Search options (Page 50 of 152)

Our recent discussion of word choices and word images somehow brought to mind Ogden Nash's Tale of the 13th Floor, an atypically serious poem for Nash.  (I've seen it with 'maidens' replaced with 'virgins'.  I prefer the latter word.)

Trivia: Back in the 70's I visited a restaurant on 3rd Avenue called The Fisherman's Net (in the 30's, east side of the street, IIRC).  Evidently Mr. Nash had frequented it not too many decades earlier, for over the cash register was one of their paper placemats bearing a poem written in pencil and signed Ogden Nash.  I remember only the opening and closing couplets:

(I'll post this on my MFMagic thread, too.)

Thank you.  And I appreciate your honorable apology.

I'm not looking to score points.  I'm looking to make them, and in this instance to show that damning human beings over human frailties isn't quite the simple thing that the politicians and their pundits make it out to be.

The worst sin is not lust, nor avarice, nor destructive envy.  It the kind of pride that says "Who are you to talk to me like that?" and "Laws are for other people."  This accusation may be leveled against both candidates in the presidential race.  We must choose between two deeply flawed candidates, based on their records, their intentions, and what we think the outcomes of each presidency would be.

We each have different criteria and processes by which we make this judgement.  Some of us focus on one issue, others look at a broader tapestry.  But if we are to retain a civil society, we must refuse to join the Alinsky-style demonization and retain our respect for each other.  Understanding is part of that respect.  Understanding requires communication.

I didn't say the words you impute to me.  You feel you've represented my meaning fairly, but someone else can capture your writing and present the words as mine--just like Tina Fey's parody has been quoted as Sarah Palin's actual words.

As a matter of fairness and civility, I ask that you edit your article, replacing 'NJC' with 'You argue that' or some similar phase, so that your words are not presented as mine.

Short answer: Hope is one of the spiritual virtues.

We all face challenges.  Some are ordinary, some extraordinary.  We're 'rational animals' or, as Jonathan Haidt puts it, passengers on elephants.  A few of us, perhaps, escape the complications that this brings.  A few of us are crushed by those complications.  Most of us move along making mistakes now and then, most of them small, a few of them big.

As to protection: Children deserve protection.  Adult relations deserve love (as suited to the individual), the best advice we can give, and the freedom to make mistakes.

What would your wife or 19-year-old daughter say if you 'forbade' her to interview with Trump, or Clinton, or a charismatic governor or mayor?  Isn't the freedom to make choices (and thus mistakes) central to feminism?

Clearly he was speaking from the experience of women he had met, and there's a fair chance that they were in his orbit because of attraction to wealth and power.  He also has superb personal confidence and maybe some close-up charisma.  Yes, they are strengths/gifts that should not be abused.  Lead us not into temptation!

I would hope my wife/daughter/sister were self-aware enough to avoid fascination with wealth and power, and to control the messages they put out in response to it, just as I would hope my sons and brothers could avoid yielding to strong signals from women they didn't know, or didn't want to respond to.  But none of us has perfect self-control, and those who approach it may well be sociopaths.

I don't seek to whitewash Trump, but to understand.

The whole of Chesterton's collection The Secret of Father Brown is bracketed by a framing story, which can be summed up in a small part.

It's one thing to condemn what you would never do, and another to condemn what you know you could do, given the circumstances and capacities.  It's one thing to condemn when you can't imagine the temptation, and another to condemn when you do understand it.

But this misses a point that may be more important.  Patton got into trouble for slapping a traumatized soldier.  I suspect Montgomery would never have done such a thing.  But who would you rather have in charge of your armies?  Hint: Patton was the one Allied commander the German General Staff feared.

I'm getting ready to review a couple of your chapters.  Would you like me to start at the beginning or further in?

Not sure if I put this up before, but here's a three page GG lesson on how to do a reveal.  Oh, the guy with the pipe?  We've been wondering about his secret more or less since he appeared.  (He's black and blue because he beat the big monster-y guy up--several times.)

The allegations against Trump have to do with non-verbal sexual signalling, and that has a lot to do with Romance.

Can you name any human society that has survived on purely verbal affirmative consent?  If you cannot, then it is an experiment which may doom our society.  On those grounds, we should move slowly.

And if consent is not purely verbal, then there is room for mistake, misinterpretation, and poorly considered signalling based on the fascinations of power and prestige.

US law recognizes that an employer is in a position of power over the employee, and creates a much higher hurdle to demonstrate that the consent was free.  Surely that hurdle must be even higher when the employer occupies an executive office of government.

Corra, even dance clubs would cease to function under strict verbal affirmative consent.

I concur, so long as the word is not being intrduced to any characters.

Two recent links off instapundit:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/p … lly-229851
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/10/do … pport.html

The first focuses on the conundrum, the second on an explanation.  You'll probably disagree ... but how many people agree with the arguments given?