Eff's Rambles (Archive)


Arrogance, disingenuousness, and independence

Each has in common an aspect of my principles on blogging, etc.

I try to be modest, though I am not without certitude as to the correctness of some of my arguments arguments and conclusions.

I try not to present my blog as more than it is, and especially not as what something else is.

And, while my overall opinions might not always be independent, I do try to practice one kind of independence (the kind most important to me), that of coming to a conclusion based on my own unique reasoning. Though I am not free from the influence of others, I am the type, and have done this, to debate the arguments of people even when we agree upon the contention. I suspect that can lead some to think my overall opinion on an issue is the opposite of theirs. But that is not necessarily the case. I might just think his argument is bad.


Free vs Unfree and their thoughts on the governance of them.

Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

Why is it right to judge the people of a free democratic nation whose policies one disagrees with, but wrong to hold to account the people of an unfree nation when the former is statistically diverse in agreement with their nation while the latter largely agrees with their nation? The obvious answer is that unfree people should be presumed to have no allowed freedom of expression.

A fallacy with that line of reasoning is that, while the free nation model generally uses objective, or nontheless accurate government, data gathered in a non coercive environment about the stastics of public agreement to government policies, the unfree nations' expression inhibiting laws might or might not prevent specific forms of expression and access to independent data from which their peoples can form their opinions about their governments. So, while reports that such nations peoples are not allowed to say what they feel might come from reputable sources, the actual inaccuracy of said peoples' opinions is difficult to know.

The tendency of some people to judge foreign peoples based on the governments they have over the opinions they collectively express is not always fair. Certainly, apathy and indifference by peoples of free nations which reasons their low voter turnout is not an excuse, but nor does this mean that it's accurate to say that the apathetic few agree with all that their nations have done and intend to do, nor is it correct to claim that they always could know what their governments were going to do.

Political Compass (this is my 150th post)


Thank you, Cunningham.

In American news (prepare to be bored), a Republican Congressman admitted to taking bribes. Good, now, unlike the immature rationale of jumping after I Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Tom DeLay before they are convicted, there's a solid basis for going after Randy "Duke" Cunningham, his aforemented admission. Here, folks, is a fair target. Whether or not anyone should show mercy based on Cunningham's public apology is an individual choice, but not showing much, if any, mercy is understandable.


Do you understand individuality and freedom?

The importance of that question is not only to discover others and your own understanding, but if there's an acceptance of the consequences of all variations of the concept.

There is, no doubt, a debate about the needs of the many versus the few. And when one should win over the other is difficult to decide. But, what's disturbing for me is the seeming lack of appreciate, respect, or whatever the term might be, for individual liberties which are contested against by statistical arguments. Why does that bother me? A statistical argument, if accurate, is generally valid. Isn't that correct? I suppose. But it's not always accurate, but, moreso, it's not always valid because of its accuracy. An important thing about individual liberties is that they in part exist because of public respect and tolerance, and its acceptance of the possible negative consequences of the exercise of those liberties. So the question in this context becomes: Whether or not it's about life and death, should we supercede liberties for the sake of a statistical improvement?


Illegal Immigration: A controversial perspective on evil.

I do not think of myself as being anti immigration. I do think that strong border security is nationally vital, and that a nation has the right to impose limits on who can come into it, but based mostly on the principle of consistent application of law and what a nations capacity is to absorb immigrants. I also prefer to call a spade a spade when it is inarguable. It is purely disingenuous to call an illegal immigrant anything other than what he is, illegal. And, now, I am going to call a certain type of immigrant rights advocate, anyone fitting the following model, evil.

Those who break laws to assist illegal immigration and attack anyone challenging them on it.

What makes them evil is not their intent, which I must presume for a given person of that type, for fairness' sake, is good since there is a compassion component to consider. And their methods have some bearing, but those are not the main bases for my contention.

What makes some of them evil is that they are willing to impose upon their own society potentially massive disruption and risk by forcing into it a foreign element (illegal immigrants, who, in some cases, if not most, they know little about), and care more about their one sided morality than how their fellow citizens could be effected and how they feel about illegal immigration and law breaking methods to aid it. This is not to say that I know illegal immigrants to be responsible for most social burdens, such as criminal acts, etc. Illegal immigrants might be the most productive members of the societies they came into. But every person, his character, his willingness to behave within his society's social norms is an unknown element at birth. This unpredictability is problematic enough, and it is unfair to alter the field of life in a nation by adding a person not present by abiding with the law. Native born people are automatically within the law, thus the field is not fundamentally uneven. Some nations might have an economic necessity for the cheap labor illegal immigrants are willing, or not, to provide. Unfortunately, too many of them are exploited and enslaved. But that necessity is strongly contingent on the actual unwillingness of a society's own native people to take on certain types of jobs, and the actual economic necessity of those jobs and related businesses. While arguments that the moral necessity of a business and the job it provides is because of its emotional value to some people and communities might be natural, such is a standard that is potentially counterproductive because it could exist in an almost any economic hypothetical on this matter, and not everything can exist at the same time.

The evil, again, is that some of them do not care what happens to anyone else as long as they follow their own conscience. And they will cite statistics to downplay concerns about their actions. The problem with that is that statistics, while possibly having a myriad of other problems like the methods used to come to them, subjectiveness in their relevance, et al, might not preclude all of the concerns given by those protesting what the assistors of illegal immigration are doing. While knowing this, the law breakers would still defend their actions by continuing on with their argument of improbability. The fact that high improbability means exceptions must exist means little to them. They are doing good, according to them, and any negative consequences are acceptable, for only an evil and selfish person would object; a racist, bigot, etc. That is the thinking of many of them, and they are evil for it.

If I receive angry responses which disrespect the context of this post, in each of their authors you shall see a supporter of the evil.


Tossing in some silly fluff.

You are a Self-Discoverer

You're not religious, but you've created your own kind of spirituality.
Introspective and thoughtful, you tend to look inward for the divine.
You are distrusting of all forms of organized religion.
You especially dislike religious gurus and leaders, who you feel are charlatans.

Your World View

You are a fairly broadminded romantic and reasonably content.
You value kindness and try to live by your ideals.
You have strong need for security, which may be either emotional or material.

You respect truth and are flexible.
You like people, and they can readily make friends with you.
You are not very adventurous, but this does not bother you.


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click