Mindy

This has merit. Some funny lines. Comments: pinpricks don't glow, they are sharp I don't know anything about infant planets as regards their drifting, so this simile doesn't clarify anything Your description of "smudges collide..." is very nice. "primordial chaos" is trite If the "others" are "sharking" in your wake, they are behind you, and can't be injuring your self-esteem, can they? You need to find an indirect way to say that those "sharks" are vice-prone. From what you've given, the reader can't understand why you characterize them as such. Who is Rex? You'll have to give some explanation of why a fascinating class seems to drag... I find myself wishing that this time, when we hear of the effect of his glasses, when his vision disintegrates, the peace of mind he's derived from a rational discussion leaves him undisturbed by mere poor eyesight. I hope, if you do re-write, you'll post it again. Mindy

No, I was responding to the list you wrote of people interested in being chat moderators. You mentioned chat moderators, so that is what I took your context to be. I, on the other hand, think people should feel free to discuss my qualifications--as long as they actually do so. But then, that wouldn't be not ceasing, properly speaking. If the thread is about moderators, where better to discuss an individual's qualifications to be a moderator? Mindy

I did not express interest in being a chat moderator. And I am not interested in being such. Don't know how you got that idea. Mindy

This is a response to me? I don't see the relevance. Mindy

So, when does the decision about moderators get made? I'm winning the unpopularity contest hands-down, I think I'm a shoe-in. Mindy

When Dominique asked Roark to give up architecture for her, he told her he wouldn't. That may be where the OP is coming from. However, what Dominique was asking simply could not be done. Roark could not be the man he was if he gave up on the career he wanted, for the reason she had in mind. He would then be a coward, and what was extraordinary about himself, and her, would die. As desirable as it was--an ache in every muscle to say yes, seize her, and submerge himself in the reward his life deserved--he knew his identity, and hers made it impossible. I don't think the application of this to making romantic evaluations of others is warranted, or has a precedent in the novels. Mindy

Truth is correspondence with the facts of reality. The facts of reality are the many ways entities' identities are manifest. Logic is the discipline in thought of recognizing and respecting identity. A is A. All men are mortal, Socrates is a philosopher, therefore: nothing. The terms in a syllogism must be exactly the same, in order to preserve identity, to base our conclusions on identity, to know what's true. There are hypotheses, suppositions, educated guesses, insights, etc. that serve us well in contexts beset by unknowns. They work by analogy, which is a partial pattern-matching. Being able to compare things in many specific respects is valuable in coping with the unknown. But, in all such situations, it is still fundamentally the same thing, logic and identity that is relied on. The unknowns (relevant unknowns, relevant to one's purpose) keep your thinking from fulfilling the criteria of valid induction or deduction, but that doesn't open the door to the arbitrary. Mindy

Somehow, you missed my point. Would you re-read the post this is a response to? Mindy

My take on end-of-life choices is this: You are acutely aware of who you "were," and what you stood for. You take pride in that, and spend your remaining time reviewing and celebrating yourself/your life/the joy you took in living. In this state, it would be impossible not to be as you have struggled to be, and found deep satisfaction in being. To continue just as you have been, to value as you have valued, is the greatest affirmation of yourself and your life you could make. To betray that would be like killing yourself, and worse. It would be killing yourself from that moment on, and retroactively killing everything you had lived for... So, the point about respecting your "whole life," is germane in this sense. There would be nothing you could buy, no indulgences, etc. that might compare to the importance of being true to your self, to the very end. Mindy

The context is this discussion, this thread. Everyone posting here agrees with the importance of morality. Exactly what consists in, in these specific conditions, is just what needs to be figured out. When you say, "...even though they abandobned moral principles..." you are just assuming that the loan would be immoral. We are comparing reasons for believing that versus believing that it would be moral. Mindy

It will be proof whether others admit your position is proved or not. Proving something, and proving it to someone else's satisfaction are two separate things. Not only do you have to come up with the proof, you have to stand alone in your conviction that the point is proved. About one in ten million people actually wants to know when they are in the wrong. Mindy

The question being debated is how morality, objectively, and on principle, applies to the sort of choices that remain to one when his death is predicted to be only months, etc., away. Your comment assumes an answer to that question, rather than proposing reasons why the question ought to be answered one way or the other. So, for example, when you say, "I would want to die with moral pride," that is what everybody agrees on. But what that entails is the question we are trying to figure out. Mindy

