May. 17th, 2005

aggienaut: (professional mohawk)

   So today was like the worst day ever. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong. But at least once again there were crazy preachers on the quad with signs condemning everyone from Mormons to "computer freaks" and "people who speak to their pets more than God."

   Many people like to heap ridicule upon these preachers, however, I must say I think I might have more disdain for the people who ridicule them. Firstly, no one on either side is going to change their mind in these confrontations. Secondly, honestly worse behaviour is exhibited by the hecklers than the preachers. Trying to smother him in the LGBT banner? Not cool man. Michael Giardina's suggestion here? Exemplary of the mentality of bad behaviour I'm talking about.
   Moreover, the crazy preacher guys are professional arguers. They do this all day every day. I don't agree with them, but I find it very amusing to observe as they twist around the arguments lodged at them by aspiring hecklers. The fact that they do argue repugnant standpoint makes it even more amusing and highlights the fact that a skillful arguer can defend almost anything. Not that they are really arguing well in a pure argument form, rather, they make great use of logical fallacies and other illegitimate tricks, but its the failure of their opponents to catch these that is most amusing to observe

   But the greatest fallacy of all, upon which many of the arguments made against them rely, is the misunderstanding of social desirability and cosmic truth. Much of what was argued by the preacher-opponents was based on the social inadvisability of the preacher's ideas, for example that they hated too many people and/or shouldn't hate certain groups of people. The fact of the matter is that the theological nature of the universe isn't necessarily the most pleasant one imaginable -- it is simply the one that happens to exist. Don't get me wrong, every time someone says you should be Christian because Jesus died for your sins, they are arguing the same fallacy -- that because that SOUNDS awesome and may be a relief to you, it therefore might be true. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true. God could happen to be evil and twisted and we'd jsut have to deal. If you're going to argue theology therefore, your first point of reference should be the foundation of the theology itself - whether there is reason to believe it is true or not, NOT whether it sounds good and advisable.


   Anyway, now that I've offended both the religious people and a good portion of the non-religious people here, I'm going to bed. My pictures from todays events can be found here.

aggienaut: (star destroyer)

   So I woke up this morning filled with regret over somethign I'd done the night before. Filled with regrets and second-thoughts. And my internet access was down so I couldn't see how bad it was, but I had a feeling that I'd written a rash and overly saucy theological rant the night before. Anyway I finally got around to looking it (in the computer lab) and its not as bad as I'd feared, so I'm going to go ahead and make some more saucy comments.

   But first to reemphasize from last night, and on further contemplation since then, I think the single most underrated misunderstanding in the history of theology is whether or not it sounds like it would be a pleasant arrangement has absolutely no bearing on whether or not something is theologically true.


   But now to cause controversy in another area. Military recruitment at universities. For the past two weeks or more the letters to the editor in the California Aggie have been filled with arguments back and forth on this subject. In particular I'd like to single todays letter by one Leah Sicat out for ridicule. Her thesis statement: "alternative information about the military is rarely provided to students. Usually the good side about the military, rather than its connection to war, is presented.   So, what does she want, a warning label similarly to the "caution: hot" found on coffee cups? Caution: military duty may involve war? I mean I try to think of the alternatives when someone argues against something and two occur to me on this subject: (1) as Sicat advocates, have them deliver a stern disclaimer to potential recruits, or (2) the more commonly advocated removal of them from universities. As to point one, I can hardly imagine it being anything other than just that, a stern warning that joining the military isn't a decision to be taken lightly and may bring the participant under hostile fire in a foreign war. I must say however, that I think they should already know that and it seems like a silly solution, though easily implemented if one feels its really prudent.
   And as to point two, this implies there are better places for recruiters to hang out ... like high schools?? If one's believes, as Licat and many others seem to, that military recruiters exploit those who don't see any other opportunities for themselves, it seems like this solution would have the opposite of the intended affect. In conclusion on this point, I think university students are probably much better prepared to intelligently consider the offers of military recruiters than potential other audiences, and more likely to have other opportunities and thus not be compelled to join through "lack of other opportunities."
   And for a grande finale of ruining my sensitivity credentials, two more bonus points. Firstly I'd like to note that Licat refers to herself and others as "students of colour" throughout her article, a term which I personally find racist as it describes persons of european descent as being "colourless" and inherently different from everyone else. But moreover, I'd like to mention the perpetual argument that people join the military for the "opportunities" and are then exploited when they are sent into military operations. There is one reason and one reason only people are paid to be in the military: to fight, or to be prepared to fight. During peace time, military personnel are maintained and paid beyond their necessity because they are being paid to be PREPARED to fight when needed. If one joins the military for the opportunities, but is not prepared to fight, one is being paid for something they are representing to have but in fact do not -- they are committing nothing short of fraud. The military is not a welfare organization whose purpose is simply to provide jobs.

   In other news, my little brother is currently on his second tour of duty in Iraq. Apparently he'd injured his hand before heading out there again, but didn't tell anyone lest it cause him not to be sent to Iraq. I must say that his courage and honest desire to fulfill his duties makes me very proud.

April 2025

S M T W T F S
  123 45
6 7 89101112
13141516171819
20 212223242526
27282930   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 7th, 2025 10:26 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
OSZAR »