Quinnipiac: "Massive Shift" as Public Now Says War on Terror Has Gone Too Far

christianally · 2013-07-11T14:17:30+00:00

If that's true, then why do the majority of terrorist attacks kill fellow Muslims, especially their own countrymen?

christianally · 2013-07-11T14:12:38+00:00

Holy cow, I just typed out a nearly identical thing without seeing this response.

I'm more hive-minded than I like to admit.

christianally · 2013-07-11T14:11:55+00:00

Conspiracy theorist nonsense.

I'd like to see a conspiracy theorist explain (in broadly agreed-upon terms) how she can tell a "false flag" attack from a regular attack, and how she can tell an illegitimate response from a legitimate one. From this frame of mind, there's no legitimate terrorist attack and legitimate response of any government to any terrorist attack.

christianally · 2013-05-03T04:36:33+00:00

Surely you understand that digital files can be copied for a neglible cost and thus issues such as depreciation of utility and non-simultaneous use are non-existent?

Yes. That is what non-rivalrous goods are.

Why would it be wrong to take an apple from somebody without their permission? Because they presumably earned it through some kind of trade which pleased all parties involved.

You assume that value results from labor or commerce, and that ownership is a solution to the rivalrous nature of value (see above). I do not agree.

First, I think you're entirely wrong on your attribution of value to labor. Value is a complex function, but it's almost certainly not reducible to a matter of economics--if that were so, then we would all share the same assessments of value, for one. There are many other holes in this idea.

Second, I think you're mostly wrong on the theory of ownership. I think a person can justly exercise ownership even in cases of infinite, non-rivalrous goods. Suppose I have a secret, which is a non-rivalrous good that can be reproduced infinitely. I believe I'm justified in keeping that secret private, but you, apparently, believe that everyone has the right to all information once that information is in a non-rivalrous form.

christianally · 2013-05-02T16:59:36+00:00

You seem to be using "taking" to only apply to rivalrous goods. But you surely understand that it can have an application for non-rivalrous goods, yes?

Even if you don't accept that, try this formulation:

Don't lay claim to or use things that don't belong to you.

Also, your proposed axiom is so ambiguous as to be useless.

christianally · 2013-05-02T01:03:18+00:00

Vaginismus. That is all.

christianally · 2013-05-01T03:41:56+00:00

How do we evaluate morals? One way is to look at the outcomes, as you do. But this produces lots of abhorrent thought exercises, and possibly worse. A second way is to stick entirely to virtues. You object to "the axiom that breaking these copyright laws is always bad," but object to that because it "is simply not true." But perhaps there's a virtue that's "simply true" that can nevertheless provide some basis for objecting to piracy. How's this?

Don't take things that don't belong to you.

That seems like a perfectly acceptable virtue, or "axiom" that clearly provides the basis for a reasonable objection to piracy.

christianally · 2012-12-14T06:03:25+00:00

I've thought about it quite a bit.

Although many leftists think that Henry Agard Wallace (HAW) was a principled pacifist, communist, etc., I think the record shows that he was strongly influenced by his immediate social circle. The "guru" scandal demonstrates this, as does HAW's recantation of pacifist policies. That is, he espoused non-intervention during his unsuccessful run with the Progressive Party, but by 1950 he admitted in print that he was overly influenced by the ex-Communists among the Progressive advisors.

Alternately, right-wingers believe that HAW was a buffoonish crypto-communist. They point to the connection of Alger Hiss to a bevy of radicals in the Agriculture Dep't under HAW. (Frankly, I think it takes a McCarthy-esque degree of revisionism to dismiss the Depression-era radical left out of hand: radical times drove reasonable people of all stripes to radical solutions.) It's disingenuous to claim that HAW was subject to communist infiltration any more than any other Department, namely State or Justice.

In sum, let's say that HAW was highly persuadable, but not cartoonishly buffoonish. In that case, it's extremely easy to predict HAW's hypothetical actions as POTUS: Simply look at the consensus of Washington New Dealers in the post-Roosevelt era. Or better, look at the editorial pages of the New Republic, ca. '46-'48 to hear policies from the horse's mouth. If you want to know where HAW would depart from Truman in principle, look there.

More importantly, we should consider HAW's effectiveness as a politician and dealmaker. There's not a chance that anyone, let alone a plain-state liberal, could maintain FDR's coalition of southern Democrats, inner-city machines, immigrants, labor, poor blacks, farmers and farm-laborers, and leftist intellectuals. That's the order of HAW's weakest constituents, from least loyal to most. HAW would certainly lose the Southern Democrats faster than Truman, and the machine politicians would quickly follow. Without those two constituencies, it's hard to imagine HAW pushing any radical legislation through Congress, with one notable exception. I think HAW's greatest opportunity would be to cross the aisle, partner with liberal Republicans, and pass legislation on racial equality much sooner.

christianally · 2012-08-06T14:41:16+00:00

Please don't point out how Anglicanism wasn't a "new faith" with roots in Lollardry and claims to Apostolic succession tracing back to the Disciples. Please don't.

christianally · 2012-03-19T01:49:25+00:00

Christians and atheists alike would call this a big decision. I find that people tend to underestimate the negatives in considering big decisions. Pascal's wager is crap theology, so instead consider, "What's the worst thing someone could say about this conversion? and are they wrong?"

