Hot-footing across the deadline lava pool

[silveradept]

Calling it a night again, not because all the work is done (Oh, heavens no.), but because I have to get up in the morning and go to class. Maybe tomorrow, significant denting in the workload. Maybe not. Either way, it needs to basically be all finished before I get to the weekend. I wasn’t really helping my cause much by sitting out on one of the campus locales, people-watching and thinking about things other than my schoolwork. But I think spending that time out there helped me in some immeasurable way. Maybe I rebalanced my chi sitting out there eating chips, drinking soda, and watching people go by as music played in my ears.

Tomorrow I’ll do more work.

It has come to this: TV Land will air the 100 most memorable catchphrases of television. What’s more sad is that I recognize most of them. Still, pretty bad when it’s TV catchphrases that are getting their own show. I might recommend playing with a video game system over that. Just be careful around your expensive TV, as Wii straps don't take abuse kindly. And it probably took quite the abuse to get these to break.

Taking a silly thing out to a logical nth degree, the Indescribable Institute insists that schools across the nation begin teaching the controversy over sexual reproduction theories.

An interesting thought, perhaps to come pre-loaded with the $100 laptops - a selection of Wikipedia is being distributed over BitTorrent, most likely with eventual aim of being burnt to CD/DVD and used in an educational manner. Assuming that everything in the articles has been fact-checked, this is a pretty good idea, specially for those on slow to nonexistent connections, assuming someone with a good connection and some writable media starts the process.

An advertisement best left to rot, as it purports to teach the thumb-twitching text-messaging crowd how to improve their speed. Most likely at the sacrifice of their grammar. Or maybe it’s so they can download more cell phone porn, one of the big things that people are spending cash on, faster. Although one would hope they’re of age to do such things.

In a fairly surprising move, the guy who demonstrated how to make fake boarding passes is going free, apparently because the federal government couldn’t find any criminal intent. In this day and age, it’s rather surprising to see that decision appear.

An allegation of a mother microwaving her child. Hopefully it’s not something deliberate, but something that may be explainable as an extreme action from postpartum depression. Not that it necessarily excuses the action, but at least makes it understandable why something like that would happen.

Living at the mall, all the time of your life. Well, at least with these “lifestyle centers” that take the idea of the mega mall and transform it into small-appearing shops (like the Disney ones). The atmosphere is apparently sufficiently changed to lure in more people to them. Apparently, the appearance of town life (or suburbia) is sufficient - the actual content is immaterial. Do we really want to live in a Disney-style illusion over reality? (Which is, I guess, highly overrated.)

London: A Life in Maps. Detailing the progression of the city of London since it was Saxon to the present day. Very interesting, and may be worth a read for people on both sides of the pond.

Liberal Eagle reminds us that war is hell; hell is other people in decrying the spectator-sport atmosphere that surrounds the current war in Iraq, but Democrats and Liberals suggest that Bush may be on his last gasps of F.U.D. That won’t stop other people, like Nancy Levant, from taking up the mantle and accusing us all of being complicit in an Illuminati scheme, currently under the guise of the Council on Foreign Relations.

This following sequence has a running thread through it, but I can’t quite figure out how to make it all work together. So bear with me as I start with the willingness of someone to talk about Muslim domestic violence, hop across to what the Quran has to say, at times, about women's status , take two hops and a skip over to the 16 days of activism against gender violence, and landing with Ratzinger's wish to have "authentic dialogue" with other religious leaders. There’s got to be a thread somewhere in there. I just can’t find it.

Anyway, bedtime. Must catch the bus to the Ford tomorrow for class, which means my morning schedule gets just a bit compressed.

Comments

[urbankotq.livejournal.com]

I want to be in the Illuminati. I bet that while they're on break, they look at all the conspiracy theories printed about them and laugh their asses off before arranging something random, like making all the hot dogs sold in New York purple for one day.

I just got a copy of the Quran. I intend to read it to find out what the blazes the suicide bombers have been reading. Something tells me they're not worth blowing yourself up over.

[unspeakablevorn.livejournal.com]

Grapes.

