tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post7970923121445254213..comments2023-11-08T12:09:20.020-05:00Comments on Prove Me Wrong: A Word On MarketingJonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-85728770870441028812013-04-02T16:20:37.084-04:002013-04-02T16:20:37.084-04:00Cool stuff, Ex. It is exciting to watch these kid...Cool stuff, Ex. It is exciting to watch these kids grow, as I get to do now (mine are now 13 and 10).<br /><br />Oh, and Jonathan thanks for that info. You have to be really ready to commit to it if you are around 50 apparently, because you aren't going to get out of it for 10 years (unless of course you want to pay that penalty). What a pain. A 5 year commitment to not work is certainly different from the 10 year or longer commitment. Still, I'll be considering it.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-15166588144025842422013-03-30T21:50:46.168-04:002013-03-30T21:50:46.168-04:00PPS she of the internal affairs and finance has ju...PPS she of the internal affairs and finance has just reminded me No2 son had a fascination and grew carnivorous plants Only Zoroaster know what that might signify. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-72965705740328734412013-03-30T21:38:45.326-04:002013-03-30T21:38:45.326-04:00PS
I forgot Number 2 son was 8 ish and no1 was go...PS <br />I forgot Number 2 son was 8 ish and no1 was going on 10. 18 months difference.<br />No 1 son when he went to high school worked part time with a computer networking and repair company until he was graduated high school and went to university. <br />No 2 bred reptiles and sold them and traded in Anime videos he bought through contacts he made in Hong Kong when we were there. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-37436659809143356992013-03-30T21:27:12.014-04:002013-03-30T21:27:12.014-04:00Jon,
Ya children amazing little buggers at times.
...Jon,<br />Ya children amazing little buggers at times.<br />'Moneybags' number two son,( a child of few words)used to hoard his allowance and spend it on his bigger brother and little sister. We often had to intervene as number one son would try to take advantage of this. <br />One occasion that comes to mind when Number 1, a technical wiz discovered that his Xmas computer game would run better with a Video accelerator... costing more than their allowances. <br />So No1 convinced No2 to invest his stash of allowance in Candy bars from the wholesaler next to the wholesaler butcher we patronised. What we later discovered was that they were selling the candy bars at school undercutting the PTA run canteen! Yup we were summonsed to the school... "inform" us of the school's displeasure. I asked the school why they simply hadn't stopped them and confiscated the candy...She told me that before our family had arrived in the area another child had been doing similar the goods were confiscated and ea note sent home ... but the note didn't arrive ... and the child complained the parent then started legal proceedings! really? <br />I offered to compensate the canteen and gave the school specific instructions in writing that is this occurred again confiscate and ring us.<br />When we got home the two were busy up grading the children's shared computer. <br />We then had a discussion on ethics with our budding consumerists and entrepreneurs .<br />A. No1'staking advantage of his brother was not on as it was unfair exploitation of his brother's nature and generosity.<br />B. undercutting the Canteen whose profits helped all the students rich and poor was being a vulture and selfish. <br />c. No2 was to have 1 hour per day ho play No1's game as payment for his investment in the venture.<br />d . selling candy at school was a bad idea undermining other parents wishes etc. <br />E. if they (he No1) wanted to additional money he had to earn it. <br />Subsequently No1 tried selling his time on their computer to other children in the neighborhood (Context: at that time they were the first in the neighborhood to have a computer solely for the children others had to use their father's work computer).<br />After that was vetoed by mom as it encroached on the other children's times. No 1 son started building cheap computers to sell locally. <br />As we agreed it is one thing to compete with a business whose purpose is to make money for one's self but another thing entirely to compete and to disadvantage .<br />See my last post to see where they finished up<br />No 2 son did gardening for neighbors. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-72366763515375493532013-03-30T20:19:54.723-04:002013-03-30T20:19:54.723-04:00I blame it on the scotch and my ego - a bit out of...I blame it on the scotch and my ego - a bit out of character I agree, but I felt that I was challenged (not by you).<br /><br />Story is true, but I focused too much on the physical stuff - I don't know exactly what events took place, but he was caught during the foot race so that was my focus. According to my son they bet on computer games, marbles, rolling cars to the end of the table so many many different things - I guess this betting thing started with a couple of the older kids and my son picked up on it. <br /><br />It was over the top though.