Skip to main content

An Emotional Moment

This news release makes me very happy, but it was as much about the children in the picture as it was about a victory for gay rights. It choked me up to see children in this crowd taking part in a demonstration like this, and it's heartwarming that they are involved in supporting a cause that is good and just. The parents of these children are to be commended, too, for teaching their children the importance of civil rights and equality. I can only hope that we will be as successful with our own child.

Comments

  1. What is so exciting about that ???????????????????????

    ReplyDelete
  2. That question was addressed in the post. Please re-read.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Good" and "Just" have become subjective terms in today's environment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, it's a good thing this blog is subjective, then! Otherwise, the use of subjective terms might be problematic :-)

    I agree, though. A devout evangelical will not see the cause as good or just, but as "evil" (much the same as I might call an anti-gay movement "evil").

    I see blogs as a tool to give people a voice and let their opinions be heard. So, I see no conflict in being subjective. I would suggest that anything "objective" is really subjective anyway, which you already know.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is true, almost everything spoken or written is subjective, representing one person's perspective. I was just making a point. If one is speaking one's opinion, one should identify it as such. The use of judgemental terms implies to me that the person using them speaks with an authority that may have an imaginary basis.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You can look at "Brig's Maxim's, to see where I'm coming from.
    Almost every debate or exchange of ideas eventually reduces itself to a matter of semantics. N'est pas?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Again, since this is an outlet for my opinions, I needn't qualify everything said with "I believe..." or "In my opinion..." Your logic seems to dictate that I avoid the use of any adjectives unless I'm making it clear that I'm stating an opinion. Something doesn't sound right about that to me. Should we hold the authors of newspaper editorials to the same standard?

    I used the terms "good" and "just" because I believe that the cause is so. The post was about my emotional reaction to the article and associated picture, and I stand behind its content. Adding qualifiers, "in my opinion", would diminish the impact of the emotional experience I was trying to convey.

    Webster's New Millenium Dictionary defines a blog as the following: an online diary; a personal chronological log of thoughts published on a Web page; also called Weblog, Web log.

    I would suggest then, by this definition, that it is implicit that what is being put forth are my opinions. Explicitly designating any posts as such would be redundant.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Very well spoken; I concur. One minor point: some adjectives are more judgemental in tone than others, i.e. "the sky is blue" represents a person's perception, but appears to be non-judgemental - the purpose being identification of a characteristic of the sky; whereas "the weather is bad" is judgemental, (also happens to be meaningless in my opinion). Comprendez vous ??

    ReplyDelete
  9. what's with t.h.e brig's repeated use of french phrases? is this some attempt to appear superior or better educated (or perhaps more intelligent) by using a foreign language (some of which are mis-spelled, and by the way, judgmental is the preferred spelling of that word) and i tend to side with rob on the lack of need for a blogger to identify his bias or opinion. and as far as i'm concerned, you're just being human by expressing your judgment and there's no harm in that when it's done in a non-threatening context or environment. and as t.h.e.brig points out, there really is no such thing as pure objectivity in any written account so let the reader beware (i'm sure there is a latin phrase for that but it slips my mind . . .) or perhaps more appropriately, let the reader be aware. and react in an appropriate and non-offensive manner.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Actually, I was the first to point that anything objective is really subjective, in this string of comments!

    I think "let the reader beware" in Latin would be "Caveat Lector".

    I often forget about the preferred spelling for "judgmental" also. In fact, I think it was only recently that I discovered "judgmental" was the way to go.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is really, like wow......man....like far out....totally awesome!!!!! RADical.
    In addition, intellectually simulating(or do I mean simulcasting)[or maybe stagnating].
    My use of pseudo-francaise was an unabashed attempt to appear superior or more intelligent(of course we know that Robert is very schooled in several languages)[than what ????].
    Thus I am exposed as a bougeouis pseudo-intellectual.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You should have gone the route of saying that you were using a Creole version of French. That may have saved it all!

