I thought this bit from his reply to a commenter was interesting too:
I used to be a paperboy in a pretty bad neighborhood. I used to marvel in the fact that no one would ever steal the neighbors newspaper. It happened maybe 2 times in the 4 years I was a paperboy.
I think it has a lot to do with how people visualize “who” they are stealing from. In my paperboy experience people don’t steal cause they see it as taking from their neighbor.
when I was older I ended up working at the same paper as the assistant circulation manager. I would sometimes have to fill the newspaper racks with papers. I would often watch people put in a quarter and remove 5 or 6 papers and distribute them to people standing around in front of the liquor store or supermarket. In this case they were stealing from a Company. it made a difference to people.
If you listen to the original speech, you'll hear that he was telling a story specifically about an optometrist who needed to submit the forms to get "reimbursed by the federal government," so presumably a Medicare provider. As I understand it, to change Medicare provider info, you actually have to fill out form 855B, which is the same form the that's used to enroll as a new Medicare provider. Since it's a multi-purpose form, it's pretty lengthy -- the PDF in that link is 49 pages.
I vigorously disagree with this -- depending on how one defines art, it could be very relevant.
For example, I assume that even Sam would agree that it's justifiable to say that Kobe Bryant is a better basketball player than George Bush. We can say this even though many people in the world have no knowledge of the rules of basketball and couldn't identify any difference in the play of these two, or even if some basketball fans out there have a strange preference (fetish?) for the way that old white guys play basketball and thus would rather see George play than Kobe. The domain ignorance of the first group and the preference for domain-irrelevant characteristics among the second group don't disqualify our statement, because we're not saying that Kobe is more enjoyable to watch, just that when it comes to performing the function of playing basketball, he measures higher on every scale.
So, if one has a careful definition of "art" qua art and separates out the pure aesthetic function from all the accompanying characteristics, one can speak of the extent to which one work of art better performs that function than does another. The fact that some don't have an adequate grasp of the artistic language of the given work and others derive enjoyment from features beyond the pure aesthetic function is as irrelevant in this case as it is with the question of basketball players.
Is the discussion about art or is it about entertainment? Before you can resolve whether there's such a thing as good art, you need to settle on the question of what art is in the first place.
Stop it, you guys. There's no positive correlation between quality of post and # of comments, and you know it -- you're obviously just fishing for compliments. Which you certainly deserve.
[Note: the use of "fishing" above was not intended as a euphemism]
Calling the plan itself Darwinist is senseless -- the concept implicitly has to do with the reason(s) for cutting social welfare programs, not with the cuts themselves.
FWIW, speaking as an avid NPR listener, I can hear the liberalness in almost every program, including ATC and Morning Edition. I trust NPR to be careful with the facts, but the reporters' background assumptions leak into the interviews, the way that they present the R vs D points and rebuttals, the story selection etc. And obviously many of the non-news programs are unapologetic about their politics.
I didn't always notice this -- it was only once I started regularly visiting non-liberal blogs/sites and questioning many of my own prior political beliefs that I recognized those same beliefs at play elsewhere. I guess it was a little like quitting smoking, getting used to clean air, and then walking back into a smoke-filled room.
My opinion: take a break, see how you feel in a couple weeks, see whether your life is better or worse without the place. The only redeeming value of a blog like this is to serve as a training tool for maintaining your equanimity when encountering opposing arguments, or even arguments that offend you. If you're getting riled up, you're not helping yourself or the blog.
She said she'd love to see the guy behind bars. She also prefers to talk about things that a million other people aren't already saying, and her real point (justified or not) was that a trial and acquittal would arguably be worse than no trial at all. But obviously she hasn't engaged in the requisite amount of ritual denunciation to persuade the McArdle Derangement Syndrome sufferers not to make backhanded or even fronthanded accusations of racism or authoritarianism or whatever the hell it is that you lot are accusing her of.
