Q. Can you prove that I’m wrong?
Yes, but, you’ll have to agree in advance what proof looks like, otherwise you could just move the goalposts after the game.
Q. How come I have so much evidence that I’m right?
That’s confirmation bias. Your brain carefully files away all the reasons you might be right, and disregards all the reasons you might be wrong.
~ “Proper discord” from, You’re Wrong: an F.A.Q. | Proper Discord
slip:4upoyo1.
ɕ
Mercy is refraining from ridiculing or abusing the young men who lost 91-0. Mercy is complimenting them for their effort. Mercy is treating them like athletes and competitors after such a loss. Mercy is applauding when they return to the line time after time against hopeless odds, and when they return to practice again the next day. Mercy might be sitting down with them and telling them about times you lost badly and how you felt and how you got up again. Mercy is pointing out to other kids the character it takes to keep trying under such circumstances, and challenging them to have character like that. Mercy is teaching kids how to deal with the adversity they will certainly face in their life.
It is not merciful to teach them they have a right not to lose badly.
~ Ken White from, «http://www.popehat.com/2013/10/23/what-does-mercy-look-like/»
ɕ
Ever notice how drinking’s like war?
~ Moxy Früvous, from The Drinking Song
Cup o troops oe’r the guns
Til the end of our health
A campaign ‘gainst myself
Armed with bourbons and scotches and rums
slip:4a1060.
Meditation #17 By John Donne From Devotions upon Emergent Occasions (1623), XVII:
Nunc Lento Sonitu Dicunt, Morieris
(Now this bell, tolling softly for another, says to me, Thou must die.)Perchance, he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that. The church is catholic, universal, so are all her actions; all that she does belongs to all. When she baptizes a child, that action concerns me; for that child is thereby connected to that body which is my head too, and ingrafted into that body whereof I am a member. And when she buries a man, that action concerns me: all mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated; God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God’s hand is in every translation, and his hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again for that library where every book shall lie open to one another. As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come, so this bell calls us all; but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness.
There was a contention as far as a suit (in which both piety and dignity, religion and estimation, were mingled), which of the religious orders should ring to prayers first in the morning; and it was determined, that they should ring first that rose earliest. If we understand aright the dignity of this bell that tolls for our evening prayer, we would be glad to make it ours by rising early, in that application, that it might be ours as well as his, whose indeed it is.
The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and though it intermit again, yet from that minute that this occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God. Who casts not up his eye to the sun when it rises? but who takes off his eye from a comet when that breaks out? Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? but who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world?
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Neither can we call this a begging of misery, or a borrowing of misery, as though we were not miserable enough of ourselves, but must fetch in more from the next house, in taking upon us the misery of our neighbours. Truly it were an excusable covetousness if we did, for affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it. No man hath affliction enough that is not matured and ripened by it, and made fit for God by that affliction. If a man carry treasure in bullion, or in a wedge of gold, and have none coined into current money, his treasure will not defray him as he travels. Tribulation is treasure in the nature of it, but it is not current money in the use of it, except we get nearer and nearer our home, heaven, by it. Another man may be sick too, and sick to death, and this affliction may lie in his bowels, as gold in a mine, and be of no use to him; but this bell, that tells me of his affliction, digs out and applies that gold to me: if by this consideration of another’s danger I take mine own into contemplation, and so secure myself, by making my recourse to my God, who is our only security.
The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows — sonder
Urban Dictionary: sonder
sonder – Wiktionary, the free dictionary
The realization that each random passerby is living a life as vivid and complex as your own — populated with their own ambitions, friends, routines, worries and inherited craziness — an epic story that continues invisibly around you like an anthill sprawling deep underground, with elaborate passageways to thousands of other lives that you’ll never know existed, in which you might appear only once, as an extra sipping coffee in the background, as a blur of traffic passing on the highway, as a lighted window at dusk.
ɕ
Is there any way to make genuine debates — sustained back-and-forth exchanges, meeting high intellectual standards but still widely accessible — part of our political culture? (I leave to historians the question of whether there are historical precedents— like the Webster-Hayne or Lincoln-Douglas debates.) Can we put our politicians in a situation where they cannot ignore challenges, where they must genuinely engage with one another in responsible discussion and not just repeat talking points?
~ Gary Gutting from, A Great Debate – The New York Times
slip:4unyae1.
