I had in mind the latter -- addressing it head-on with the accused seems reasonable to me as long as it doesn't become an obsession. But asking "why is X allowed to post here" or having extended public discussions about X's flaws seems undesirable (where X is a member of the posting or commenting community, of course). It's apt to be driven by personal or ideological characteristics as much as any supposedly objective standard, and it just seems impolite.
So is the norm now that we can feel free to complain about people whose commenting style we don't like? Because I've got a long list, including some of the people who're complaining about others.
Or would it be a better idea to either ignore the people you don't want to deal with or, if you feel strongly about their participation here, to email Mark or E.D. privately?
Instead of these squiggly monsters, those of us without defined gravatars should be assigned a random image of a misfit toy. I totally want to be the train with square wheels.
Yeah, he was crazy accurate those last two drives. Whatever else you might say about him, you gotta hand it to him for nailing it when it counted. (generic "you", of course -- I don't know what else you personally might say about him)
I watched the whole thing, from the beginning of the fourth quarter all the way to the end. Helluva finish -- I knew it wasn't over after the 49er TD with over two minutes left, but I thought it was over after the Saints' TD.
Tom, I think it's a question of venue. The discussion you're hoping for isn't likely to happen in an open forum with participants of such a wide variety of backgrounds and intentions.
Gentlemen, you flatter me. I can only assume you're feeling burdened by the responsibility of keeping the conversations flowing here and are trying to trick me into shouldering more of the load.
Oh, I see -- thanks. Yes, I'm pretty sure there was no phonemic vowel quantity in English by that time, so it wouldn't have been much like classical meter.
FWIW, Slovenian and some western Serbo-Croatian dialects have both free stress and phonemic vowel quantity. I don't know anything about Slovenian poetry to be able to say whether or how these features are employed.
I'll echo Rufus's thanks -- I'd never heard of the Sidney translation. I'm not sure I'm so very fond of that version of the psalm, but that may just be due to the tyranny of the first-encountered.
I wonder if I could ask you to expand on one bit of this post that I didn't understand:
The poetry of modern languages is not, by definition, capable of doing this—only English can, and the Sidneys work to point out the versatility and beauty of this newly ascendant tongue, one that can walk with equal ease in the religious and secular realms.
I'm not clear on what it is about English that sets it apart from other languages.
How about creating five categories using the federal poverty level as a point of reference instead of relative quintiles? E.g. 100% of FPL or below, 100-200% of FPL, 200-400%, etc.,roughly corresponding to poor, lower middle class, middle, upper middle, upper.
If the government prevents me from buying a printing press or hiring people to distribute my pamphlets, is that also not a 1st Amendment violation in your world? After all, buying equipment and hiring people isn't speech.
Well, apart from perhaps a few quibbles, I pretty much accept that. I succumbed to the temptation to jump into this thread when I saw people making assertions that seemed too strong to be justified by all the uncertainty around this topic, and I guess I misread you as being more confident than you really were.
I think that moral obligations to other humans are predicated on a lot of competing factors that make simple statements difficult to defend.
Yup, that's the song I was really singing here. I think it applies just as much to the idea of not imposing a moral obligation on others as to imposing it.
I imagine I might feel a little leery about living in a culture where infanticide was considered okay.
But this exercise is designed precisely to determine *why* you feel that way about infanticide but not abortion (or meat-eating, for that matter). The argument for legal abortion that says "I don't want to enforce my moral choices on others" depends on assigning the fetus a different status than an infant. What's the underlying justification for that difference? Is it rigorous and consistent?
I'm with Stillwater in this case -- once you get past the knee-jerk reaction, and taking religious perspectives off the table, it's hard to rationally justify privileging newborn human life over either a human fetus or a fully mature mammal. Not that I'm arguing for legalized infanticide, but it's good to be aware of when we've reached the bottom turtle.
Hmm... well then why protect children, especially very young ones? Saying that parents can humanely dispose of their kids up to age 2 isn't going to cause anyone any sense of fear or insecurity.
Well, ultimately the question is why we privilege human life, especially in a society that's disavowed legislating based on questions of spirit. If we can answer that question then it would be easier to zero in on a more satisfying answer for abortion.
So why do you hesitate so much more with the doesn't-want-to-nurse mother than the doesn't-want-to-be-pregnant mother? We might be talking just a few days of growth between being in the womb and being out of it in this situation.
Imagine that a new mother is stranded alone with her recently-born infant in a snowbound cabin . She's been formula-feeding because she has a strong aversion to allowing anyone to touch her breasts, but now she's run out of formula and the only way to keep the newborn alive is for the mom to breastfeed him. Does your discomfort at dictating moral obligations apply to this situation as well?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Comment Deletion, Comment Policy, etc.”
I had in mind the latter -- addressing it head-on with the accused seems reasonable to me as long as it doesn't become an obsession. But asking "why is X allowed to post here" or having extended public discussions about X's flaws seems undesirable (where X is a member of the posting or commenting community, of course). It's apt to be driven by personal or ideological characteristics as much as any supposedly objective standard, and it just seems impolite.
"
Argh, that was supposed to be a top-level comment. Will's just gets a +1.
"
So is the norm now that we can feel free to complain about people whose commenting style we don't like? Because I've got a long list, including some of the people who're complaining about others.
Or would it be a better idea to either ignore the people you don't want to deal with or, if you feel strongly about their participation here, to email Mark or E.D. privately?
