"You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything." When we see the TV series "24" always showing that great and immediate danger sways the intellect to do all sorts of violent actions that are illegal, we see heart taking precedence over logic and saying, "this is the exception that proves the rule." So, Jack Baur shoots his best friend in the leg to make sure the friend isn't holding back some terrorist secrets that just have to known now now now or the atom bomb will be detonated in downtown L.A. Like that.
I'm okay with that. Honest. Turq, for instance, could find a 25 year old beauty who stops by his cafe table and says, "You know, you're an old fart, but I'm built from the ground up to glom onto older men, and you're just my cup of tea. Let's make a go of it and see if we can, by heart and mind, lessen the distances between us." And, it could happen that he and she would have the best of pairings. See? I can imagine exceptions to my own set of general rules. I can imagine it being a good thing to off a terrorist with a killshot before he suicide-bombs Turq's cafe. Though I cannot imagine any set of laws being absolute and always coming up with justice, contrarily, I cannot imagine any culture being successful not having exactly such laws, and thus, I have to have wiggle-room built into the laws. In America, it's the power of judges to make decisions based on intuition. It gives the law a chance for heart to be heard. Turq would paint me as an absolutist, but I'm a ballparkist. Turq would opt to always have the most personal license and walk the world as an anarchist, whereas I would vote for a law that says, "one's right to walk anywhere ends where someone else's flower garden begins." What Turq seemingly doesn't have is the ability to see a young girl's heart as a flower garden. Edg --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > T'would seem we're about to see how much of a > > > "feminist" Raunchy really is. Some Pro-Choice > > > advocates are calling into question Sotomayor's > > > stance on the right to abortion. At this point > > > there seems to be no clear-cut evidence in her > > > writing one way or another. > > > > I'm sure there will be many questions Sotomayor will > > answer. We still don't know much about her. I'm crossing > > my fingers that she at least supports Roe v. Wade. > > I consider this a sane and balanced answer. > > > I can't imagine she would not. > > This I do not. Your lack of imagination > reflects poorly only on yourself, not on > Sotomayor. > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss > > > > > > But isn't it an interesting test of just how > > > "liberal" and "progressive" women like Raunchy > > > really are? The thing I found most interesting > > > in the article is that everyone has assumed > > > that Obama (being Pro-Choice) would have picked > > > a person whom he knew to agree with him. As it > > > turns out, *he never asked the question*. > > > > What?!!! He never asked the question? What a fucking weasel! > > This is an equally unsane response in my > opinion. It brings us back to previous > arguments on this forum between those who > are committed to reliance on axioms and > those who are committed to "doing the > right thing," as it appears to be the > right thing at the time, even if that > goes against an axiom they believe in > generally. > > I am of the opinion that the former approach > (relying on axioms or dogma or moral codes > exclusively) is equivalent to fundamentalism. > And that thus it is not a Good Thing. > > One of the things that I most admire in Obama > is that he is *NOT* committed to axioms. He > is a pragmatist, one whose action in the > moment considers all of the factors impinging > on the decision at that moment. Some of these > factors are axioms that he holds to be true, > but others *are* pragmatic, and if one is > committed to the concept of "doing the right > thing," I don't see how they can support the > fundamentalist notion of "always following the > axioms." > > For example, as I mentioned before in a dis- > cussion with Edg, and as he replied to by > ignoring it completely :-), what if you believe > in a general axiom of "Thou shalt not kill?" > Now imagine that you -- believing that -- find > yourself in a position where you have the oppor- > tunity to kill a terrorist just before he sets > off a bomb that could kill hundreds or thousands > of people. > > What's a believer in axioms to do? > > A believer in pragmatism and being "in the moment" > would assess the situation from *all* sides. The > believer in "axioms only" would probably cause > the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people. > > I believe that Raunchy's characterization of Obama > as a "weasel" for not asking Sotomayor what she > would do in a theoretical situation reveals more > about her than it does either Obama or Sotomayor. > Raunchy, by saying this, is positioning herself > *as* a fundamentalist, one who believes that it > is acceptable and in fact a Good Thing to demand > that the people one appoints to the Supreme Court > believe in the same axioms that you do, and that > they are prepared to act on those axioms, regard- > less of other concerns that appear "in the moment" > that a decision must be made. > > Obama is beyond that. My assessment of the man > is that he does not allow such petty "You have > to believe the things I believe and commit to > doing them or you can't work for me" concerns > to dictate his choices as to nominees for public > office. My assessment of Obama is of a man who > is *NOT* a fundamentalist, *NOT* a person who > attaches himself to dogma and axioms, but one > who seeks the "best possible solution" in the > moment. > > That kind of person I trust with the reins of > government. Someone who would only act on the > basis of some deeply-held belief about the > nature of reality and how one "should" act in > every situation is IMO incapable of *seeing* > reality. And that person I wouldn't trust > with my dog, much less my government. >
