Log in

No account? Create an account
A journey into argument and discourse's Journal
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 17 most recent journal entries recorded in A journey into argument and discourse's LiveJournal:

Thursday, February 25th, 2010
1:46 am
there's been much said recently about when a person becomes a person.
many people have accepted, for some reason, that the line at which personhood is given is some time prior to, or directly after birth.
while this leads to a debate of faith or, as it is correctly called, the special olympics of the mind, I hope to avoid that aspect. this debate isn't about faith, it isn't really about anything happening near birth. this is because humans are so far from being able to live independently at birth as to make the label "person" moot.

but at some point, a person is created.
not a human, a person. as defined within philosophy as one who is self aware and able to act as a self guided ethical agent.

personhood can't be said to be given to anyone younger than ten years of age. Even those children I've met who were amazingly mature, who were very well read, who were intelligent beyond their peers to a massive extent, have at some point, or some level, remained children. I feel this is because of this inability to be truly self conscious. not the, "they will never have it", inability. but the, "too soon in the development of the mind", inability.
there doesn't seem to be any sort of easily defined or computed measure for the combination of maturity, intelligence, and ability to think, all rolled into one which is needed for this level of understanding.
I worry about that too. but it might be a different topic.
Tuesday, November 4th, 2008
8:48 am
who should fund education? why?
if education should be funded at the federal level (the nation as a whole gets the most benefit form an educated populace) then should curriculum be federally mandated?
if education should be funded at the state level (each state in the US is, a united part of a whole, but each state was meant to have individual control ot what went on in that state.
if education should be funded locally, how will anyone have enough money to learn anything?
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007
4:19 pm
Why the christ-god? (re-post)
A fun discussion that came up on a friend's journal.  Re-posting  and x-posting to debate

The question here being:  "Why would people have chosen christianity?"

I had this very same conversation last night on a date following watching Beowulf (which I thought was great entertainment by the way). I have often thought to myself, "Why the hell would anyone choose christianity?" There you are with your pagan gods, spirits, magical creatures and what-not, enjoying your orgy rituals, cannibalism, multiple wives, raping and pillaging, coveting like a mofo, etc, etc, you know..the good stuff...and here comes these ya-hoos with this christian nonesense? I would tell them where to stick their holier than thou attitude and get back to my orgy-feast.

Here are my conclusions. While the multiple gods and other things were all great, the promise of heaven and eternal salvation was not promised to the common man. Sure, kings and heroes had a guaranteed spot in Valhalla/Elysian Fields/Happy Hunting Grounds/etc, etc, but what about the common Joe? IF you got to the afterlife, you probably had an eternity as someone else's serf or servant. yippie...

But ho-ho! Christ offers EVERY MAN the promise of heaven. A kingdom of his own and all the trappings that your lowly serf can only dream of with wistful imaginings. This is a promise that they can reach for, they can actually have that one. Who wants the trouble of actually having to be brave or stand up for something? Psst! Or even have responsibilities and lead others? Fuck that! I just have to remember oneset of holy days, one god's taboos, one set of names, and all i have to do is give up the other gods? Sign me up Christ-o! Oh wait! You are gonna sweeten the pot? The more I suffer here the more I will be rewarded later? Awesome!

As the commoners were swept into the arms of this new fad, the leaders had to switch to maintain control. Yes, they had the big guns, but you maintain control through a variety of means, and as Napoleon said "Religion is what ensures that the poor do not eat the rich." (or something akin to it) So, then the leaders take up this religion. When the first few take up this new fad and realize that they can keep whoring, drinking, and murdering, but now in the name of this christ dude, then party-on. Same shit, different day.

That is my best guess. And yeah, they have to sit in the ground and wait, but what was the alternative? They would still be dead, right? *shrug* If you are gonna buy all this christ crap, then why the hell not? Besides, they probably thought the second coming would be relatively soon. The first one only took 3 days, right? *wink*

Current Mood: cynical
Wednesday, October 24th, 2007
3:03 pm
from a friend's journal
A homophobic U.K. couple is losing custody of a kid for not signing an agreement to not teach them discrimination. OK, that's a lot of negatives. Basically, they're not a fan of the gays, but they aren't exactly Fred Phelps, either. The scary thing is that so many responders are agreeing with this -- what about free speech? When I first saw a confusing headline on the Advocate site, I thought a gay couple had lost custody of a kid and was upset. Why would I think it was a good thing just because it was flipped around? Isn't part of the argument for gay adoption/foster parents (aside from discrimination being wrong) that it's better for kids to be in a real home rather than in a group home? How could we even begin to take kids out of homes where parents scare us? That's about 50 percent of America, give or take. Take 'em away from those homophobe moms and dads! That'll prove to 'em we're not evil!

Sunday, September 30th, 2007
11:39 am
back to business
Greetings.  We have been quiet for FAR too long!  I have been sitting on a number of issues and I wanted to get the ball rolling.

First of all, I am very, very surprised by the response to having the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, come to speak at Columbia University.  Yes, he is the president of a country with a lot of really different perspectives, just about all of which I disagree with, but I don't see the harm in letting him speak.  Calling for the resignation of the people that asked him to come seems a bit much.