Vorn

[silveradept]

Raisins, I thought. Now it's regular grapes rather than the dried variety?

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

Just a word of advice, if you're going to own the Qu'ran, please treat it with reverence. Wash your hand before reading it and store it in an elevated location. You may not agree with it, but it's still a religious text and it has its rules.

(Noting that I say the exact same thing about people who choose to fly the American flag: illuminate it at night or take it down, and make sure it doesn't ever touch the ground.)

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

N) Even a EULA has the choice to agree or disagree; rules only apply if you agree to abide by them. Usually they come part and parcel with other advantages and disadvantages, but the basic optionality applies.

The fact that the text is about imagined omnipotent beings does nothing to change the fact that, no matter what it says, all it is is a recording of certain words. One has no obligation to obey what they tell you to do.

(Same with a flag: it's just a piece of cloth with dye on it, and even if it has special significance to some, this does not constitute a requirement for others to follow their arbitrary preferences.)

[silveradept]

You are correct in your particulars. I would like to add on, however, that while you are under no obligation to obey what the text says, or what the rules regarding the flag are, it is generally considered good societal behavior to be cognizant and respectful of objects that hold significance for others, even if you have no intention of actually accepting or adopting the doctrines they espouse.

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

N) *nods* True. The post was motivated by particulars: you might even call it 'splitting hairs'. I could try to make a position based on positions imagined to be implied, but that tends to end in disaster, so: annoying excessively analytical (and probably flawed) time!

'You may not agree with it, but it's still a religious text and it has its rules.'

Break down into separate components:

'You may not agree with it, but': context. In this case, the context which the following is to be contracted with.

'it's still a religious text and it has its rules': justification for treating it in a certain way.

'it's still a religious text': the religiousness or irreligiousness of the text is irrelevant.

(At this note, a slight tangent: is it good societal behaviour to be respectful of objects that hold only positive significance for others, or either positive or negative significance for others? The latter would suggest that in a town where all the inhabitants hated a certain symbol and burned it wherever it was found, one should treat it with respect, something which the inhabitants would almost certainly disapprove of. The former leads to contridictions when one considers the case of a text which one group reveres as good another condemning as evil.)

Considering the multitude of objects in the world, and their varied (and often completely different, as noted in airport wall-advertisements for some reason) significances to different people, any following of one rule breaks another rule: thus, a policy of following only those rules which seem suitable to the situation, or which are backed up by rational reasons. Treating the significance some things hold to others as not entirely rational, one way or another, the path of the rational is the only clear path free of taint or bias.

'and it has its rules.': many things have rules, many mutually exclusive/impossible to simultaneously conform to. Again, the only clear path is to follow only those rules which there seem to be good reasons for following.

(...a book, whether labelled as 'religious' or 'non-religious' or 'fiction' or 'historical' or 'wibbledy-doo-bah': a storage medium containing information, encoded in a certain format. Whether that information makes accurate claims or inaccurate claims, all it is is information to be judged on its own merits, and treated appropriately. All the medium is is a medium, and to be treated appropriately... apply similar reason to a flag, banner or--my coherency is decreasing as it draws further into the night, isn't it? My apologies.)

This is probably offensive. Also, probably needlessly so. Oddly, I tend to... maybe I should have saved this until after I'd finished. Though when I finish, I should just go to sleep.

Conclusion: if the statement ''You may not agree with it, but it's still a religious text and it has its rules.' is taken apart and examined carefully, if it is assumed to mean exactly what it says and absolutely nothing else, then it means... exactly nothing. There's an acknowledgement of context, and something in the place of a justification which forms no justification at all.

And THUS! Dakara! Either the sentence MEANS NOTHING AT ALL, being founded on facts which are irrelevant or inapplicable, OR there is being assumed an obligation in the fact that the text is religious or that there are rules to follow those rules!

...in which case, splitting hairs, I engaged with the perceived assumed obligation, which you correctly tell not to exist.

Lets see if I've missed anything... ah. Ignoring the minute details, something being generally considered good societal behaviour either does or does not constitute an obligation to follow that behaviour. If it does not, then there is no obligation, and there is no pressure. If it does, then the previous reaction to that apply, and... I've forgotten what I said, and maybe what I'm going to say, and it's way past when I was supposed to go to sleep tonight.

