So, whenever I discuss politics, there is inevitably one person in the group who takes a moral stance, e.g. "I think X is wrong, therefore X should be illegal." It's annoying, and stupid, and also annoying. It's a bad argument in general. While it may have a deep seated place in your heart, just know that whenever you use this point in a debate, it holds the same water as "I like X, therefore X should be the norm," or "Steak tastes good, vegetarianism should be illegal." If you really think something is true morally, and your conviction is that strong, take your time to do your research and be able to explain why it's true or, more importantly, why everyone else should think the same way you do.
I, being Mormon, spend a lot of time with Mormons, and so this is who I tend to see making this mistake the most. For example, I get that as a Mormon you are against drugs and see smoking Maui Wowie as almost murder. I, as a Mormon, am against using drugs. But you can't say "drugs are bad" when a person discusses the positives of legalizing marijuana in the United States and act like that's a rebuttal to points about tax benefits, safety through regulation, and the collapse of drug cartels (if you want we can talk about this later, for now ignore the message and focus on the idea). And now I have the ultimate proof that Mormons can't use the "X is bad" argument in an un-ironic fashion.
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."
The eleventh Article of Faith discusses that we worship according to our own conscience (according to what we believe) and that we allow all men the same privilege (to worship or believe according to their conscience). Therefore, if we say "X is morally wrong," we must admit that our opponent's argument, "X is morally right/X has no intrinsic moral value," is to be treated as as valid as our own.
This is not to support the idea of moral relativism, something I myself don't believe in. I believe that for every situation there is a category of "right" responses and a category of "wrong" responses (I say categories because I am in love with the "good, better, best" approach to morality-not all wrong things are equally wrong, and not all right things are equally right). But I am saying that in a situation where you are attempting to expand the influence of your beliefs beyond yourself (politics) you need to justify your opinion.
I am also not against people trying to influence others based on their beliefs. That's what politics is. We get this great uproar of "Don't shove your beliefs down my throat!" when we discuss issues such as sexuality and drug use, but no one seems to think the state is doing a bad job of shoving our beliefs about violence down the throats of murderers or our (markedly arbitrary) beliefs about the age that it's okay to start having sex down the throats of pedophiles. Society is a group of people coming together to create a compromise of beliefs among a group of people and then applying that compromise to everyone: it infringes upon the individual to create a better situation for the whole. But that's the kicker: compromise.
Don't come to me and expect me to compromise my beliefs unless you can prove why it's better for me or society as a whole. Let's see some evidence. Stop talking about the morality of policy decisions and let's start talking about the effects of policy decisions. Morally I've already decided what I'm doing ("As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord"), so if you want me to change you've got to approach from a new angle. Otherwise, you're casting your pearls before swine.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
In-N-Out
Alright, so I went and saw Cloud Atlas yesterday (and it was gooooood). As my roommate and I were driving home, the traffic was pretty bad, so I missed my turn. Because we were driving past, I had an inspiration.
"Let's stop at In-N-Out." So we did. And . . . I was underwhelmed. Don't get me wrong, it tasted good. But to explain why I wasn't impressed, let me explain my three-burger theory.
There are three ideal types of burger. There's the cheap burger. This burger has a thin patty that is usually a perfect geometric shape like a circle or a square. It comes with fries that are quarter inch on a side or less and are sometimes made of ground up and re-combined potatoes, not cut potatoes. The toppings are pretty standard: cheese, pickles, onions, lettuce. Nothing crazy. The second is the gourmet burger. This burger typically has a irregular and usually thicker burger, also can be pretty big circumference-wise. The fries are fresh cut and usually about a half-inch on the side. The burger has a host of possible toppings outside the "standard." The third is the homemade burger: there's no real consistency beyond made at home. The fries are either store-bought, really thick, or gross. Toppings tend to be standard, but people put some whack shiz on there, for real-real.
Alright, I told you that story so I could tell you this one: In-N-Out is probably the best cheap burger I've ever had. But my favorite kind of burger is not of the cheap type. After I was finished at In-N-Out, I was like: that was good. Now let's go get some real food. The fries: lackluster, at best. When your fries make me crave Mickey D, you've got problems. The shake? Standard. Not great, not terrible, just standard chocolate shake. And I mean, if you love cheap burgers, if Mickey D's is your bag, then you will love you some In-N-Out. I really don't.