<br />Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-58124057500022046722013-03-30T10:38:32.482-04:002013-03-30T10:38:32.482-04:00Chad, your betting story sounds a little fishy. K...Chad, your betting story sounds a little fishy. Kids that are slower than your son are repeatedly betting him that they can beat him in a foot race? When we were in school everyone knew who was fast and who wasn't, so bets would probably be rare, much less repeated. And it sounds a little strange that the "liberal" director has a problem with a friendly bet and would get involved to "punish success". Frankly this whole thing kind of sounds like the contrived conservative narrative. I wonder if there's a truthful core that you're not communicating very well.<br /><br />Overall, that's a lot of boasting, even for you, with the amazing genes your wife has, kids at 6'6", CEO, swindling the others out of their lunch money, beating them at everything. It's almost like everything you touch turns to gold. Reminds me of Homer Simpson, who said "Everyone is stupid except me." But being proud of your family is cool.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-28872098401476720902013-03-29T23:51:43.420-04:002013-03-29T23:51:43.420-04:00Chad,
This proves how little you know. Some times ...Chad,<br />This proves how little you know. Some times you really are a numb nut. I have never been or want to be a school counsellor.<br />As a CRISIS intervention counsellor. I was involved in getting people through a specific crisis. I've been involved in grief counselling, suicide threats counselling , battered wives and Children. Abused children, People who were lonely and even help someone in a hospice come to terms with dying. I sat there talking to them while they died. <br />Oh yes some children who were concerned about bullies, failing at school and even rape and assault victims.<br />One thing you DON'T do is sprout your views or gratuitous bull shit or platitudes. You use a technique called Non directive Counselling. <br />The first thing you do is help the person deal with their issue on THEIR terms. Then arrange for them to get professional support or help IF THEY ASK.<br />I.e.I remember a mother whose hubby bashed the crap out of her and she and her children had to leave ...I arranged medical treatment for mom and one of the children then emergency housing, appointments with a lawyer and a social worker. <br />Another time I called an ambulance and the police and eventually her parents for a girl in a call box who had been slipped a drugged drink. I kept her talking on the phone so she wouldn't pass out before the ambulance arrived.<br />Then there was the case of the little old lady who fretted because she couldn't find he medical alert dog. We found it and took it to her.<br /> <br />As a matter of record We have 4 children. One is a Jewish hippy and High School teacher.<br />One is an electronics engineer and manager. <br />One is a double degree Science and environmental planner for a coal mine.<br />one is Structural drafts person and is now working on an environmental engineering degree <br />Seems We haven't done too bad.<br /><br />Proselyting is your bag of fish not mine. <br /> Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-51427116690574812602013-03-28T14:57:16.527-04:002013-03-28T14:57:16.527-04:00Leads me to a funny story happened last week I wan...Leads me to a funny story happened last week I wanted to share, I am sure you'll find a clinical reason that it will lead to the demise of my kids, me and the world.<br /><br />I was traveling for biz so when I got back on Friday to pick the kids up at the after school I got asked to visit the Directors Office (very liberal FYI). Anyhow she proceeds to tell me that my son was in a bit of trouble because they teacher caught a money/food exchange between my son and another. When investigating the matter the teacher found out that my son was betting other children that he could beat them in a foot race, computer game, basketball or in arm wrestling for money or food (candy).<br /><br />Of course the Director didn't approve, but I thought it was awesome - it was a fun discussion and I am pretty sure she was unprepared for my position on the subject. <br /><br />When we got home he showed me his stash of $18 and another 15 candy bars he had earned. Although I had to unplug the exchange at school, I let him know that I would give him a $1 for every win during the day.<br /><br />Good compromise I think - he earned and additional $11 thus far so it is working out well (no supposed rules being broken at school).<br /><br />He is a little man with a big entrepreneurial spirit.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-71160829632185421422013-03-28T14:29:40.696-04:002013-03-28T14:29:40.696-04:00Ex - took me a minute to clean up my nose after sh...Ex - took me a minute to clean up my nose after shooting out snot bubbles - appreciate the laugh.