No, you obviously are NOT one of the Chosen.
The year 2112 is chiseled into the foundation of the cornerstone, as a fourth dimensional palindrome - signifying a series of preplanned cataclysmic events destined to bring about the desired cleansing.
Those of us in the way of portended noesis seek daily the provided orders hidden in the NY Times crossword puzzle (seek and ye too shall find, and by obeying may be multilaterally chosen to be considered worthy).
If this argument does NOT self-destruct by dawn of the day of the 3rd new moon of the 1st quarter of the current year, please consider it to be a drollness of improper hypothesis - and thereby save yourself from self-aggrandized delusional mental kinetosis (a most embarrassing condition).
I couldn't watch the entire video. Whoever made it should make it again - WITHOUT the red on black text - I simply cannot make it out.
(Which maybe goes to show that the presentation of information is more important than the availability of information)
I would argue that, as the consequences of the choice between idealism and pragmatism become more crucial, the more important it is to be able to temper idealism with pragmatism. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. I believe that the best problem solvers are those who are both noble-minded (idealists) AND realists (pragmatists). If there are important issues that need to be resolved, we are more likely to implement successful solutions if we start with the idealistic approach of "what is the right thing to do" and then realistically consider "how to get it done".
It seems to me: that the "Pure Idealist" (if there is such a creature) would rarely accomplish much - Utopia only exists in our minds, and the "Pure Pragmatist" represents a potential drastic threat - the ends do NOT always justify the means.
Idealist:
Someone guided more by ideals than by practical considerations
Pragmatist:
A person who takes a practical approach to problems and is concerned primarily with the success or failure of her actions
The exact question asked is - "When in conflict, should idealism be valued over pragmatism?". A thoughtful consideration must begin with another question: "What is the nature of the conflict?".
If the consequences of the conflict are relatively unimportant (should I snack on some raw fruits and vegetables or should I satisfy my mild hunger by eating a hot dog?), then it probably matters very little if I solve the conflict with the idealism of "what's good for me" or the pragmatism of "what's readily available".
If the conflict involves a matter of life or death (should I support a presidential candidate who believes that a show of military might is the right response to most international disputes, or should I cast my vote for a candidate who believes that diplomacy is the better approach?), then the choice between idealism and pragmatism is certainly more important.
Of course, there are a range of conflicts that fall somewhere in between the trivial and the dire.
I would argue that, as the consequences of the choice between idealism and pragmatism become more crucial, the more important it is to be able to temper idealism with pragmatism. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. I believe that the best problem solvers are those who are both noble-minded (idealists) AND realists (pragmatists). If there are important issues that need to be resolved, we are more likely to implement successful solutions if we start with the idealistic approach of "what is the right thing to do" and then realistically consider "how to get it done".
It seems to me: that the "Pure Idealist" (if there is such a creature) would rarely accomplish much - Utopia only exists in our minds, and the "Pure Pragmatist" represents a potential drastic threat - the ends do NOT always justify the means.
First, I would like to thank you for the link to your blog post - I had heard the term Machiavellian used, but had never actually done any research on it (and had guessed that it was not a favorable adjective based on the context in which it was used); I now have a much better idea of the concept.
According to your blog, Machiavelli suggests many characteristics of a "good Prince" - arguing that if the ruler follows Machiavelli's advice, the kingdom would benefit and thrive. Each point of advice could be argued on its own merit, as to the benefit that it would bring upon the subjects of the monarchy.
But the argument FOR a monarchy (as put forth in your blog), leaves out a key component - succession. When the "good Prince" passes on his duties as ruler to the next Prince, how likely is it that the next ruler will exhibit all of the suggested characteristics, and therefore benefit the people of his kingdom as well as his predecessor? AND, what are the rules for succession? If my understanding of history is (even close to) correct, succession is a family matter - the "next in line" for ruler of the kingdom is based on birth rights (although it seems the history of monarchies is rife with many examples of subterfuge and chicanery).
I would put forth the argument that the concept of royalty is merely the opposite of slavery, and that both are equally preposterous. To accept that a person can be born into slavery is morally wrong, and to accept that a person can be born into royalty is also wrong.
