Eff's Rambles (Archive)


So, here's a request.

Well, for any persons so inclined, for whatever reason(s), to actually read my blog, I'd like a response to something. You might have noticed that I spend most of my time expressing my method of reasoning, or how I woud idealy like to do think about a given subject. Assuming I'm not so poor in writing and grammar overall that you need a translator to make sense of it, maybe you could explain to me who, if anyone, I emulate, to whatever degree. Perhaps I speak pure drivel and use the worst logic possible. If that's true, I accept that. Still, I wonder how flawed my thinking really is. I wonder which is more or less flattering, being compared to a philosopher or just being called unique. I think I'll be lucky if uniqu is the word people use.

Ok, so if you are out there, skim however much you want and tell me about myself.


Sources, context and bias.

So I got to thinking, somewhat inspired by message board threads about moral standards and applying them equally, about whether or not human rights organisations that denounce certain acts are being objective or speaking in unfair objection toward some when they criticise everyone for the same effects of their acts no matter the justifications any of them give. Is it really, as I believe most would call it, a left wing bias that forms their opinions and guides their standards? I do not know. But nor can I say it is fair even if it is not, let alone is.

I suppose it could be said that death is death. But I cannot look past the moral reasoning behind an action. While many believe that no murder can be justified, not all deaths are murder.

A problem that any organization faces is politicization of its method of criticism. It would be of great risk to credibility to accept one justification over another, especially when the justifying arguments apply to many sides.

I think there is always a risk in using statements from human rights groups, even ones with consistently applied standards. If they criticise everyone, it does not take into account contextual considerations that might, to some, justify acts committed or resulting without intent and, or, desire, by some. But if it does accept one justification, despite stated goals of ending inhumane suffering no matter where it is, it shows partiality which lessens its right to judge others, according to some.

Even when they are being consistent, one could say a bias exists, just not without question one of malice. Perhaps more one without consideration.


War and validation.

Honestly, this is getting on my nerves. Let's see if I can make this clear. War has one validating purpose, winning. Whether war did or did not end some ideological terror imposed on people is beside the point. If one nation defeats another, whether in defense or as the agressor, war has served its purpose. War isn't suppose to solve every consequence before it and thereafter. If you win, your war was validated. The only thing that might invalidate war is illegality and, moreso, non necessity. There'd have to be near countless wars for it to have a large enough effect on society to mold it into a kind of paradise. I hate how people expand war into something that exceeds its purpose.


On the Subject of Moral Judgements Upon Past Choices.

Normally, from my experience, some one will bring into question the fairness of negatively criticising a choice made in the past, by making a reference to the context of the time of the decision. I'm among such persons guilty of that sometimes vague questioning of how objective a critic is being. When the reference is specific, it might be correct to say that the context issue is meant as a direct defense as opposed to an implied one, depending on the subjective perception of one present at the debate.

But vagueness is incomplete; a suggestion that there might have been justification for a past decision because of existing reasons and hypothetical ones, with our without a basis in the reality of the time, does not prove that the decision was the right one. As to whether not there is such a thing as a "right" decision, that is a concern which I might not be able to address.

Perhaps what should be of concern to one criticising a past decision, is if it the criticism is morally consistent.

And here lies a major problem. Is it a moral code, absolutely applied, that is best, or is it better to use circumstantial rationalization?


Pedophiliac Obsessiveness.

I wonder, and this is not a deep thought but, perhaps, a question with a complicated answer, how obsessed can a person?

Based upon the speculation I have heard about the case against Joseph Edward Duncan III, it would seem he likely put the children through some or all of the following.

  • The witnessing of the subjugation of family and friends (in the case of the boyfriend of their mother).
  • The fear in each.
  • The murder of all three.
  • The brutalizing of themselves, witnessing each other's horror.
  • Seeing the other die.
  • Being helpless throughout all of it.

If Mr Duncan is guilty of these 3, likely 4 murders, and the motive turns out to be obliging his own perverted satisfaction, he would revile the man that apparently beat his own daughter and someone else's daughter to death over, as I understand it, some curfew violations and a few petty acts. I think he might have accused the daughter of stealng from her mother's purse. I don't remember enough details about the case to really go searching for it.

Shasta Groene is probably scarred badly by all of this, and her father is left with a terrible burden. I would not be surprised if she has nightmares about something terrible happening to him; goodness forbid that ever to happen. Both have issues to face and wounds that might not heal to where they can live in "relative" comfort. I would not know how I could handle it.

I saw some of the surveillance footage of Shasta with Mr. Duncan. She looks so small. Truly a sickening situation and horrific ordeal for the innocents involved.


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click