<I>Well, no it isn’t reasonable doubt, unless the defense suggests that scenario ...</I>
Well, there's been no trial and no defense at all, so I'm not sure how this is a reasonable objection to a hypothetical statement. Should we never ever say prior to a trial "I wouldn't convict because I think scenario xyz provides a reasonable doubt" because they have to wait until a defense lawyer says it?
<I>...and the physical evidence is consistent with it.</i>
Is the physical evidence not consistent with it? I haven't read up on the details.
<I>You could suppose she has nefarious motives for getting that wrong,...</i>
...but then you'd be deranged. She could indeed be mixing up "reasonable doubt" with "shadow of a doubt", but people manage to do that all the time without having racist or fascist motives.
It's here -- Stillwater's being unfair though. She just said that if she were on a jury and nothing more were known than what's known right now, she'd have to acquit (probably due to that pesky "beyond a reasonable doubt" thingy).
Not sure what you mean here -- I'm sure the supposed spokespeople are more than happy to be seen as representative, so it's odd to say it's their "fault". The ones who pay the price are the more sensible or moderate folks in the same group who get lumped in.
This sort of person often gets a big assist from the other side, which is already predisposed to see the most simplistic picture of its enemies as representative of the entire group. This happens in religion as much as politics, and probably in many other domains as well.
1. Person A says they despise a certain behavior for its own sake when they see coming from members of the other side of the political aisle
Person A probably shouldn't say this at all, since it's quite unlikely that Person A is self-aware enough to completely separate his/her feelings about the practice itself from his/her feelings about the other side. Except in unusual circumstances, I'd immediately sort Person A into the "partisan" bucket after reading that statement, without bothering to wait for any incriminating silences.
First I think one has to distinguish what type of reader is being discussed. If we're focusing on the average reader, someone who consumes mostly genre fiction and bestsellers, then yes, Austen's romance-novelish plots are much more likely to be read by the demographic that likes to read romance novels. If we're talking about sophisticated readers (basically, those who read for more than just the plot), then I suspect the gender disparity declines rapidly (but probably doesn't disappear entirely). My impressions are based on a wide and representative data set of about 10 people, so you know they're reliable.
New Sec. 10. (a) No civil action may be commenced in any court
for a claim of wrongful life or wrongful birth, and no damages may be
recovered in any civil action for any physical condition of a minor that
existed at the time of such minor’s birth if the damages sought arise out of
a claim that a person’s action, or omission, contributed to such minor’s
mother not obtaining an abortion.
The Arizona bill is similar but it does include the following:
D. This section does not apply to any civil action for damages for an intentional or grossly negligent act or omission, including an act or omission that violates a criminal law.
Well, he can -- it's just a question of what happens if and when folks with guns show up at his doorstep to express their disapproval of his declaration.
BTW my wife was just telling me about a news segment she'd seen recently, where some people have essentially done this very thing. Turns out that in many cases the cost and hassle of fighting specific individuals on this is higher than it's worth, so they get away with not paying taxes, tickets, etc.
If and when the urge to be a pedant on matters of language strikes again, just bear in mind that there's at least one credentialed linguist who reads this blog.
Are Murray's descriptions of the meritocratic elite offered as criticisms of individuals in that class, or is he just criticizing the system? There seems to be a lot of defensiveness among liberals in response to this book, but having not read it, I don't know if that's justified based on his statements or just a function of who wrote it.
I was momentarily confused as to why this was for the former kenB. :)
But anyway, where I was getting at in general was that there seems to be a similar level of "harm" between my examples and gay marriage, and the argument I quoted doesn't seem to leave any room for legislating social norms against fully-consensual behavior. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I thought it was worth bringing up.
I disagree. All offense-based morality is based on animus toward those who dare to differ from the majority. And offense is an unacceptable basis for law.
Does this include laws against public nudity or public sex acts? I see offense but no harm there.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Congratulations, your generation is the first generation in history to rebel by unsticking it to the man.”
