Why is everyone so stupid/naive/ignorant?
More importantly perhaps, if I perceive almost everyone as being one of those three things it means there are two possibilities, neither of which do I like.
Possibility 1: The world at large is not populated primarily with morons, but my perception is off, meaning I am stupid, naive or ignorant.
Possibility 2: The world at large IS populated primarily with morons, making me one of the smarter people on the planet.
Obviously I don't like option 1 cause I don't want to be a moron. I don't like option 2 because I'm really not all that smart, which means the human race is doomed if I am among it's best and brightest.
So with that in mind, here is a relatively shallow blog on the stupid things I've seen in the media that last few days in reverse order of stupidity.
5. The Weiner Saga
Link: Just go to yahoo, I'm sure it's on there.
Rep. Anthony Weiner did him some sexting. He's not a particularly good husband. He's not particularly tech savvy either if he thought it would stay secret. So it's been in the news for weeks, but WHY?
Enough already ok? Our politicians are among the ditiest scumbags in world politics as far as I can tell and yet we pretend it is new when one of them cheats on their wife. gets a DUI or does something else that offends what used to be our national morality.
Guess what people, we live in a world with lots of bad people, Wiener may or may not be one of them but it's not looking great for him now. Can he still cast a vote to represent his constituents? YES!!!! And because he's weird they can vote him out next election. Until then, the one benefit of this story is the funny headlines like "Weiner exposed: Congressman caught sending lewd photos" and such.
4. The Battle of the Bluegrass
Link: McConnell says Kentucky could face attack if terror suspects are held here
Long story short, Senator McConnell seems to think terrorists are concerned with the state penal system. Does anyone really think that if, in theory, terrorists wanted retaliation for these arrests, that they would blow up something in Frankfort, Ky.?
I mean sure they might, but c'mon. Kentucky arrested them, why not retaliate even if they were sent to Gitmo?
3. No snips
Link: San Francisco: Circumcision Ban and Religious Freedom
They want to ban circumcision. Now I know members of society with both types of members and as far as I can tell, both prefer what they end up with. That, plus science, tells me it's not a big deal either way. This isn't the same as genital mutilation and for many it's a sacred and required thing. This is up to a child's parents, not the state.
2. Why can't the Catholic Church be just like everyone else?
Link: Liberal U.S. Catholics say Church not listening
I picture some liberal Catholic asking that question only to get hit in the stomach by my good friend Alex Sullo while he screams "Because we're not everyone else!"
Summary of this one is that liberals think their demands for women, married and gay priests are not being heard. They don't like the hierarchy either or that the Vatican pressures dissenting theologians.
The liberals of this story are the ones not listening. The Church has answered time and time again most of these concerns but just for fun let's do it again. (Speaking for myself of course, not the Church)
We can't ordain women, not a question of if we want to. The priesthood is based on apostolic succession and choosing candidates as Christ did. He chose no women. That doesn't mean women aren't integral to the faith, they are.
We can ordain married and gay priests, but as a matter of policy right now, we don't. The marriage restriction is more likely to end one day than the gay one. I don't imagine you can find a lot of gays willing to teach that homosexual activity is a sin, therefore it's tough to find one to make a priest.
The Church has it's structure and puts pressure on dissenters to preserve the truth, any church that just changes with the whims of time isn't that concerned with truth.
1. Two-year old tramps?
Link: Pole dancing... for toddlers?
Yeah, some studio in England is offering these classes. It's actually for kids as young as three, but two sounded better in the headline.
Here's the best part: "The class' instructor, Carly Wilford,... says she's "trying to remove the stigma from pole dancing..."
COME ON! It might be very healthy and good for you to dance on a pole but the stigma is the only reason it exists. The pole is a surrogate penis. Pole dancing is a stripper thing. We've got to stop pretending things aren't what they are.
If I teach a class called basic tackling for three year olds, and I base it on football tackling technique, people will say I'm teaching them football. I can try to say I'm trying to remove the stigma from tackling and that really it's just healthy, but IT IS STILL TACKLING.
---------------
Anyway, I know the "You know what grinds my gears" style of blog is usually boring and this is probably no exception but what the hell. I had very little else to say.
Random fact about PETA: It's stupid and could easily be the only thing that pisses me off in a given week if I let it.
