I wish I knew... But I'll try my best at this one. Admitting fault or misconduct is to violate one's sense of pride and attest to the fact that you have done something that has revealed a weakness in character, one that has or could be detrimental to a valuable relationship. But to forgive would be to acknowledge such a weakness or mistake, and choose to continue cultivating the relationship despite the violation of trust. To forgive is counterintuitive to one's rationality; why give credit to one's apology when they have discredited their own trustworthiness in past action/words before? But thankfully/unfortunately, human nature and sympathy sometimes leads us to accept such declarations in hopes and blind faith that the violation won't occur again. And sometimes, out of self-preservation, the acceptance of the apology cannot be justified to one's self. Who is to say which is the better choice but yourself? Which is more valuable to you, the terms that have been violated or the relationship itself?
Friday, February 25, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Thoughts on political opinion.
Its no secret that I have various political stances on many different issues, some of which overlap or vary in philosophy. However, this is not a criticism of particular political opinions, but rather a commentary on what makes any political opinion valid, or at least worthy of respect or discussion.
1. It must be an educated, rational opinion. “Because I say so”; or, rather, “Because the Bible says so” is unacceptable and idiotic. Again, this is not an attack on any particular religion, but the dogma that accompanies a lack of separation of religion and state. Your Bible is not mine.
2. It must reflect a constituent body that shares your political opinion. Politics is not about two people arguing about who’s more right/wrong; its about the policies and methods that we use to govern ourselves and how it affects the people around us; similarly, this is why I believe that un-empirical, a priori ideology also fails.
3. It must prove, to a certain degree, that their particular stance is the one that is best and most valid for the purposes of serving their constituent body. (To me, that means an American political opinion must prove itself to be the one that serves AMERICANS the best, a tricky parameter when people’s opinions of what it means to be American are vastly, vastly different)
4. Finally, and most relevant to my recent personal attacks, they must remain disengaged from yourself or the personal characteristics of the person you debate against. The validity of a political opinion is primarily founded on educated, rational, empirical and thoughtful reflection on the state of affairs. When a political debate becomes a personal attack, the aggressors’ opinion instantly becomes invalidated because of this obvious, apparent weakness in rationality. If you have been reduced to personal insult and degradation to attempt to prove your point is better than mine, you’ve ultimately hammered the last nail on your coffin, and effectively made yourself sound like a total prick who isn’t smart enough to actually come up with any valid, true assertions.
So thank you, sir/ma’am (although I fear for your future if you’re a woman), for further validating my political stances. Its been with great pleasure that I receive your childish insults, because it makes me feel smarter and better informed than you.
And if anyone has any true political opinion they would like to share or discuss with me, I would be more than happy to talk to you on a respectful, academic platform.
1. It must be an educated, rational opinion. “Because I say so”; or, rather, “Because the Bible says so” is unacceptable and idiotic. Again, this is not an attack on any particular religion, but the dogma that accompanies a lack of separation of religion and state. Your Bible is not mine.
2. It must reflect a constituent body that shares your political opinion. Politics is not about two people arguing about who’s more right/wrong; its about the policies and methods that we use to govern ourselves and how it affects the people around us; similarly, this is why I believe that un-empirical, a priori ideology also fails.
3. It must prove, to a certain degree, that their particular stance is the one that is best and most valid for the purposes of serving their constituent body. (To me, that means an American political opinion must prove itself to be the one that serves AMERICANS the best, a tricky parameter when people’s opinions of what it means to be American are vastly, vastly different)
4. Finally, and most relevant to my recent personal attacks, they must remain disengaged from yourself or the personal characteristics of the person you debate against. The validity of a political opinion is primarily founded on educated, rational, empirical and thoughtful reflection on the state of affairs. When a political debate becomes a personal attack, the aggressors’ opinion instantly becomes invalidated because of this obvious, apparent weakness in rationality. If you have been reduced to personal insult and degradation to attempt to prove your point is better than mine, you’ve ultimately hammered the last nail on your coffin, and effectively made yourself sound like a total prick who isn’t smart enough to actually come up with any valid, true assertions.
So thank you, sir/ma’am (although I fear for your future if you’re a woman), for further validating my political stances. Its been with great pleasure that I receive your childish insults, because it makes me feel smarter and better informed than you.
And if anyone has any true political opinion they would like to share or discuss with me, I would be more than happy to talk to you on a respectful, academic platform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