I thought this bit from his reply to a commenter was interesting too:
On “Win a Bottle of Delicious Whiskey with the “I Call Bulls**t” Challenge!”
If you listen to the original speech, you'll hear that he was telling a story specifically about an optometrist who needed to submit the forms to get "reimbursed by the federal government," so presumably a Medicare provider. As I understand it, to change Medicare provider info, you actually have to fill out form 855B, which is the same form the that's used to enroll as a new Medicare provider. Since it's a multi-purpose form, it's pretty lengthy -- the PDF in that link is 49 pages.
http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/CMS-Forms/CMS-Forms/downloads/cms855b.pdf
On “Hi-Dee Hi-Dee Hi-Dee Ho! – or, continued musings on relativism in art”
I vigorously disagree with this -- depending on how one defines art, it could be very relevant.
For example, I assume that even Sam would agree that it's justifiable to say that Kobe Bryant is a better basketball player than George Bush. We can say this even though many people in the world have no knowledge of the rules of basketball and couldn't identify any difference in the play of these two, or even if some basketball fans out there have a strange preference (fetish?) for the way that old white guys play basketball and thus would rather see George play than Kobe. The domain ignorance of the first group and the preference for domain-irrelevant characteristics among the second group don't disqualify our statement, because we're not saying that Kobe is more enjoyable to watch, just that when it comes to performing the function of playing basketball, he measures higher on every scale.
So, if one has a careful definition of "art" qua art and separates out the pure aesthetic function from all the accompanying characteristics, one can speak of the extent to which one work of art better performs that function than does another. The fact that some don't have an adequate grasp of the artistic language of the given work and others derive enjoyment from features beyond the pure aesthetic function is as irrelevant in this case as it is with the question of basketball players.
"
Is the discussion about art or is it about entertainment? Before you can resolve whether there's such a thing as good art, you need to settle on the question of what art is in the first place.
On “Enough already with the “Socialist this,” and the “Social Darwinist that””
Stop it, you guys. There's no positive correlation between quality of post and # of comments, and you know it -- you're obviously just fishing for compliments. Which you certainly deserve.
[Note: the use of "fishing" above was not intended as a euphemism]
"
Yeah, the topical political posts tend to bring out the least interesting discussions, even if the post itself makes interesting points.
"
Calling the plan itself Darwinist is senseless -- the concept implicitly has to do with the reason(s) for cutting social welfare programs, not with the cuts themselves.
On “On “Truth” and Its Consequences – Why We Need A New Business Model for 21st Century Journalism”
FWIW, speaking as an avid NPR listener, I can hear the liberalness in almost every program, including ATC and Morning Edition. I trust NPR to be careful with the facts, but the reporters' background assumptions leak into the interviews, the way that they present the R vs D points and rebuttals, the story selection etc. And obviously many of the non-news programs are unapologetic about their politics.
I didn't always notice this -- it was only once I started regularly visiting non-liberal blogs/sites and questioning many of my own prior political beliefs that I recognized those same beliefs at play elsewhere. I guess it was a little like quitting smoking, getting used to clean air, and then walking back into a smoke-filled room.
On “Privacy and Girls Around Me”
I need to start working on a "Guys Using 'Girls Around Me' Around Me" app...
On “Near-Tragedies in Civillian Police Work”
The rest is entertainment. But it's damn good entertainment!
"
My opinion: take a break, see how you feel in a couple weeks, see whether your life is better or worse without the place. The only redeeming value of a blog like this is to serve as a training tool for maintaining your equanimity when encountering opposing arguments, or even arguments that offend you. If you're getting riled up, you're not helping yourself or the blog.
On “The Violent Gang Member in This Picture Is Easily Identifiable By His Tell-Tale Outerwear”
She said she'd love to see the guy behind bars. She also prefers to talk about things that a million other people aren't already saying, and her real point (justified or not) was that a trial and acquittal would arguably be worse than no trial at all. But obviously she hasn't engaged in the requisite amount of ritual denunciation to persuade the McArdle Derangement Syndrome sufferers not to make backhanded or even fronthanded accusations of racism or authoritarianism or whatever the hell it is that you lot are accusing her of.
