"In a democracy (‘rule by mob’), those who refuse to learn from history will be the majority and will dictate that everyone else suffer for their ignorance."
Oh, really? I can falsify that “Romanist Contrarian” argument in one statement:
Isaiah 1:18, for but one reference, makes it clear that white has indeed been used to represent purity: “‘Come now, let us settle the matter,’ says the LORD. ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.'”
IMO, anyone living in an English-speaking society who is unfamiliar with classic biblical quotations is [formally] illiterate.
Methinks “The Romanist Contrarian” may be afflicted with Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. . . *sigh*
The main problem with pragmatism as a life philosophy is that we can never know enough to infallibly predict the outcomes of our “pragmatic” behavior–especially if/when it involves how others react to our “pragmatism.”
The second most difficult problem for pragmatism as a life philosophy is that we (none of us) are as smart as we think we are. No, not one.
If only we were omniscient or something. . . Yeh, that would help.
Proverbs 3:5-6
5 “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.”
A brief rant: I’ve already seen on FarceBook a number of moral equivalency arguments made for the faithful follower of Islam who committed the Orlando shootings. One particularly egregious lie paints Christianity and Islam as equivalent: “equally bad” (as well as “equally good”–essentially, no differences) in what they teach. Really? _Obedient_ Muslims (“muslim” means submitted–short form: to the word of “Allah” as revealed by Mohamed) can, within the constraints of normative Islam, as defined by the words of Mohamed, legitimately emulate Mohamed and follow his clear teachings in committing acts of mass murder, rape, pillage, torture, slavery of unbelievers, etc. Being a true “moderate Muslim” (not committed to doing such things or supporting those who do) means disobeying Mohamed’s commands and disrespecting his life example.
OTOH, those who claim to be Christians and engage in acts that emulate the life of Mohamed (mass murder of unbelievers, etc.), NOT Christ, must do so in direct contradiction of the teachings and life of the founder of Christianity. Obeying Christ’s teachings about the treatment of others–unbelievers included–requires acting in a way that is completely antithetical to Mohamed’s teachings.
Christianity and Islam are in no way, shape, fashion, or form equivalent. Anyone who claims differently is either ignorant or a liar. Since the truth of the issue is quite easy to come by, anyone who is ignorant of it is either dishonestly avoiding the truth or butt lazy. Or both.
So, fifth time in six years that “city” *cough* workers *cough* are “repairing” the water line to the house. Yeh, the guy in the hole didn’t like me sticking around to see that he was just putting a patch over the hole in their line. Replace the faulty line? Heck no! That would take work. *sigh*
But at least it keeps them busy going back and re-doing their crappy work.
One of the principles of Type II “Bureaucraps” is to NEVER actually solve a problem, because that doesn’t let them request more funding, more personnel (at the end of the “job” there were five “workers” busyworking the job. Oh, it never needed more than one to do the “work” and another to lean on a shovel and issue directions (which, when it came to the so-so use of the backhoe/FEL at least gave the guy five minutes out of two hours of legitimacy, but it needed five to eat up some time on some time cards), more “turf” to claim as their own.
And their supervisor, of course, set it all up the way it was run, from excess workers using equipment oin a manner assured to take the most possible time with the equipment used, to shoddy repair. All designed to eat up resources in the most inefficient manner possible and assure ANOTHER leak down the road.
Had a guy ask me where I got the “30,000 emails erased by Hillary Clinton” info, because the last he’d heard is was maybe a couple of hundred. I think I have located where he’s been living:
As Peter Grant quoted when he posted this, “It’s not the size of the dog in the fight; it’s the size of the fight in the dog.” ~ Mark Twain
BTW, I recommend Peter Grant’s sci-fi milfic/space opera books as HIGHLY appropriate for readers whose literacy reaches (legitimate) middle school levels, no matter what their ages. Sometimes a bit saccharine, but that’s better than destructively “gritty” in my book, especially for young readers. Think sci-fi milfic/space opera pretty much as written by Zane Grey. Or maybe less fantastic “Doc” Smith translated though a Zane Grey-ish filtering. *heh* (The more I think on that, the more Grant’s new Western series makes real sense.)