<br /><br />Since you were supposedly a counselor - somewhere and somehow - I am just curious how many kids you completely screwed up with your ideals and theories, guess we'll never know the true damage but I suspect it is a long list in my humble opinion. You wouldn't last a month in my community. Probably would do well in Chicago, San Fran, New York and Detroit though.<br /><br />Thankfully no private school is required here, the public school here receives the highest honors and ranking in the State (beside being ranked in the top 50 cities to live in). The State hates it, but we have a group that makes sure the school hits the benchmarks to get the high marks even though we are extremely conservative. What the school is producing from quality individuals and what they have become as adults proves your thoughts totally wrong specific to this community. Of course we can only lead by example and can't help those who refuse to put in the work to success. It is probably correct that American's are not getting the right degrees, but you understand of course that is because you have the Liberal movement telling kids its okay to suck (collective okay because of counselors like you) at everything and that it is okay to get a degree in the Arts of understanding women in the 1870's. Internationally they are getting the degrees that matter and make money, but there are still quality individuals getting those degrees here. On the other hand - we (Republicans and conservatives) will embrace the international community of hard working, smart enterprising young men and women - we hire them and if necesary will bring them to America - legally. Unfotunately once they get here they will find out that they have to pay for all the sludge, but the good news is that when they have children they will teach them the way (as I am) to be successful. Unfortunately for us the successful group of people are not creating babies at the rate of the sludge. One thing your right about is that it is up to the individual so no parent can be certain how their kids will turn out, but when you give them the skills/path it will prove more positive vs negative.<br /><br />In reference to my kids - I would make the bet that they have what it takes. Already in advanced classes, excel in sports/dance at a young age and they understand discipline and hard work is good since they are rewarded when achieving goals. They are far more likely to own the cab company or be in front of the camera than the reverse, but time will tell.<br /><br />I read once that the average height of male CEO's, Presidents and Business owners in America is about 6'2" - doctors peg's my son will be between 6'4" and 6'6" - the sky will be the limit for him I have a feeling. Same with my daughter she is still at the 100% percentile for height. Wish I could say it was 100% by chance, but during the time I was on the hunt for a wife to start a family I was being very selective - looking for a tall date with good genetics and brains.<br /><br />Found a 5'11" ex athlete with a master's degree. I would say that I did a pretty good job reaching my goal on that one.<br /><br /><br />Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-17908773514951296632013-03-26T02:32:54.381-04:002013-03-26T02:32:54.381-04:00Jon,
Some how I'm getting duplicates of my po...Jon,<br />Some how I'm getting duplicates of my posts Please bomb them off I swear I don't know how this is happening.<br />Might have something to do with sticky keys (a function I use)Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-16520442406957684772013-03-25T19:41:50.983-04:002013-03-25T19:41:50.983-04:00Part 2
Fact: all the will in the world won't o...<br />Part 2<br />Fact: all the will in the world won't on its own make anyone succeed. In his terms. i.e. what's he gonna do if one of his children is unable psychologically/ emotionally/ intellectually able to complete a honors Degree and Doctorate. Contrary to their assertions nothing in the Republican philosophy guarantees anything. <br /><br />A childhood friend of mine a life time conservative did what Chad's doing , extra tutoring , private schools even sent them to a ivy league uni ...guess what one is a (finger) nail technician the other is a sometimes actor and cab driver. <br /><br />He and his ilk simply refuse to see the reality writ large on the wall. <br />We still have the problems of yore i.e. discrimination, racism (xenophobia) voting rights, Rule of law etc. <br /><br />Chad confuses method with cause. i.e. I think 'slut walk' emphasises the otherness of women rather than Human rights. Republicans are fearful of change in that they may lose power, prestige, privilege, and certainty (sic) .<br />“ Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” MLK jr. <br /><br />Since the American / Mexican war 1820 the USA has been engaged in a long term ( extraordinary expensive) hegemonic wars that lead to dragged out counter insurgent wars in other countries (and at home) for its commercial interests about every 20 years … and ultimately to their detriment or lost . Check history. <br /><br />Surely its time to look for a better option. Other wise the fate of Sparta beckons only in a much much shorter time frame because of technology <br />Come on Republicans stop hiding behind faith or belief and prove my facts wrong ... if you can. <br /><br />Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-13526332543297678972013-03-25T19:39:30.301-04:002013-03-25T19:39:30.301-04:00Jon,