Here's my issue. I don't care if you're conservative, liberal, republican, democrat or anywhere in between. I believe you can be intelligent and fall under any of those categories. I can truly say that even as someone who leans way left, if someone offers a well-formed argument that's opposite of what I believe, I will respect them. What upsets me is when someone calls me a communist yet cannot articulate what exactly that means, just some vague answer about taking their money. Or the other day when a business owner told me he does not have any money for retirement after selling items for the past 25 years, yet also told me he does not pay any taxes because Obama
ReplyDelete"takes more money than he puts in his pocket." As far as I know, Obama has not been the president for the past 25 years, it is not legal to not pay taxes and it's certainly not anyone's fault but his own that he has no retirement fund. But then there are people who are my opposites, such as the people we encountered in South Dakota (considered a deep red state), who are not offensive to me and make sense even if I disagree with their principles. They made their points with facts and experience to back it up, i.e. I'm against gun control because ranching and protection of livestock is my way of life. NOT ONCE did I feel angry, or upset or offended there, even though I was way, way outnumbered politically. Here in Ohio/Kentucky, I feel that things are boiled down to such a simplistic, black-and-white, yes-or-no answer that means whoever disagrees with you must be a moron. It just gets so tiring, especially if you're in the minority. I never shoved my politics in anyone's face, just a simple "Women for Obama" sticker and was followed, screamed at, called terrible names and almost rear ended by someone throwing a fit over it. So frustrating. Everyone thinks they're possibility 2.
Little tough to follow that paragraph my friend but I think I get your gist.
ReplyDeleteEveryone might think they're possibility two, but that's probably never the case for someone who doesn't consider possibility one. If someone isn't self aware enough to consider they could be the moron, they probably are a moron lol.
I think you might be taking a "grass is greener" approach about out west. You know more people here, so you know more black and white types. Out west, maybe you just happened to run into nice, intelligent folks.
How does one end up talking politics with the people you meet on a road trip anyway?
Glad to see you read this though. Feel free to read and comment regularly, we get into some fun debates.
Sorry, not sure why the paragraph breaks went away! You're right about me just knowing more people here...it was more how the ideas were presented. I overheard several conversations in local establishments, saw the different bumper stickers, radio, etc. Just seemed less angry and more rational. Perhaps I note the difference because Ohio is a swing state and therefore there's more conflict wheras SD is red...therefore less need to get one's point across in an aggressive manner?
ReplyDeleteYeah, us being a swing state probably makes it more volatile here. Good point.
ReplyDeleteJohn - Before I post any dissent, I have a more constructive thought to share. I've been getting myself worked up, off and on, regarding popular culture. I've got a persistant fear that reality TV and "youth culture" MTV programming that appeals to the lowest common denominator, and enshrines and applauds horrible behavior (Gordon Ramsay and My Super Sweet 16 as a couple of examples) are threatening to pull down the columns of western civilization. It's my fear that this kind of entertainment, is actually producing new morons every day and essentially dumbing us all down.
ReplyDeleteSo I've been dealing with that. However, a though occured the other day. I figured that in any given era, at least 20% of the population has been composed of morons. Sometimes more, but seldom less. If that's true, then it comes as a bit of a relief that there's nothing new to the great "moron question" of today, as it's been with us always.
Not just that, but my fears about trash TV were also alleviated, since our Perminent Intellectual Underclass needs to be entertained and diverted, to keep them passive and docile. Afterall, we don't want them getting bored or agitated, as they might rise up and start burning libraries or government buildings. If these brainless plebians want to gorge themselves on empty calories, with no real substance or content, and lie forever on the couch in a vegetable torpor, why not let them? We need only worry about keeping ourselves separate from them, so we don't drag ourselves down with them. To quote Anthony Hopkins in Howard's End "You mustn't let yourself get carried off with sympathy for the poor. The poor are poor, and one feels sorry for them, but there it is."
Jenny - I agree with John. You should stick around and comment more often. We need fresh perspectives.
Jen - In Ohio/Kentucky, you could have a civilizing impact on these free-range Rude, by leading by example. If you go west, the Ohio Rude will be left alone to their own devices, and probably get worse instead of better.
ReplyDeleteTo bad that 20 percent number isn't able to be corroborated. It sounds right, but then we can't know.
ReplyDeleteAlso yes they do need to be entertained but I think that 16 and Pregnant and other shows that glorify mistakes people make are still bad.
I've seen somewhat intelligent folks get sucked into watching that. And while most smart people that do watch that crap enjoy it just for the "empty calories" it is, I worry that it can have a cumulative effect, building up and making smart people dumber.
I've seen it in myself. Since college, my brain is much less tasked with intelligent things, and that time has been filled with video games and TV. My brain's not operating as well as it once did. I assume the quality of shows watched could have an effect as well.
