Khari > Recent Status Updates

All I want out of life is a book but I can learn something from without being like: the heck you say? Case in point: "Our King is glorified in intercession; and we too will find our highest glory in it. He continues His saving work in fact, He can do nothing without it."

God, the almighty God , the omnipotent God can do nothing without our prayer... Seems a little human centric. Just a tad.

"Faith is like love. When we hoard it, it shrivels. When we live and express it, it grows. So to deepen faith-or any attitude or conviction-we had best not sit passively, waiting for conviction to overtake us. Rather, enact what little faith we have."

...and those who see humanity in the image of God"

Woops this is on page 283

A quote from someone Jonathan Sacks
"The power of the Judaeo=Christian tradition is that it carts a moral reality larger than private inclination....It suggests that not all choices are equal; some lead on to blessing, others to lives of quiet despair........the scene is set for a genuine debate between two conflicting visions-between those who see the individual as a bundle of impulses to be gratified and those...

I can't make too hard of a judgment, because I've never read anything written during the Meiji era in Japanese, I doubt I could, but this certainly isn't true of modern literature. So at what point did the status switch?

This actually disagrees with other works in this volume that talk about how honorific endings are required in writing..so..? Is this just historical? She certainly doesn't frame it as such.

"Polite and honorific verb-ending forms, which formally indexed context-bound relationships between the author and the reader and between the author and the characters, eventually lost their status in the serious literary style."

Again. Examples? That would be nice.

I can't believe I found this article convincing in grad school.

first of all she said that by the 1910s plain verb endings such as -da had won out as the established literary style.

Maybe it had in the 1910s, but it certainly isn't now. And where is the evidence that this is true? She doesn't give a single example. No excerpts. No surveys. Just her feelings.

I just read the world's most rambling paragraph and am sitting back in astonishment at how my younger self found post structuralism to be convincing.

Just because you redefine commonly understood words to mean something completely different doesn't rescue you from inherently circular arguments.

"Religious conservatives...fear that when a politically correct educational establishment gets into the values business their parental authority will get undermined...Will education promote the homosexual agenda or an internationalism that undermines patriotism?"

Obviously not. I mean how could it? He's poopooing their concerns.

Didn't age well, now did it?

Why is right wing the only thing associated with censorship? Arguably, left wing governments have been responsible for censorship on a greater scale, for a longer period of time, than what has come from the 'right'.

I'm thinking China and the USSr as compared to Nazi

Again, didn't age well, the Cosby show as an example of being both profitable and principled........

The problem, sir, is that when companies and advertisers unite to promote 'the moral voice of the community' is that the community isn't always moral. And the movements that they espouse aren't always good or ethical, and we just might find ourselves being fed entertainment slop that, while fully in line with the moral voice of the community, is the opposite of good.

I agree that the coercive side of law can be used as a last resort to control socially unwanted behavior. I just don't agree that it should be the first resort. Which is basically what this author wants.

Pass a law curtailing tv violence and soon there will be book banning, news censorship and curfews! How idiotic.

Only that happened too. Granted, not as badly as under a communist dictatorship. But...it did happen. So the slippery slope people also have a point and can not be just summarily dismissed.

Another thing that didn't age well: "But reasonable laws-all of which restrain our freedom-seldom cascade us down a slippery slope or trip a line of dominoes."

Seldom? Seldom is a bit strong.

Also, his examples were pretty funny because they included : If we let them ban cigarettes, next they'll be controlling our food. How ridiculous...only it happened in New York.

...not know the consequences?

Power ranger imitation can be fixed pretty easily: act hurt. If the child is concerned for you...which most will be...you can show them the consequenes of their actions and direct them towards something else.

Even monkeys know this. A baby monkey bites another monkey, they get a cuff on the head. The baby monkey learns not to bite.

Is this violence a problem of not being corrected?

...a kick is aggressive?

What about people kicking in their sleep? Babies kicking their legs? Is that aggressive?

Were these 'aggressive behaviors' demonstrated towards another person?

If a kid is imitating power ranger movements, does that mean he is aggressive, or that he is learning the limitations of his body? If he aims it at another person, it might not even be aggression then, is it aggression if you do

He still has never started talking about root causes.

Yes, if children watch an adult beat up a doll in anger they are more likely to behave aggressively towards a doll.

Is that an increase in aggression? Or is that a permission structure to allow innate aggression out?

Those are two very different things.

I just find the analysis shallow.

"randomly assign some children to watch violence and others nonviolence. Then observe their aggressiveness. If the two groups differ, it must be due to the one difference: what they watched."

Not necessarily. How big is the sample size? Random selection can filter out a lot, but if we are talking 25 children...it can't fix a small sample size.

I am questioning this guy again...he's quoting John Money.......

"The popular arts are not ineffectual; they color consciousness and teach us how to act."

The political asides are also absolutely crazy.

If this dude is so willing to take allegations and use them as examples in his book, unproven allegations, allegations that are still unproven, 28 years later. Then...I doubt his use of studies as well.

Like, how much of what you are saying is because that's what you want to be real?

Are you being guided by data? Or are you guiding the data?