"
<I>Well, no it isn’t reasonable doubt, unless the defense suggests that scenario ...</I>
Well, there's been no trial and no defense at all, so I'm not sure how this is a reasonable objection to a hypothetical statement. Should we never ever say prior to a trial "I wouldn't convict because I think scenario xyz provides a reasonable doubt" because they have to wait until a defense lawyer says it?
<I>...and the physical evidence is consistent with it.</i>
Is the physical evidence not consistent with it? I haven't read up on the details.
<I>You could suppose she has nefarious motives for getting that wrong,...</i>
...but then you'd be deranged. She could indeed be mixing up "reasonable doubt" with "shadow of a doubt", but people manage to do that all the time without having racist or fascist motives.
"
It's here -- Stillwater's being unfair though. She just said that if she were on a jury and nothing more were known than what's known right now, she'd have to acquit (probably due to that pesky "beyond a reasonable doubt" thingy).
On “The Silence is Deafening, but not Illuminating”
that’s their own damn fault.
Not sure what you mean here -- I'm sure the supposed spokespeople are more than happy to be seen as representative, so it's odd to say it's their "fault". The ones who pay the price are the more sensible or moderate folks in the same group who get lumped in.
"
This sort of person often gets a big assist from the other side, which is already predisposed to see the most simplistic picture of its enemies as representative of the entire group. This happens in religion as much as politics, and probably in many other domains as well.
"
Person A probably shouldn't say this at all, since it's quite unlikely that Person A is self-aware enough to completely separate his/her feelings about the practice itself from his/her feelings about the other side. Except in unusual circumstances, I'd immediately sort Person A into the "partisan" bucket after reading that statement, without bothering to wait for any incriminating silences.
On “Jane Austen, philosophical psychologist”
First I think one has to distinguish what type of reader is being discussed. If we're focusing on the average reader, someone who consumes mostly genre fiction and bestsellers, then yes, Austen's romance-novelish plots are much more likely to be read by the demographic that likes to read romance novels. If we're talking about sophisticated readers (basically, those who read for more than just the plot), then I suspect the gender disparity declines rapidly (but probably doesn't disappear entirely). My impressions are based on a wide and representative data set of about 10 people, so you know they're reliable.
On “Ethics v. Morality”
The Kansas bill is here. The relevant bit:
The Arizona bill is similar but it does include the following:
On “Secession, Legal Orders, and Justification”
Well, he can -- it's just a question of what happens if and when folks with guns show up at his doorstep to express their disapproval of his declaration.
BTW my wife was just telling me about a news segment she'd seen recently, where some people have essentially done this very thing. Turns out that in many cases the cost and hassle of fighting specific individuals on this is higher than it's worth, so they get away with not paying taxes, tickets, etc.
On “The More Things Change : Contraception Controversy Edition”
Blaise, re your question above: AFAIC it doesn't argue one way or the other -- I just figured I'd mention it.
"
If and when the urge to be a pedant on matters of language strikes again, just bear in mind that there's at least one credentialed linguist who reads this blog.
On “Ironic Blog Post Of The Day”
Are Murray's descriptions of the meritocratic elite offered as criticisms of individuals in that class, or is he just criticizing the system? There seems to be a lot of defensiveness among liberals in response to this book, but having not read it, I don't know if that's justified based on his statements or just a function of who wrote it.
On “Against Traditional Morality”
I was momentarily confused as to why this was for the former kenB. :)
But anyway, where I was getting at in general was that there seems to be a similar level of "harm" between my examples and gay marriage, and the argument I quoted doesn't seem to leave any room for legislating social norms against fully-consensual behavior. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I thought it was worth bringing up.
"
Does this include laws against public nudity or public sex acts? I see offense but no harm there.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.