It's very simple, John. You've been "slumming it" in the proletarian districts of TV. Now that you've got internet at home, read some wikipedia, or a book. Bulk up your brain while slimming down your bod..
ReplyDelete"To bad that 20 percent number isn't able to be corroborated. It sounds right, but then we can't know."
ReplyDeleteYeah, that came from my butt. It's a kookie kinds blog so I made a kookie kinda comment.
"any church that just changes with the whims of time isn't that concerned with truth"
ReplyDeleteDo you mean "concerned with the truth" or do you really mean "certain of the truth"? The Catholic Church has refined or reversed it's own position on matters like this so many times. Many in the early church were married, for example, there is even evidence (disputed) of Peter and Paul having wives. Regardless of whether you accept that bit about Peter and Paul, it certainly is true that many in the clergy in the first 300 years of Christianity were married (although probably less among bishops), and it's also true that ex-Anglican priests have been allowed to keep their wives and reenter the Church in recent years.
But all of that is a side point. My main point is this: Despite all your talk about "the truth" and being different, and not changing because of the "whims of time", if the Catholic Church, through, say an ecumenical council, suddenly decided for whatever reason that clerical marriage (or women or gays in the priesthood) was OK, then you would have nothing to say on the matter, and you would be bound to change your concept of what's "true".
"This isn't the same as genital mutilation and for many it's a sacred and required thing"
I agree that exceptions to this law should be allowed for religious reasons, but who says it's not genital mutilation? On what grounds? How significantly does this differ from female circumcision (which all westerners seem to agree is absolutely wrong in all cases)? The bottom line, to me, is that this is something the individual should choose for himself, whenever possible. In some (rare) cases, it's medically necessary but on the whole, this is a practice which is largely carried out because of good old American force of habit. I was circumcised, so my son will be too...
Dungy, you've chosen a poor topic for an example. That is a matter of discipline. There is nothing doctrinal keeping priests from marrying. There is not a "truth" problem there.
ReplyDeleteBut taking your point and let's say that in theory an ecumenical council with papal authority decreed that Mary was equal to God, or some other such heresy by current understanding.
One, as you know my faith is based in faith, and therefore I would know that they uncovered a previously unknown bit of truth or had a divine revelation of some kind. The Church cannot err in these matters. From a non-faith standpoint is that naive? Hell yes, but I believe.
Two, the Church has clarified and developed. It's come to a better understanding of things and it's earthly side has done some ugly shit. If you really look into it though, the Church hasn't changed.
And to me, the truth of the Catholic faith is objective truth, not truth of a certain kind. You know that. You're setting yourself up to be dissappointed here.
On circumcision, I guess it's not genital mutilation in the same way because it has no adverse effects either on sexual or other health. It deprives the child of nothing but a different look down there.
We can call it cosmetic gender manipulation if you like?
"And to me, the truth of the Catholic faith is objective truth, not truth of a certain kind. You know that. You're setting yourself up to be dissappointed here."
ReplyDeleteNo, you misunderstood me. Or it didn't write it clearly. I was talking about your insistence of certainty, not a "certain kind of truth". I was trying to say that changing a church policy doesn't reflect on one's attitude toward truth, just the attitude of CERTAINTY of the truth. One who has a degree of uncertainty in these matters can change change a policy. If you claim certainty of the truth, you cannot change without invalidating yourself.
"That is a matter of discipline. There is nothing doctrinal keeping priests from marrying. There is not a "truth" problem there."
ReplyDeleteYou were the one who associated this matter with the Truth, not me. If it's not a matter of truth, then why not change it?
"On circumcision, I guess it's not genital mutilation in the same way because it has no adverse effects either on sexual or other health. It deprives the child of nothing but a different look down there."
ReplyDeleteSo a person's rights over their body merely extend to what is medically or sexually harmful? In other words, I can do whatever I want to you to make you "look different down there" as long as I don't harm you perminently. I'll have to remember that when you're passed out in my hot tub on labor day. I'm sure Alex would appreciate that information as well...
Starting with the last post, a child doesn't really have that many rights. A parent has to make what they determine to be the best possible decisions for them until they are old enough to choose.
ReplyDeleteNow circumcision is not the same as say dying their hair because it's permanent, but if a parent, responsible for a child's well being, beleives it is medically better, cosmetically better or spiritually better, then they have the right to make that call.
You and Alex do not have that right over me because you're not my guardians lol
If there were evidence to show that circumcision reduces sexual stimulation and enjoyment "down there", would you reconsider your position?
ReplyDeleteAlso, you said clerical marriage was a matter of discipline, not truth. Can you expand on that point? I'm confused because you were talking about why it's important not to change with the times, and linked that to the idea of the truth being immutable and absolute.
