Comments for Tennessee Alliance for Progress

Comment on Buddha deconstructing Star Trek: Politics is church, not shopping by Ferinannnd

Ferinannnd — Mon, 25 May 2009 05:56:32 +0000

Согласен, что пост получился удачным. Хорошая работа!

Comment on Buddha deconstructing Star Trek: Politics is church, not shopping by reliaquote.com

reliaquote.com — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:10:03 +0000

reliaquote.com…

[...] PURPOSE OF LIFE» Blog Archive» Short term Solutions[...]…

Comment on TAP-ping into Restorative Justice: Continuing the Legacy of Harmon Wray by Clendyendore

Clendyendore — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:21:40 +0000

очень занимательно было почитать

Comment on Have a Little Faith In Us by M'buze momi

M'buze momi — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 04:04:20 +0000

hi,
i just have ONE question: is possible to have more information about ” Malika M’Buze Moore”? coz i got the same family name than here and i’m from ex-zaïre. wanna know if she could be my sister.
thanx

Comment on TAP-ping into Restorative Justice: Continuing the Legacy of Harmon Wray by Recent Links Tagged With "teacher" - JabberTags

Recent Links Tagged With "teacher" - JabberTags — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:04:27 +0000

[...] public links >> teacher TAP-ping into Restorative Justice: Continuing the Legacy of Harmon… Saved by luizfelipecrb on Thu 02-10-2008 “Teacher, can I borrow the gun?” Saved by [...]

Comment on Buddha deconstructing Star Trek: Politics is church, not shopping by Dylan

Dylan — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:46:22 +0000

Eric, I’m glad to see you’re giving some thought to Haidt. I think your Star Trek analogy is helpful.
I would say you do seem to still be struggling with the sin/purity dimension still. I think it is best to consider sin/purity as emotional more than rational. You know how Haidt argues that moral disgust occurs very quickly, and only after this do people think through it and attempt to rationalize this disgust in terms of morality. I think this is the best way to think about sin/purity. For instance, when you hear about a man in Atlanta, GA using 100,000 gallons of water in a month during the severe draught last year. When I heard of this, anyway, I became disgusted with the sheer audacity of this action (emotionally disgusted not rationally). Haidt would argue that this was because I recognized it as sinful, only afterwards did I rationalize such anger by thinking that not every one is able to use that much water, so he shouldn’t be able to either (fairness dimension). Also the level of anger may well be greater than what it should be if you took a purely utilitarian view of how much damage this one person was causing to the ecosystem (becuase in fact this one person, even with this conspicuous consumption would not be much of an environmental problem if everyone else conserved well.)

Comment on Buddha deconstructing Star Trek: Politics is church, not shopping by Nell Levin

Nell Levin — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:53:26 +0000

Eric: This is interesting and even spiritual(!) Where I got confused was where the Haidt quote said supporting multiculturalism, bilingualism and immigration would weaken the integrity and identity of the collective. What is he suggesting here? The red flag went up for me b/c this sounds like a move towards discrimination against the “other”, as Lerner calls it, and could lead to facism. How do you read this?

Comment on MORAL POLITICS reduced to 5 pages by etbnc

etbnc — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:07:28 +0000

I think of Lakoff’s explanation as a model. It’s one model. There are others, of course.

Most models are wrong.
Some models, however, are *useful*.

I have found Lakoff’s model to be a very, very useful analytic tool.

Thanks for providing this summary. Folks who want to know more about this model will find value in Lakoff’s book, _Moral Politics_.

Cheers

Comment on Why the bumper sticker? by Unsaid

Unsaid — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:58:53 +0000

Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation Anyway … nice blog to visit.

cheers, Unsaid.

Comment on MORAL POLITICS reduced to 5 pages by Rob Hebert

Rob Hebert — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:59:12 +0000

I have to say that I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that conservatism is defined by discipline and liberalism by nurturing. It’s a false dichotomy, and one that relies on a very static understanding of our culture. I don’t consider myself to be part of either end of the spectrum (in the interest of full disclosure, I’m a pretty hardcore libertarian). If you look at either party’s platforms, I think you can make a strong case that they don’t break down upon these lines.

Liberals “discipline” corporations for polluting, for creating carbon dioxide, and for making windfall profits, while conservatives “nurture” life by preventing abortion and outlawing cloning, and stem cell research. I don’t agree with ANY of those positions. But I think it’s interesting that if a conservative tries to pass anti-abortion legislation, they think they are nurturing unborn children and liberals think they are disciplining teenage mothers. Same deal with carbon legislation: liberals think they are nurturing a healthier environment, but conservatives see them as disciplining energy companies.

You could go down the line with any hot button issue:
The war in Iraq can be seen as retribution for or prevention of terrorist attacks.
Immigration crackdowns can be seen as disciplining illegals or nurturing citizens (as in, protecting their rights to security and property).
Debt forgiveness could be seen as disciplining predatory lenders or nurturing people who need a financial leg up.