Wisdom and Folly Blog - Latest Comments

Re: Calling it Quits

machinephilosophy — Wed, 08 May 2013 19:50:06 -0000

No broadcast, cable, or satellite here, just Netflix, and we're running out of things there, even the documentaries. Mediawise it's a wasteland, but Netflix at least permanently broke the TV habit.

Re: Why Illegal Drug Use is Immoral

quickiB — Thu, 02 May 2013 21:38:59 -0000

I realize that many Christians mean well when they talk about illegal drugs and why they should be illegal, but it is actually quite hypocritical for Christians to support and condone what is done in the Drug War in the name of fighting drugs and addiction. "Christian" poltiicains and their bases have continually supported increasingly draconian punishment for those who refuse to comply with their ideology. The fact that people get so upset about a few thousand deaths a year from individual substances is astounding when one only looks at the hundreds of thousands of alcohol-related deaths, the tobacco-related deaths, and especially gun-related deaths. Close to a million people have died from gun violence since the 60's, and yet those same Christians who condemn the immorality and the evil of drugs fiercely turn around and support guns. The only difference between guns and drugs are that one is predominantly externally-destructive (guns) and the other primarily internally-destructive. That's not to say that nobody else but the drug user is affected, but rather it is nobody's place to legislate that. You want to talk about how evil drugs are? Look at what's been done to drug users by the very government that is supposed to protect them. They are thrown in jail for inhumanely long sentences for no reason, carry a criminal record no different from the David's Star in Nazi Germany, taken away from their families, bankrupted, the list goes on. You tell me with a straight face that these drugs could do more damage than the puritanical culture that crucified anyone who dared to defy "moral society" and put whatever substance they wanted into their body. That is not your right to legislate. You don't want to do drugs? Fine, but don't expect for everyone to stick to the straight and narrow that you choose. Freedom of religion is no different from the freedom to use whatever drug you want. Religion is just as narcotizing as the most "dangerous" drugs, and it leads people to do much more harm than good, aka America, the home of the free (or the 2.5 million imprisoned). But yeah, drugs are baaad!

Re: Planned Parenthood and Infanticide

Cindy Lou Who — Thu, 02 May 2013 14:50:21 -0000

God have mercy on those individual who believe/argue/conceive/ participate in the concept that it is okay to killing a living human -period!

Re: Taylor University Ethics Bowl Team Finishes #2 in the Nation!

Lezlie Z McCrory — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:49:26 -0000

That is great! I'm glad you got an official, external award for your hard work. Congratulations!

Re: Planned Parenthood and Infanticide

Xan — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:08:04 -0000

As I'm sure you're aware, Michael Tooley is also numbered among those who argues for the moral permissibility of infanticide (in his article, "Abortion and Infanticide").

Re: New Book: God and Evil

Kait Dugan — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 23:53:48 -0000

Sounds fascinating, Dr. Spiegel. It would be fascinating to get a theological perspective on evil from a theologia crucis though some of the chapters seem to nod in that direction.

Re: Taylor University Ethics Bowl Team Finishes #2 in the Nation!

Penjammin — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:34:19 -0000

Congrats!

Re: Taylor University Ethics Bowl Team Finishes #2 in the Nation!

John Brashier — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 18:57:10 -0000

Congrats Sir Jim!

Re: Why Beauty is an Objective Quality in the World

Carry NewMan — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 02:38:30 -0000

