New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

gisterme - 08:09pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6035 of 6042)

rshowalter wrote ( rshowalter 6/25/01 3:17pm ): "Are you suggesting that there is no obligation to check things -- that, even when mistakes can do great damage -- it is better for people to stand in the way of checking."

Not saying that at all, Robert. But you're trying to apply your own terms to concepts that already have tried and true terminology attached.

For example, YOUR example of what you mean by "moral forcing"; that it is "moral forcing" when a person feels obligated to rescue a drowing child. Any normal person would just call that "common decency" or at worst "civil duty". There is no moralizing or forcing happening in a situation like that. Folks just tend to do the right thing to spare a life. If you're being truthful about that being your definition of "moral forcing" then I'd suggest you drop the concocted term and use one that other people can understand.

I kind of think that the definition-by-example you gave is a bit deceptive, since you almost always use the term "moral forcing" in a political context, which has no objective parallel to your example. Based on the context of your usage of YOUR OWN TERM, what you're talking about is political mind control/enforcement.

possumdag - 08:09pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6036 of 6042)
Possumdag@excite.com

I was reading ... it concludes:

Conclusion

We opened this introductory essay by claiming that the political advertisement criticizing the Governor George W. Bush was distasteful because viewers do more than simply decode the message as presented to them. They construe a scenario that, in effect, implicates Bush as a perpetrator of hate crimes. Consistent with the theses outlined above, and consistent with many of the arguments made by the contributors of this special issue, we suggest that meaning arises through the composition, completion, and elaboration of a blended mental space that compresses time and causality. A blending analysis for this example would consist of an event space (input 1) representing the murder of Jame Byrd, Jr. a politics space (input 2) representing Bush's refusal to back legislation against hate crimes (i.e., violent crimes motivated by hatred for members of a different race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation), an additional input space representing future instances of hate crimes (input 3), which would include open slots for the perpetrator(s), victim(s), and modus operandi. The blend recruits from input space 1 the role victim and its filler, James Byrd Jr., as well as specific elements of the modus operandi, viz., the pickup truck, chain, and road. Notice, however, that the identities of the perpetrators (who, in reality, have been convicted and sentenced to death) have not been recruited, leaving that slot open in the blend. The blend recruits from input 2 Bush's refusal to sign legislation deterring future instances of hate crimes. The blend recruits from input 3 the immanent possibility of subsequent hate crimes. In the composed blend, Bush's refusal to back the legislation permits a recurrence of the exact same event. In the blend, but not in the future input, a chained James Byrd Jr. is once again dragged along Jasper County roads by a pickup truck. Because viewers are seeing a moving pickup truck with a chain tied to the bumper, it is easy for them to complete the blend by filling the perpetrator slot with the identity of George W. Bush. The compression of past and future makes it easy to remove many links of the causal chain connecting the Byrd incident, the ensuing legislation, Bush's refusal, and future hate crimes so that Bush directly causes the death of another minority. Since past and future are compressed into the viewable present of a thirty-second advertisement, viewers easily sustain the reasoning process by imagining Bush as the driver of the pickup truck and, by implication, as someone unfit to govern. These implications project back to input space 3, which now represents future instances of hate crimes caused by a Bush administration’s laissez faire social policy. Letting this implication arise as a matter of viewer inference, allows the producers of this advertisement to disavow any intent to cast aspersions on George W. Bush's personal character. They let the blend do it for them.

possumdag - 08:19pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6037 of 6042)
Possumdag@excite.com

The use of sound bites and images can give people a concept that isn't based on truth. That's why it is desirable to put 'truth on the table' so that everyone is 'reading off the same page' .. otherwise there is dissonance leading to difficulties in conceptualisation. That the 'Shield' is a value for money workable solution hasn't been accepted by the 'world-mind' ..relates to the fact that there are too many 'holes' for the jello to set.

That there are many words on this thread relates to getting to the truth.

Can a believable list of truths be drawn up for rote learning acceptance ?

possumdag - 08:22pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6038 of 6042)
Possumdag@excite.com

GI: seems to imply there is one code of behaviour for the ingroup and a political code to be used with the outgroup - 'other'

"For example, YOUR example of what you mean by "moral forcing"; that it is "moral forcing" when a person feels obligated to rescue a drowing child. Any normal person would just call that "common decency" or at worst "civil duty". There is no moralizing or forcing happening in a situation like that. Folks just tend to do the right thing to spare a life. If you're being truthful about that being your definition of "moral forcing" then I'd suggest you drop the concocted term and use one that other people can understand.

I kind of think that the definition-by-example you gave is a bit deceptive, since you almost always use the term "moral forcing" in a political context, which has no objective parallel to your example. Based on the context of your usage of YOUR OWN TERM, what you're talking about is political mind control/enforcement. " said GI

possumdag - 08:26pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6039 of 6042)
Possumdag@excite.com

GI: "term "moral forcing" in a political context, which has no objective parallel to your example."

GI seems to be saying that

people in America are to be treated respectfully

whereas

people in the external 'political world' are afforded a political treatment

So what happens at home 'counts', whereas world people can be 'discounted'.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense