|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Water BrokeGoing to the hospital. I heard they have hot water there. Planning to come back with a baby boy. Peace out.
| | |
| ProductivityThe Internet to me is a useful waste of time. I learn a lot. I'm stretched. I find answers. I hear opposing viewpoints. I laugh constantly. I grow.
But that doesn't change the fact that I have other stuff to do. And me knowing more about important subjects doesn't produce immediate tangible results or directly help me with a lot of my other goals, some of which are more mundane and basic.
I think, as with most things, that it can be a good thing. I'm a firm believer in critical thinking, considering viewpoints, examining the evidence, etc, and I think a lot of what I do on the Internet encourages that. (Some may disagree with that, but that's beside the point.) But when it's dictating how I use my time, I need to step back for a bit.
| | |
| Silly CommercialsIf you'd heard me talk about commercials, you've probably heard me talk about how much I hate them. This isn't going to be a bash session though. I just wanted to point out some trivial stuff gleaned from a couple.
1) There is an Advil PM commercial. It advertises, and I'm paraphrasing (pretty faithfully), "With Advil PM, you spend less time awake. You also spend more time asleep."
So, I get A plus I don't get -A? That's awesome in two ways that are identical!
2) I saw a commercial for band-aids that were "camouflage." They had pink, blue, and army green. I'd just like to point out that since the background of most band-aids is skin, traditional color band-aids are the closest you get to camouflaged (that is, if you're white, and by white, I don't mean like an Irishman who lives in a basement, but you get the idea; I guess it could work for Asians and Latinos as well).
Also, for the record, I hate "So You Think You Can Dance?"
| | |
| Cheap Shot at Palin, oh my!I'll be honest. I wasn't really offended by David Letterman's jokes about Sarah Palin or her daughter. Tonight Show hosts make fun of political figures. That's what they do. Presidents are constantly the butt of jokes. And sometimes they move on to the kids. They dogged Chelsea Clinton for being ugly. They dogged the Bush girls for being drunk party girls. Their political leanings may influence the nature, degree. and frequency of their insults, but they do hith both sides of the aisle.
I haven't watched much in the past few years though, and I'm not really qualified to note how much they knock Obama.
I also think it's weird that nobody rushes to take up for A Rod.
Personally, I think it would have been funnier if they were in L.A. watching the NBA Finals and he said something about Kobe. That would make more sense. Earlier he said something about Sarah Palin having to keep her daughter away from Eliot Spitzer, which I felt was much more "in line" (cracking on the adult only who was a mayor in NY and busted for hiring a prostitute).
As to whether I think Dave's comment that his joke was about Bristol (the 18 yr old who has already been pregnant) is legit or not, I'm not for sure. Personally, since she wasn't there and only the 14 yr old was, I'm inclined to think that wasn't what he originally was thinking. Maybe he was trying to imply that she'll follow in her sister's footsteps. I don't know.
But, like I said, I really don't care. A comedian told an offensive joke about a popular figure. Wow, I didn't see that coming.
And the fact that he compared her to a slutty flight attendant, well, let's just say Janet Reno and Nancy Pelosi don't get jokes like that.
Oh, and while we're on the topic of insulting women, what about that Playboy article that got all that attention? The writer listed 10 conservative women whose minds he couldn't stand but whose bodies he could get to know. That's the G-rated version. I don't know why people act shocked. Someone writing an article in a pornographic magazine objectified women? Wow, I didn't see that coming.
I can understand the women on the list being offended by it. It's like getting a cat call, for instance (I get them all the time so I know what it's like, haha). Anyway, it's a superficial compliment from a crude moron. Consider the source imo.
I don't think people should make a big deal out of it. I think people are trying to play up the baseness of Dave and the guy from Playboy. I don't think it's necessary. To those who are perceptive, it's clear what's up. Sadly, I imagine a good portion of liberals will try to exonerate them completely while a good portion of conservatives will try to act like it's an atrocity.