ReplyDeleteIf it isn't a matter of truth, but rather something more practical, then why do you bristle when people talk about making changes?
On the down there question, I'm not sure. It would change my opinions, but I'm not sure it would change them enough to support such a law....need to think more.
ReplyDeleteOn to clerical marraige.
ReplyDeleteMy issue isn't with change there. I was complaining in this blog about liberals saying the Church wasn't listening. I was saying, no, they heard you, and here is what they said.
Changing with the times is good one some things. It's good that my church in Lexington has a website where I can learn about what's going on.
I think it's good that churches took advantage of air conditioning.
On a more substantive note, I personally like that mass is in the common language now, a change that came over time but not per se because of it.
Things like form and structure can and do change over time. The apostles married, so did early clergy and even today in some rites priests may marry.
Long story short I am saying there is no theological reason priest should be forbidden to marry, though there is scriptural support for an unmarried clergy, it's not required. The Church believes now, as it has for a while, that an unmarried priesthood is best.
I can guess that's because this assists in discernment of candidates, creates more devoted servants of the Church etc.
They can change it, the reason they don't isn't aversion to modernity, it's also not because of some revealed truth, it's just the system they think works best at this time.
Ok. I see where I went wrong when I was reading your initial post. I thought that when you were talking about truth at the end of your section on catholicism, you were applying that to all of these issues. I see now that you were actually just talking about one in particular (suppressing theologans). My bad, I should read more carefully.
ReplyDeleteGays and women I don't really care to press you on. But liberal catholics could argue (pretty persuasively, if you ask me) that insisting on clerical celebacy, in practice, invites individuals with irregular sexual appetities (read: pedophiles) into the priesthood. I know that's not what the Church intends, but rather it's an unintended consequence. Liberal catholics wouldn't be asking "Why?" of the church, but rather dissenting against the standing policy.
Is it considered OK to dissent against matters like that?
I'll blog about it tomorrow maybe
ReplyDelete"...if a parent, responsible for a child's well being, believes it is medically better, cosmetically better or spiritually better, then they have the right to make that call."
ReplyDeleteThe only reason circumcision isn't considered child abuse is because we are use to it. I don't know why man has had such a fascination with cutting off a piece of his genitals for most of his history, but it is obviously a tradition we have grown comfortable with.
If a parent were to chop off the pinky finger (and a person can certainly function quite normally without their pinky) of his or her child for cosmetic or spiritual reasons, would you honestly say the parent has the right to do this? Would you detest to see the child stripped away from its parent, and the parent sent to prison for merely doing what he or she thought was best?
You're all right of course that the main reason we find this acceptable is because it's been going on forever.
ReplyDeleteThe pinky argument doesn't work with me because you're creating a visual deformity that the kid will have to deal with. You could argue that circumcision does that too but it lacks any social stigma.
I don't know enough about this. I always heard there were medical benefits for it but lately I read maybe not. I don't feel like googling it from my work computer though so I'm not sure.
As it stands, it seems to do no harm to the child in the long term, it creates no stigma and it's really not an issue.
OK, here's the bottom line for me.
ReplyDeleteI don't accept that it's alright to medically alter your child as long as it A: Doesn't do medical harm in the long term and B: Creates no social stigma.
In matters of medical necessity, like an infected appendix or tonsils, obviously it must be done. But I'm extremely suspicious of a motivation to alter the natural condition human body, because of possible claims of improved cleanliness. I suspect that argument goes all the way back to ancient Israel, but even if it doesn't, it's a justification after the fact.
We're talking about cutting off a piece of someone's body which:
A: They cannot consent to
B: They cannot reverse the procedure later in life.
C: It's not medically necessary.
I find the connection between the procedures of male and female circumcision to be too close for comfort. And I'm confused about how it can be ignored simply because of what we've accepted as norms.
John: So I take it the bulk of your argument rests on the fact that there is no social stigma against circumcision. I needn't tell you this is a weak and unconvincing argument.
ReplyDeleteJust stop and think about the situation for a moment. The foreskin is not a birth defect. Nevertheless, we're taking a natural, healthy, and fully functional part of our bodies and slicing it off for superficial reasons.
Anthropologists don't even know why humans started the practice of circumcision. Of course, we do know it took on a religious significance, and after that sprang the claims of health benefits.
But you know what's rather amusing? The infections and complications caused by the foreskin are not only uncommon or rare, they're usually easily treatable and preventable.
Circumcision is no more medically justifiable than chopping off my hand in order to prevent arthritis. The benefits do not supersede the loss.
