Disqus - Latest Comments for superkev07

Re: Welcome James Mathias, Chief Creative Officer | Blog & News | EllisLab.com

Kevin Smith — Sat, 28 May 2011 15:36:01 -0000

James was there, too!? Well look at that.

Re: How to Fix 'Mr. Sunshine' - Hampton Stevens - Politics - The Atlantic

Kevin Smith — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:43:25 -0000

Great comment to a fantastic article. I'm with you 100%, and the article nailed the reasons it falls flat. It pained me to watch this show, and I just had to stop. Perry's much better than this. Hopefully the show's creators and writers are feeling the same thing we're all feeling.

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

Kevin Smith — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:52:50 -0000

I think we agree on one very core principle here: whether truth is real and objective or just a relative measure based on social norms, etc. That's one of the points I was trying to make, though it was only implied. I suppose I should've been more explicit there: most of the commenters seem to have missed that point entirely.

While it's true that there is a major disconnect over the moral issue, I didn't focus on that as a means to disarm the issue. The fact is, when I wrote this post Belmont still hadn't made an official statement. Everything the news media was writing about and the students were in a frenzy over was a narrative assembled from the speculating reports of some of the soccer players mixed with a few vague statements Howe made through her attorney. I wrote on the situation from this angle because I think there's a lot to the termination part of the story (the core part, no doubt) that has yet to come to light. Without the facts of the case in that regard, it would've been irresponsible to opine with details either assumed or disregarded.

I quite agree that this is not a matter of mere disagreement between two groups, each trying to assert its moral superiority over another. What I want the reader and protester to understand is this: You simply cannot impugn another person or group for taking a moral stance and acting in accordance with that stance unless that moral standard is faulty, and it does no good to judge another's actions by your own moral standard... unless there is objective truth and your moral standard is truly superior to their standard. That's why I (and commenter Strunk D) have been trying to get some of the other commenters here to logically make the case that their morality is superior to Belmont's.

We may (or may not) disagree over the superiority of different elements of our respective moral standards, but we agree that there is truth and a standard by which all things can be judged. Several other commenters seem to miss the contradiction in their own comments when they say, in essence, This isn't about moral standards, it's about what's right and wrong!

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

Kevin Smith — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:20:51 -0000

Also, it's hard to miss that you refused to answer the question at the end of the post because you deny that it's a question of moral standard at all... only to follow it in the next sentence by stating your moral position with the implication that your position on the matter is more valid.

So to ask more specifically: why is your belief—the belief that as a matter of civil rights, a lesbian working at a private educational institution, one which specifically forbids such a lifestyle, should be immune to termination due to her homosexuality and that to deny the claim is tantamount to a denial of full personhood for the individual in question—why is your belief more valid than Belmont's?

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

Kevin Smith — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:26:09 -0000

I'm glad you feel a passionate need to engage. Whether or not I agree with a person's views, I think it's a valuable thing to engage the culture and be a part of the community in which he or she lives. (But hey, that's just my worldview.)

I'm aware that she was fired for being gay, and I didn't think I glossed over that fact. I'll admit that my post isn't conclusive, but it wasn't intended to be. I'll also admit that I've not followed every detail that's happened here. If Belmont has been intentionally deceptive about anything, those sins aren't made irrelevant merely by comparison to another.

Re: Publix Weekly Ad 10/20-10/26 or 10/21-10/27

Kevin Smith — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:07:17 -0000

Thanks for the help here! One more: when Jenny lists a main product like "Hershey’s All Time Greats Snack Size, 24.17-27.8 oz. bag" with "- $1/2 Hershey’s, Reese’s, or Kit Kat snack size, 9-22 oz, SS 10/17" as one of the coupons, how do those match up? And do I have to get the one that the coupon specifies? (Sometimes I get confused when Jenny lists something and the coupon for it is for a different flavor, size, etc.)

Re: Publix Weekly Ad 10/20-10/26 or 10/21-10/27

Kevin Smith — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:51:28 -0000

I'm still trying to get the hang of this stuff. I'm in TN, so I know that BOGOs are really half price each; I don't have to buy 2. But if I'm going to use a coupon that says $1/2, then I'd have to get 2 in order to get $1 off, correct?

Re: “Why does it have to point to God?”

Kevin Smith — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:26:44 -0000

Since the basis for our argument was that truth is real and objective because God is the standard and source of truth, it only made sense to then support that proposition with a quick proof that God exists. One of the reasons I included the aside in this post was to get at what I assumed was the underlying reason for questioning truth. Of course, I could be wrong; it might be my friend's friend is struggling with pain and evil in the world. At any rate, entire volumes have been written on this stuff, so while Twitter was a terrible medium for this sort of discussion, a single blog post fares only slightly better.