And, I'm a big fan of freedom of speech. People are free to have stupid ideas, positions, and opinions, and they're free to share them. If you're offended, turn it off (or quit visiting Playboy's website or whatever, hehe). If you think they should be fired, fine, but that's not your decision. That falls to the person's boss who will probably do whichever will net more money in the end (if he's business savvy). In fact, it may get them more ratings in the long run. The media like to be PC to a fault (and then some). That doesn't mean we have to act just as shocked at things that aren't shocking. So, to all the Don Imus's (Imuses?), David Lettermans, Playboy article writers, etc., I say enjoy your free speech and don't apologize. (Of course, I'd recommend you not say foolish things either, but you probably will sooner or later and people need to get over it.)
| | |
| Think It ThroughA couple of days ago, there was a post on Revelife about capital punishment. The question put to the reader was whether Christians should support it or not. I went back and read the new posts several times. I didn't want to start a back-and-forth debate with every person I felt was lacking in their response, but seeing all these fallacious comments has pulled out the OCD in me. A lot of times I do things because of principle.
It's like grammar. I have a little bit of allowance for bad grammar, but after enough of it, I just get sent over the edge. I have to fix it. [Btw, I saw ANOTHER post yesterday with "begs the question" misused, hehe.]
So, I figured I'd make a post (on my site, where few if any of the objected will visit) pointing out the flaws in some weak argumentation/reasoning. Understand that to me, this isn't a HUGE deal. I'm not calling my congressman asking him to step up the death penalty. In the grand scheme of things, it's not near the top of my priorities list. I can praise God and have fellowship with Christians who disagree with me on this. [I'm not trying to hide from or start a debate, mind you. This whole discussion is just a vehicle for me to make a bigger point.]
However, I hate to think that any of us justify our positions with ill-thought-out reasons. So, that all being said, I'll now list some of the objections and my interacting with them and pointing out what I perceive as flaws. I'll quote some while just listing the main ideas for others. [Btw, a couple of pro-capital punishment folks left short, worthless comments with no explanation too.]
"Thou shalt not kill." How clear is that?
-The same law that prohibits "killing" commands the people to execute people who break the commandment. It cannot be a blanket statement against all killing.
Why can "the state" kill when people can't, since "the state" is just a bunch of people?
-"The state" has authority. That's why it can tax people, make arrests, etc. A whole is more than just the sum of its parts.
How can one be pro-life re: abortion and pro-death with capital punishment? It's contradictory.
-Some pro-life people make a distinction between innocent and guilty. Some people who are pro-choice are against drugs being legalized, yet they are not hypocrites for being "anti-choice."
Our legal system and society are messed up. Some people are wrongfully convicted. You're more likely to be put to death if you're black, poor, etc.
-There is inconsistency in our system. Injustice sometimes comes about instead of justice. If you can pay enough lawyers, you can get out of a lot of stuff. However, this is an argument against our justice system and not against capital punishment. We do not stop imprisoning people because black men get imprisoned more than white men, percentagewise.
[I do think this needs to be addressed. I'm not saying it's a non-issue. I'm just saying that it's not an argument against capital punishment specifically. I can see being against it in light of this though, since the death penalty is ultimate. However, I'm guessing Rome's justice system wasn't perfect. Few are.]
God is allowed to take life. When we do it, we're overstepping our bounds.
-God has delegated authority to the state to keep order. The state does it by force. It is acting on the behest of God. It is working perfectly within the bounds God has given it.
Mt. 5:38-39, we're supposed to forgive others, etc.
-Is it okay to imprison them? Because if you think Mt 5 and forgiveness rule out the death penalty, then they rule out imprisonment, fines, etc. as well.
Some people have wrongfully been put to death.
-And imprisoned. Yet we don't stop imprisoning criminals. Again, I'm not trying to make light of these travesties. I most definitely think we should be much less hasty in our judgments and weighing the evidence. We should probably rely on two or more "witnesses" since DNA, fire reconstructions, etc. can be misinterpreted. But again, this is an argument against the process of convicting people.
People should have the opportunity to repent.
-They do have the opportunity to repent.
"Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
-No, it doesn't. It stops that from happening. It deescalates violence. A world where there are no repercussions for harming others, where there is no restraint, is anarchy. Government, even crappy versions, is a blessing that provides order and prevents chaos.
You can't use one single verse from the OT to argue for capital punishment. If you do, you have to take every verse in the OT. (But the 10 commandments can stay because they're mentioned several times in both testaments.)
-I don't think one has to open the OT to argue for capital punishment. I'm not going to spend too much time on this, but this "understanding" or lack thereof of the Old Testament is far too common imo.
"I don't think we will ever be able to develop a fool proof way to kill someone."
-I'm not making this up. I guess we need look no further for an argument against capital punishment. GG ("good game" for all you non-gamers).
"State sponsored murder is still murder."