ɕ
No, a problem only arises when instead of being a supplement to your life—an occasional relaxing indulgence–passive amusements become a substitution, a way to feel better about something you personally lack.
~ Brett McKay from, Viewers vs. Doers: The Rise of Spectatoritis
…
And this is the real danger of spectatoritis run amok—it allows us to experience vicariously the virtues of others, without having to cultivate them ourselves.
slip:4uaovi2.
…also my thoughts about One’s Legacy.
ɕ
Certainly, patriotism can take an explicitly amoral form: “My country, right or wrong.” But even strong traditional patriots can accept moral limits on the means we use to advance the cause of our country. They may agree, for example, that it’s wrong to threaten Canada with nuclear annihilation to obtain a more favorable trade agreement.
But the moral problem for patriotism arises at a deeper level. Suppose the question is not about blatantly immoral means but simply about whether our country should flourish at the expense of another? Suppose, for example, that at some point Saudi Arabia, now allied with China, threatened to curtail our access to its oil, thereby significantly reducing our productivity and tipping the balance of world economic power to China.
~ Gary Gutting from, Is Our Patriotism Moral?
slip:4unyio1.
First off, I want to be clear that I support our troops. They should have the best training, the best commanders, the best weapons and the best physical/psychological support during and after their service. If we’ve committed our people to a mission, right or wrong, our people deserve our unqualified support.
It’s the administration, and the highest levels of the military, of which I am critical.
I know a lot of people who cheered patriotically when our troops invaded Iraq and Afghanistan — I stared in disbelief thinking: That’s bad. We just invaded a sovereign country. Yes, it was certainly a run-down, backwards country led by an explitive — but a sovereign country none the less.
I hope no one decides we need to be straightened out… oh, wait, the cold war. We narrowly dodged that bullet didn’t we. Oh, and now China, . . . maybe we should get our own stuff in order before we nationally act as if we know what’s best for the world?
ɕ
Upon reading my title, were you…
a) incredulous; you disagree with the premise.
b) happy; you agree with the premise.
c) curious; you already understand what this blog post is about.
d) other; because this author isn’t omniscient, (and you can stop reading now.)
This post is about logic, discourse and discussion; Not in a dry, academic sense, but in the sense that, “lack of logic, discourse and discussion is the root problem in America today.” It’s just a bonus that I have a wickedly inflammatory example to use as a framework for this post to keep things interesting and lively.
The catalyst for this post was a news item which I stumbled upon via Facebook:
‘Obama socialism’ homework angers students at Cobb County high school
Knowing that the news outlet will eventually move/remove that story, at right is an image of the homework assignment in question. The original news story indicated this was from a social studies class at the high school level.
After seeing the news item posted on Facebook by a friend, I shared the link to the CBS Atlanta affiliate’s story. Two of my friends — and I mean “friends” in the real world sense of people with whom I would break bread, or to whom I would give money — joined me in the comment thread. (Names withheld here of course.) My first “wait what?” comment is the one I included with my sharing of the news item; These comments are unedited, just as they appeared on Facebook.
Craig: wait what?
I don’t see any problem. Did the verb ‘compare’ get a new definition? The first definition from dictionary.com is…
“to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences: to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations.” (It’s even apropos!)
So, upon comparing the two items in question, students might draw various conclusions; The items are similar, or different, to varying degrees.
mmmmmmmmm, semantics and pragmatism for the win.
Person A: I don’t know exactly what the teacher said when setting the tone for this assignment but in the article “find evidence for a comparison” is a leading statement. Otherwise as you suggested, you just compare. “Compare (and contrast) the change in Russia during the time of Stalin and Lenin, with the change in the United States during the time of Obama.” The notion that the time period in question for the United States is marked by a shift from capitalism to socialism is plain heresay. I don’t know enough about the evolution of Russia to suggest whether that shift is also heresay. The leading and heresay reaks of a “teacher” agenda.
Craig: how does “find evidence” change the meaning of the word “compare”? …it certainly means one may not simply state opinion when comparing. But does “find evidence” bias “compare”? If the question had said “contrast” the teo, that’d be leading since contrast means highlight the diffs. But “compare” is very clearly NOT an antonym of contrast. “compare” is neutral.