You see, I prefer 5 Guys. I go there, I get a stacked burger, thick and tasty fries (and lots of them), and I leave full to bursting. Cheap burgers are all about the same. I know there's some quality difference between Burger King and In-N-Out, but I see the difference between Burger King and In-N-Out is smaller than the quality difference between 5 Guys and In-N-Out.
Sorry Californians. Happy reviews come from happy obese people, and happy obese people come out of 5 Guys.
"Let's stop at In-N-Out." So we did. And . . . I was underwhelmed. Don't get me wrong, it tasted good. But to explain why I wasn't impressed, let me explain my three-burger theory.
There are three ideal types of burger. There's the cheap burger. This burger has a thin patty that is usually a perfect geometric shape like a circle or a square. It comes with fries that are quarter inch on a side or less and are sometimes made of ground up and re-combined potatoes, not cut potatoes. The toppings are pretty standard: cheese, pickles, onions, lettuce. Nothing crazy. The second is the gourmet burger. This burger typically has a irregular and usually thicker burger, also can be pretty big circumference-wise. The fries are fresh cut and usually about a half-inch on the side. The burger has a host of possible toppings outside the "standard." The third is the homemade burger: there's no real consistency beyond made at home. The fries are either store-bought, really thick, or gross. Toppings tend to be standard, but people put some whack shiz on there, for real-real.
Alright, I told you that story so I could tell you this one: In-N-Out is probably the best cheap burger I've ever had. But my favorite kind of burger is not of the cheap type. After I was finished at In-N-Out, I was like: that was good. Now let's go get some real food. The fries: lackluster, at best. When your fries make me crave Mickey D, you've got problems. The shake? Standard. Not great, not terrible, just standard chocolate shake. And I mean, if you love cheap burgers, if Mickey D's is your bag, then you will love you some In-N-Out. I really don't.
You see, I prefer 5 Guys. I go there, I get a stacked burger, thick and tasty fries (and lots of them), and I leave full to bursting. Cheap burgers are all about the same. I know there's some quality difference between Burger King and In-N-Out, but I see the difference between Burger King and In-N-Out is smaller than the quality difference between 5 Guys and In-N-Out.
Sorry Californians. Happy reviews come from happy obese people, and happy obese people come out of 5 Guys.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
So, I ate at 5 Guys today.
Can I just say that this video should be canonized by every major religion due to its statement of eternal, divine truth?
Also, apparently some people (my roommate Dre) don't think it's okay to draw dirty pictures on those slips of paper they leave by the corkboard and then put them back for other people to find later.
Rude, or Why I Sometimes Feel Unbalanced
A note from the author: This post was not written in response to any recent fights/arguments I've had, but more as a response to the general feeling that in today's political and "popular academic" (i.e. when people talk about academic things in a non-peer reviewed venue) discourse we tend to crap on the opposition more than actually try to dissect their argument. Although I refer to people who've condescended to me, I'm referring mostly to the condescending tone of some of the material I read both on the Internet and in books.
I can be super rude. You don't even know. I can also be a tad bit violent (in middle school, a kid flipped me off and I beat him with an umbrella). I recognize that I am both of these things, but when I'm having a real argument with someone I try really hard to tone both of them back.
That isn't to say that I always hold back. One time I didn't like this kid's face so I unleashed the fury on him for about five minutes for saying "Superman is the best hero because he can do everything." I didn't even necessarily disagree with him all the way: I love Superman, and I think if done right he's not as OP as everyone says he is. I also compared a person's condescending attitude about homosexuals to racist people talking down about "uppity" black people, causing them to flee the room in anger and slam the door behind them. I am not always blameless.
But at the same time, when I 1. Respect the person I'm arguing with and 2. Think that the subject matter is worth discussing (note that I did not say relevant, important, or life-changing) I try my hardest not to be condescending or mean spirited, though I will admit to taking a few pot-shots here and there if the person really leaves themselves open. That's why it makes me particularly mad when someone is condescending to me in an argument: I see it as them either not respecting me or something I feel is important.
Now, I know, pot calling the kettle black. That's why I try to have a thick skin and ignore people who do it. I even try to internalize their trivialization of my stance/argument and see why they do it. When I see from another person's standpoint why my argument is so childish as to deserve condescension it makes me a better and more well rounded person. But at the same time, some people are just being mean and not considering fully arguments for the other side.
