No offense ... but its the 49er's, man. This isn't exactly Nostradamus level prognosticating.
;)Comment Posted By Professor Blather On 29.10.2006 @ 17:20
Read the "Larry in Los Angeles" (there's a surprise!) carefully.
Not the glaring irony: he wrote a ridiculously verbose post full of froth and fire, hinted strongly that Rick was wrong to suggest Democrats have no plan and stand for nothing ...
... and then good 'ol Larry proved Rick entirely right, by somehow forgetting to lay out the specifics of all those Democrat plans.
If you think Rick is wrong ... read what Larry wrote. What Larry says - and doesn't say - makes the case even stronger than Rick did.
I love irony. :)Comment Posted By Professor Blather On 29.10.2006 @ 17:17
Sigh. I've rarely been so disturbed to call myself conservative.
To all those who don't understand the word "fiction" - here's a very easy challenge for you:
Name one - name ANY - novelist or writer, past or present, who you think COULD run for office.
Good luck finding one, if you're planning to remain intellectually consistent.
Dr. Seuss, maybe? (Although come to think of it, the Grinch was pretty twisted, and Horton Hears a Who clearly suggests a bias against the hearing impaired ...)
Name. Me. One. One writer who I can't find to have written something sexual, violent, disturbing, or offensive.
Just one. And for God's sake, don't read your Bible. It's frickin' full of smut ... if you don't understand the context. The writer of Leviticus, for example, CLEARLY supported sex with camels ... right?
Sheesh. Embarrassing.Comment Posted By Professor Blather On 28.10.2006 @ 23:02
"writing about sexual abuse of a minor is just one small step away from actually doing it, IMHO."
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John described the ritual execution of Christ - not to mention Herod's murder of thousands of children.
Were they one small step away from doing it?
Dear God. How embarrassing. Quick - somebody remind me why I'm voting?
Oh. Right. Because at least my side isn't quite as bad as their side.
Time to go burn my favorite Clint Eastwood western. There's a disturbing scene of rape in it ... and, you know, Clint must be one small step from actually doing it ...Comment Posted By Professor Blather On 27.10.2006 @ 12:11
Thank you for being a voice of reason.
I've been embarrassed to be a conservative this morning, thanks to the unthinking, partisan reaction of many.
Apparently, the concept of fiction - even strange fiction with strange characters doing evil things - is lost on people. Or they're refusing to see the obvious because it suits their politics.
As I noted elsewhere ... condemning Webb for his fiction is like suggesting Peter Benchley supported shark attacks. The shark was a fictional character, doing hungry-shark things ... designed to heighten the reader's emotional response.
Conservatives seem to suggest Benchley could have saved hundreds of pages by cutting out the shark attack parts. Right?
How embarrassing. Can someone form a viable third party for those of us with brains? The Conservative/Libertarian/Common Sense party, perhaps?
Okay, the name sucks. But damn I hate when conservatives act like the cartoon figures liberals make them out to be.Comment Posted By Professor Blather On 27.10.2006 @ 12:06
Audrey and Jack were right .... because their option was the only one applicable to reality. Which is precisely how Audrey explained it.
Sacrificing some to save many might be permissible - although it is the ugliest of utilitarian arguments - but *only* when all the variables are definite.
In other words, there were three possibilities:
1) One cannisters kills thousands; millions saved;
2) All the cannisters release the gas; noone is saved; or
3) None of the cannisters are released - noone dies.
The problem here was the false premise. The only reason to choose number two is if it is CERTAIN - or damn near - that your only options are 1 or 2.
But Audrey nailed it: those 19 cannisters MIGHT be deployed and people MIGHT die, but if they don't stop this one, people WILL die.
It's a no-brainer. Jack was - of course - right. Morally and logically.
He was right for other reasons, too. First, he's Jack Bauer for Christ's sake: why not choose the obvious WWJBD first option? Which, as everyone should know, would be to tell the President to 1@#$!% off, capture both goofy terrorist single-handedly, execute one in a gratuitously violent manner, and then torture the second into revealing the location of the nerve gas.
If 24 was following its own rules, THATS what would have happened. Since when - ever - has Bauer not gotten the information he wanted out of someone? (Assuming he kept them away from the cyanide pills and/or angry sex slaves ...)
And none of this mentions the obvious politics: you're telling me THAT weasel of a President, who cares about politics above all else, would choose option one? Not a chance. The American public might forgive a President who tried to save everyone and failed - but a President who knowingly sacrificed thousands of women and children in order to POSSIBLY avert future attacks?
No way. Not a chance. George Bush might have the balls to make that call; not this weasel.
In the end, it all comes down to Audrew's reasoning. Utilitarianism, serving the greater good, only makes sense when that greater good is CERTAIN. Sacrificing a few to MAYBE save the many simply makes no sense.
Especially when you've got Jack Bauer running the show.Comment Posted By Professor Blather On 14.02.2006 @ 10:15
Pages (1) :