theory: the way normal conversations *don't* die abruptly, reveals something bad about them. it proves they include mechanisms to continue talking even when no one has anything to say! this can go on so much people have to make excuses/leave to end them.
---
conversation similar to relationship. once ppl decide there is one, they all of a sudden start acting differently. and there are special rules to end one.
there are more than 6 countries in the West. by a bunch. therefore the West is anti-semitic.
and the rest of the world is much worse.
i think the worst thing about the romance meme is the criteria for how ppl become romantically attracted to each other. sensible criteria on the matter seem to me things like: current closeness, impressiveness (to you, not in general), interest in person's worldview, shared interests.
one implication of my criteria is that as people became better friends, they would be more attracted to each other. another is not being attracted to someone who's worldview you know nothing about.
the actual criteria are something of a mystery to me. i know appearance is one. i know of the badboy/girl meme. i know people say they want someone "smart, funny, beautiful/hot". i know most people have different taste in friends and lovers (my criteria approximately are what people use for friendship). if anyone understands the romantic criteria better, do comment.
this post first got me interested in ARR.
...in the sense that any Church which doesn't want to marry gays shouldn't have to. And in the sense that anyone who wants to mean a union between a man and a women when he says "marriage" should be allowed to speak this way. And should never be made to use an alternative definition for marriage he finds distasteful.
On the other hand, anyone who likes should be able to speak using words differently.
Government should take no position on the issue of what the word "marriage" means, and should fix the tax code and other laws to deal with "legal unions" or "government unions" or something like that, which gays should be allowed to have.
You may think this post actually constitutes an endorsement of gay marriage. I disagree. Because when I read pro-gay-marriage arguments, I find them bad. For example,
First this is a fallacy - argument from ignorance.
But more to the point: gay and straight are *different*. As long as many people think the differences are important, there really should be two words. You can't argue "gay marriage" and "marriage" are the same without a term for gay marriage, it'd just be "marriage" and "marriage" are the same. Pretending there is no difference and obfuscating with language won't solve anything.
BTW, it shouldn't be called "gay marriage" b/c that term has baggage. Something new and more neutral should be invented. Like "oathbound" would work. I doubt many people would object to gays becoming oathbound anymore than they object to gays who act married without saying it.
-----------
currently, the laws do refer to "marriage", so what is to be done? well, i believe it really doesn't matter much. either way you write the law about marriage you wrong someone. i have no particular position about who should be wronged except to disagree with this one: "obviously the religious bigots should be the ones screwed over". also people who think the answer is "the other people should be screwed", such as Andrew Sullivan, can go to hell.
You meet a guy/girl:
A) want to have sex
B) want to solve relationship theory
You meet a rich person:
A) ask him for money
B) ask him the story of how he got rich
You meet a poor person:
A) give him a quarter
B) ask him the story of how he got poor
C) laugh at his incompetence
You meet a philosopher:
A) ask him what's true
B) tell him what he got wrong
You see a teenager:
A) cross to the other side of the street
B) wish you were younger
You see a politician:
A) tell him the government isn't helping you enough
B) tell him the government is helping you too much
You begin conversations:
A) Hi. How are you? How's the weather over there?
B) Do you understand why people like Pokemon?
C) Die infidel!
You see a psychologist:
A) Diagnose me, doc.
B) Diagnose him with a need to control people.
C) Offer him some marbles
You see a tree:
A) Make a mental note in case you never see another.
B) Exploit it for shade without even paying minimum wage.
C) It's blocking your view. Cut it down.
You see Team America: World Police:
A) That was crude
B) That was funny
C) That was persuasive
Scoring: 1 point for every B. There are 10 questions.
curi42 (4:31:35 PM): here are 2 contrasting approaches: approach 1:
curi42 (4:32:57 PM): jack thinks about what he wants to do the next week. on monday he wants to go swimming, play Quake, and chat w/ Jill about bikes. on tuesday he wants to go to school, play Quake, and go for a walk w/ Jill. on wednesday he wants to cut class and go to the beach with jill, then go to a movie with jill, then play warcraft.
curi42 (4:33:19 PM): and some people might declare, *from the actions*, that they are dating.
curi42 (4:34:11 PM): approach 2: jack asks jill to be his girlfriend. he then decides that b/c she's his gf, they should do things every day. comes up w/ things for each day. may even end up w/ the same list as in approach one.
curi42 (4:34:23 PM): but the difference is, *from the type of relationship*, the actions are determined.
why are tax cuts good for the economy? the common wisdom says b/c they leave people with more money, so small businesses can hire more workers, and consumers and buy more.
however, when the government taxes money, it doesn't disappear. the difference is the government spends it. it still gets spent.
therefore, government must be spending the money in a way that is less good for the economy than the way avg ppl do.
which, of course, government does. what small business would give away money to artists or poor people? businesses use money productively or go out of business. government doesn't.
ok, i admit i wasn't sure i'd like this movie. it has Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson, who i haven't seen in anything for many years. in fact, i turned it on and proceeded to start reading Belmont Club. but then the movie started with a good song, and got my attention. it continued to entertain me. half way through, i'd read a couple paragraphs of Belmont Club. i tried my best, but the movie was just better. then O'Reilly factor came on. i paused the movie and watched that until a commercial. then i muted and put the movie back on. i didn't see anymore O'Reilly factor, it was just less appealing.
the plot involves trying to go on a roadtrip to see the olympics. things keep going wrong, and they miss all the events. but none of the problems get them down, and they have a nice time. the main chars are 4 girls, 3 guys. two pairs of side chars hook up, but the main 2 girls are independent, strong. one turns down dating friend v impressively. the other has a crush on skiing star and gets to meet him.
music - good
acting - unimpressive unless looks counts
mood - happy
themes - v nice
overall - m4d |337
Bush won. Now what?
I will do philosophy.
Bush will save the world.
Isn't specialisation grand?