(By the by, I'd used the term "objective truth" in an effort to clarify for the sake of those reading through cultural specs. I've reworded the post to provide some clarity there.)

Re: CVS Weekly Ad 8/29-9/04

Kevin Smith — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:15:19 -0000

My local CVS actually has them for $1.00 on Sunday! I think I'll have to start getting 4 at a minimum. Whew! This thing is a bigger deal than I expected, but paying $46 at Publix for $103 worth of food AND getting to experience Publix quality? Makes the couponing totally worth it.

Re: CVS Weekly Ad 8/29-9/04

Kevin Smith — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:13:27 -0000

I'm not quite sure I understand how to do this couponing thing with CVS and the ECBs. The coupons say (and Jenny warns... or is that only for grocery store coupons?) that you can't use more than one type of each coupon per transaction, correct? Then how am I supposed to get away with this deal?

**Deal Idea**
Buy: (4) Toothbrushes $2.99
Use: (4) -$1 off coupons PG 8/29
Total Due: $7.96
Get Back: $5 ECB, makes it 74¢ ea

Also, assuming I can use more than one of each coupon per transaction, how am I supposed to get 4 of them? There's only 1 in the newspaper inserts that I got.

Re: Words Don’t Matter.

Kevin Smith — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:32:56 -0000

I think you're still missing the point. The difference between red and blue is mere stylistic preference, and as I said before, I left all stylistic criticisms out of my review when it did not pertain to manipulation of the audience. Criticizing a red painting because I wished it were blue is not the same as criticizing an intentionally misleading message for having its facts wrong. Neither a red nor blue painting carries any moral weight. Neither make truth claims. The red painting doesn't beckon the observer to change his life and crusade against entire industries; it would hardly be worth the focus of even a blog post.

Leaving aside your strange claim that most documentaries are propagandist in nature—I would agree that feature film documentaries largely do fit the bill, but I would also argue they aren't really documentaries because of the very malpractice that makes them propaganda—it's hard to believe anyone could watch that documentary and not come to the conclusion that its purpose was to change a person's mind. It even offers an explicit call to action at the end. I simply take it to task for exactly what it claims to be: a film-based presentation of facts, of a "reality" you didn't know existed. But the film flat out lies to create that reality, so how can its portrayal be trusted? Were you to find out a close friend were a compulsive liar (as I have in the past), would you not suddenly become wary of everything he or she claimed unless you otherwise knew it to be true?

Again, it simply makes no sense to urge someone to look for the good in a film which has been shown to play fast and loose with the facts. The film presents itself as all "good." How is the viewer to know the difference?

Re: The New Blog

Kevin Smith — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 23:18:59 -0000

Thanks, Frank!

Re: The New Blog

Kevin Smith — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 23:18:41 -0000

Thanks, Frank!

Re: Food, Inc., Environmentalists, and the Need for Purpose

Kevin Smith — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:32:21 -0000

Thanks for the comments, Daniel. I can understand your issue with my approach to the film, but I didn't go into the film blindly expecting to hate it. I watched it after seeing the marketing for the film and hearing responses from friends who claimed that it changed their point of view. If an argument is going to change my point of view, the burden is on the speaker of the argument, so I viewed the film with the expectation that it should be a solid enough argument (that is to say, backed by truth) to persuade me. Sure, I carried a bias into the film, but as you pointed out, it's simply impossible not to do so. Our understanding of everything around us is informed by our culture, our own experiences, our philosophy, etc. It's better to admit our contextual blinders than deny they exist.

It's fair to judge the film by whatever standard I wish to apply. You'll note that I said nothing of the photography, lighting, score, etc. I wasn't giving the film that sort of review. The standard I did wish to apply—and it's a central theme to this blog—is the film's value in the search for truth. Thus, carefully scrutinizing the film's truth claims—and requiring solid, verifiable facts to uphold its arguments—is more than a valid approach to this film critique. Were I coming at it from the perspective of the producers, whose aim seems primarily to be the persuasion of the film's audience, then I might have reviewed the film with the sort of mindset that wants to achieve that goal at any cost— even forsaking truth in order to do so. For that review, I might have praised their use of emotional anecdotes. If you are most concerned with the filmmakers' ability to persuade people, then I suppose my review seems off-base and the film seems like a raging success. But people aren't only responding to the film with, "It was so moving." They're also reciting all the things they learned from it, things I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to call facts.

You see, that's why facts, true facts, are so important to me here. (My mistake in the review was assuming that it was obvious that truth was the most important thing and that my readers were seeking it, too.) What good is it to persuade someone in an argument if you've lied throughout in order to achieve your goal? When they finally discover the truth, they also discover your general untrustworthiness, and they may have done untold damage while they set about believing such false things.

You seem concerned about the possibility of getting mired down by the particulars, but particulars inform our knowledge of the universals. (By universals, I mean general terms or concepts.) If someone's universal belief about a thing is incorrect because they have believed false particulars, does it not make sense to point out which of those particulars might require rectification? In the case of the oil spill, I would say the volume of oil leaking into the ocean matters very much. If we were to discover, for whatever reason, that only 10 barrels of oil per day were leaking, would you suggest we still mount a national, multi-billion dollar response? Of course not! That insignificant amount of oil naturally seeps into the ocean on a daily basis as it is, and engaging in such a response would be a gross waste of resources. Likewise, if we assumed only 10 barrels were leaking per day and it was actually 10 million, the difference in that single fact makes a huge difference in our response. The "just fix it, I don't care about the facts" mentality that so many our national leaders have right now does nothing to help solve the problem. Facts are required for that sort of thing.

As I'm sure you would agree, it's not fair to judge an action movie, for instance, by the behavior of its audience… unless that movie at some point breaks the 4th wall and turns to the audience to recommend they behave that way. From beginning to end, that's exactly what this documentary has done. It has presented its argument and then, quite explicitly, recommended its audience change the way they each live. Worse, the film wants the audience to demand our Government impose on everyone the regulations which are a byproduct of beliefs presented in this film. That's not at all about personal responsibility, and it's not just a silly life change. That's about using force to change someone else's behavior.

Let me suggest a hypothetical: say a doctor informs you that you have cancer. It is definitely treatable with a new, very experimental sort of drug, and it will no doubt be a very, very expensive treatment. Without it, the aggressive cancer will surely kill you, but with the treatment, the doctor gives you very good chances. You undergo months and months of treatment, financed by all your assets, the small amount of wealth of your immediate and extended family, and numerous fundraisers. After 6 months of treatment at a cost of several million dollars, it is discovered that the doctor misled you and your family for his own benefit; he had entered the medical field because he wanted to be seen as a hero, and the ability to cure cancer was sure to set him up a hero for millions and bring him great fame. (Assume for the sake of argument that you have no malpractice recourse.)

Would the awakening that you had no doubt experienced while undergoing treatment still be worth it? Surely not. You lost everything! You've wasted vast resources: your money, your family's money, the time and emotions of friends and family, the opportunity cost of undergoing treatment instead of whatever else you would have been doing, etc. It's easy to see in this simple hypothetical what a problem it is when we're told and then act upon something untrue, even if well-meaning. The scale, the damaged cause by this hypothetical lie, makes it easy to comprehend.

If what the filmmakers say is believed and put into practice by millions and the heavy hand of Government, the worldwide famine that would follow would be catastrophic. That's reason enough to stop and think about it now, to evaluate the truth claims of the film and make an informed decision about whether or not we should individually and collectively follow their prescriptions.

The fact that people adopt this as the ultimate thing for which they live is a problem too, at least from a Christian point of view. When a thing becomes your ultimate, it becomes your god. We must be always on guard that our activism, in whatever form, does not become our ultimate thing. Being kind to animals and being good stewards of the environment is what God has called us to do, but making environmentalism our life's purpose is to knock God from his throne, to replace the Creator with the created.

You've asked me to watch it again and look for the good instead of the bad. But what do you mean by good? I can only assume you mean morally virtuous or thorough, since you surely do not mean for me to cast off my concerns and instead examine the film for those things which bring me enjoyment. And those things you're asking me to search for—those morally virtuous things—they would have to be truthful, correct? So we agree! And it looks like we're back to the top of the discussion: the pursuit of redemption is one that examines all things and holds fast to that which is good. The passage of scripture from which the motto of this blog comes is 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Paul is instructing the church in Thessalonica to neither blindly accept prophecies nor reject them without proper testing. "Good" here refers to those things which pass the test.

So with that, let me ask this: for a film that time and again defines the word specious, what is the point in searching its reels for "good" things? Food, Inc. simply does not pass the test to be authoritative.

Re: Sandbagging the MetroCenter Levee

Kevin Smith — Tue, 04 May 2010 14:23:17 -0000

Thanks for politicizing something that need not be political.

Re: A light from above

Kevin Smith — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:06:28 -0000

You should know that Stacey Campfield is a dude. So, it would be *his* own vintage campaign Mustang.