-Okay. But capital punishment isn't murder. And if it is, then imprisonment is state-sponsored kidnapping.
Life imprisonment without parole is better. That way if they get cleared 20 years later, they can be released.
-And the 20 years of their life that they lost? Again, this has to do with careful judgment on the part of the courts. The kind of judgment that a lot of posters seem to be lacking. Let's just hope they're more open to evidence if they get jury duty.
God will judge them for their acts.
-A) Again, why imprison people if "God will judge them for their acts"? B) God delegates authority to governments, making them agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer (Rom 13, again). God IS judging them for their acts. Ultimately (Judgment Day), justice will fully be served, but a semblance of justice is being carried out for God by the government for the time being. In fact, since Christians are to leave vengeance up to God, they should recognize that authorities carry some of it out as his servants and be thankful for it.
How is killing a killer better than that person killing someone else? Two wrongs don't make a right.
-Capital punishment isn't inherently a wrong. It is punishment, from a proper authority, for breaking the law. This argument imo is willfully refusing to acknowledge any legitimacy to authority for the sake of their position (though I doubt they feel this way when capital punishment is not in view). What right does a parent have to put her kid in time-out for hitting his brother? What right does a cop have for giving a motorist a speeding ticket? A government taking the life of a murderer is VERY different. I bet if you think really hard (or, actually, not really hard at all), you can come up with some of those differences.
(It's funny because one of the people who mentioned that two wrongs don't make a right continued...) Besides, the death penalty is the easy way out. They should be given life in prison.
-Sooooo, taking their life is wrong. But doing something to them which you consider worse is right?
Every life has value, even if it's that of a serial killer.
-I agree. But value doesn't mean invaluable.
Who are we to play God?
-Well, those in authority are God's servants. So, God's servants? "Playing God" is an ambiguous expression anyway.
It's cruel and inhumane.
-Not according to the people who wrote down the "cruel and inhumane" you're quoting.
_______________________________________________
Again, just some reminders:
1) I'm not trying to pick fights, tear down, ridicule, etc. I'm just trying to show what I consider to be weak reasoning. I've displayed it before. I'm sure some of my beliefs I hold right now rest on some weak reasoning. I see this as a flaw (in others and myself) that should be worked on.
2) I think that we could avoid a lot of these from the outset if we were less hasty to pick a side and less zealous to blindly defend it. A LOT of these arguments (not all) hold so very little water. I believe the only people who could nod their heads in agreement with the arguments would be those who are sympathetic to the conclusion (boo for confirmation bias).
3) I'm not asking people to change their minds. Go on being against capital punishment. No skin off my back (potentially less skin if I murder someone). However, if you want people to respect your position, establish a respectable one. There are a lot of smart people out there who are on your side. Adopt all of their views uncritically and jettison these pathetic objections. Haha, I'm just kidding. Think critically. Read pro- and anti-death penalty pov's. Use that thing between your ears. Have some humility and recognize that you *may* be wrong and, if you are, it's not the end of the world. I think capital punishment is pretty defendable, but I'm not going to say that no argument can be raised against it that would ever warrant its concession. Maybe if you thought it through instead of trying to dress up your knee-jerk emotional responses as intellectual objections, you could come up with something that I hadn't thought about. Instead, you make it harder and harder for me to be sympathetic to anyone who holds your position since subliminally it convinces me that everyone who is against it thinks like that.
4) Dealing specifically with the death penalty, I don't think it's as simple as a black and white (hahahaha) case. Theoretically, I have a lot less qualms about it than in its real world application. However, I believe the flaws can and should be addressed and that imperfections will always exist in the government (or any system), but do not always warrant a complete abandonment of the system. A teacher may have a textbook for a course that he or she doesn't subscribe to fully, but that doesn't mean it is of no value.
5) Also, no one mentioned deterrence. People twist statistics both ways (who'da thunk it?). I believe that it's secondary, so ultimately, not a deciding factor. However, I believe it can have that effect, especially if it is applied more properly and uniformly.
P.S. Clever music selection or tasteless? 8D
Btw, James Hetfield sings, "Who made you God to say, 'I'll take your life from you'?" Well, James, let me explain...
P.P.S. I think this is my longest Xanga post ever. I chose a great time to write it too, especially since I'm trying to make my sleep schedule more in synch with the majority of humanity. However, I'm not sure I could have let it rest if I didn't get it out of my system. Ahhhhh. (That's a sigh of relief.)
| | |
|