People were comparing it to allowing Hitler to come and speak at a University.  I don't really see it that way.  I did not see it advertised or any of that as I was in the midst of Boards study, but from the reports I have seen recently, it appears he was coming to say why his country wasn't a bunch of terrorists building a nuclear bomb.  I think that is valuable information.  I am not sure if he is telling the truth or not, but that is not the point. 

The point is that we should be open to hearing from people that have differing opinions from ours.  I would really like to attempt to understand where he is coming from.  I feel as though, on the whole, Americans are putting themselves at a disadvantage by deciding who the "bad guy" is, thus dubbing everything they say as EVIL!  Then deciding who the "good guy" is, and dubbing everything they say as TRUTH! 

No, if he was coming to have a hate-slewing rally for his cause (i.e. back to the previous Hitler reference), that would be a different story. The way I see it, universities should be welcoming this kind of interchange so as not to make every Muslim into "Ze Terrorists!" (said like Ze Germans!  per Turkish)

I certainly would have gone to see him speak.

Your thoughts?

Current Mood: curious
Tuesday, June 26th, 2007
5:49 pm
Horrible event....followed by an annoying accusation.
So, I ganked this from the journal of an associate.  The story is long, but I think something worthwhile to read.  My problem comes at the end of the paper, when everything is dumped on the doorstep of capitalism.  WTF?  Why are racism, sexism, and discrimination now at the root of capitalism?  I completely disagree with that assertion.  They may be aspects of how it is enacted today, but that does not make them inherent to the idea.  In any event, please read...then we may discuss.

Current Mood: aggravated
Tuesday, May 1st, 2007
12:07 pm
Friday, April 6th, 2007
8:57 am
Legal Jurisdiction
x-posted to my journal...

Look...I am not saying that sex with children is something that I think is ok.  (Actually, it falls into the few taboos that I do actually have), but I think that our government goes too far to protect their ideas of morality.

Link to article:


So, this dude allegedly went to Cambodia to have sex with minors.  I don't know any more than you do if this actually occurred, but I am pissed off at the very IDEA of the Protect Act of 2003, part of which apparently allows you to be prosecuted in the US for committing pedophilia OUTSIDE of the US and its territories.  WTF?  I know they want to try to curb this so-called "sex tourism" trade going on in foreign lands (most often Asia..go figure.  Does no one want to fuck young white kids?  **yes, bad joke, I know** In any event not my kink...and not one that i think is appropriate in any event.)

Not only do I have an ENORMOUS issue with the burden of proof that they are going to have to provide to show that this man actually did what they claim, but that is really none of their business.  It is another example of American arrogance that we are going to hold you accountable for our laws anywhere on the planet.  

I call SHENANNIGANS!!!!!!!!  More of this highbrow opinion that US morals are somehow superior to those of other countries and that we can go around with this "thou shalt not" behavior is mind boggling.  It starts here with pedophilia, but what else are they going to decide is a no-no to do outside of the country?  I don't smoke the marijuana, not because I am morally opposed to it, but b/c there are laws against it, and I want to keep my license.  But were I at the summer house in Kingston, and some people wanted to light up, then why the hell not?  If I go to Asia, and want to carouse in an opium den to chase the dragon for a few days, then that is MY FUCKING BUSINESS.  I find great irony in how non-republican our republicans have become.

I would invite some discussion on this subject (even the morality of sex with minors).  My 2 cents, and my general comment on sex over all is any event or series of events among any number of consenting adults that does not involve permanent scars or water sports.  But that is just me.  I am very open minded about the scar (personal issue with scars) or water sports.  To each their own, but I believe the CONSENTING ADULT issue is pretty important.  When is one considered an adult?  Yeah, that is a tricky issue, and I agree with that.  But, I believe that in general people that seek out sex with minors are NOT looking on them as little adults.

Talk amongst yourselves....I am getting some coffee...

Current Mood: thoughtful
Sunday, April 1st, 2007
7:19 pm
Wednesday, January 24th, 2007
10:51 pm
So I keep running into these  "value scenarios" in my social work classes.  I'm posting the most recent edition because I find it interesting to see how people react to them.  I have two questions, but first, the scenario:

Monday, January 22nd, 2007
11:46 am
I saw a show last night that really made me think. It was Decoding The Past: Vampires Secrets on the History Channel. It got me thinking about the modern idea of the vampire and the current romance with it. My views have certainly changed, maybe permanently, and maybe strongly.

If you didn't get to see it yet, they talk about the origins of the myth and all the history around it with some actual cases. Then they talk about today: how Stoker started the change, how Anne Rice completely turned the vampire around and made it cool, how V:tM is a big deal for those that can't distinguish fantasy from reality (actual murder case), how the game is not it's self bad and can be a great social bond for the 'outsiders' in society, how there is a huge 'vampire' subculture in NYC.

It was interesting to see how we went from the horrific Nosferatu (the creature in that movie) to Brad Pitt in "Interview". It reminded me that vampires used to be dead corpses that crawl out of graves to kill ppl by sucking out all their blood. Now they are what we all want to be--totally sexy, powerful and immortal. So they drink human blood, big deal huh? Don't we all want to be like them?