Take Richard Dawkins as an example. I love the guy: he's a genius, and I agree with a lot of what he says. Reading The God Delusion made me go, "Yeah, I don't believe in that God either. Let's critically and prayerfully re-examine my faith," and, while I don't recommend this to anyone else, it actually strengthened my testimony because I excised aspects of my belief that were cultural holdovers from Platonic and Renaissance thought and not "Truth," as it were. At the same time, he's a bit of a dick. When he discusses the Muslim riots over those Danish cartoons (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/04/muhammadcartoons.pressandpublishing) he says "Fortunately, our political leaders were on hand to remind us that Islam is a religion of peace and mercy," in a tone that I've really only ever heard from racist rednecks. It baffled me to find this sort of rhetoric here, in a supposedly academic treatise on religion. It also seemed kind of ballsy coming from a biologist, because if we looked at every extreme of a group as indicative of the whole, eugenicists would be a pretty good target to shoot at.
I don't get those people, and they kind of piss me off. I'm not used to being crapped on in conversation, mostly because I'm a big kid and I never really put up with it in the past. With a few exceptions (it's not worth ending friendships over a stupid fight) the last time a peer tried to treat me like I was an imbecile for disagreeing with them, I slapped the taste out of their mouths. I just feel like if you want to have a civil conversation, let's have a civil conversation. I don't care if you get heated, I don't even care if you get mad. I don't care if you attack me personally (though don't be surprised when I strike back and strike back hard: I tend to have very different ideas about what is underhanded in a verbal sparring match). As I said before, I don't even mind a few condescending jabs here or there because, really, sometimes an opponent's argument really does seem dumb. But if more than a quarter of your comments are simply condescending parries of an argument with no real attempt at rebuttal, you're not having a civil conversation.
And that's cool sometimes. Some of my favorite conversations have been those where I've torn down a person alongside their argument. But more than a few of those conversations have ended in violence or threats of violence, and again I'm cool with that; if you're going to be uncivil towards someone, don't forget that they tend to uncivil right back. I find it hypocritical how many people are uncivil, and then use the uncivil nature of their opponent's rejoinder as proof against them.
So just stop, okay? Or else I'm going to beat you to death.
I can be super rude. You don't even know. I can also be a tad bit violent (in middle school, a kid flipped me off and I beat him with an umbrella). I recognize that I am both of these things, but when I'm having a real argument with someone I try really hard to tone both of them back.
That isn't to say that I always hold back. One time I didn't like this kid's face so I unleashed the fury on him for about five minutes for saying "Superman is the best hero because he can do everything." I didn't even necessarily disagree with him all the way: I love Superman, and I think if done right he's not as OP as everyone says he is. I also compared a person's condescending attitude about homosexuals to racist people talking down about "uppity" black people, causing them to flee the room in anger and slam the door behind them. I am not always blameless.
But at the same time, when I 1. Respect the person I'm arguing with and 2. Think that the subject matter is worth discussing (note that I did not say relevant, important, or life-changing) I try my hardest not to be condescending or mean spirited, though I will admit to taking a few pot-shots here and there if the person really leaves themselves open. That's why it makes me particularly mad when someone is condescending to me in an argument: I see it as them either not respecting me or something I feel is important.
Now, I know, pot calling the kettle black. That's why I try to have a thick skin and ignore people who do it. I even try to internalize their trivialization of my stance/argument and see why they do it. When I see from another person's standpoint why my argument is so childish as to deserve condescension it makes me a better and more well rounded person. But at the same time, some people are just being mean and not considering fully arguments for the other side.
Take Richard Dawkins as an example. I love the guy: he's a genius, and I agree with a lot of what he says. Reading The God Delusion made me go, "Yeah, I don't believe in that God either. Let's critically and prayerfully re-examine my faith," and, while I don't recommend this to anyone else, it actually strengthened my testimony because I excised aspects of my belief that were cultural holdovers from Platonic and Renaissance thought and not "Truth," as it were. At the same time, he's a bit of a dick. When he discusses the Muslim riots over those Danish cartoons (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/04/muhammadcartoons.pressandpublishing) he says "Fortunately, our political leaders were on hand to remind us that Islam is a religion of peace and mercy," in a tone that I've really only ever heard from racist rednecks. It baffled me to find this sort of rhetoric here, in a supposedly academic treatise on religion. It also seemed kind of ballsy coming from a biologist, because if we looked at every extreme of a group as indicative of the whole, eugenicists would be a pretty good target to shoot at.