I'm sorry to say that Chad is suffering ...Jon, <br />I'm sorry to say that Chad is suffering from acute privileged white anosegnosia (PWA)and consequently lives in an self referential echo chamber.<br />He sees the world in terms of he's made it so everyone else can.<br />He can't get his head around the reality is that current Capitalism is based on restrictions and scarcity.<br />i.e. scarcity defines "value".<br />take India one University alone turns out 30000 IT graduates PA consequently they earn Peanuts by comparison to anywhere in the west. Hence they get the support, research tasks... Hence the USA is falling behind in IT technological research. LESS JOBS. Less chance for paying back student loans .... ergo less Choice for American Children. <br /><br />This is only one Industry. <br />How long do you think it will be before Americans are all driving Chinese Vehicles? Logic dictates that they have a market several times bigger than USA thus advantages of scale are greater they also have more liquidity.<br />Advantages of scale is holy writ in corporate capitalism.<br />Have you any idea how many Top engineers are graduating in Sth Korea? same story.<br /><br />Like it or not the US is being beaten by sheer mass numbers and money invested in PRODUCTIVE enterprises. US is cash cowing i.e. low investment high returns on previous investments. <br /><br />What we are seeing in the US economy today with the widening of the gap between productive wealth and paper wealth doesn't bode well for Chad and his ilk (low in skill set flexibility read educational basics) . Opportunities for Americans not in the 10% academically/ intellectually top of the world are going to find it harder to compete with the hoards being trained today.<br />My logical question to Chad and ilk is out side of 'faith alone' how are the 2/3+ of Americans of the future who simply don't have the ability to or opportunity to have top degrees going to compete? <br />Under his model of economics they can't! Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-5304721575095314132013-03-25T11:12:02.916-04:002013-03-25T11:12:02.916-04:00but there are no real social injustices worth brea...<i>but there are no real social injustices worth breaking the law in protest any longer mainly because their are no longer any causes that are universal like voting rights or racism. </i><br /><br />I don't know what universal has to do with it. The laws for rounding up Jews in Germany weren't universal. They only applied to Jews. But breaking them was still the right choice.<br /><br />It's kind of easy for privileged white people to say "Hey, everything is great, there are no laws worth resisting." As we sit in our comfy homes. Meanwhile throughout the world our government is torturing and murdering. Within country our prisons are straight gulags. People incarcerated for nothing are routinely abused beyond measure. Wink wink, you pissed off the warden so we'll just put you in a cell with this guy that likes to rape his roommates. And worse actually. If you were on the other end of the stick you might think differently about civil disobedience.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-8170193307906991522013-03-23T09:23:35.289-04:002013-03-23T09:23:35.289-04:00Don't get me wrong JC - I like challenging aut...Don't get me wrong JC - I like challenging authority, gov't and in some cases certain laws that do not line up with my personal beliefs, but there are no real social injustices worth breaking the law in protest any longer mainly because their are no longer any causes that are universal like voting rights or racism. What is left on the table are highly charged and highly divided topics. <br /><br />This is why I am such an enormous fan of taking away the power from a Federal Overlord and giving it back to the individual states. Then the collective voices of the State can adopt/make laws that fit them and the opposition can leave for a State more condusive to their beliefs.<br /><br />We left Illinois because it is a Liberal sess pool that is headed for bankruptcy at best, but when I go to Chicago and am in the city limits, I follow their idiotic gun laws because I have to respect their decision as a city. Then I get the hell out of that disater the as soon as possible.<br /><br />Laws are important and they should be upheld.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-38264109425590048182013-03-23T06:29:03.321-04:002013-03-23T06:29:03.321-04:00I'm not sure why your confused - you've tr...I'm not sure why your confused - you've tried spinning, but I keep dragging you back on course kicking and screaming (lol). <br /><br />If you look back I asked a simple question or made a simple statement - was your child scenario legal? Was a law broken and you said no force was used and at 18 the child then freely signs a contract. For 18 years no law was broken and depending on the language of the contract I suspect that there may not be any laws broken at 18 - point being for the first 18 years of brainwashing NO gov't has no place. You may not like the subject matter, but no force and no laws broken means no gov't for age 0 to 18. Focus on the contract - is it a legally binding slavery document? If yes then the legal system can get involved. There's no confusion there.