “Tits! Swords! Edginess!”
I had heard that they swear a lot on Deadwood. I had even heard that they swear in such a way that pushed the artform forward somewhat.
I watched a few episodes. I didn't notice the swearing.
I was disappointed.
On “Weekend Jukebox and Open Thread”
As C.S. Lewis said, it's like whitening tooth powder. "Imagine how much worse the teeth would be without it!"
Perhaps I've been exposed to too much advertising because I suspect that there are other forces at work.
"
Here is a relevant cartoon (that uses the 'F' word pretty liberally so it may be NSFW or otherwise above your own personal level of offensitivity).
"
Hey Bob, down here.
I don't mind you calling it "relativistic" because, well, if different people have different moral obligations due to their moral starting points, then it does look a lot like relativism.
I'll point out an example that (I hope!) you've used before. We all have been present when some college student type says "an eye for an eye? a tooth for a tooth? That's barbarianism!" We know, you and I, that it is our job to take a deep breath and hope that someone else stands up and explains the historical context of "eye for an eye" and talks about how, before, it was tribalism and the rule of law was "payback is a bitch" and people would kill over eyes and lost teeth and kill entire families for revenge of a murder and kill entire villages for revenge of a family and if nobody stands up and says that then we have to.
Today? We know what Tevye knows.
Is that relativism? It feels differently than hard relativism seems to.
As for the Revelation of God, I haven't seen it. If you have, good on you (though, sometimes, I wonder if someone who actually has experienced the Revelation of God wouldn't act indistinguishably from someone who hasn't but that's, as we've hammered out, *MY* problem).
And I can't just take your word for it because, at that point, it becomes the Revelation of Bob and I'm Protestant enough to know that I must be my own priest/seer.
"
Each man his priest, or perhaps sage?
I prefer to call it "protestantism".
"
What do I think? I think I'll have a glass of wine.
No. Erm, my focus is primarily on negative rights, that is, rights that do not infringe upon your rights when I exercise my rights. When it comes to "positive rights" I am much more hard pressed to see them as anything but obligations imposed by "us, as a society" for the good of, among others, "the children" (and many of these are, indeed, public goods and others of them are, indeed, crap).
"
The person's "ground" of morality is dependent upon each and every individual.
There are situations where Person A could do Action X and it would be perfectly moral (even admirable!) while Person B could do Action X and we'd see it as immoral. It can also be dependent upon Time T.
On “Contra Tu Quoque, Or, Avoiding The Fourth Response”
"eggless"
On “Weekend Jukebox and Open Thread”
how does one avoid his “moral code” becoming nothing more than a collection of ad hoc “moral” sentiments?
By stating loudly and repeatedly that they are more than a collection of ad hoc "moral" sentiments and questioning the character of people who probe deeper?
"
The Law defines what’s Wrong: all else is allowed.
In practice I agree, but then we see a handful of things that are absolutely legal and absolutely immoral. We don't have to go back that far in American history to find an example or two. As such, I don't see "consensus" as, necessarily, a good yardstick of what morality consists of unless we're all willing to agree that morality is a construct similar to "gender roles".
Evolutionarily Useful but not indicative of any deeper/greater truth.
"
And another thing!
When you say "JBird’s dressing me down for my dissing of Hisself", that's not exactly what happened.
I dressed you down for crappy dissing of Hisself. You mock Obama not because of what he has done but because of what he *IS*.
Again: I wonder if someone who happened to have an (R) after his name wouldn't be applauded BY YOU for doing the things that Obama has done because your criticisms of him have very little to do with his actions as Executive but instead with the things he probably thinks given his background.
I want Obama exorciated for screwing up.
Not for being screwed up.
"
This is the thing that irritates me. I get asked a question. I posted a link to an essay where I thought I answered the question. Now the question gets re-asked.
Did my essay *NOT* answer the question?
I am not saying that the conclusions I reached need to followed by everybody else, forever, amen. I'm just saying that this is the framework that makes sense to me in the absence of a God.
Is my answer *NOT* that? Does it not answer the question? I like to think that it's more readable than Voegelin... Is it not?
"
Don't see it as "the state". See it as "we, as a society".
"
More than a handful of initial premises are untestable in theory and, from a pragmatic point of view, lead to good-enough conclusions ("Did you eat today? Does it seem likely you'll eat tomorrow? Awesome.") that once we claw our way up to the point where reason is a luxury we can afford that we're more likely to see evidence that does not cohere with our moralities as obviously incoherent rather than an opportunity to, once again, engage in rationality and reshuffle absolutely everything that got us to where we are today.
That was a horrible sentence.
"
(That was actually more of a callback joke with a bit of a barbed point than a direct command, for the record.)
This leads me back into the whole "translation" thing where some say that this or that language has an untranslatable word.
That strikes me as exceptionally unlikely given what I've seen language do. Maybe it takes two words, maybe it takes a sentence, maybe it takes a paragraph... but you can pretty much translate anything.
(Wittgenstein said that if a lion could speak, we could not understand him but if my cats are any indications lions would say such things as "FOOD!" and "leave me alone" and "I want a backrub"... all of which are translatable in theory.)
Which brings me around to the point that it's more than possible to make a crude facsimile of an argument for the benefit of lay peeps while, at the same time, improving their vocabulary for next time.
"
The metaphysics is that there are universal moral laws, categorical imperatives, or fully general moral principles that remain true independently of situational contexts.
I don't know how to get there from here. From here it just likes like there might be universal laws, categorical imperatives, and whatnot but we may also be getting one hell of a false positive and, jeez louise, if those things were real you'd think that more people would be able to write down what they are... so those things being a mirage we're running toward rather than an actual oasis would be a rational conclusion to reach as well.
"
I’m curious about your route to where you’ve reduced morality to choices.
I'm much closer to moral nihilism than not. I saw the interesting portion of the debate not being over the nature of the rules (if they existed) but in the whole "free will" thing.
I mean, if we don't have free will and we're just a fairly complicated bunch of billiard balls bouncing off each other, then morality is phlogiston. It's ether. It's a mortar concept we invented to fill in gaps in our knowledge.
If, however, we can choose between X and Y, then that's where morality resides.
To answer the query, I got there by climbing (or crawling) up.
"
Were there too many big words in that argument?
Don't be a dick.
"
"Rationally" strikes me as the weak point here because (much like morality) it is a vector rather than a destination and, as such, two rational people can reach mutually exclusive (rational!) conclusions rationally.
"
"Reason".
You say that like it is metaphysics rather than epistemology.