    Actually, I'm only skilled in Spanish, and that skill has diminished drastically over the years. I am, however skilled in languages such as Visual Basic and C#. I think that counts!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Now here's the meat. My secret motivation for starting this exchange stemmed from my own questioning of the validity of homosexual marriage. In acceptance of modern ways, I do respect the right of each individual to choose his or her sexual orientation, with a consenting adult partner if needed, of course. And also, I believe those who join in a committed partnership be entitled to most if not all of the economic and social benefits of heterosexual married couples.
    I may be exposing myself as ignorant or narrow minded, but the meaning of the word "marriage" as it applies to humans has traditionally referred to the union of a man and woman. I think in deference to the long-standing [almost] universal meaning of the word "marriage", that it would be preferable to keep it that way. A civil union or other such title seems just fine to me.
    I am a believer in tradition to the extent that it is fair and makes sense. I am also a believer in democracy: If the people of a voting entity decide that the definition of marriage should be expanded to include homosexual unions, then so be it.
    I am well aware that the dictionary definition of marriage is not limited to union of man and woman; I am speaking here of traditional usage as it has historically applied to mankind.
    In the Navy we learned to marry two lines together - as far as I know the ends could have been both male, both female, one male and one female, or any combination of neither and male or neither and female.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I realize my last was highly subjective; esp. with words like "fair" and "makes sense" [to whom].
    My reason for belaboring the idea of judgemental subjectivity has some merit. Even in a blog, its nature being that is widely accessible as opposed a personal diary that may be much more private, I believe that it is prudent to minimize the use of words that could be construed as judgemental. I assume that by posting information on the internet on a continuing basis, one would like continued readership. Opinions are expected, and challenging, mind-opening, stimulating, therapeudic, etc., but remember that everyone is entitled to one. If I state my opinion I try to use "factual" information and logic to substantiate what I am trying to say. If I periodically read a newspaper column and the writer resorts to excessive unsubstantiated or judgemental statements, eventually I stop reading that column. In order to establish credibility, one has to demonstrate a degree of objectivity as well as using as reliable sources of information as can be reasonably found. This is true especially when commenting on issues that involve large numbers of people. Anybody can "tell it like it is", but that is just a smokescreen for one's own agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The root of the gay marriage debate, for me, lies in this phrase "the right of each individual to choose his or her sexual orientation". I do not believe sexual preference is a choice, but instead genetic. I may have to use another blog post so I can get into specific citations, but for now, it is a hypothesis based on the small amount of knowledge I have of biology and evolution. If I were more versed on the subject, I might suggest that homosexuality is a mechanism for population control.

    Given the above hypothesis, it would be immoral to deny marriage to same-sex couples, just as it would be immoral to deny marriage to interracial couples.

    Even if science proves us wrong, and homosexuality is a choice, then my position would not change. Anyone who wishes to marry and demonstrate a long-lasting committment to one another should be allowed to do so, and should be commended for entering into such a committment.

    ReplyDelete
  16. shouldn't traditions evolve with time as our collective consciusness is raised? once it was traditional for some to own slaves and for jews (and other minorities) to be forced to live in certain (often not-so-desirable) parts of a community. and as an aside, i'd like to know if t.h.e.brig thinks this posting contains enough "factual" objectivity to warrant the omission of the starting phrase "in my opinion" and rob, did you have to do some research to come up with "caveat lector" or did it just roll off your fingertips . . .

    ReplyDelete
  17. Let's see. I knew of "caveat" from the familiar phrase "caveat emptor". I also knew that the Latin root for "to read" was "lect-". I had to check to make sure that the suffix "-or" was correct. It was, so I put the two together. Of course, I just now discovered that the phrase is defined in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_lector.

    ReplyDelete
  18. We also need to keep in mind that blogs can be a source of entertainment. I often read blogs because I like to see other people's uncensored, unedited takes on situations. Maybe I find the author credible, maybe not, but the opinions make for an interesting read. Many opinions are simply emotional in nature. When we are thinking about things, we don't censor our thoughts, or edit them by using non-subjective terminology; we just think. I see no problem in getting thoughts down in a written format, and writing them in such a way that reflects most accurately your feelings and reactions.