Er... [B) *whacks on head and posts before further tangling occurs*]

[silveradept]

I think the aim is more that objects that have labels applied to them also have expected behaviors applied to them. An object labeled "fragile" or "breakable" usually carries the warning "handle with care", and this is an expected behavior.

As for your digression (which I find not to be a digression, but relevant), I would say that the town still respected the symbol, because of the energy they put into destroying it at every turn. If they held no respect for it, they would not bother to do what they do. In that vein, unless you have reasons not to, you should respect it in the same manner as the locals. A desire for non-violence against symbols counts as a reason to abstain from stomping (urinating, burning, etc.) on the symbol. In the same way, flag-burning is effective because people respect the symbol and the ideas it represents. Religious texts are supposed to be treated with respect because of the ideas they contain. There are norms associated with the labels applied to objects. Thus, the claim "it's a religious text, and has its rules [for its care]" is not a wholly void statement, assuming that you agree that the labels applied have behavioral norms attached (religious text), or that you agree that text should be able to suggest to its readers how to care for it (a text with rules).

If you don't agree with either of those premises, then please do tell me how you interpret things, because it's most likely to be novel and worth studying.

If that didn't make any sense, let me know.

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

N) And yet, if the object belongs to you it's yours to do with or break or otherwise treat as you wish, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others by doing so. Perhaps it's not socially accepted to cut up bedsheets and sleep in them as a 'nest', and to do it in another's house with another's belongings is almost unthinkable, but in one's own house with one's own belongings there's no reason not to. One of the most important rights reserved by the individual, for the sake of being allowed to be individual: the right to be harmlessly weird.

Hmm. Then in the case of a religious text, which one group wants to revere and treat with cleanliness and awe and another group wants to burn, it would be acceptable either to revere it and treat it with cleanliness and awe, or to burn it, but not to treat it the same way as any other collection of bound pages with words on them in one's collection?

The first premise: described in the first paragraph.
The second premise, that which wasn't addressed in the second paragraph: *looks carefully; breaks down again*

'the claim [claim] is not a wholly void statement, assuming that [X] and [Y]'

Assumption Y: 'that you agree that text should be able to suggest to its readers how to care for it (a text with rules)': a text may do anything, including making wild claims about the Earth and giant purple creator god toads or insisting that on certain days the reader shuns the colour blue. It may suggest how to care for it, but that in itself doesn't create any obligation for the reader to follow thes suggestion: especially in the case of caring for a book, as it belongs to the reader, by ignoring the instructions of care the reader only harms himself in that the book may fall apart faster (in which case the bookbinders will probably profit, if he then buys another copy to replace the old one).

Assumption X: 'that you agree that the labels applied have behavioral norms attached (religious text)': the first paragraph addresses that. There are behavioural norms, but they do not concern what one does in the privacy of one's home, or even in public so long as no one else is harmed by it. Even if public non-harming-of-others behaviour is illegal, as we can imagine a society which makes it illegal to let one's hair be seen, or to pick one's nose, as long as it harms no one else the only person being harmed by the doing of the illegal action is the actor.

There, though, we get into slightly complicated territory. So, ignoring the public for now: in the privacy of one's own home, so long as it harms no one else, I claim that behavioural norms, behavioural expectations, societal expectations, all the complex social rules which govern daily public interactions have no bearing. What one does with oneself and one's solely owned belongings is one's own business, no one else's, and no one has anything resembling a right to try to control your actions or obligate you to do anything during that time.

Note that this does not apply when one's actions or lack thereof have effects on others, and note that living animals could be included in the category 'others' (or not, as the case may be), depending on point of view.

'If that didn't make any sense, let me know.': likewise.

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

N) Or, to put it more simply:

2. That a text may suggest rules for its care does not bestow any obligation on the reader to follow them.
1. Labels with behavioural norms attached have no bearing on situations where the only parties involved are one human and his/her/[insert possessive pronoun here] private property.