It is laughable how he even thinks he is right. First off his first reason is so beat around the bush that I couldn't even see what the hell he was trying to say. It was more a jerk of a father who just wanted to cheap shot his kid to be an ass. The second reason is exactly what's wrong with the social aspect of humanity in general. Just because a lot of people like it doesn't mean it's good. His theory of objectivism at its root is preaching to the world a glorified if you don't agree with my opinion you're wrong, and the moment you realize I am right you are enlightened to what true beauty is. Holy crap what a narcissist! What a sick nazi! Look at it closely. He says that the elite professionals of the high art society that have been appointed as the judges of great art agree over the years on what is good art, that it can't possibly be due to random chance. He completely ignores how humans function. Their internal desire to be accepted warps their judgement to conform in a society based culture benefiting more from a unified decision that brings on a false sense of security and demeaning those who share a separate opinion, downright attacking those behind the scenes because they are offended. And why do such people succeed? Because they are the ones with power, with money and because of that the poorer MAJORITY seek to be a part of the SPECIAL ELITE that have been glorified and perceived as living better FULLER LIVES. It is sick to say that it's fact that the pompous arrogant and rich minority get to set the standards of OUR LIVES because they are in a position that warrants worship because IF WHAT I BELIEVE KEEPS ME FROM MONEY, A BIG HOUSE, A GREAT JOB AND FRIENDS THAT ARE JEALOUS OF ME THEN MAYBE THEIRS SOMETHING WRONG WITH WHO I AM AND WHAT I BELIEVE IN AND IF I CHANGE TO FIT THEIR COOKIE CUTTER SYSTEM OF BELIEFS MAYBE I CAN HAVE WHAT THEY HAVE AND BECOME GODS LIKE THEM. His third point is so immature I questioned if the freaking idiot lived in a box his whole life and never went online a day in his life to look at freaking comments on youtube or any social media site. The guy is completely oblivious to how hormonal our opinions are! Of course we change our minds about things, ESPECIALLY ART. Damn it man even our education system says their various tests on what kinds of learners we are change depending on our damn mood. You know the ones. They determine if we are visual audio or tactile learners. They say it every time before you take it that you can completely turn around what it says if you take it again immediately after you just finished! People always change their minds on a whim it's why relationships are so damn difficult. What could possibly be more self indulgent than saying,"I'm glad you see that I was right, this song was beautiful. Be thankful you are enlightened to what is inherently beautiful by sheer fact, as the very universe made this work so that none may ever question it's beauty and thus there is no one person in the entire planet alive or dead that could ever look at these works and not bow to the magnificent beauty it was born with." You freaking psychopath I dare you to take any of those stupid pieces of art and take it to someone in lets say a middle eastern country or African colony that has never been exposed and TAUGHT TO ADORE THEM and see how they feel. If they see it as nothing, are you to say they just aren't EVOLVED ENOUGH TO COMPREHEND AGREEING TO YOUR LIKES AND DISLIKES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLANTED AND SUPPORTED BY A SOCIETY HELL BENT ON KEEPING TO NORMS AND CODES OF CONFORMITY TO PROTECT THEMSELVES IN A FRAGILE SOCIETY HORRIFIED TO CONFLICT AND THE INEVITABLE DISSEMINATION OF THEIR GODLESS "SAFE HAVEN." You're sick if you thought this could possibly exist. There is no one true beauty, humans are inherently different, and the reason we agree as a majority to like certain music is because it is socially acceptable, just look at people who like metal or rock or country. If these were as glorified now as in their prime, we'd think these were the true beauties of music, but no. People changed their minds to go with the floor, and now something seen as heretic during the classical, rock and jazz ages -electronic music- is popular and growing as the expected norm around the nation to be liked, and hipsters were born as a pop culture anti culture, because they see that it's also cool to be against the system. Why it's bigger now is because the internet and social media allow these people to make a society dedicated to these tastes and beliefs. Next time you say your views are universally beautiful as a fact of life, you should ask the people actively rebelling against everything you thought was real to begin with long before you were ever born and raised to appreciate the sick desires of the detrimental narcissistic rich and powerful.

Re: The Best and Worst of 2012

$3857984 — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:50:52 -0000

Also, the science fiction genre in general tends to be rather secular.

Without its realism being diminished, I can assure you.

Re: The Best and Worst of 2012

$3857984 — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:42:10 -0000

Actually, all kidding aside, I do realize both Sweden and Japan have religious histories, but they could hardly be considered overtly religious now.

Actually, what would be unrealistic in these countries would be ANY reference to God.

At least to the extent of it carrying over any significant meaning.