However, to answer you question - Yes, I suppose that a monarchy (under the auspices of a "good ruler") COULD be a good form of government. But I personally would prefer a direct democracy (even though the democracy in which I find myself could definitely use some improvements. But that would be an entirely different debate).
The best economic policy is JOBS CREATION. I'm sure that the structure of our financial institutions need some re-tuning in the way of better regulations that are more strictly enforced, but no amount of fine-tuning will amount to long term improvements without some kind of massive Jobs Creation program.
The real problem (as I see it) is that wealth distribution has gotten way out of balance - with the very top of our societal pyramid controlling a disproportional percentage of available capital.
If we don't find a workable solution that puts more capital into the hands of the middle and lower class, the pyramid will collapse. And creating meaningful jobs that contribute to the overall well-being of our society is a solution that will work to infuse capital into our system.
And as soon as President Obama calls on me for advice, I will share the sage wisdom of my deep insight for the betterment of all mankind ;-)
If your opinion on who has the better tax plan is based on the information provided by the Heritage Foundation ... I suggest you look elsewhere.
I suggest you look at each candidate's website.
http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/
(you may have to dig around Senator McCain's website a bit to find his specific tax proposals)
My support for Senator Obama is NOT based on who has the better tax plan. For me, when it comes to the presidential election, there is ONE OVER-RIDING CONCERN - who is least likely to start a nuclear war.
Barack Obama is thoughtful and careful, and would consider all the consequences of "pushing the button". John McCain strikes me as impetuous and dangerous, and I don't want his finger anywhere near the button.
One of the skills a good debater should have is the ability to argue both sides of an argument - be able to present points both for and against.
There is certainly nothing wrong with choosing which side of a debate you believe is presenting the facts. BUT, any debater will improve his/her skills by being able to make arguments both ways!
No. As I understand it, The DaVinci Code is a work of fiction, and this particular piece of fiction did not produce any "thought-changing" effects in me.
However, the Catholic church made a regular practice of shielding known child molesters for many years (if they have indeed stopped it to this very day). Those "acts of facts" forever changed my perception of the Catholic church.
I was blessed (or perhaps cursed) with a questioning mind, and have gone through some major "changes-in-thought" in my adult life. Even though I was raised a Catholic, and have been a Baptist, and a born-again Pentecostal Christian, and some others as well ....
One day I got to thinking about the Biblical passage (one of the foundations of Christianity), "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Now, John 3:16 may be one of the most well-known quotes from the New Testament, and lots of God-loving Christians use it as a tool to try to convert non-believers into believers. BUT, they neglect to point out the next two verses:
"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God"
These verses seem to contradict each other. Jesus wasn't sent here to condemn the world, but if you do not believe you are indeed condemned.
Huh?
If you accept Jesus as the Son of God sent here to redeem your sins, you get to go to heaven, and if you don't ... well, you don't.
After much thought, reflection, and soul-searching, I cannot accept such a premise. I cannot believe that a loving God would condemn people to hell and damnation based solely on a single belief.
I don't point this out as an attempt to convince anyone to see it my way, but as way of explaining why some trivial pop culture fiction like The DaVinci Code just doesn't have what it takes to change my thoughts (I'd like to believe that my thought processes aren't that superficial).
One of the differences is the time line. McCain's adultery was 30+ years ago - the questions have been asked and answered (maybe not entirely). Edwards infidelity is much more recent, and there are still many unanswered questions.
Also, 30 years ago people were not under the magnifying glass of 24/7 cable news nor the "proliferation of information" known as the Internet.
Is it true that the impact of viral videos is decreasing? Is YouTube on the wane, declining in use or impact? And just what is the impact of a viral video? Or maybe the question should be - what is the potential impact of a viral video?
Well, the potential impact would certainly depend on the video - its subject, how well it is done, how it presents its premise, its use of facts (or lies purported to be facts), its audience and their reaction and how they help spread the message, ... and many other contingent aspects.
This particular video was featured this morning at the Huffington Post, and some of the comments suggested that some viewers would indeed "spread the message" by sharing the video. So, this video will most likely be very viral.
Of course, that doesn't address the issue of how damaging this video's message will be to the campaign of John McCain.
I suspect that, when it comes to political messages, most of us tend to view any particular message through a biased lens - a lens that distorts the message to conform to some preset ideas. People that are against McCain will declare, "this video sure proves that McCain is ______." (fill in the blank with some sort of derogatory). And people that are for McCain will declare that this proves that Obama and his supporters are nothing but a bunch of low-lifes (or something along those lines).
