What Do You Think Today?

[Iolanthe]

I don't care what it's called - I'll do what Jenn's doing

I prefer Hands, knees and boomps a daisy

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsfmDa4BlHk

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Just kidding Hashi - I'm so varied and inconsistent in my own position that it would ill behove me to criticise anothers. I tend to take things issue by issue rather than as a whole.

It's all good. "Down and dirty" is for the Tank but this isn't the Tank. Thank goodness.

[deer of the dawn]

I think I'll make some popcorn.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I really like popcorn, especially with white cheddar powder to sprinkle on it.

[Vraith]

I don't care what it's called - I'll do what Jenn's doing

Today [and likely other days, too] I think Jenn doing this would be even better:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=deM14SdTqNE

[peter]

We have a daily paper in the UK called the 'Daily Express'. I put it on sale every day, and every day without fail it's leading headline concerns the weather (always bad), Alzheimers (how you're going to get it and what to do to avoid it) and Arthritis (new wonder drug [name] produced by [name] that will cure it with one jab/pill/cream). Such blatant marketing (in the case of the last two) wrapped up as journalism and presented to the public as news (you can almost see the pund signs dripping from the all but drug adverts of the last type) is insulting and surely boardering on the illegal. Why do people swallow this crap?

[Iolanthe]

We used to take the Daily Express, but now we just have a weekly Lincolnshire Echo and the Sunday Express (mainly for the crossword in the magazine that comes with it). Daily papers are too expensive and neither of us had time to read them. C has the Irish Post weekly and reads that thoroughly.

[sgt.null]

is the Express the one with the Page Three girls?

[I'm Murrin]

No, that's the Sun. One of the much worse tabloids.

[peter]

No, that's the Sun. One of the much worse tabloids.

In my opinion the Express could only imrove as a result of the introduction of Page 3 girls (only kidding). Without doubt the press in the UK is in a state of crisis. It's an interesting point that in order to start with the closest to the truth you should begin at the back page of a paper and then work toward the front by which time all pretence at veracity will have dissapeared.

In the meantime will someone please ban the odious practice of cold-calling sales calls, especially the ones where there is a mchine on the other end. So far this morning I have:- won a holiday in Tenerife, failed to collect the thousands of pounds earmarked for me as a result of being mis-sold PEP, lost out by not changing my electricity supplier to Gazprom (or some such) - and I haven't even spoken to a human being yet!

[sgt.null]

No, that's the Sun. One of the much worse tabloids.

but with nudity. try that here in America.

[ussusimiel]

No, that's the Sun. One of the much worse tabloids.

but with nudity. try that here in America.

But!.....But!......But!

We live under Tyrrrranny!

You live in Freeeedom!

I bet you a $1000 that you are freeeer than us! (Oh! No! You can't make a bet!)



u.

[sgt.null]

u - we are free until it comes to sex/nudity. then we have to protect the children.

[Savor Dam]

u - we are free until it comes to sex/nudity. then we have to protect the children.

Protect the children? Last time I checked, children tended to be a result of sex and to arrive among us nude. What am I missing?

[Linna Heartbooger]

How about a sticky 'What Do You Think Today?" thread to sit alongside the "How Do You Feel Today?" thread.

I like this idea!

Okay, so to address the (naked) elephant on the thread, so to speak, ...yuck... wow, what an uncomfortable subject (for me, obviously).
Now let's see if I can move on from that context and see if I can remember what I was thinking today.
(Note: huh, I totally mis-used the "elephant in the room" metaphor; so let's say if I didn't say anything, given the context, I'd have been treating that topic as an "elephant in the room." Or perhaps a rhinoceros!)

I was thinking about the "good people / bad people" dichotomy.
You know, people's personal philosophies often break humans into two neat groups: those who are good, and they are just "really good people," and those who are bad, who are bad to the core, incapable of good and it's a waste of time to even think about reforming them.

Wondering, do we humans tend towards that way of viewing the world more in this age than we did in other points in history?

[Shaun das Schaf]

I think my cat is smarter than I give her credit for, and I already credit her with a high degree of brain.

I was lying comfortably on the couch in an area we both staunchly claim as our own territory, (think Israel Palestine but with less hope of a two-state solution). She was eyeballing me from the arm of the couch. When I refused to cede any land, she jumped down and walked away. A minute later I hear rustling in my jigsaw puzzle box on the kitchen table and get up to discover her throwing pieces on the ground. I tell her to scat and pick up the pieces. She refuses to pick them up so I do. When I'm done, I return to the lounge room where she is lying on the couch looking at me with the smugest look on her face.

Well played cat. Well played.

Hi Linna, I would attempt to answer your question about the human preference for binary simplicity but I started thinking about it and it involved too many factors so I put it back unopened. Perhaps someone whose brain is less broken will swing by to discuss the matter further.