Person A: I don’t disagree with your posted definition of compare. That is clear. “Find evidence for comparison” clearly suggest (to me) that the author does believe that compare is an antonym of contrast. You simply compare. if you “find evidence to compare” this suggest to me that you are looking for parallels, how are the two things similar or the same, in other words find evidence that these two things are similiar. If you simply compare two things it will be evident if they are similar or dissimilar. semantics perhaps.
Person B: What I believed to be in poor taste, and the reason I posted the article, is that there is a pretty clear motive in comparing someone like Stalin, a clearly awful figure in human history, with the current president. It is, to me, a pretty obvious dig on someone that the teacher in question just doesn’t like. If this were a purely intellectual exercise, sure. Why not. But invoking the name of ‘Stalin’ never brings up a discussion of what socialism is and what it does and doesn’t do *first*, it brings up themes of genocide and corrupt government.
Craig: I find this discussion to be very interesting. There’s something at the center here; Something which I can’t quite identify… perhaps it’s the projection of, what one assumes one knows about the teacher, onto the instructions. Why do that? I mean, wouldn’t it make more sense (as a student following the assignment, or a person generally in life) to just follow the instructions guided by your own person context?
So you see these instructions. You think about the teacher’s sub-text — whatever you think about the teacher, they’re wrong in their bias, they’re right, they’re intending satire, whatever. Then you proceed on the assignment. Why must one (who is given the assignment) “react”, when one could “converse/discuss/discover” based on the direction given.
If this story had been about a kid failing (or getting a zero etc) for showing evidence why the President is different, THEN I’d have an issue.
Person C: I’m on board with Craig on this. The language of the assignment was pointed, but whether it is inflammatory is based on the views of the reader. In the end, the assignment may have left an impression of what the teacher’s viewpoint may be, but it does not direct the student to provide a conclusion that conforms to that viewpoint. It may just be a happy accident, but this assignment provides the opportunity for the offended students to confront a differing or even opposing viewpoint and argue rationally against it rather than hiding the fact that viewpoint exists. I have to say that the idea that the principal pressured the teacher to withdraw the assignment and then disavow the teacher as a “fill-in” was a cop-out…better to work with the teacher to reword the assignment to preserve the intent– including providing a potentially inflammatory topic–and make sure the students understand they are to express their opinions on the matter and argue their points freely.
Craig: I still agree with my initial thoughts. But, I’m changing my position…
I don’t believe *high school* students possess the same strength of individual thinking that I have. (Which is not meant to be derogatory. I’m simply trying to peel away my bias in assessing the issue.) So the teacher holds an increased responsibility to present work/questions/assignments in a way that ensures the primary goal of the work/Q/A is education.
The core of the assignment is clearly legit: “find evidence for a comparison of A to B”. But the context and connotation brought by the actual examples is too strong. If the teacher had added just the slightest nudge, something like, “You may find evidence for your comparison to support the similarities or differences of these two cases,” then I’d stand to my original position. Or, if the class had been a debate class, or college level social studies, then too it would be fine. However, as it was written, in a high school social studies class: It’s too biased.
(I also agree with the comment that the administration handled it wrong. But that’s an entirely different cup of tea.)
I hope you were struck by the dissection of ideas; the point and counterpoint; the sifting of wheat from chaff. That comment thread hosted some enlightened sparring! (*serious* Yes, I’ve awesome friends.) I’d venture that my friends put some honest thought into their conception of the word “compare”; Is it, in fact, NOT an antonym of “contrast”? …and would high school students be capable of thinking around their teacher’s bias in the manner Craig claims they should? …what is the burden of responsibility of the teacher? …of a high school teacher? …in a social studies context?
Never mind that I actually changed my mind as a result of the discussion. (Although, the fact that I did is apropos of something I mentioned before.)
If you present your ideas in a logical fashion, perhaps with a flourish of passion or a touch of panache, while honestly thinking, “I hope they change their mind, but I’m open to changing my own.” … then bravo! You are a member of a society. Thank you for putting your shoulder behind our great American society.
If you open your mouth and spew hatred, vitriole, or can only speak in emotional platitudes. Congratulations! You are a part of the problem.
ɕ
This thou perceiv’st, which makes thy love more strong,
~ Shakespeare Sonnet number 72
To love that well, which thou must leave ere long.
What happens if you’re in love with a young woman and, with age, her beauty fades? Old love.
ɕ