wordinista: (In vacant or in pensive mood)
[personal profile] wordinista

Because posting my to-do lists on my LJ actually helps me GET STUFF DONE:

Vacuum
Clean kitchen
Empty dishwasher
Laundry (in progress: 1 load washing, one on-deck)
Dust living room
RESEARCH PAPER (goal: 3 single-spaced pages [which I will then convert to double-spaced so I beam at my level of accomplishment])
GO TO HOME DEPOT and get:
      4 3/4"X10' PVC pipe
      24 3/4" PVC end caps (...I may need only 12)
      Adhesive vinyl stripes, possibly found at a sign shop?

I am exceptionally disappointed in the Miami/FSU game -- I know the 'Canes are a freshman-heavy team this year, but a lot of the coaching decisions seem to be more of the same.  Randy Shannon cleaned out the staff, as far as I know, but his replacements don't seem to be doing much better than the previous staff.  I don't know.  I DO know that my boys were able to come back from a nearly 20 point deficit, going into the half with a 3-21 score.  The game ended 39-41, though there were a lot of wacky flukes that happened, which benefitted the 'Canes.  I'm still disappointed they lost this game -- really, this was the only game I wanted them to win.  And they lost by two.  :(

I have a much longer post in mind, re: people's political posts and the posts of people who are Sick to Death of Politics and the consequent posts from the former group, but I have a lot I want to do today, and probably won't get around to writing it.  But here's my basic breakdown:

1.  These are our LJs.  Some of us pay for the space, and some don't, but the fact remains that these are our little corners of the virtual universe, and should be a Safe Place for us to talk about what we like, and what we don't like.  This goes for folks talking about politics as well as the folks who are Sick to Death of reading entry after political entry on their frends lists.  Free speech, yo.  It goes both ways.  (And it really doesn't matter if they're just sick of reading political entries, or if they're sick of politics altogether.  Our LJs are places where we can express ourselves and our opinions, however unpopular.  As long as it falls within LJ's TOS and doesn't fall under the rubric of speech NOT covered by the Constitution, i.e. inciting people to riot or what have you, then people can pretty much bitch about whatever they want to bitch about.)

2.  There is, of course, an excellent argument in "if you don't like it, don't read it," and I support that argument wholeheartedy.  However, as much as we insist that these are our personal journals, putting something out there means that someone's going to read it.  We have our friends lists because there are people with whom we want to share our thoughts.  So it's problematic to say "so don't read my entry" when these are friends we're talking about -- people we ostensibly want to share our ideas and opinions with.  And also, that argument likewise works both ways -- no one HAS to read anyone else's entries.  We choose to.  And by making that choice, we run the risk of tripping across views we disagree with.  It's not fair to say, "If you don't like it, don't read it. Suck it up and deal," because the same can go for whoever's reading those "OMG ENOUGH ALREADY" posts on their f-lists.  If you don't want to read those types of posts, then don't.  But if that continues, there's going to be a whole lot of talking, and not much listening going on.

3.  So maybe it's an issue of courtesy.  Personally, insofar as politics goes, I don't care who says what on their blog.  It's their blog.  It's their space.  It's their tiny little bit of internet real-estate.  I care when huge, long, winding posts (political or otherwise) aren't put behind LJ cuts.  I care when I see the people I like and respect using hateful, vitriolic language against people whose ideas and principles differ from their own.  It's not the politics or lack thereof I take issue with, it's negative, angry, condescending, hateful, and, yes, ignorant language (from either side) that bothers me. 

And it would bother me no matter what the topic; however, politics seems to bring out the worst in a lot of us when we're faced with those whose opinions are in opposition to ours.  Because, for me, that anger and that negativity says a lot about the person, and I'm finding myself disappointed in people -- not in their views, but in the language they're using to express those views.  Now, granted, it's their LJ, and they can say what they want on it, but that doesn't mean that there won't be repercussions later, because "freedom of speech" does not equal "freedom from repercussions."  Does this mean we should censor ourselves on our own LJs?  No, I don't think so.  But there is something to be said for courtesy -- we have friends-locks, LJ-cuts, and filtered locks for a reason. 