I don't get those people, and they kind of piss me off. I'm not used to being crapped on in conversation, mostly because I'm a big kid and I never really put up with it in the past. With a few exceptions (it's not worth ending friendships over a stupid fight) the last time a peer tried to treat me like I was an imbecile for disagreeing with them, I slapped the taste out of their mouths. I just feel like if you want to have a civil conversation, let's have a civil conversation. I don't care if you get heated, I don't even care if you get mad. I don't care if you attack me personally (though don't be surprised when I strike back and strike back hard: I tend to have very different ideas about what is underhanded in a verbal sparring match). As I said before, I don't even mind a few condescending jabs here or there because, really, sometimes an opponent's argument really does seem dumb. But if more than a quarter of your comments are simply condescending parries of an argument with no real attempt at rebuttal, you're not having a civil conversation.
And that's cool sometimes. Some of my favorite conversations have been those where I've torn down a person alongside their argument. But more than a few of those conversations have ended in violence or threats of violence, and again I'm cool with that; if you're going to be uncivil towards someone, don't forget that they tend to uncivil right back. I find it hypocritical how many people are uncivil, and then use the uncivil nature of their opponent's rejoinder as proof against them.
So just stop, okay? Or else I'm going to beat you to death.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Whitewashing, and Why We Won't . . . Wake it anymore.
Two things: I'm not as good at alliteration as I thought. Two, I realized as soon as I posted my first post that Consuming Life is also the name of a Zygmunt Bauman book that is far more worthy of reading than this blog will ever be. Moving on.
So, I saw Argo this Saturday, and I was very impressed. Ben Affleck managed to make a film that is very topical. It is interesting to see a movie about the Iranian hostage crisis while we are on rocky diplomatic ground modern Iran; I also think that the storming of the U.S. Embassy in the movie is terrifying in light of the recent rash of attacks in the Middle East today. It sort of shows that while thirty years have passed, not much has changed. The film is very much a Lumiere-style film in that it attempts to capture the world as it was/is, and Affleck does a great job. The real news footage spliced in is a great device, and I wouldn't be surprised if Argo gets an Oscar nomination. At the end of the movie they even do a side-by-side comparisons of the cast of the movie and the actual people they're portraying, and they're more or less spot on.
With one exception. Ben Affleck. Great actor? Yes. Dreamboat? Objectively so. Latino? Nooo . . .
And yet he plays Tony Mendez, the main character of the movie. Let's go on a tangent with Moebius the Time Streamer. Before Batman: Dark Knight Rises came out, I was a little disappointed to find out that Bane, a Latino character (he's a luchador), was being played by Tom Hardy, who one might say is less than Latino (he's British, the opposite of Latino. If you touch a Latino and a Brit, I'm pretty sure they explode). I said I was disappointed that they were taking one of the few ethnic characters in Batman and making him white. People responded with "Well, Bane is the villain. Maybe they didn't want to cast a minority as a villain." Okay, well, I disagree, but that's a valid point.
Woooo! Back the the present. WHY ISN'T TONY MENDEZ BEING PLAYED BY SOMEONE OF CORRECT DESCENT? He's a hero, a super-intelligent man of mystery. One might be tempted to say that it's this new color-blind casting thing, but then why is everyone else in the film "ethnically correct"? When Louis C. K. cast a black woman as his wife and the mother of his two white children I was like, "Yeah, okay. That's fine." Why? Because Louis is a more Melies show. The purpose of the show is absurdity, not representing the world as it is, and Ben Affleck was definitely trying to portray the world as it is. Why then would every character except the main character be so spot on?
There's probably money behind it: would anyone see it without Ben Affleck's mug? It's certainly not because there's a dearth of Latino talent (though there are too few non-white actors appearing as main characters these days). Maybe Ben Affleck just really wanted the part because he idolizes Mr. Mendez. That's not the worst motivation in the world.
Argo is a great movie. If you're not a slave to MPAA ratings (the MPAA is the devil, don't let them censor your life!), see it. It really opened my eyes about Iran and U.S. relations, past and present. But you don't have to hate something to criticize it, and I wish that Mr. Affleck hadn't whitewashed the film.
Watch it.
Also, ate at Carl's Jr. after the movie, and while the teriyaki burger was nothing to write home about, the grilled cheese and bacon burger was good. Mhm.