I would dispute this interpretation. Long-range considerations in morality exist because man's rational faculty makes prediction, forward-looking, and the planning based on those possible. To farm or manufacture or voyage or marry, man has to consider how his actions will turn out long-range. (As much as possible.) Otherwise he is subject to "shooting himself in the foot:" acting in the short-range in a way that will cost dearly in thge long-term. Ideally, an individual has always been forward-looking, and his past matches the present and likely future. Hopefully, he has led a morally-instructed life that becomes an integrated whole. To achieve that integrated whole it is necessary to live by principles throughout, it is necessary to live long-range. But the specific meaning of "long-range" is not "the integrated whole." Mindy

Let's see...this is a forum for discussing ideas. It is not Nancy Pelosi's throne. Mindy

Yes, as I said. That's clearly a mis-statement of my several arguments in support of the actions of the OP. Are you deliberately mis-stating it, or are you unable to see the difference? Neither is a recommendation for being a moderator. So, my taking a position you disagree with, yet cannot argue successfully against, leads you judge ME as having a character flaw? And this is "uninterested behavior" for a moderator? Mindy

What is moral is what is practical for the goal of living qua man. "Practicality" is not a dirty word. Mindy

I've seen two threads locked. One was closed with an explanation why. The other just got locked up. I think moderators ought to explain why they've locked a thread. You are a moderator and you are strongly opposed to my being a moderator. Why? You chose to make your view public, so it would seem you ought to be willing to make your reasons public, doesn't it? Mindy

I don't get the relevance of your statement to what I said...? Also, take a post that is just abusive of another person. It may have been "warned" or something, I have no way of knowing. So, how can I judge the wisdom and practices of the moderators? Mindy

Why do we need guidance in making "choices and actions?" Because if they are the wrong ones, we are injured or reduced. Given our goal is living and prospering, and that we have to choose how to do so, the principles that guide our choices and actions are those that maximize our living and prospering, and what could be more practical than that? Pragmatism doesn't own the concept, "practical." Mindy

If you were to go to college first, could you get a technical position in the army, even some position that would enhance your education? It's very difficult to deal with your family in this sort of situation. I suggest spending some time, with paper and pencil, writing down the underlying values that you share with your family and jewish society and Israel, such as: you are devoted to being a good person, you think Israel ought to be allowed to exist, you love your family...whatever is true. This way, when you talk with them, you can avoid (well, hopefully) the hysterical responses that by not going into the army you are opposing Israel as a nation, you are rejecting your family members, you have gone over to the devil, etc. Just as jews want to be allowed to live as they see fit, so you want to be able to live as you see fit. Wish you the best in this. Mindy

That makes me think. I've never been warned or otherwise been subject to moderation. Why, then do at least two of our "objective" moderators judge me, in strong terms, to be unfit to be a moderator? There must, on the premise above, be objective reasons, I think those involved are obliged to explain their position. Mindy

Surely that is already the case. I agree that it is required. At the very least, any action a moderator takes should be reviewed by another moderator. In the ideal case, there is very high agreement among moderators as to when and what action should be taken. The work is reviewing the threads systematically with the intent to spot violations of the rules, No? Mindy

The assumed intent of any seller is to get the maximum price for his goods, and if you assume the book-seller meant for people not to take returns on the OP's basis, you should equally assume that the home-seller meant to get as much as he could for the house. I do not see that someone's elses's intentions are my obligation to enforce. I do not create a claim on others' actions just by stating my intentions. Notice that when a declarations page for some program or database one is accessing must be read and agreed to in order to get access, the user must overtly mark that he agrees. The argument seems to be devolving to: any sensible bookseller would have added a clause such as, "return if the item proves unsatisfactory..." therefore, it is incumbent on the public to behave as if he had included that in his explicit return policy. Doesn't that patronize the seller? I once bought a very nice necklace of hand-cut and polished rhodochrosite beads, at a sort of antiques/flea market. I paid twelve dollars for it, when it was probably worth ten to twenty times that much. The owners didn't know what it was, and thus, what it was worth. Was that immoral? I was very pleased with myself. Mindy

That question is redundant over a previous one. My position includes that if the book-seller does not claim all the protections he might, it is not others' responsibility to protect him from himself. I also think that you presume too much as to what is in the book-seller's best interests. If someone puts their house up for sale, for a ridiculously low price, would you forego purchasing it, choosing instead to advise him as to what price he ought to be asking? Mindy