Dakara, [insert conclusion/previous words here].

[silveradept]

Ah. Seeing both the argument and the summary makes much more sense. The courts and long traditions of law establish your right to do whatever you like in your own home, if you're not infringing on anybody else. So long as that's the only plane you're restricting your argument to, then you have solid ground. You may not make many friends if what you do in private is disseminated, by yours or another's hand, but it is your prerogative.

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

N) *nods*

Treating that as agreed upon, another possible way of looking at it which may or may not increase the range of application:

[types out; deletes; tries again]

For a given religious text, there is only one religion which views it as containing divine, holy words. All others treat it as containing falsehoods. For a Christian to ask a Hindu to treat a Christian text with the same accord as a Christian does would be ridiculous, as would it be for a Hindu to ask a Christian to treat a Hindu text with the same accord as a Hindu does.

To worship one imagined deity, and to treat another imagined deity with equal reverence, assuming that the first imagined deity is imagined to have commanded his followers to worship and revere only him and/or his pantheon, constitutes hypocrisy, internal contridiction.

(If the above is not true, why?)

Now, we take the example of an athiest, in these circumstances taken as someone who sees no reason to believe that any deities exist. He looks around and sees each group revering one text while refusing to revere others. He sees no reason to revere any.

It is reasonable for a person of a given religion to request that someone of the same religion follow certain precepts as a way to demonstrate reverence of which he may or may not be aware. To request that a person of a different religion follow certain precepts as a way to demonstrate reverence which is rendered impossible by his conflicting (mutually exclusive) reverence of his own religion is ridiculous.

And now, To request that a person who is no part of any religion and/or a generic person follow certain precepts as a way to demonstrate reverence which the person does not feel and views as unwarranted... where was I going with this? *tries to remember*

It if it unreasaonble to expect those of a different religion not to revere one's only items, it is unreasonable to expect those without a religion to revere one's holy items.

To request that a person act in such a way: why? Because one feels that people should act in such a way. Others disagree. To request that people act in such a way, even for an entire POPULATION to request that only one other person act in such a way, without any reason or desire to, is rude and unmannerly.

'If I'm not harming you, leave me in peace.'; 'Even if you behave in this way which I don't agree, though I tolerate it please don't try to get me to act in the same way';

Ah! And here, a parallel which I think may have been niggling at the back of my mind for some time now... the person who drinks alcohol and tries to get another person to also drink.

The 'Why? Why?': that I don't claim to understand, nor shall I speculate at this time. I suspect that even such people in question don't know, and while there could be many hypotheses, for a given person only one or a few would apply, and said hypotheses would be useless if no one except the hypothesiser could see how the hypotehses applied.

That's the heart of it... maybe others behave irrationally (in this case, the 'storing in an elevated location' the clearest behaviour which doesn't have any obvious advantage for the text's care), and certainly that can be tolerated as it is their choice to make, but to ask others who aren't part of their group and don't believe the things that cause them to do such things to do them anyway is unreasonable.

And to take things further: as a way of demonstrating this, one could easily spawn a number of religions, one for each object in an average person's house, and go around asking people 'If you own spagetti, please never store it in the north side of your house!' (as Pastafarianism first comes to mind), or 'Keep all forks downturned!'.

The number of people who feels such a way means nothing. Whether they're the majority or not means nothing. Immediate example that comes to mind, as supper's just been served: even if the majority feels that those of different skin colour are inferior, that is not justification for asking another to treat them differently.

*dressed quickly to descend; posts*

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

N) (*returns*)

*muses, perhaps straying from the point a little*

Take the example of, say, giving black slaves hats in the heat of summer (to shield them from the sun). Take two people, each from a different (probably neighbouring) plantation, each without the practical ability to change the slaves' lives in any way other than giving or not giving hats.

Person A believes the slaves to be inferior to the masters, while person B believes the slaves to be the equals of the masters, despite their different positions in society. Person A thinks that the slaves shouldn't be given hats, as it might give them inconvenient ideas as to their own worth, and promote uprising. Person B thinks that slaves should be given hats, as fellow humans whose suffering should be relieved whenever possible, out of basic consideration for their well-being.

