Posts by Sacha
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Can I thoroughly recommend the LATE sessions if anyone is wavering. Like being here, really, with bods and drinks and music and one of the most amazing museum collections all magical because it's night-time.
-
Toes, times - must have been all the talk about footwear.
-
Ian, sorry I was talking about the way your post was structured just like Holmes' rambles on his tv show, not your content. I was confident others had more than enough feedback to offer about that.
I think it's safe to say what used to be regarded as instinctive or universally obvious is subject to social change. Not so long since women were not up to voting, poor dears, and owning slaves was a damn fine idea.
And now we're seeing the pendulum swing against feminist understandings that were ascendant a few decades ago. That's fine to discuss.
However, some of the common arguments do not stand up to the slightest scrutiny and are as old as the hills - so you can imagine people who have heard them many toes before groaning and eventually being quite curt when they get trotted out again. I hope you understand.
-
guys often can't really comprehend the experience
And thank you 3410. Totally agree.
-
Folks, it seems we have a problem beyond the whole "disagreeing with women's gendered experience" one.
However your standard is a good deal north of where I think society should draw the line - that we do not harm or hinder or coerce, beyond that go for it. It is an admittedly low standard, set low so that it maximises the amount of people who can attain happiness.
Libertarians fair crack me up. What they really mean seems to be more like: "set low so that people with power can maximise their happiness". And screw everyone else for being unhappy about that. Gee I wonder why people might find it offensive, and why it is such an unfashionable belief system.
I for one am not about to try reasoning with you. It was more enjoyable hearing people discuss shoes and music.
On that note, a picture of the interior of Megan's lunch venue graces my phone screen. Aspirationally. Still one of the most awesome spaces I have ever sat in, and some of the most impressive food. Envious salivation ensuing.
-
Ian, that list of questions and answers reminded me uncomfortably of Holmes. Shudder.
-
the idea of hurting children is generally perceived as a wrong, but the idea of 'correcting' them can be seen as a counterbalancing 'right' that could, at least, reduce the level of wrongness, and at most, by the more extreme smacking advocates, it could turn wrong into right, on that balance. Different people weigh up the harm from the hurting and the good from the correction differently.
I agree with your assessment of that key driver of the debate.
Laws should also square with our moral intuitions, which are mostly subjective evidence. Being subjective does not put them in the 'entirely irrational' basket. It just means that sometimes more than just science is needed to show why a law is right or wrong.
Can I clarify that I do not mean just "science" when I talk about "evidence". But nor do I mean randomly aggregated or divined intuition. I'm big on story but only when it has some context around it.
When I say 'weigh up the harm', there are 2 prongs to that. Firstly the question of actual damage, which is highly amenable to objective evidence. Then there's 'how important is that damage?', which is mostly subjective.
I do not think it is that clear cut either. "Actual" damage might be internalised psychological and social effects, not just measurable bruises. The "importance" of that is a legitimate subject of research and policy development, not just talkback radio opining.
-
Around here, there seems no such thing as a jack.
Please do describe how to make em pay.
-
A Jimmy Choo is worth a thousand words?
-
Debate about footwear 1?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 … 1971 Older→ First