tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post115236456646592791..comments2023-10-24T05:49:04.269-04:00Comments on The Chaliceblog: Choice can sometimes suck, but do you have a better idea?Chalicechickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1156075179417542692006-08-20T07:59:00.000-04:002006-08-20T07:59:00.000-04:00You have WAY too much free time.CCYou have WAY too much free time.<BR/><BR/><BR/>CCChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1156070784077043322006-08-20T06:46:00.000-04:002006-08-20T06:46:00.000-04:00Hi CC,Just thought you might want to know that thi...Hi CC,<BR/><BR/>Just thought you might want to know that this blog posting of yours ranks Number 3 in Google for a search on -<BR/><BR/>Unitarian Universalists suck. . . ;-)<BR/><BR/>Considering how liberally you spread the words 'suck' or 'sucks' around I actually expected one of your posts to rank Number One in Google for that particular word search.<BR/><BR/>Strangely enough it is a post by Dan Harper that currently ranks Number One in Google for a search on Unitarian Universalists suck.<BR/><BR/>In that I have now used the phrase Unitarian Universalists suck several times in this post now it may well displace Dan Harper's post from the Number One position on the search term - Unitarian Universalists suck. . . ;-)<BR/><BR/>Allah prochaine,<BR/><BR/>The Dagger of Sweet Reason<BR/><BR/>PB2U*UsRobin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1152557337617233222006-07-10T14:48:00.000-04:002006-07-10T14:48:00.000-04:00You just don't get it, do you? What's self-righteo...You just don't get it, do you? What's self-righteous is not having a minority opinion. It's assuming that your minority opinion is so obviously correct as to be axiomatic that's self-righteous. <BR/><BR/>I believe in rational discourse. You apparently do not. I have pointed out several unstated premises that you need to defend; you have chosen to not do so. Apparently you prefer to tell yourself that I'm "threatened" by your opinion - which is completely false. But thinking that, and sneering at the "self-righteous" label without ever considering if maybe it DOES apply, sure is a lot easier, isn't it?<BR/><BR/>And the *effective* abolitionists *did* have rational arguments and back them up. They didn't just state "slavery is obviously evil" over and over with no justification. They actually constructed arguments based on recognized sources of authority. Many of them used the Bible, since everyone in the debate agreed it was the word of God. Obviously as UUs we can't use that alone as a source of authority, but we still need to use something similar.<BR/><BR/>If you want to claim that sources ARE authoritative without defending WHY they are authoritative, find another religion. If you want to be a UU, defend your sources. Again, this was simple for the abolitionists - their opponents accepted the KJV Bible just as much as the abolitionists did. It's more of a challenge for you, because you have chosen a religious path that does not have an agreed dogmatic text to follow.TheCSOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13158667972488862686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1152504815560774162006-07-10T00:13:00.000-04:002006-07-10T00:13:00.000-04:00Regarding the original topic...One deals with the ...Regarding the original topic...<BR/><BR/>One deals with the hand one's dealt. Of the ministers who responded to our call, we got--to my knowledge--one candidate of a discernibly ethnic minority. We seriously considered that individual. My sincere impression is that we didn't proceed to pre-candidating for reasons that had zilch to do with ethnicity--and we even went back and reconsidered the decision to check in with ourselves on that point. <BR/><BR/>We pre-candidated more men than women. Our committee was more women than men.... <BR/><BR/>We offered the position to the youngest candidate, who is lesbian. We were turned down (and devastated). We offered it to a white male straight minister (who also turned us down -- we about dissolved our process at that point. Instead we pre-candidated three more...).<BR/><BR/>We ended up selecting a female to candidate (who made it clear that she really was interested).<BR/><BR/>I'd have to say that in terms of expressed prejudices, there were concerns about age (youth--which we dealt with) and about cultural fit (prejudice against Texan, deep So. Baptist roots....).<BR/><BR/>I'd have to say that I believe in the end, we didn't get the minister we initially selected for reasons of prejudice. She didn't feel that there would probably be the kind of community for a lesbian in our (alas) too white, not-urban setting that she'd hope for.<BR/><BR/>I'd leave it at this; there's always work to do, and non-categorical thinking is something worth working on and practicing seriously.<BR/><BR/>It's worth remembering that any individual case can look like discrimination--and not be.ogrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1152494398205103432006-07-09T21:19:00.000-04:002006-07-09T21:19:00.000-04:00I've added it to the list of books I will pick up ...I've added it to the list of books I will pick up and read if I see it used, but I wasn't very impressed with what I've heard so far. <BR/><BR/>CCChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1152493200688329352006-07-09T21:00:00.000-04:002006-07-09T21:00:00.000-04:00CC-- Have you read the book that Dan Harper's post...CC-- Have you read the book that Dan Harper's post mentioned? I was wondering if it answered your question. <BR/>I am kinda interested in reading it, but I am reading about five heavy books right now and am at my limit.... (I used to read six at a time, but that was before blogging came into my life.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1152435415521234692006-07-09T04:56:00.000-04:002006-07-09T04:56:00.000-04:00I don't bring it up often, mostly because I haven'...I don't bring it up often, mostly because I haven't done it many years, but if eating meat is morally wrong than as a hunter you must put me in the same catagory as Hitler or Stalin.Jamie Goodwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024268765705070420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1152428093828934432006-07-09T02:54:00.001-04:002006-07-09T02:54:00.001-04:00Now, getting back to the original point of this bl...Now, getting back to the original point of this blog post..