So, no this is NOT "the most damaging" viral video (but it is cute, and proves that those Obama low lifes have a point about McCain being an almost senile old fool).
Prayer may or may not be a private matter between the prayer and his concept of God (some folk like to pray out loud, and some like to speak discretely to the Almighty).
But a supplication written on a piece of paper and stuck into a wall is just so much superstitious BS (IMO), that it begs to be shared with a soulful rubber-necking "right-to-know" congregation of peeping toms.
To pronounce ANYONE guilty of war crimes would be beyond the powers of my reason or conscience.
I don't know enough facts (and suspect that I never will) to make a decision. And even if I did, I wouldn't presume to accept the mantle of someone capable of pronouncing the guilt or innocence of such a serious offense.
I have an entirely different view that I would like to put forward. I find it a strange statement of the human condition that we CAN get together to declare that there are acceptable "rules of war" (it's OK to kill one another as long as we follow some humane guidelines of conduct), but we often CANNOT get together to talk away our grievances without resorting to violence.
How about we agree that war itself is a crime?
"Also i want to stress what PolicyDebate said that when the constitution was written they did not have the weapons we have today so the "founding fathers" probably didn't think that the second amendment would give the right to own assault rifles as some seem to believe(or wish)."
So, is it your argument that we should only have the right to own guns that were being used at the time the constitution was written? (And just where can I get a front-loading flint-lock anyway? [grin])
If you allow a dog to put his nose on your bed, he will soon put a paw on the bed. And if you allow him to put his paw on the bed, he will soon have two paws on the bed. And if you allow this to happen, he will soon have his torso on the bed, and not too long after, the dog will be in the bed.
I know, this argument is actually a fallacy (it was reworded during the Viet Nam War and called the "Domino Theory", which turned out NOT TO BE TRUE).
BUT, as an analogy for laws banning gun ownership, the dog's desire to get into the bed mirrors a societal power structure desire to control the population - "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile."
If we allow our government to ban gun ownership in some certain jurisdiction, it will indeed be just the first step toward a more encompassing ban, and then an even larger ban. And at some point, we will have lost our legal right to own guns altogether.
Our government was designed with a system of checks and balances - 3 branches of government each designed to keep the other two from abusing power to the detriment of the people. I believe that our founding fathers instituted one additional check and balance - our right to bear arms.
The best place? Why, wherever you are at the time. My philosophy is "Wherever I am is the best place to be".
In the rural community of Casey Illinois, we have a beautiful little park - Fairview Park (home of the Casey Popcorn Festival), and they always put on a fine show which I can see from my front yard (or I can I walk or bicycle to the park, if I so desire).
Wishing everyone a safe and fun-filled holiday weekend.
I have never played water polo. If I grant you every point in your argument regarding water polo, I conclude that water polo is more physically demanding than football.
But, for the sake of argument - football comes with its own set of physical challenges. A person can get seriously injured playing football, and that might be construed as "more challenging" - depending on your definition.
What little water polo I have seen, it seems that no one gets injured.
I read an article (quite a few years ago) that stated that motocross was one of the most physically demanding sports.
Here's an idea to consider: Work up a grading system for the debaters, rewarding skilled / interesting debaters with points, and then having a sub-set of debates limited to debaters within certain score levels. This would encourage developing good debating skills, and set up some very interesting, useful and informative debates without cutting out the "less skillful" debates (which are actually sometimes more fun).
I would also like to see an interface giving us more ability to format our arguments.
Here are three great reasons for voting republican:
1) Republicans have harder heads than democrats or independents. When dropped on their head from a height of 5 feet, more republicans were able to comprehend Bill O'Reilly Talking Points than independents and democrats combined.
2) Republicans are whiter than democrats at the skin level, redder than independents at the blood level and bluer than anyone at the sadness level - red, white and blue = more American than average.
3) It is easier to live next door to republicans than it is to eat raw sewage - eating ^^it is more detrimental to your health than listening to ^^it.
AND BEFORE ANYONE GETS PO'ed - this is all in jest. Hey, some of my blood relatives and many of my in-laws are republicans.