<br /><br />Some laws were bad, but I didn't agree that they should be ignored if broken. Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-13031522222182555972013-03-22T08:28:46.721-04:002013-03-22T08:28:46.721-04:00Do you see how someone might be confused with your...Do you see how someone might be confused with your various statements? First you say the state should not intervene if a child freely chooses slavery. But then I point out raising a child the way I described and thereby enforcing a freely signed slavery contract would be illegal, and you say now the state should intervene. So even though you think that what the state is doing is wrong the state should do it anyway because that's the law. Then you say some laws are bad. OK, so some laws should not be followed? It seems you are back to your prior position. The state should not intervene if a child signs a contract to enter slavery. I'm having trouble making sense of what you think.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-79892388943089293782013-03-22T07:11:28.008-04:002013-03-22T07:11:28.008-04:00There is plenty of history to support that - some ...There is plenty of history to support that - some laws or social situations were bad - I agree with that, but being an illegal citizen is not one of them. <br /><br />To mentioned illegal citizens in the same paragraph as slavery, voting rights or the civil rights movement is a shame on you moment. It's not even in the same stratosphere.<br /><br /><br /><br />Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-62227341261553898422013-03-21T10:24:27.831-04:002013-03-21T10:24:27.831-04:00If your willing to bust down the door of a househo...<i>If your willing to bust down the door of a household because the parents are breaking the law (slavery) then you must equally accept/support the same when the parents are illegally in the US. You've painted yourself in a corner on this one sir.</i><br /><br />It seems for you that you should always do whatever the law requires. Is that right? So if the law says sometimes the free market should be violated by government (like my example of the child willingly embracing slavery) or if the law says a person is in this country illegally the government should impose the various punishments.<br /><br />But I absolutely do not share the assumption that we ought to always do what the law demands. I'm sure you would agree that following the law during Nazi Germany's rise was wrong. I hope you would agree that civil disobedience from ML King was the right thing to do. So no, I don't agree that we should be exporting illegal immigrants just because the law says we should. And I think slavery should be blocked by the government. Not because it's illegal. But because it's wrong.<br /><br />You operate on the assumption that the law is like God, like it's the highest moral authority. Law says these are illegal immigrants so this MUST be enforced. But don't you agree that there have been many immoral laws, and the right thing to do in the past when people were subjected to immoral laws was to violate those laws. Susan B Anthony was arrested for voting, since women weren't allowed to vote. Bradley Manning is in prison because he wanted us to know about the crimes our government was committing. Daniel Ellsberg did the same with the Pentagon papers. Violating the law is sometimes the right thing to do. Right?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-50598332300102034352013-03-21T04:12:08.760-04:002013-03-21T04:12:08.760-04:00If your willing to bust down the door of a househo...If your willing to bust down the door of a household because the parents are breaking the law (slavery) then you must equally accept/support the same when the parents are illegally in the US. You've painted yourself in a corner on this one sir.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-19133387631801787522013-03-21T04:07:36.632-04:002013-03-21T04:07:36.632-04:00JC - I don't mind losing as long as the voters...JC - I don't mind losing as long as the voters have as much skin in the game as I do. God knows I have been wrong before and I will be wrong again.<br /><br />I was pretty clear illegal is illegal - no spinning that one sorry.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-10458836373881580102013-03-21T03:09:03.605-04:002013-03-21T03:09:03.605-04:00Jonathan,