So, I saw Argo this Saturday, and I was very impressed. Ben Affleck managed to make a film that is very topical. It is interesting to see a movie about the Iranian hostage crisis while we are on rocky diplomatic ground modern Iran; I also think that the storming of the U.S. Embassy in the movie is terrifying in light of the recent rash of attacks in the Middle East today. It sort of shows that while thirty years have passed, not much has changed. The film is very much a Lumiere-style film in that it attempts to capture the world as it was/is, and Affleck does a great job. The real news footage spliced in is a great device, and I wouldn't be surprised if Argo gets an Oscar nomination. At the end of the movie they even do a side-by-side comparisons of the cast of the movie and the actual people they're portraying, and they're more or less spot on.
With one exception. Ben Affleck. Great actor? Yes. Dreamboat? Objectively so. Latino? Nooo . . .
And yet he plays Tony Mendez, the main character of the movie. Let's go on a tangent with Moebius the Time Streamer. Before Batman: Dark Knight Rises came out, I was a little disappointed to find out that Bane, a Latino character (he's a luchador), was being played by Tom Hardy, who one might say is less than Latino (he's British, the opposite of Latino. If you touch a Latino and a Brit, I'm pretty sure they explode). I said I was disappointed that they were taking one of the few ethnic characters in Batman and making him white. People responded with "Well, Bane is the villain. Maybe they didn't want to cast a minority as a villain." Okay, well, I disagree, but that's a valid point.
Woooo! Back the the present. WHY ISN'T TONY MENDEZ BEING PLAYED BY SOMEONE OF CORRECT DESCENT? He's a hero, a super-intelligent man of mystery. One might be tempted to say that it's this new color-blind casting thing, but then why is everyone else in the film "ethnically correct"? When Louis C. K. cast a black woman as his wife and the mother of his two white children I was like, "Yeah, okay. That's fine." Why? Because Louis is a more Melies show. The purpose of the show is absurdity, not representing the world as it is, and Ben Affleck was definitely trying to portray the world as it is. Why then would every character except the main character be so spot on?
There's probably money behind it: would anyone see it without Ben Affleck's mug? It's certainly not because there's a dearth of Latino talent (though there are too few non-white actors appearing as main characters these days). Maybe Ben Affleck just really wanted the part because he idolizes Mr. Mendez. That's not the worst motivation in the world.
Argo is a great movie. If you're not a slave to MPAA ratings (the MPAA is the devil, don't let them censor your life!), see it. It really opened my eyes about Iran and U.S. relations, past and present. But you don't have to hate something to criticize it, and I wish that Mr. Affleck hadn't whitewashed the film.
Watch it.
Also, ate at Carl's Jr. after the movie, and while the teriyaki burger was nothing to write home about, the grilled cheese and bacon burger was good. Mhm.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Letter of Intent
Oh good. Another blog. I need another one of these like the Internet needs another . . . blog? Damn. Analogies are hard. I need another blog like I need a . . .
You know what, let's shelve that topic for now. This is my new blog.
Yay!
I have never had a personal blog (my other blogs were about my tabletop RPG stylings and reviewing old pop culture) so I figured I'd try it out. That probably means I will make this post and 3 others before never ever posting again, but screw it, here I go again. Why the name? I consume things. If I like something, I wolf down as much as I can get: Good TV show on Netflix? Better spend the next 5 hours watching it. That slice of pizza tasted good? The whole thing is probably better. Philip K. Dick books are on sale? Let's buy 15 instead of just one or two.
It's an issue.
But now you can share the journey with me! I'm going to spout some hot stuff sometimes, and other times I'm just going to brain dump. Won't you share it with me? No? Okay. Have fun on YouTube. I recommend cat videos.
You know what, let's shelve that topic for now. This is my new blog.
Yay!
I have never had a personal blog (my other blogs were about my tabletop RPG stylings and reviewing old pop culture) so I figured I'd try it out. That probably means I will make this post and 3 others before never ever posting again, but screw it, here I go again. Why the name? I consume things. If I like something, I wolf down as much as I can get: Good TV show on Netflix? Better spend the next 5 hours watching it. That slice of pizza tasted good? The whole thing is probably better. Philip K. Dick books are on sale? Let's buy 15 instead of just one or two.
It's an issue.
But now you can share the journey with me! I'm going to spout some hot stuff sometimes, and other times I'm just going to brain dump. Won't you share it with me? No? Okay. Have fun on YouTube. I recommend cat videos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)