"
I think DD was obliquely commenting on another discussion going on in this thread.
On “Grimly Dark Humor Places”
Reminds me of a verse from Flight of the Conchord's Think About It.
On “Don’t Be a Tellarite”
Instead of these squiggly monsters, those of us without defined gravatars should be assigned a random image of a misfit toy. I totally want to be the train with square wheels.
On “Crocodile Tears for Gay Conservatives”
"You've Got to be Carefully Taught” is a song from South Pacific. (Sorry for being a pedant, but it's just a facet of my personality.)
On “Diversity & The League of Ordinary Gentlemen”
anyone that has done so and enjoyed it and goes so far as to ask to join the team has been welcomed on board.
Aha, so you admit that you discriminate against people who don't enjoy writing for this site! I suspected it all along.
"
“Wow! You guys are a bunch of dorks!”
I'm pretty sure this is the response I'd get from most of my male friends and relations as well.
On “You’re Missing A Good One”
Yeah, he was crazy accurate those last two drives. Whatever else you might say about him, you gotta hand it to him for nailing it when it counted. (generic "you", of course -- I don't know what else you personally might say about him)
"
I watched the whole thing, from the beginning of the fourth quarter all the way to the end. Helluva finish -- I knew it wasn't over after the 49er TD with over two minutes left, but I thought it was over after the Saints' TD.
On “The Burden of Proof”
Tom, I think it's a question of venue. The discussion you're hoping for isn't likely to happen in an open forum with participants of such a wide variety of backgrounds and intentions.
"
Gentlemen, you flatter me. I can only assume you're feeling burdened by the responsibility of keeping the conversations flowing here and are trying to trick me into shouldering more of the load.
"
I'd say the burden of proof in this case, as in most arguments, falls on the one who wishes to convince disagreeing others.
On “Liberty and a national identity card (and other stuff)”
No downsides, are you crazy?? How are they going to come up with a tattoo design that doesn't clash with all my other ones?
On “The Biblical Renaissance and English Poetry”
Oh, I see -- thanks. Yes, I'm pretty sure there was no phonemic vowel quantity in English by that time, so it wouldn't have been much like classical meter.
FWIW, Slovenian and some western Serbo-Croatian dialects have both free stress and phonemic vowel quantity. I don't know anything about Slovenian poetry to be able to say whether or how these features are employed.
"
I'll echo Rufus's thanks -- I'd never heard of the Sidney translation. I'm not sure I'm so very fond of that version of the psalm, but that may just be due to the tyranny of the first-encountered.
I wonder if I could ask you to expand on one bit of this post that I didn't understand:
The poetry of modern languages is not, by definition, capable of doing this—only English can, and the Sidneys work to point out the versatility and beauty of this newly ascendant tongue, one that can walk with equal ease in the religious and secular realms.
I'm not clear on what it is about English that sets it apart from other languages.
On “Is Social Mobility Overrated?”
How about creating five categories using the federal poverty level as a point of reference instead of relative quintiles? E.g. 100% of FPL or below, 100-200% of FPL, 200-400%, etc.,roughly corresponding to poor, lower middle class, middle, upper middle, upper.
On “Montana Dissed Citizens United”
If the government prevents me from buying a printing press or hiring people to distribute my pamphlets, is that also not a 1st Amendment violation in your world? After all, buying equipment and hiring people isn't speech.
On “Reproductive Rights and Libertarianism”
Well, apart from perhaps a few quibbles, I pretty much accept that. I succumbed to the temptation to jump into this thread when I saw people making assertions that seemed too strong to be justified by all the uncertainty around this topic, and I guess I misread you as being more confident than you really were.
I think that moral obligations to other humans are predicated on a lot of competing factors that make simple statements difficult to defend.
Yup, that's the song I was really singing here. I think it applies just as much to the idea of not imposing a moral obligation on others as to imposing it.
"
I imagine I might feel a little leery about living in a culture where infanticide was considered okay.
But this exercise is designed precisely to determine *why* you feel that way about infanticide but not abortion (or meat-eating, for that matter). The argument for legal abortion that says "I don't want to enforce my moral choices on others" depends on assigning the fetus a different status than an infant. What's the underlying justification for that difference? Is it rigorous and consistent?
I'm with Stillwater in this case -- once you get past the knee-jerk reaction, and taking religious perspectives off the table, it's hard to rationally justify privileging newborn human life over either a human fetus or a fully mature mammal. Not that I'm arguing for legalized infanticide, but it's good to be aware of when we've reached the bottom turtle.
"
Hmm... well then why protect children, especially very young ones? Saying that parents can humanely dispose of their kids up to age 2 isn't going to cause anyone any sense of fear or insecurity.
"
barring a “spiritometer”
Well, ultimately the question is why we privilege human life, especially in a society that's disavowed legislating based on questions of spirit. If we can answer that question then it would be easier to zero in on a more satisfying answer for abortion.
"
So why do you hesitate so much more with the doesn't-want-to-nurse mother than the doesn't-want-to-be-pregnant mother? We might be talking just a few days of growth between being in the womb and being out of it in this situation.
"
Imagine that a new mother is stranded alone with her recently-born infant in a snowbound cabin . She's been formula-feeding because she has a strong aversion to allowing anyone to touch her breasts, but now she's run out of formula and the only way to keep the newborn alive is for the mom to breastfeed him. Does your discomfort at dictating moral obligations apply to this situation as well?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.