Jump to content

Fantastico

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    546

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by Fantastico

  1. Fantastico
    I saw a new movie last night. It had been a while since we have been able to get out, especially with the war going on. The film moved me like movies moved me when I was a child. But it really was not a good movie at all, just a few scenes had that special touch of movie magic. You know the kind, where a tear drips without you realizing it or you choke up a bit and feel silly about it... and then just sit back and revel in and savor the moment.
    We returned from the theater and listened to some music. A song moved both us like I do not remember being moved since I was a child.
    As we danced past the green room, I saw all of the FA work piling up, diplomats to vet, embassies to break ground on, new alliances to visit. I turned to the First Lady and we hit shuffle on the presidential ipod.

    Tomorrow is another day.
  2. Fantastico
    Whenever there is a controversy on Planet Bob we are reminded to "do something about it."
    The most publicly recognizable way of "doing something about it" here is dropping or making treaties or going to war. This also is why "might makes right" continues to be such a popular language. It is a language we think we understand.
    Contrary expressions include right makes might , or even right makes right . Both expressions were seen leading up to the Karma war, but now they are largely forgotten or ignored as meaningless or impossible.
    No matter what our goals or motivations are as leaders here, do we have any hope of moving beyond might makes right ?
    If yes, how?
    If no, why not?
  3. Fantastico
    "E-lawyering" is a term that seems to be thrown around Planet Bob with increasing frequency. In RL, e-lawyering refers to trying to act the part of a lawyer who is really an attorney-at-lol, or more broadly to someone who is trying to be something they are not.
    On Planet Bob, e-lawyering is used as an attack mechanism to discredit those who suggest "over-analysis," counter-analysis or even just a closer analysis of some issue of contention.
    In other words, to a few of you out there, e-lawyering does not mean what you think it means. Asking for a closer analysis of an issue or saying the debate is not over yet is not the same as e-lawyering.
    E-lawyering oftentimes is used to attack those who want to give a closer analysis of issues others do not want to see analyzed. That's why we see it used so much to kill debate in Alliance Politics. Indeed, in the context of Planet Bob, this very post probably will be called e-lawyering.
    There are many fallacies those who use "e-lawyering" depend on to attack their opponents this way here. Some of the most common are:
    The Either-or-Fallacy: The author asserts that a complex situation can have only two possible outcomes; one is necessary or preferable.
    Hasty Generalization: The author bases a conclusion on too little evidence or on misunderstood evidence.
    Oversimplification - The author waters down the relation between causes and effects.
    There are many more, but these seem to be the most in use I've seen lately.
    Claiming the unholy presence of "e-lawyering" does not end any debate or make you look any smarter or even right. It shows you give up. Deal with that, and think harder unless you just really don't care to have your opinions challenged. You can say that and people will stop debating you.
    Yes, it seems e-lawyering is really just another way of saying "hey, I am tired of this debate and you are not going to change my mind."
    In Planet Bob terms, it is the new "No U."
    That is all... for now. As always I am open to feedback for revision and rewriting where I might have made mistakes.
    Also, thanks go to astronaut jones' blog on trust for some of the inspiration for today's blog post.

  4. Fantastico

    Of Pride and Prejudice

    By Fantastico,

    We all seem to agree that pride and prejudice have turned this war into a "great" one. Upon learning of this, Ms. Austen asked to share a few thoughts:
    I cannot fix on the hour, or the look, or the words, which laid the foundation. It is too long ago. I was in the middle before I knew that I had begun.
    You expect me to account for opinions which you choose to call mine, but which I have never acknowledged.
    To yield readily--easily--to the persuasion of a friend is no merit.... To yield without conviction is no compliment to the understanding of either.
    It is particularly incumbent on those who never change their opinion, to be secure of judging properly at first.
    They walked on, without knowing in what direction. There was too much to be thought, and felt, and said, for attention to any other objects.
  5. Fantastico
    In a world where allegiance to treaties is revered more than the consideration of other principles of good conduct, an increasingly popular trend on Planet Bob is to seek refuge in believing in the possibility of various conceptions of amorality. At first glance, it seems alluring since amoralism promises a place where we can avoid some of the dilemmas in our world's more bitter and divisive politics.
    Unfotunately, what amoralism really asks of us is to be selectively perceptive in analyzing such dilemmas.
    Some amoralists claim we can act responsibly by avoiding considerations of right and wrong in our decision making. Such a belief is not only self-deluding, it is even more naive than the beliefs of some of the most ardent moralists. While the moralist begs us to see it one way over another, the amoralist asks us to close our eyes and ears and perceive nothing at all.
    It is no more possible to follow an amoralist foreign policy than it is to believe the presence of dawn and dusk means there is no day. In Planet Bob terms, a truly amoral foreign policy would give no value to following treaties or place any importance on alliance affinities and friendships. Indeed, if we follow it to its logical end, amoralism rejects the value of any meaning in anything at all.
    Amoralists ask us to deny the nature of what we are as thinking creatures. Yes, we have conflicting views over what might be right and wrong. That is why relativism is so hotly debated.
    Amoralism follows as the coldest and most illogical step from moral relativism since it claims even debate is meaningless or pointless. It is not logical to argue that the existence of conflicting viewpoints means such viewpoints are necessarily meaningless. If we continue to follow the logic of the amoralist what we see is a belief in nothing, not even logic itself... indeed, not even in the possibility of amorality.
    In the end, I see amorality as little more than a philosophy of absurdism or even lazy thinking that thinks it believes in something greater by believing in nothing at all.
    Morality will always be in play in politics and in war, no matter how much we want to assert or believe otherwise. Rejecting engagement in or judgment of morality during such times is little more than an extreme expression of logical and philosophical isolationism.
    I welcome any of your IC thoughts, rebuttals and/or insults.
×
×
  • Create New...