But it seems to me that sitting on the fence is more tenable than most of the other positions out there. I am merely exerting my right to say "I don't know."
And in fact, I don't know. And in many cases I don't think anyone really knows most things they say they "know," in an objectively truthful way. Ask me my opinion on most everything, and I'll likely give you both sides of the argument.
There are of course exceptions. There are many things which I think are objectively true. Here are some examples:
- 1+1=2
- Nothing rhymes with Orange
- You really can't just eat one 'Lay's' potato chip
- Most people routinely engage in irrational behavior and have inconsistent beliefs (which brings me to my next point)
For those readers who are unaware, the title of the blog comes a quote taken from the footage of the demise of the Hindenburg (seen here). I think this event is both tragic and typical. Tragically typical.
Had humans conquered the air? Yes. Did we do it in a completely reckless and irresponsible way? Again, yes. Can you think of other instances where we have repeated this trend? I can.My fence sitting is rooted in my deep distrust of other people's beliefs. Most people believe many things that are simply not true.
I would like to use this blog as a forum for my friends and family to discuss ideas, lay out arguments, and occasionally share a laugh.
Hopefully you can help me discover some new ideas that I can add to my "objectively true" list.
So now my question to you is where shall we begin?
I'm just glad that I'll be able to put this one in my Google Reader.
ReplyDeleteWe could start with something silly like, are apples and orange really the best choice for saying how different things are.
Fact: Both are fruit.
Fact: Both are relatively the same size.
Fact: Both are deliciously sweet.
Ok that last one is an opinion, but as the great Jimmy Fallon once said on his short lived and identically named bit on SNL's Weekend Update "I have an Opinion".
It's a good question. There are lots of "sitters" in life, such as baby-sitters, dog-sitters, flag-pole-sittas, and, as you point out, fence-sitters. Of all the things to believe, trust, hold dear, whatever you wanna call it, where do we start?
ReplyDeleteI wish I had a good answer for that. I do not. My only comment would be to believe in what you've experienced, in doing, in thought, in feeling, or in anything that just made sense to you even if you weren't entirely sure why, as long as there is no evidence to the contrary. Gut feeling is worth more than people sometimes give it credit for. Of course, there are exceptions and I've had some as well.
So before I pick apart my own argument, just let me end by saying that you CAN just eat one Lays potato chip! I mean really, they're not that great. Maybe Barbeque, but...
I like it, Jay! You reflect my opinions perfectly. Are you really as much a fence sitter as you say, though? I've never met a more decidely opinionated person in my life!! I'm looking forward to reading more about your sort-of fence sitting-ish opinions. Have at us--we reckless foolish, inventive humanity!
ReplyDeleteI did have one question: why Lays? Why not Pringles? I think Pringles have better flavors and they're cheaper (at least at WalMart, my favorite store. Take that, Dad!).
You should send an invite to my wife. I think she'd love to make comments (and I mean that in the most loving and respectful way).
ReplyDeleteOne subject for discussion could be what the meaning of moderate is. Does the meaning of 'moderate' change depending on when and where you are? What is considered to be extremely moderate in the US might be considered extremely liberal in some areas of the Middle East, for instance. In pre-Columbian Mesoamerica mass human sacrifice was the norm. Would it be just if the moderate opinion of the time was to only sacrifice SOME of the capture enemy soldiers?
Good question Dane. Moderate is a realtive term and can only be defined contextually. In my case I consider myself "moderate" in early 21st century America.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, I would in fact only sacrifice as many enemy as needed to keep the sun god happy. Which isn't all that much. Maybe only half.
Jay Bee, I like that you have a blog about being a moderate fence sitter and you feel that you need to use an alias.
ReplyDeleteHow do you decide what is moderate? What do you measure your supposedly moderate opinions against? Also, though I don't foresee any huge swings to the right or the left in public opinion here in the US (though, who knows) I do imagine that whatever you are measuring your opinions against will change during the course of your life. Do you stick with what you perceive as moderate today, or do you adjust your opinions as you go along? And if so, why is what is right or wrong today change simply because it is a different time?
Is it just me or did Dane's posting sound snarky?
ReplyDeleteOk, to Dane:
First, I'm not sure why you think my "alias" is necessarily due to do the content of this blog. Am I supposed to see irony here? There are other considerations I have to make.
Ok, I guess we need to talk more about being "moderate."
The discussion about the definition of "moderate" is a slippery one. What it means to me obviously differs from what it means to others. I can't put it on a graph or quantify it for you.
I'm sure that deeming oneself "moderate" is a lot like deeming oneself a "better than average driver," in that you can't get an objective view from someone about himself or herself.
Regardless, I consider myself moderate when placed on what I perceive as an spectrum of American world views in 2009.
Is this a subjective measurement? Certainly. I'm not sure why you're belaboring the point.
Will my opinions change? They certainly have in the past, so I imagine they will in the future. I don't feel particularly beholden to most of my opinions.
Regarding public opinion, I think "swings" happen from time to time, but "shifts" are more common and are usually more permanent.
The question about "right and wrong" being fluid is certainly interesting. It is pretty safe to say that in large part "morality" changes with both time and location. Does this mean that there are no objective measurements of morality? I say that there are such measurements. Anyone care to chime in?
Why Lays potato chips, Caryn? Another good question. Pringles really are better. So perhaps I should change the third bullet in my list of truths to read "Pringles: Once you pop you really can't stop."
ReplyDeleteWoohoo! Pringles rule!!
ReplyDeleteAs for the morality part: I don't know that morality changes per se, just who is loudest about it at the time. I wouldn't be too surprised if a new group rose up tomorrow to define morality as something atrocious - to us. Have you read Orson Scott Card's Enchantment?? Great commentary on decency as it relates to society. It's a great commentary on society!
Another topic for discussion is the morality of the industrial farming of animals.
ReplyDeleteThe animals we farm have central nervous systems just like we do so they probably feel pain in a similar way to us and anyone that has ever owned a dog can tell you that dogs specifically (and likely animals generally) have personalities and emotions. Yet we treat the animals as if they don't... Those eggs you ate for breakfast this morning were laid by a chickens that have probably lost all their feathers due to the stress of being constantly locked in a cage just big enough for them to fit in.
And yet, I still eat eggs. And I still eat meat. In fact, I get pissed when the chicken breasts are more than $1.69 a pound. Vegetarians can develop some serious B vitamin deficiencies and meat is just so darn tasty...
Caryn,
ReplyDeleteWhat does Enchantment say exactly? Save me the effort of actually having to read it please.
Speaking of potato chips. Do you want to know what one of my favorite things about being overseas is?
Ketchup chips! I love them. They're hard to find here in the States, but I see them all over the place overseas.
I don't always agree with him, but I have to say that Jon Stewart is a good man.
ReplyDeleteI think Jon Stewart an incredibly clever and humorous douche.
ReplyDeleteAnother topic for discussion is nuclear energy. From my experience I'd say that the engineering community is generally quite pro-nuclear, given that the energy is generated in the right way. Nuclear has a lot of neat advantages and I haven't heard a really persuasive argument for why we should not use it as an energy source. Anyone have a good anti-nuclear argument?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the moderate position on industrial animal farming and nuclear energy?