[Frostheart Grueburn]

Which is why Lord Foul would be a cat masquerading as a snake, if TCTC took place in the animal kingdom.

I'm thinking Finns should begin preaching for the authentic sauna culture in the States. There's no evidence whatsoever of nudity harming children, and, if anything, might help promote a healthier body image. Lots of naked people in the church paintings too.

[peter]

I was thinking about the "good people / bad people" dichotomy.
You know, people's personal philosophies often break humans into two neat groups: those who are good, and they are just "really good people," and those who are bad, who are bad to the core, incapable of good and it's a waste of time to even think about reforming them.

Wondering, do we humans tend towards that way of viewing the world more in this age than we did in other points in history?

From my own stand point Lina, which is about all I can answer from, as I get older I'm coming more to see that goodness and badness is a mixture that we all have in us and much more dependant upon our personal beliefs (in terms of what we see as being one or the other in other people) than I had previousely recognised. I have only met I think two people in my life who would qualify (to me at least) as being 'bad to the core' ie having no aspect that I could qualify as being 'good' even knowing them very well. I have met people who others regarded as being nearly saintly who, on close aquaintence, revealed some of the same nastier aspects that us lesser mortals are plagued with, but by and large people are a mix of good and bad and it's up to each of us to recognise our weaknesses and atempt to do the best we can to hold them in check. As the man said, as you go through life try to do a little good if you can, but if you can't manage that then at least try not to do any harm.

A girl was to be given a trial at our shop for an apprentiship placement as a shelf-stacker (in reality a way of by-passing minimum wage legislation by paying half wages to a worker you pretend to be training). She would work for eight weeks on zero wages and then be told whether she had the apprentiship placement or not. If sucessfull she would then work for six months or a year on half the minnimum wage while she was trained to stack the shelves and serve on the tills.

She failed to turn up on the first day and our manager phoned the bennefis office to report this to her paymasters. On putting the phone down she was satisfied to report that the girls small state bennefit payment would be witheld as punishment for failing to take work when it was offered.

"So," I said, "Lets get this clear. Her bennefits are to be cut for not turning up for a job which she didn't have and for which she wasn't going to be paid.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Wondering, do we humans tend towards that way of viewing the world more in this age than we did in other points in history?

No, collectively we do the same crap we have been doing for the last 10,000 years. The only difference is that these days we can put it online for others to see instantly.

[Vraith]

I was thinking about the "good people / bad people" dichotomy.
You know, people's personal philosophies often break humans into two neat groups: those who are good, and they are just "really good people," and those who are bad, who are bad to the core, incapable of good and it's a waste of time to even think about reforming them.

Wondering, do we humans tend towards that way of viewing the world more in this age than we did in other points in history?

goodness and badness is a mixture that we all have in us and much more dependant upon our personal beliefs (in terms of what we see as being one or the other in other people) than I had previousely recognised. I have only met I think two people in my life who would qualify (to me at least) as being 'bad to the core' ie having no aspect that I could qualify as being 'good' even knowing them very well. I have met people who others regarded as being nearly saintly who, on close aquaintence, revealed some of the same nastier aspects that us lesser mortals are plagued with, but by and large people are a mix of good and bad

Peter's blurb here is a good point, and part of my answer...which is:
I think we DO draw the dichotomy more distinctly...especially on the large scale. And the large scale is part of the cause of doing so. The sheer size/expansion of our connections and relationship is orders of magnitude greater and more complex than it used to be. Yet the number of people we know well, thoroughly, deeply is much smaller...so the areas where we don't draw hard lines is shrinking. En masse we probably know less about our own children than previous generations knew about their entire tribe/town.
And it is part of how we work, most of us: when things get to big, too complicated, Rule 1 is simplify. We even train ourselves/each other to do this practically from birth.
Think math [not even real math, just arithmetic]: one of the first things one learns is when faced with the fraction 50/100, or 33/66 is simplify, reduce it to 1/2.
Think Shakespeare: the first two things most are taught are to look up the hard words in the dictionary and take out the stuff between commas if the sentence is long/hard.
The same process is applied across almost all fields...religion, play, athletics, art, and music.
But, those are not always or only the best strategies...very often they directly result in false answers...AND false certainty/confidence.
[A not very commonly known thing outside of some educator circles: There is a strong trend right now to judge teachers, and strategies/methods and curriculum/material taking into account student feedback. Almost without exception, if students say things like "The teacher/material/ etc. was very clear, makes sense, is step-by-step, explained so I understand it well, etc." it is judged as good, effective, etc.
BUT the research shows that the students actually learning the most and performing the best say it is a little UNclear, doesn't quite make sense, only partly understood.]