When insulting someone else's intelligence, please use contractions correctly. With that behind us, But really, maybe your having difficulty understanding (believe me I sympathize) that Cole is doing the extraordinary by keeping two thoughts in his head at the same time.
It's probably up there with why you haven't complained about the destruction of Serrano's "Piss Christ" yet. (Something about which John Cole's silence also speaks volumes.)
I think you want to avoid an unpleasant discussion that you suspect you'll lose but maybe it's just because you sympathize with the people who enjoy destroying art.
Instead of complaining about X, he's wondering why Libertarians aren't complaining about X.
I note that you haven't complained about it yet but have complained about my complaining about John Cole complaining about Libertarians not complaining.
Why is that, Stillwater? What are your motives here?
Would you agree that part of the metaphorical problem is that the Republicans, metaphorically, built a metaphorical temple in the metaphorical shadow of 9/11? Instead of being allowed to metaphorically do this, the democrats ought to have metaphorically fought against this metaphorical temple metaphorically dedicated to their intolerance despite that they've metaphorically dressed it up as being metaphorically open to everybody so long as they metaphorically walk in metaphorical lockstep with their spectacularly intolerant religious ideas that have a very real history of committing violence against people who don't agree with the various really ugly things their holy book says?
Isn't there a metaphorical elephant in the room that we're metaphorically ignoring?
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.
On “The Libertarian Response? Happy You Asked!”
And now Cole is, seriously, asking why Libertarians haven't denounced the authoritarian takeover of Benton Harbor.
Again: If you object to being treated the way you’re defending the way that others are being treated then THAT SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING.
"
You make a joke about denouncing the Broccoli Mandate in a post in which John Cole questions why we haven't denounced the Broccoli Mandate.
Do you not see this?
"
I mean, seriously. If you object to being treated the way you're defending the way that others are being treated then THAT SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING.
"
When insulting someone else's intelligence, please use contractions correctly. With that behind us, But really, maybe your having difficulty understanding (believe me I sympathize) that Cole is doing the extraordinary by keeping two thoughts in his head at the same time.
Unlike "Libertarians", of course.
"
Perhaps that's the common ground.
"
It's probably up there with why you haven't complained about the destruction of Serrano's "Piss Christ" yet. (Something about which John Cole's silence also speaks volumes.)
I think you want to avoid an unpleasant discussion that you suspect you'll lose but maybe it's just because you sympathize with the people who enjoy destroying art.
Maybe we'll never know.
"
Instead of complaining about X, he's wondering why Libertarians aren't complaining about X.
I note that you haven't complained about it yet but have complained about my complaining about John Cole complaining about Libertarians not complaining.
Why is that, Stillwater? What are your motives here?
"
Why is Reason his bete noire? I would think that Redstate would be...
"
Should I have said instead that he was "concern trolling"?
On “Are Liberals Nihilistically Tolerant?”
To heighten the irony, it looks like one of Serrano's pictures has been destroyed. Check it out.
We've reached the point where these people are actively rioting in response to art. How did we get here?
"
Would you agree that part of the metaphorical problem is that the Republicans, metaphorically, built a metaphorical temple in the metaphorical shadow of 9/11? Instead of being allowed to metaphorically do this, the democrats ought to have metaphorically fought against this metaphorical temple metaphorically dedicated to their intolerance despite that they've metaphorically dressed it up as being metaphorically open to everybody so long as they metaphorically walk in metaphorical lockstep with their spectacularly intolerant religious ideas that have a very real history of committing violence against people who don't agree with the various really ugly things their holy book says?
Isn't there a metaphorical elephant in the room that we're metaphorically ignoring?
On “Weekend Jukebox and Open Thread”
I got banned from Redstate.
On “Societal Constructs Often Result In Sub-Optimal Leisure Options”
Dude, that's really awesome.
"
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.