<BR/><BR/>As for minister choice, I don't see how congregational polity can coexist with a minister selection process artificially constrained to a list provided by a source outside the congregation - especially when that source is the "association" the congregation is supposedly in free association with. It's a non sequiter to imply that this will encourage discrimination in the minister selection process - another unsupported claim to boot. In any case, congregational polity is far more fundamental to our UU tradition than affirmative action is, and so it wins out. I don't see how that's an example of choice being a bad thing.TheCSOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13158667972488862686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1152428065247948542006-07-09T02:54:00.000-04:002006-07-09T02:54:00.000-04:00It appears that you consider the statement "eating...It appears that you consider the statement "eating meat is morally wrong" so axiomatic that it doesn't even bear mentioning directly. <B>That</B> is being self-righteous. I would hope that you are aware that most people do not agree with you on that point. I certainly don't.<BR/><BR/>I don't have an "excuse" for eating meat, just like I don't have an "excuse" for shopping at Wal-Mart. Using the word "excuse" in either case is an underhanded attempt to frame the conversation in terms of why I am wrong. Seeing as how, in my view, I'm <B>not</B> wrong, I don't have an "excuse" to offer. Asking me for one is a self-righteous thing to do.TheCSOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13158667972488862686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1152413240160692782006-07-08T22:47:00.000-04:002006-07-08T22:47:00.000-04:00Hey, Powderblue- settle a bet for me: are you pro-...Hey, Powderblue- settle a bet for me: are you pro-life or pro-choice?Joel Monkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10631333436948102576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1152408713879173442006-07-08T21:31:00.000-04:002006-07-08T21:31:00.000-04:00Ok, this Matthew Scully chap. How did he get you ...Ok, this Matthew Scully chap. How did he get you to become a Vegan?<BR/><BR/>Did he come up to you in a restaurant and interrupt you to lecture you on what you were eating?<BR/><BR/>Did he knock on your door and just start talking at you when you answered?<BR/><BR/>Did he find your blog and lengthily upbraid you on your morality in the comments on a completely non-related topic?<BR/><BR/>No. He wrote some books and essays. He presented his ideas for those people who were interested. You were interested. You read his stuff. It convinced you. And that's great. <BR/><BR/>But what I don't understand is this: if it was the "rationally presenting ideas to people who are interested" method that convinced you, why are you assuming that the "go off on random people whom you assume have inferior eating habits and tell them how immoral they are" method will convince other people?<BR/><BR/>CCChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1152400774408985032006-07-08T19:19:00.000-04:002006-07-08T19:19:00.000-04:00Somehow, citing "Mrs" as being the possessed form ...Somehow, citing "Mrs" as being the possessed form of Mister (a gross inaccuracy of the most egregious and deceptive sort) seems like almost enough to justify pitching the rest of the argument.<BR/><BR/>Choice is good because it accepts that people have the right to be autonomous makers of the decisions that comprise their lives--<B>not</B> because if they have choice they will, should, <B>must</B> make the choice which I (as a morally superior person already enlightened) have concluded is correct. Already.<BR/><BR/>Get the fuck off your high horse.<BR/><BR/>I've been through the vegetarian discussion--quite civilly--with people before. My minister is vegan (and I was on the search committee that chose her). I am an unrepentant omnivore.<BR/><BR/>I am because my own research--quite extensive, thank you--persuades me that this is more healthful (at least for some; I make no claim that solutions are universal--given the news about some drugs being more or less effective for one sex and/or for members of one ethnic group, I wouldn't assume that health answers are universal). I am because my own moral and philosophical understanding of the universe doesn't arbitrarily cut off the animal kingdom and put it on a pedestal, any more than it puts humanity on one.<BR/><BR/>The Buddha observed that all life is suffering. Not all animal life. All life.<BR/><BR/>I choose to live as gently as I can and to impose as little avoidable suffering on other beings. I'm working on making progress in that regard.<BR/><BR/>I'm also not running about and judging others for making decisions that I think are unwise, or unhealthy, or on moral foundations of sand.ogrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1152398883615310962006-07-08T18:48:00.000-04:002006-07-08T18:48:00.000-04:00Well, I don't know you from Adam other than the fa...Well, I don't know you from Adam other than the fact that you showed up on Peacebang's blog to bitch at her for eating pork and now you're bitching at me for considering vegetarianism to be not the only morally valid life choice. <BR/><BR/>You know what a lecture is and you know that the nine paragraph response to that one sentence of mine was one. As for self-righteous, does any other sort of person show up out of the blue and start bitching that other people don't have proper morals? <BR/><BR/>Now for my question again. Do you think all this negativity actually convinces people? Did you become a vegetarian yourself because it was something you discovered that you wanted to do, or because someone you didn't know showed up one day to harass and guilt-trip you about it?<BR/><BR/>Do you think the rude, long-winded method is more effective? (I can assure you that vegetarians I've known who quietly did their own thing and cooked great veggie meals did far more to convince me than your little rant this afternoon.) <BR/><BR/>CCChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1152394511038068482006-07-08T17:35:00.000-04:002006-07-08T17:35:00.000-04:00PowderBlue,Do you really think that sort of self-r...PowderBlue,<BR/><BR/>Do you really think that sort of self-righteous lecturing convinces people?<BR/><BR/><BR/>CCChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1152394186435483742006-07-08T17:29:00.000-04:002006-07-08T17:29:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.LinguistFriendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02695715246663202212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-1152383693417103472006-07-08T14:34:00.000-04:002006-07-08T14:34:00.000-04:00All you can do in the US is educate people. In Sca...All you can do in the US is educate people. In Scandinavia, for example, people have far fewer choices in their stores, but they also have higher quality products. And they have less STUFF in general.LaReinaCobrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13554970165949410961noreply@blogger.com