A big bonus is that Grant’s books seem to be very competently edited, so that readers are rarely led astray (and mistaught) by misused words, poor grammar, and punctuation errors. That’s just competent line editing. In addition, the content editing eliminates all (or almost all) of the plot bobbles so common to many books published nowadays, even (sometimes especially!) from big publishing houses. This is important, IMO, since reading engaging stories with good morals and ethics that are WELL-WRITTEN can help readers just pick up all these good things along the way.
Of course, unless a book is exceptionally well-written (and by that I mean of stellar class, worthy of survival to become an enduring classic such as “Pilgrim’s Progress”), didacticism can be a killer. No, just well-written (and competently edited) stories that have moral, ethical characters facing conflicts and choosing wisely, and therefore teach good lessons without having to stop and pound lessons into the reader.
Of course, there are competently-written books whose protagonists are bad examples for readers to emulate. I despise that sort of crap.
Poorly-written books that either have protagonists who are “good” examples or protagonists who bad examples are both to be condemned as simply poorly-written books. I find both to be anathema.
And then there are the kinds of books thatb Holly Lisle has correctly classified as “suckitudinous fiction.” Technically well-written but worthless “lit-ra-chure” such as Fitzgerald is celebrated (by self-made moral morons) for having written. Of them I can only say, “Gagamaggot.”
Peter grant’s fiction is all, as far as I have read in his sci-fi milfic/space opera (I have not yet read his new Western novel), light, entertaining, sometimes saccharine (to the point of nearly Goody Two-shoes saccharine), well-written fluff that is highly appropriate for YA readers and engaging even for folks nostalgic for an earlier ethos in sci-fi, where a more elevated moral/ethical behavior would be expected.
The Trumpery has a strong appeal to weak people. Their weaknesses can be various, ranging from genetic cretinism, self-induced (either via repetitive cranial injuries or psychological “autolobotomies”), a need for “daddy,” et al. As a result, they have become cultists who read what they feel they need into whatever he says or does, no matter how much it might contradict the needs they feel he fulfills for them. It’s all delusions and fantasies projected on a con man who encourages weak, easily-manipulated people to adore and worship him. Yes: Trumpery Cultists have irrationally promoted The Trumpery to godhood in their own weak, sick minds, just like King Putz’s cultists have done, and just like cultists in any personality cult have done for millennia. Facts cannot persuade them, because they have their fantasies, delusions, and–now–their cultic dogma.
Those who are not deceived by him and do not worship him support him for strictly corrupt, venal reasons. The Trumpery has exactly ZERO support from anyone with a strong connection to reality and halfway decent character. And, no, failing to support The Trumpery is NOT working to enable The Queenie Cacklepants Cylon’s run for the WH. There is no “lesser evil” when choosing between the “presumptive” nominees of the two separate wings of the Uniparty.
Think outside the Manichean duality that supposes that simply because The Queenie Cacklepants Cylon is evil incarnate that The Trumpery is not.
[OK, something of a provocative title. I put it out there hoping it would offend some other pussies. And, of course, given the pussies I hoped to offend, I chose to use the title in what may seem to be an idiosyncratic definition drawn from a possible etymology that proposes that “pussy,” when used in a pejorative manner, is derived from “pusilanimous”–craven coward.]
The Women of Ottawa are apparently ashamed of their own bodies and fear looking in mirrors. They also seem to be afraid of owning their own shame and fear and project anger toward other women whose bodies threaten their own self-images. Not only that, but they are too cowardly to face women whose bodies move them to anger and seek some authority figure to intervene in their stead, allowing them to remain anonymous cowards.
The biggest problem in America today? An almost wholesale flight from reality in every area of life. “Reality based FANTASIES” ain’t reality, folks (but try explaining that to roughly 90% of folks nowadays). Flight from reality is, at its base, a result of spiritual emptiness, IMO. All else stems from that. One’s intellect cannot connect with real things if one’s heart is set on what is false.