    I've never considered this blog to be a serious commentary on society (though the previous title may have suggested that, which is why I opted to change it). If I did, I probably wouldn't include such posts as "Douchebag in a Bar", or a post about virgin bloody mary's. If I feel that something deserves more serious treatment, I make an effort to be more objective. I do not see a problem injecting a dash of flavor into something I write, however. If the reader wants, they can filter out the factual from the judgmental. In most cases, the two are easy to distinguish.

    The bottom line is "write what you feel". If this blog were entitled "Rob's Editorials", I would then reconsider my writing style. As it is now, I see no harm in including "judgmental" terms. Languages have these words for a reason, and have had them for thousands of years. Why not use them?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I surrender.
    I know that my inquiries have at least been intellectually stimulating.
    Its been fun, but I'm worn out.
    C'est la vie.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree. I've been forced to think, which is a good thing. Time to move on!

    ReplyDelete
  21. I am an unusual person, I think, in the respect that I am not that interested in other people's emotional reactions to "things in general". I have a scientific mind, analyzing things from a problem-solving perspective. In this process I try to apply logical reasoning, attempting to minimize subjectivity and maximize objectivity, thus superceding personality conflicts. So I guess most blogs are not something to which I would be attracted. I'm the type of person that doesn't read fiction, almost exclusively non-fiction. What does that tell you ???

    By "things" I am referring to people, places, events, situations, laws, governments, ballgames, etc.......................................

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Unmasking My Mask Problem

I like to think of myself as a caring person, and attempt to behave compassionately towards others. Sometimes I fall short in that effort, but failing is what humans do, and successful humans learn from failure. I'd like to discuss what I believe is one of my more recent failures, and what I've come to learn about what's behind it. When the masking guidance and mandates first dropped, it short-circuited me. I reacted in disbelief, anger, and refusal to enter places that required masks. Masking was a simple act that was both scientifically and morally justified. I wondered if I really was a decent person, or if this reflexive pushback was just uncovering undiagnosed sociopathic tendencies. I started to wonder if my outward behaviors of positivity and kindness were just facades that I'd constructed around a dark psyche. Given the rhetoric surrounding mask-wearing, which can — as far as I understand — be reduced to “you're a monster if you don't do this,” it was ha

Meditation

At the end of 2019, I began casually practicing mindfulness meditation. Just over a year later, it's become a nearly essential part of my routine; it provides me an off-ramp to ease back into my personal life after an eight-hour (often longer) workday. Some folks have expressed interest in hearing more about this routine, so I thought it would be helpful to chronicle my experiences: the good, the bad, and the frustrating. Buddhism has been an interest of mine for several years now, and I have a particular affinity for the simplicity of Zen Buddhism. It strips away a lot of the religious/spiritual elements more common in forms of Buddhism found in Tibet, for example. I sometimes use the term Zen meditation , when it is probably more accurate to refer to it as mindfulness meditation. This type of meditation focuses on being aware and present for each passing moment. Contrary to popular belief, it's not about emptying the mind or teleporting to some sort of astral plane. It's

Insurrection

The criminals who invaded the capital on January 6th, 2021 are not patriots. There is nothing noble or heroic about violently storming the capitol building and disrupting a legal proceeding that is outlined in the constitution of the United States . Those who took part in — or even endorsed — such actions are seditious goons with an axe to grind because the election results didn't favor them. The events yesterday were a culmination of unhinged ramblings and lies from the occupant of the White House, and years of disinformation emanating from the dark recesses of the web. Finally, there is simply no room for whataboutism here. The events of the summer do not hold a candle to the actual sedition that we witnessed yesterday. The demonstrations — and yes, violence — from this summer were to protest hundreds of years of oppression and marginalization of Black people. To equate those protests to yesterday's domestic terrorism is fallacious and ignorant.