It appear that you still don't under...Jonathan,<br />It appear that you still don't understand . You are still maintaining a rigid value judgement (non negotiable) . <br />Again it's the difference between tolerance, a judgemental position and ACCEPTANCE of the reality . <br /><br />If you read my posts carefully (awful prose excepted) you will find that I tend to state the criteria(context) under/against which I'm making my tentative and context specific assessment. Chad calls it BS waffle and ignores it and as a consequences conversations with him are him saying “now hear this” linear and one dimensional. I have learned from being raised “between multiple cultures” be multi directional in my thinking. <br /><br />i.e. all my observations (as opposed to moral/value JUDGEMENTS) are neutral in that cultures and therefore morals are different NOT better or worse than. <br />To go a bit Buddhist on you consider the question “What it's like the sound of one hand clapping? ( as opposed to two). The latter is your judgement Final and absolute, mine is always infinite.<br /><br />[In logic] I can apply the stated purpose of society (mutual Benefit ….not equality but equitable[fair] ) and then based on that make the logical extrapolation that Vulture (exploitive) Capitalism, Republicanism, national (institutionalised) Christianity are clearly diametrically opposed to both said definition and Democracy. One could also argue that institutionalised Christianity isn't true Christianity in that it doesn't follow the foundation precepts.<br /><br />You cover that by imposing/ inserting false reasoning by saying that 'there are non negotiable (institutionalised) moral codes beyond which I or you wont go' and 'we are all exclusionary' Both of which are simply projection of your values on everyone else. Your God himself allows free choice. <br /><br />Frankly without your assumptions of absolutism your entire argument is self defeating (internally inconsistent. But is it better or worse than My view? That is a meaningless question the two views are fundamentally different (Period)<br />It could be argued that your view seeks to create absolute meaning. Mine simply doesn't, all rights and wrongs are so in specific contexts ( i.e. I live in society as defined above) but don't reflect the absolute ….I accept that that is unknown.<br />To me life (in the larger species interrelated sense) IS its own purpose but its significance in the cosmic sense who knows? But now we're moving from science as we think we know it into philosophic speculation ...nice for intellectual amusement and mental gymnastics ( beyond which ???<br />Chad don't bother! Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-36313994599243206092013-03-20T21:18:07.094-04:002013-03-20T21:18:07.094-04:00Paul,
Let me answer this part more directly:
&qu...Paul,<br /><br />Let me answer this part more directly:<br /><br />"On what basis do you assert that all people have a core belief that requires them to assert that others must adhere to those same beliefs. I am failing to understand this. That is unless the core belief is the belief to assert one's self on others (sounds a bit like a God complex). What if those core beliefs are logically, or factually (, or whatever) wrong?"<br /><br />Any time you ever tell someone their view is incorrect, you are excepting them to adhere to *a* belief of yours. <br /><br />Conviction one way or another on a specific issue is not required - one person believes red jello should be outlawed - you feel this is absurd. You can argue with them on one of 1000 different lines of thought as to why this is unfounded, but what you may not do is say "I have no opinion on the red jello topic, unlike those narrow minded dogmatic exclusivists. Anyone can feel any way they want on the topic, I am open minded." You have no made an exclusivistic statement yourself. <br /><br />They might be wrong, ignorant, and mislead, but on the basis of your openmindedness and being inclusive on the subject you have no higher ground to stand. Make sense?Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09194529646410525617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-76339278580585113332013-03-20T21:05:26.728-04:002013-03-20T21:05:26.728-04:00Paul,
"Assuming that the God of Christianity...Paul,<br /><br />"Assuming that the God of Christianity is an omni-max being. Can God create a rock so big that God cannot move it?"<br /><br />"Do you accept the above question as a valid question? If not, why not."<br /><br />That's a great corollary - the fallacy in that statement has nothing to do with the subject at hand - namely the nature of God, the fallacy is that it is in it's structure logically incoherent. That is to say can something be X and not X at the same time. <br /><br />Just as we have to look past the topic and look at the structure of the question to solve this quandary, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make with regards to discussions regarding inclusiveness.<br /><br />We can get caught up in the details of "well you would never eat meat in this case, and are being dogmatic, while I am more nuanced" but no matter how liberal or restrictive one's view on a particular issue, the fact that each person's view is logically exclusivistic. This is self evident the second you being to attempt to persuade someone else that their differing view is inferior to yours.<br /><br />Here's what a truly inclusive conversation would look like:<br /><br />Jim: I believe you should never eat meat<br />Fred: I believe can eat meat, but I'm inclusive in my views.