Re: The Best and Worst of 2012

$3857984 — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 07:10:27 -0000

False dichotomy?

I wasn't the one making a comparison.

Saying the characters were too secular and contrasting it against your faith is, however, a comparison.

Re: The Best and Worst of 2012

$3857984 — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:12:38 -0000

Japan and Sweden are rather secular.

Are they even real? lol

Re: The Best and Worst of 2012

Jim Spiegel — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:31:29 -0000

Tristan, you missed my point, which was about the lack of realism in the Hunger Games, as opposed to an insistence that it must somehow be a Christian film to be good, which would be silly. But I do appreciate you giving me good examples of two logical fallacies in one comment (straw man and false dichotomy). Well done!

Re: Hodgepodge

$3857984 — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:58:29 -0000

If you enjoyed Brian Greene's Nova presentations based off of his books then I highly recommend the books!

Fabric of the Cosmos is a bit challenging a read for newcomers to physics, though. It's a mid level read. Nothing too complex, but he does get into some equations and more complex analogies than the standard popular cosmology/physics lit. Still, extremely well written with a lot of good information.

If you really want your mind to be blown, read his book The Hidden Reality.

Re: The Best and Worst of 2012

$3857984 — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:51:34 -0000

Because Hunger Games wasn't drenched in Christian superstition and lacked supernatural assumptions about an afterlife it was a... "problem"?

Everyone's taste are their own, but I do have a friendly suggestion.

Maybe next time, try holding back on your presuppositions and look at the art for what it is, then judge it on its own merits instead of holding it hostage to the teachings of a couple thousand year old fairy-tale book.

You can't read Catcher in the Rye and say, well, it wasn't Christian enough. You can't read Shakespeare and say, well, it wasn't Christian enough. You can't read Harry Potter and say, well, it wasn't Christian enough.

These works weren't Buddhist enough either. Ah, but you see, the point is moot.

These works weren't meant to be "Christian" in the first place. That's simply not an assumption you can bring to the table.

Re: Unreasonable Doubt—Answering Some Critics

$3857984 — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:24:58 -0000

I've been with my secular Buddhist/nonbelieving wife for 9 years. All my Christian family and friends are twice and thrice divorced. I must be immoral to some arbitrary Christian standard. Maybe if I get divorced a few times I can be moral like all these Christian examples we have!

Re: The Best and Worst of 2012

Andrew Wolgemuth — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:33:28 -0000

I love these year-end Spiegelian summaries. They're always entertaining...and they help me identify stuff to do in the New Year (e.g. "The Artist" has now been promoted to the top of our NetFlix instant queue).

Re: | Wisdom & Folly

Barney Garwood — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:37:36 -0000

Hope to hear of a great 2013!

Re: | Wisdom & Folly

Jason Kanz — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:45:04 -0000

I really like this post, not so much for the content, but for the interaction. The two of you provide a glimpse of yourselves, individually and corporately, in this writing. Thank you.

Re: Post-Election Reflections

Emily Moore — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:55:17 -0000

I know I'm late to the game on this one, but this is an excellent reflection. Thank you for sharing, Amy.

Re: Post-Election Reflections

Guest — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 00:41:41 -0000

Praise God.

Re: Post-Election Reflections

Barney Garwood — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:41:32 -0000

Great post. I found that rather convicting.

Re: Moonrise Kingdom: A Review

Devon Trevarrow Flaherty — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:55:48 -0000

i have not seen the movie, only watched a bunch of trailers and clips after reading your blog entry, b/c i have fully intended to see it. we own every other w.a. movie in our limited library. while sexualizing that girl is really disturbing to me (esp. since i am involved in anti-slave trade endeavors and the mother of a little-ish girl), do you think that the maturity of the child character(s) is meant as irony or maybe as a way of tweaking reality just enough that we look at it in a new way? as in, they stand in for adults so we notice something about them?

Re: Moonrise Kingdom: A Review

Nick — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:01:19 -0000

Although, naturally, I grant that song of songs isn't billed as a children's story. However, I see no reason MK isn't allegory itself.