Even if no one else on any plantation gives their slaves hats, even if everyone else views it as rebellious and disrespectful for person B to give the slaves hats, it isn't justified for person A to ask person B not to give person B's slaves hats (if it can be assumed that person B (and/or those whom person B represents) is the only one who could be ultimately disadvantaged by the hat-giving). That is... it's not reasonable to simply make the request without good, irrefutable reason. For person A to request that person B not give person B's slaves hats, and expect person B to comply, or for the reverse situation of person B requesting that person A give person A's slaves hats, and to expect person A to comply, both are rude, and attempts to impose one's own decisions on another.

For person A to question why person B chooses to give hats, or vice versa for not giving hats, to find out the reasons which result in different actions and to discuss them in the hope of each better understanding the other and maybe one's opinions and actions changing: that is reasonable.

But *drum-roll of conclusion/summary* it is unreasonable to ask other to do things inconsistant with their {choices about how they will}/{thoughts/beliefs about how they should} behave as long as the results of not doing those things do not disadvantage others.

...and now, teeth-brushing. Or is it tooth-brushing? 'tooth-brushing' sounds more natural, yet it implies that only one tooth is being brushed. ...and it's a difference between 93,400 Google results for the first and 496,000 for the second. Curious. *wonders... goes to attend to said dental hygiene*

[silveradept]

It is unreaasonable. At the same time, if you're going to get anywhere in a society, you're going to have to accede to some of those unreasonable demands, or nobody will interact with you, because you become part of everybody's "them", and an unrepentant "them" to boot.

So you're right, yes, but it's not very practical in this case.

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

N) *smiles oddly* Happily, in this international anonymous anarchical Internet, you don't rely on others for survival. All they can do is shun you, blight your name or do other things regarded to communications... but that doesn't matter, because you can seek out others who think the same way as you, and seek to convince others, or be convinced. If you think that someone's behaviour is unreasonable, you can tell them, and tell them why. And if they didn't realise it, then maybe they'll be convinced to change their behaviour, and if there's a flaw in your reasoning maybe you'll be convinced to change your opinions, instead.

In short... there are circumstances in which though others are unreasonable, one won't be able to do anything about it. Happily, this isn't one of them. *smiles*

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

N) *considers, looking over what he's written/replied to*

Ahh. *nods* I seem not to have changed the plane, at all, but rather shifted the target of the argument: having solidified that to choose one's actions in such a regard is one's prerogative, whether another asks that one act differently or not, now I'm challenging the asking itself...

Looking at the beginning of the situation, it seems as though what I was originally doing was challenging the asking: it occurs to me briefly to wonder whether I could have gone straight to the direct challenging of the asking, but it makes sense that I would have to first show that something was justified before I showed that a thing against it was unjustified.

...which is not tantamount to the willingness to supress the unjustified thing, nor the belief that it should be supressed, but rather a disagreement that it should have been said in the first place... not to stop a thing being said, but rather after it has been said show that the saying/asking is flawed... no, my word before was better: 'unreasonable'.

Of course, the second stage is not yet cleared. Just treat this sub-comment (comment? third comment for this level?) as an analysis (self-analysis? Partial self-analysis?) of my own debating style. Or not style, rather progression... does this count as a debate? Hmm. *thoughts resharpen a little* Even if it doesn't, that's the closest word that comes to mind right now, and for now it will have to serve.

*smiles (slightly? oh look, thoughts unsharpening again...); posts* (Heh... whatever works.)