<br />Jim: I believe your inclusive view is wrong and mine is right.<br />Fred: I believe that is fine too, my inclusive view includes for the possibility that the exclusive view is correct.<br /><br />As soon as Fred begins to assert that his inclusive view is superior, he his making logical nonsense - the very reason are are arguing or commenting that your position is better than another position stems from the assumption that A) your view is in some way incompatible with a competing view and B) the competing view is in some ways inferior. Otherwise, you would not feel compelled to make a comment in the first place!<br /><br />Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09194529646410525617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-47714994883045770972013-03-20T20:23:14.354-04:002013-03-20T20:23:14.354-04:00Jonathan -
You did not direct it at me so I hope ...Jonathan -<br /><br />You did not direct it at me so I hope you don't mind me intruding myself.<br /><br />To your hypothetical conversation -<br /><br />I had started writing a different response but decided to take a different approach instead.<br /><br />Tell me how your hypothetical conversation is logically any different than the following (which I am sure you've heard before).<br /><br />Assuming that the God of Christianity is an omni-max being. Can God create a rock so big that God cannot move it?<br /><br />Do you accept the above question as a valid question? If not, why not.<br /><br />Also with regards to the following, perhaps you can elaborate for me -<br /><br /><i>we all have a set of “non negotiable” beliefs which by definition require us to assert that everyone else must adhere to them</i><br /><br />On what basis do you assert that all people have a core belief that requires them to assert that others must adhere to those same beliefs. I am failing to understand this. That is unless the core belief is the belief to assert one's self on others (sounds a bit like a God complex). What if those core beliefs are logically, or factually (, or whatever) wrong?<br /><br />I am not suggesting that I do not fall into some of these same pitfalls. But I am not, not yet anyway, trying to justify them based on some feeling I may have.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14278834635241999491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-30677925283806099352013-03-20T18:38:21.095-04:002013-03-20T18:38:21.095-04:00Examinator,
Thanks for the clarification. I thin...Examinator, <br /><br />Thanks for the clarification. I think I’m trying to focus in on is not so much the idea of an overarching and absolute moral imperative as opposed to a relativistic one, but rather the fact that at our very core, we all have a set of “non negotiable” beliefs which by definition require us to assert that everyone else must adhere to them. Let me try and explain.<br /><br />Granting one person might feel that no one at any time should ever eat meat, and another person takes a more nuanced view that based on specific circumstances one could eat meat, or human flesh, etc. it is my position that they *both* have a core set of non negotiable beliefs which the place an expectation of adherence of on the rest of society.<br /><br />Maybe this hypothetical dialog will help:<br /><br />Jim: “one should never eat another person, that is morally wrong in an absolute sense! I would rather die than eat the flesh of another.”<br /><br />Fred: “I do not draw such dogmatic lines in the sand. There could be a time when this is the lesser of two evils, and in that sense would be the best choice, or at least a choice I would make. I would not judge someone who were to do this in certain instances”.<br /><br />Jim: “fine, but that doesn’t make you any more tolerant than me”<br /><br />Fred: “It absolutely does, people can make their own choices, I will not assert my values on anyone”<br /><br />Jim: “Very well then, so I assume you have no problem with me actively working to prevent anyone else from ever eating human flesh”<br /><br />Fred: “But this is wrong, you should not do this – this is not being tolerant and accepting of other’s views – you must let them make their own choices, and not be intolerant”<br /><br />Jim: “Wait a minute, aren’t you asserting how I should act, and excluding the way I should not act? Isn’t this intolerant?”<br /><br />Fred: “I’m not being intolerant – I’m simply expressing that it’s better to be tolerant than to be intolerant – this is more inclusive”<br /><br />Jim: “But your inclusiveness excludes anyone who is being exclusive. If you were truly tolerant of everyone else’s view, you wouldn’t be trying to change my mind, or assert that I am wrong in my intolerance. The fact that you are trying to persuade me to be more inclusive indicates that you are in fact exclusive in your opinion as well.” <br /><br />The first part of this podcast has an interesting discussion on intolerance and inclusiveness..<br /><br />http://donjohnsonministries.org/the-large-amount-of-hypocrisy-irony-and-self-refuting-nonsense-in-public-discourse/Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09194529646410525617noreply@blogger.com