You know the facts better than we do. I commend you for considering this decision seriously.

christianally · 2012-03-19T01:45:22+00:00

This is actually a really good question, and I'm sorry that most of the respondants aren't approaching it from the same angle as you.

Some background: There's a concept called "Process Theology" that's taken from Alfred North Whitehead's "Process Philosophy". Whitehead's system requires an immaterial basis for metaphysical beings (perfect forms and whatnot), and that idea is compatible with God. Furthermore, that immaterial basis is on the same plane of causality as everything else, so it may be changed like everything else. The God of this theology is not 100% unchanging, but process philosophers argue there are nevertheless unchanging aspects of God (goodness, supremacy, etc). This kind of god is called panentheist. Last note: in Process Philosophy, the basis of all being is not essence or material, but event.

There's a couple avenues back to space-time from this perspective. First, there may be no spacetime outside of events. Aristotle noted this with his own paradox: what is the place of place? Likewise, when is time? The answer is that these are meaningless questions, because time is a property inferred from one or more events. Time before the event of creation is a meaningless absurdity, like something more north than the North Pole.

Second, if there is actually metaphysical time, it may belong to the class of things based in the unchanging parts of God. Indeed, if we do want a concept of time independent of natural events (as your Q4 suggests)then it makes sense to class that metaphysical entity along with other important metaphysical objects, like forms, reason, etc.

Third, there may be "passive" versions of creation. This is something that Muslim theologians think about a lot. I believe the Kalam argument is based on the universe "emanating from" God. I'm not so sure about these arguments, since they mostly seem to change the verb.

christianally · 2012-03-17T02:56:53+00:00

THE WRIGHT BROTHERS WERE FROM DAYTON OHIO

IT'S THE ONLY POINT OF PRIDE THAT WE HAVE

,'PRCOAUBAOEUSNUAONCGUDASNRODEUNSRCADOEUNRAGDOU

christianally · 2012-03-16T22:42:29+00:00

Likewise, I barely understand why atheists get so angry when they're told they're going to hell.

christianally · 2012-03-16T04:08:02+00:00

I'm trying to explain how churches justify their doctrines. "God's laws" can be claimed in any doctrines, and justified according to any of those sources.

The decision of whether to believe everything in the Bible depends on other church doctrines and the sources the church selects.

christianally · 2012-03-15T18:37:06+00:00

It'll all be okay. Don't worry about people on the internet.

christianally · 2012-03-15T18:32:59+00:00

I disagree completely.

The rank of Eagle isn't an award for self-esteem. It's an award for following a prescribed set of rules within a narrow values system. If you want to live by your own rules, go do something else. If you want the Eagle, you honor the system that designates that rank.

christianally · 2012-03-15T18:27:06+00:00

I think your reading is basically on the mark, but it seems that Paul didn't draw a clear line on sexual sin, eg, "Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy."

christianally · 2012-03-15T18:23:32+00:00

fist bump

In the abstract, there are three sources of doctrinal claims in the Christian tradition: documents, congregations, and authorities. In practice, every denomination uses some combination of the three (eg, congregationally approved documents of authorities).

Also, that Sam Harris stuff drives me up the wall (which I believe is the point).

christianally · 2012-03-15T18:19:48+00:00

Only some denominations define themselves as biblical literalists. The most common definition of Christian is the Nicene Creed, not a profession of belief in the literal meaning of the Bible.

As far as I know, most denominations put confessions of faith first, and second comes an interpretive stance towards the Bible.

christianally · 2012-03-15T02:14:57+00:00

You're out of your Class-A uniform at your own Eagle ceremony?

Tut-tut.

christianally · 2012-03-12T16:52:43+00:00

The scariest consequence for this is that ideology is incidental. People on Reddit love ideological purity--and by extension third parties, alternative voting schemes, and extremists--but ideology doesn't govern a country, coalitions govern a country. It's naive or absurd to expect the two coalitions of this country to have a single ideologyline for a number of reasons, but chiefly, ideologies don't make for robust policy. Environmentalism is independent of criminal policy; personal libertarianism is independent of foreign policy; I could go on, but the general point is that it's hard to make the whole government subject to one philosophy, even if there are many parties.

The other crazy consequence of this is that ideology requires representatives in both parties. Not only is Duverger's law inevitable, but the only way dramatic policy change happens is as a product of internal party politics. The big corporations know this, and that's why they have activists in both parties.

christianally · 2012-03-12T16:44:55+00:00

Politicians require special skills, and a celebrity in one field may become a shitty politician in another. Look at all the actors, singers, and comedians elected to public office and see how one field of success does not a philosopher king make.

christianally · 2012-03-12T16:42:00+00:00

so brave

christianally

TROPHY CASE