I'd love to discuss this idea with anyone, via computer, or preferably, in person. What do you think?
9:47 am
Hey! I want some more debate dammit!
No one out there has anything to discuss? Bah! I am certain there are juicy tidbits out there just waiting to be tossed around.

Well, as far as this last post about the pro-choice movement keeping down women of color, I think that is a load of crap. (in my opinion) The problem here is a lack of education and access to information so as to make an informed opinion. Yes, a part of that has to do with their poverty, but a greater portion sits squarely on their values (which again, is affected by their socio-economic position, yes, I know). But, I do not feel as though neither the pro-choice or the pro-life movements are fighting to keep the "colored folks down."

I believe the author has some interesting arguments that are great for sparking discussions, but her conclusions are flawed.

On prisons: yes, I believe that the current prison system is vastly flawed. This idea about rehabilatation is a buncha crap. Prisons are there nearly for pure punishment. Granted, there are resources available to get some education in prison, but the entire system is formulated in such a way as to impede their return to society as "rehabilitated" individuals. Harder to get jobs, social stigma,etc...etc. But most of all, not enough social programs to help the masses get along. That, and crime pays better. It has no retirement plan, and has a high attrition rate, but it definately pays better. That being said, I don't have a much better idea at the moment. We have a social contract (I know you didn't officially agree with it Derwolf, but your continued presence under its purviews is a tacit agreement) and those that break said contract should suffer consequences. I realize that prison isn't a cake walk, but I do not believe that anyone in prison should be privy to rights/privleges that EVERY free, law-abiding citizen in the country do not have access to. I realize that I am moving into a different discussion, so I will make this quick....Until we have taken care of the homeless situation and elevated poverty to the level where everyone gets a daily meal and a warm bed, no one in prison should get one. No pansy ass pandering to white collar criminals either. You broke the law. Plain and simple. Suffer the consequences.

Current Mood: awake
Tuesday, November 14th, 2006
1:15 pm
Nods to Foonalicious for bringing this article to my attention.

I have a number of issues with this article. The authors position on women of color being repressed, the nature of prisons, and the women's rights vs. women's choice issue.

I invite you to peruse and discuss. I will add my comments later.

Read more...Collapse )

Current Mood: annoyed
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006
2:18 am
Education: part the first!
As I seem to be fostering a growing interest in education reform, I thought I'd post up some general questions in that area to spark discussion.  Also to bait Josh and Fred specificaly as I know from previous discourse that we all have vastly differing (strong) oppinions on the subject. ;-)

Question 1:
In the the glowing, butterfly-filled, rainbow coated, cyborg-inhabited metropolis of the future, would you prefer to send your burgeoning children and their delectable little minds to a public, government-funded school where they may mingle with a great diversity of folk, or would you seek out the "smaller class sizes" of the private institution?  Or would you opt to teach your children from the comfort of your tall armchair, surrounded by the vast shelves of your own private library.   What benefits do you see your children potentialy drawing from each institutional situation?  Which do you feel will better prepare them for university and other "higher education," and/or for their entry into "adult life?"

Some of my oppinions on the issue have already been made known.  Others I shall explore at a later date.
(Equilibrium icon because he's so cute, and I fear this may get ruthless ;-)

Current Mood: contemplative
Thursday, July 13th, 2006
4:19 pm
Oooo, an new topic!
Ok, this was sparked by comments on someone else's journal, and rather than spend pages writing over there (as I feel I've been too wordy already), I thought I'd post something here and maybe get something going.

Medication.  Specificaly, psychotropic medications.  I'm interested to know if people are generaly pro-medication or anti-medication and why.  Also, I'm interested in personal interpretations of the "disease" model of treating mental illness.  That is, do you consider mental illness the same as any other medical disease, or do you see it as its own seperate kind of medicine/science/healing?

Current Mood: contemplative
Thursday, June 8th, 2006
6:26 pm
This Birthing Business
Sorry it took me so long. I was away, and then I was overtaken by GI evils...

But here we are.

I have already spoken with LIndil about this a little bit, but I will restate here. I feel as though this lady was speaking from a position of personal pain and victimization and that she wasn't focusing too much on the available facts. I also feel as though she was contradicting herself greatly here. She begins by saying that she read widely about babies and giving birth, and then she is "surprised" by finding out everything from her doctor. I find that to be a bit incongruous. Granted, it is possible that she was reading the wrong things, but that is not the impression that she gave. However, I have a few striking points that I really got under my bonnett. I am not an obstetrics expert, so my opinions are based only on my own wayward experiences.

Read more...Collapse )

Current Mood: amused
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006
11:01 am
First topic

The above link discusses the author's opinion that modern childbirth is an overt invasion of her body and a horrible experience that women should not go through.

I agree with some of what she says but I find fault with a great deal of what she has to say.

For my anti-establishment friends, I agree that you should have the choice to do as you wish; which I feel she does. Just don't bitch when things go wrong.

I will leave this up for discussion and list my comments shortly.

Current Mood: annoyed
About LiveJournal.com