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

N) [unnecessary clarification, prompted by fear of prior incomplete communication] Attempting to change others' opinions through discussion: seen as reasonable, attempting to change others' actions, conflicting with their opinions, without trying to change their opinions in order to do this: seen as unreasonable. [/unnecessary clarification]

The word 'reasonable', though: this quickly heads down a new path, looking at those who change others' actions through force or sufficient economic incentives... it gets complicated very quickly, particularly as the 'economic incentives' route seems peaceful. Try to outline the entire status of the entire situation in entirely unambiguous language, and...
...you find you've got two minutes to go and your teeth still unbrushed. I'll assume that you can piece together my trail of thought from what I've written already and leave the concept of entirely unambiguous communication of worldview for a later date. (And if I'm suddenly seized by an urge to come back and rewrite this bit for greater clarification, as it's certainly gotten flaws in conveying my thoughts on this meta-matter, I must not do it...! *resolute, posts and attempts not to post more until a response is received to respond to*)

[unspeakablevorn.livejournal.com]

An advertisement best left to rot, as it purports to teach the thumb-twitching text-messaging crowd how to improve their speed. Most likely at the sacrifice of their grammar

Seeing as t9 makes it easier to type full words, I would say that it is more likely to improve their grammar.

Vorn

[silveradept]

I stand corrected, caught by one of the few instances where language might actually be restored rather than sacrificed.

I guess I still think that even with a device designed to make full words easier, the texting populace will probably not pick up on it too much, in the same way the chatspeak populace hasn't.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

Sadly, this is true. When I text, I only text in full sentences (complete with punctuation), but I have yet to receive full sentences in return.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

a lot of people DO use the T9 feature, and I get laughed at all the time for my refusal to use it, but half the time, it picks the wrong word and you have to go back and fix it anyway.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

I hate T9. It always "guesses" the wrong word.

I generally text in full sentences by tapping out the letters individually, unless I'm in a hurry or running out of space in my message.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

Those "lifestyle centers" with skating rinks and movie theatres and housing and offices and amusement parks are what large Hong Kong malls are all like. I'm surprised it's actually unusual here.

[silveradept]

IT's slowly turning that way, though. More and more mall-type places are getting movie theaters and arcades and other such things in addition to the seven hundred thousand clothing stores / one bookstore ratio.

[greyweirdo.livejournal.com]

In our area during the 80s, most the local malls had an arcade and movie theater. For the most part, the arcades and movie theaters were gone by the late 90s though. The one near where I grew up has offices and condos near the mall, sort of circling the parking lot to form a sort of unofficial campus.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

those "lifestyle centers" are a little weird. I mean, a lot of towns already have a pretty happening downtown that's already established, why do they need these, too?

I'm sure Peddler's Village in Princeton is considered one of these lifestyle centers, and its' been around since the 80's. It was a nice place to visit, but everyone knew it wasn't a "real mall". If you wanted the mall, you drove over to Market Fair, or Quakerbridge. no one actually shopped at Peddler's unless you were made of money.

[silveradept]

Well, that's just it. The people who are made of money started creating subdivisions and gated communities and homeowners associations because they wanted the illusions of one type of life while maintaining another behind their doors. These "lifestyle centers" are probably the extension to those, out into the shopping world - a place with the illusion of being for everyone, unless you actually look at the price tag on the jeans.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

*nods* and in Mercer County, NJ, where I grew up, we already had the gated communities with their own shopping centers inside the gate long before any of this. We always made fun of the people who had to have their 250k home AND their gourmet grocery store. They even had their own bagel shop that had gourmet bagels, too.

I think soon people are going to start building gated towns - you know, you can't come into the town unless you know someone and are on "the list".

[greyweirdo.livejournal.com]

Those centers look sort of like the idea Disney had for EPCOT when he was still around.

[sorcycat.livejournal.com]

An allegation of a mother microwaving her child. Hopefully it’s not something deliberate, but something that may be explainable as an extreme action from postpartum depression. Not that it necessarily excuses the action, but at least makes it understandable why something like that would happen.

Two days after my son was born, I dreamed I left him in the microwave and he died. It freaked me out!

[silveradept]

Well, that's why I'm hoping it was some sort of imbalance somewhere. A temporary insanity, admittedly with permanent effects. I don't really like the thought of a mother deliberately microwaving her child to death.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

there was a case back in 2000 where a woman did kill her son in a microwave. In this particular case though, they are investigating if it was the mother, or the babysitter the night before.

According to the news report I heard last night, the mother claims she went out the night before and left the baby with a babysitter. When she came home, the baby was "asleep", so she didn't notice until the morning that he was "unconscious".