People on our friends-lists are our friends, remember, and while I don't condone walking around on eggshells, being worried to speak our minds (I was there myself not too long ago), I think it's important to give people a choice when it comes to reading or not-reading posts that are lengthy, issue-oriented, potentially incendiary, or that otherwise have the potential to carry with them repercussions.  Personally, I try to remember to use LJ cuts, warning people of a rant, a lengthy entry,  strong language, or what have you.  Because while it is my LJ, I understand not everyone wants to read overly long, or exceptionally ANGRY entries. 

...Overly long entries like this one.  XD

Date: 2008-10-06 07:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] w0rdinista.livejournal.com
Well, for me, it's the difference between "morality" and "ethics." Ethics are... slightly different -- morality is based heavily on personal and familial beliefs. For my money, morality is something we've had instilled in us (or not) from an early age.

For instance, I had a student want to argue that abortion was immoral -- but there's no quantifiable evidence to prove or disprove the morality of abortion. You can't measure morality, you can't cite it, and because morality itself is so subjective, and individuals have different moral compasses, it's difficult if not downright impossible to present a coherent argument, possibly because it's more an emotional argument than anything else.

Granted, morals and ethics do cross paths, and while it's sometimes easy to point to unethical behavior and say "That's immoral," it's not always so black and white.
From: [identity profile] darkfrog24.livejournal.com
I have pored over the 'pedia looking for a clear writeup of the distinction between ethics and morals when the two are not used synonymously. The closest I've gotten is ethics as the study of morals, but I'm not sure even that's dead-on. The examples of ethical schools of thought seem more concrete to me than the examples of moral thought, but that might just be because I've seen them before.

So you would have been willing to accept a paper arguing that abortion was or wasn't unethical? Or something more concrete about whether or not abortion/trickle-down economics/cheese whiz sculpting did or did not harm society in some way?


From: [identity profile] w0rdinista.livejournal.com
If I remember correctly, in one of my classes, the prof defined ethics as determining what is right or wrong, but taking into consideration that circumstances influence ethics. Morals, for my money, are less... flexible, rooted more in emotion, and, as I said, more subjective.

Considering that the assignment was for the students to write a research paper, using research and facts to prove or disprove their thesis, I was hesitant to accept any topics in which people were deeply invested emotionally. I was willing to meet with any student who WANTED to write on those topics, and to discuss how they planned to proceed, but reminded them that research papers based on their personal belief system were problematic at best.

So you would have been willing to accept a paper arguing that abortion was or wasn't unethical?

To answer your question, it would have depended heavily on the student, how they planned to conduct their research, what reliable sources they expected to use, and so forth. I can't answer yes or no, because every student's thought process and research paper strategy was different. My first question would have been, "And how do you plan to prove/disprove that?" And my decision would have been based heavily on whatever their reply might have been. (The woman who wanted to write that abortion was morally wrong wanted to cite heavily from the Bible -- something I found problematic for a research paper. She then wanted to write about video games being "morally wrong," at which point, I suggested to her that she could probably make an excellent argument against excessive violence in video games, as long as she recognized that the video game industry does use a rating system. I don't remember what she eventually wrote about.)

I did encourage them to tackle more concrete issues that relied less on "I feel" statements, because, for a freshman/sophomore comp class (a good number of whom consistently struggled with identifying reliable vs. unreliable sources), a research paper dealing with concrete issues would have yielded more research results and citation sources. Less of a headache overall.

But my big thing was "you cannot argue beliefs or personal preference." The analogy I used most often was that if you prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, no amount of persuasion is going to make you believe otherwise. Likewise, no amount of verbiage is going to convince a Hindu it really is actually okay to eat beef.

Profile

wordinista: (Default)
wordinista

April 2011

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272829 30

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 1st, 2025 07:45 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios