Letters to the Editor
mintosh
Published Letters: 70 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Another Analogy
[Read the article: Cruel to be kind]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In a town I used to live in a locomotive engineer spotted a toddler playing on the tracks ahead of him. Blaring his horn did no good, so he crawled down on to the front of the train and -- just as the train was bearing down on the child -- he kicked the child out of the way of the train. Of course, kicking a child is always wrong - as is torturing animals - so the child's parents who had neglectfully allowed for their child to play on the tracks, tried to sue the engineer. Thankfully, the judge through the case out of court.
Similarly, some of you can't see the train, for the kick. These animals would have been abused with or without this activist's assistance. Some degree of damage was inevitable. Moreover, a lot more damage would have been done in the end if this activist had failed to act.
This is a true story - do a google search for train, Lafayette, Kick, and it will be your first hit.
-
What's wrong with the. . . .
[Read the article: I'm a Christian turning agnostic]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"If you accept and practice Christianity and it is false you have essentially lost nothing. If you reject Christianity and it is true, then you have lost everything." -- argument.
This is essentially Pascal's wager: an argument not for god's existence, but for why you should believe in God even if you can't prove that God exists. However, even if it doesn't presu[pposed god's existence -- it does presuppose that if god does exist, he is a particular type of god. One who rewards blind faith in him -- and penalizes skepticism. But whose to say that god - if indeed he does exist -- doesn't reward skepticism, and penalize blind faith. The argument might just as cohernently go in reverse:
"If you accept and practice agnosticism and God does exist you have essentially lost nothing. If you reject agnosticism and it is true, then you have lost everything."
It seems to me that if god is all knowing - then he should know why we might be skeptical of his existence. Based on this simple precepet of Christianity - than I would argue that even given christian principles, this is as likely a possibility as the reverse. That said, neither argument really gets us anywhere.
-
Hmmm!? Beirne.
[Read the article: I'm a Christian turning agnostic]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Did you even read my post? (Sorry for all the typos). If you don't read the whole thing - at least read the last sentence. DUH!! That's my point!
-
About Number 12
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe I misuderstand, but I don't think Kaufman has really thought this one through. If you treat the center line as out of bounds when it has been crossed by the offense, then when the defense taps the ball back across it, the ball goes back to. . . the offense. It is, then, even less detrimental to them that it has been tapped out of their hands the either other option. Can someone please explain Kaufman's point to me.
-
Sorry Kaufman
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I understand what your point is now, and it is (pretty) clear in the original article. And a good point too.
-
I agree with everything. . .
[Read the article: ABC gives lessons in lacrosstitution]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Rebecca. With one small caveat. It is at least possible that a woman would agree to have sex only so that she could deny it later (for whatever reason). Forgetting this possibility puts the debate into a quick stall, as it allows the other side (whoever they might be. . . coaches, defense attorneys, lacivious men) this same quick rejoinder. Better to accept it, and move forward with the rest of the criticism you put forward against the good ol' boy system of slut-baiting.
-
Give Cary a Break
[Read the article: My kids are wrecks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is certainly possible that LW is delusional about her childrearing skills. In fact, this is such an obvious possibility, Cary would have to be pretty clueless not to have foreseen it.
It is worth remembering, however, what Cary's job is -- and what it isn't. His job is to respond thoughtfully and compassionately to the letter he has in hand -- (not to some imaginary letter that he theorizes in his head) -- and to treat it as sincere, honest, and objective, even if he suspects that it might not be (unless, perhaps, there are strong and significant clues to the contrary). Consequently, his job isn't to second-guess and try to out-maneuver the LW. In fact, I'm not sure what the purpose of such a response would even be in a column such as Cary's. Can you imagine an advice columnist always quick to second guess his LW's motives and sincerity? While this might make for a great Saturday Night Live skit (Dear LW. Quit lying to me, to yourself, and to your children. . . !!) -- it would be ill-suited to this forum (or, rather, simply be something radically different than an advice column).
Perhaps LW is completely delusional. To focus on this possibility is, however, to miss the purpose of Cary's response -- which is that (for whatever reason) some very good parents raise some very bad kids. Remember, this letter is to Cary's readers as much -- if not more -- than it is to the LW. If some of us see ourselves or our friends in the LW and in Cary's response -- and it makes it easier for us to cope -- then hasn't he succeeded? Of what real relevance is the integrity of the actual LW? That would be the topic of a different column: My Parents Are Delusional About Their Parenting Skills.
It seems to me that all of you who were oh so smart as to see through to the possibility that the LW might be delusional about her parenting skills are the true simpletons. I mean --- DUHHhhh!!!
-
I really want to be tolerant. . .
[Read the article: My high school yearbook staff are all slackers and idiots]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]. . . but I just can't help myself. The energy put into creating highschool yearbooks is quite simply a waste of time (just as buying highschool rings is a waste of money)-- and even more so, it seems, given this school's policy about classtime off to do it. Yes. . . get involved in SOMETHING that will help improve your communications skills. But instead of yearbook, why not go get involved with some non-profit organization you respect. I suspect you will learn much more and be much more fulfilled by the experience.