And, of course, there's the ethical aspect of the practice. Yes, parents have some rights over their children, but the act of removing a part of the body is a permanent decision. Something of this magnitude should be left to the individual, not the guardian.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSome of the questions here are:
ReplyDeleteIs there any medical gain. Those for it say yes, those against say no.
Is there any real harm done? Same situation.
Does it have positive or negative long term effects? Same situation.
It's it important, or just excess skin. Same situation.
Somehow circumcision became a political issue where it's impossible to get a straight answer.
However, even if it's not great for a person to be circumcised, the last few centuries showed us there is no problem or difficulty that stems from it.
Considering that, and considering it's utmost importance as a matter of faith to at least two major world religions, I don't think it should be banned.
Something being around for a long time doesn't make it right, but it does give it status quo. So we can't say "Well what if some cult wants to cut out girl's future fun parts?" or something because that isn't going to be allowed.
This is not a slippery slope, it's the status quo. It can be changed, but I'm not sure it worth it.
I don't personally feel mutilated as a circumcised person, being that I don't know any different I think all the plumbing works just right in all situations.
I imagine the uncircumcised feel the same way.
Also, Dungy, of course it's ignored because it's an accepted norm. That's how norms work.
In future star trek world they can't believe we humans ate animals, it's horrible to the future apparently, but we don't give it a second thought, it's our normal.
So for the last few centuries has been circumcision.
"Also, Dungy, of course it's ignored because it's an accepted norm. That's how norms work."
ReplyDeleteNO.
That is not how norms work...
Norms are a line between what is generally accepted and what is generally taboo, without having to strenuously examine it every time you touch on the subject.
Norms are NOT a guarantee of acceptability/unacceptability, and an excuse not to EVER strenuously examine a topic. Norms are not an encouragement to intellectual sloth.
And, norms are not a logical justification, John. Which is exactly what you are arguing.
You are saying the following:
A: Neither take on circumcision is righter or wronger
B: Circumcision is the norm or status quo.
Therefore C: We should stay with the status quo.
I (and I think Matt) have been challenging point A since the beginning, and you've been doing your best to avoid it. Either it's substantially beneficial or it's not. Either it's medically necessary or it's not. Those aren't subjective points of view, those are facts that have yet to be established either way.
I believe, that in your own head, the argument is not actually A+B=C, but B=C. The whole reason you were shocked/amused/offended about this ban in the first place, is because it was challenging a long established status quo. Not so?
You said we've accepted it as a norm. I'm saying we don't often sit around challenging our norms. That certainly is why this is interesting. While I hadn't previously examined my position on the matter I'd say I was/am pro-circumcision. That, plus it's status as status quo, made me surprised to hear about this.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the facts of it medically are the only things to be considered here. I think it IS the norm, that grants it some status. We need to be able to show that it needs to be changed first but even if we can do that, two of the world's major faiths aren't about to give it up.
To jews and muslims this is a symbol of their covenant with God. They will not NOT do it.
So where do I stand now…I'm actually unsure. I feel like I'm in favor of allowing it, but I don't seem to have a way to back up that feeling.
I don't argue the religious aspect. I think it should be exempted in those reasons, definately. I also think it's silly, stubborn and politically unrealistic for them to keep such an exemption off the ballot.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure most feel the same way about that particular reason. But what interests me is the non-religious aspect. If a religious exemption were a part of the resolution, people would still take issue and I want to know why. I want to know why people are so certain that removing foreskin is such a different animal than excising a clitoris or cutting the tip of a pinky off.
I don't think even a religious exemption makes sense. It's like saying, "We find this to be so wrong to do to kids, we outlawed it...but you can still do it to your kids."
ReplyDeleteLegally, that seems weird to me, but I don't know what else would appease both sides.
Those is favor would probably argue that even with the religious exemption that the gov't would be taking away other people's "right" to make what they may consider a medical decision about their kids.
And I thought it was obvious why it's different than lopping off a finger or the a clitoris. Cutting off a pinky reduces functionality and creates a visible deformity. Cutting off a clitoris removes a woman's ability to feel sexual pleasure for life.
I don't have all the answers on this but I do know no one has considered me deformed, I function well and I experience sexual pleasure just fine and I've been snipped.
That's some evidence anyway.
I fail to see why the religion of the parents should enable them to negate the personal rights of their child.
ReplyDeleteWhy must the parents sacrifice a piece of their child just to prove their religious convictions? WHY must the child make a bodily sacrifice to prove his religious devotion during an age in which he cannot even articulate what it is he's suppose to believe?