ellauri026.html on line 225: The idea is there, but all the lingering emphasis in the original has been smoothed away. This, too, unfortunately, is typical of the whole. I have said that Wilson’s translation reads easily, and it does, like a modern novel: at shockingly few points does one ever need to stop and think. There are no hard parts; no difficult lines or obscure notions; no aesthetic arrest either; very little that jumps out as unusual or different. Wilson has set out, as she openly confesses, to produce an Odyssey in a “contemporary anglophone speech,” and this results in quite a bit of conceptual pruning. If you wait for the “Homeric tags,” the phrases that contained so much Greek culture they have been quoted over and over again by Greeks ever since—well, you are apt to miss them as they go by. A famous one occurs in book 24, when Odysseus and Telemachus are about to go into battle together: Odysseus tells Telemachus not to disgrace him, and Telemachus boasts that he need not fear. Laertes, Odysseus’s father, exclaims (Wilson’s translation), “Ah, gods! A happy day for me! My son and grandson are arguing about how tough they are!”
ellauri026.html on line 227: This is a famous line, but here it would hardly seem to merit its fame—who cares about people “arguing about how tough they are”? The word here translated as “tough” just happens to be one of the central words of Hellenic thought: arete, “virtue” or “excellence,” that subject of so many subsequent philosophy lectures—whose learnability or unlearnability Plato made the subject of inquiry, and which Aristotle defined as a mean between two vices. The word can be used to mean something like “bravery,” but it is wildly broader and richer than “how tough one is” (there is a queen named Arete in the poem, but Wilson refrains from translating her as “Queen Tough”). The line was quoted over and over again in later days because it was considered the height of happiness for a man to have a son and grandson competing with each other to possess virtue or true excellence. This Wilson suppresses, as a thing irrelevant to contemporary idiom—“toughness” will have to serve in its place.
ellauri052.html on line 499: In On Liberty, A Few Words on Non-Intervention, and other works, he defended British imperialism by arguing that a fundamental distinction existed between civilized and barbarous peoples.
ellauri077.html on line 46: This article examines David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest alongside its eponymous film, arguing that they share a common purpose, but that the former succeeds where the latter fails. Coupled with a biographical and phenomenological analysis, the aim of this examination is to better understand Infinite Jest’s place in the cultural and literary movement away from post-modernism. Through the novel, Wallace seeks a cure for the postmodern malaise that is irony, which creates a distancing effect between author and reader. I argue that he collapses this distance by creating a conversation-like novel that uses sentimentality and endnotes to converse with a generation bombarded with easily consumable irony from television, advertisements, and even art. The results of this conversation are the curtailing of passive consumption of entertainment and the beginning of a new sincerity in literature, which allows for grand narratives without the unending cynicism of postmodernism.
ellauri096.html on line 65: Maybe all of your defecation is compulsory. If God exists, then He knows everything. So the threat to freedom becomes total for the theist. The problem of divine foreknowledge insinuates that theism precludes morality. (This takes some more arguing, namely that morality implies free will, proof omitted.)
ellauri097.html on line 455: People sometimes argue in favor of homosexuality by arguing that their inclination is natural, and if it’s natural, then we shouldn’t be making any moral objections about it. If that is their argument they are guilty of is-ought.
ellauri097.html on line 467: One way of arguing against homosexuality is to say that males were not intended to have sex with other males, and we can tell that by the way sexual organs appear to be intended to function. Because men were not intended to have sex with other males, and they do so, then they are violating their natural teleology, their natural function. But notice that in the nature of the argument we are making a moral claim implicitly up front. We’re saying, We ought to use things the way they were intended by their Maker to be used, consistent with their teleology. This isn’t that way, therefore it’s wrong. It’s not arguing merely on how bodies are naturally, but how they are intended to function naturally. The teleology is the moral term in the premises.
ellauri097.html on line 479: Let’s just say somebody says, “I don’t believe that.” I say, okay, you’re welcome to not believe it, but then you can’t argue teleologically. In fact, you can’t even argue that if it’s natural, it’s okay, because you’re arguing a certain teleology: that if you find it in nature, that means it’s morally acceptable. You can’t help yourself to the teleological argument if you don’t believe in God.
ellauri108.html on line 100: Other Rastas see Selassie as embodying Jesus' teachings and essence but reject the idea that he was the literal reincarnation of Jesus. Members of the Twelve Tribes of Israel denomination, for instance, reject the idea that Selassie was the Second Coming, arguing that this event has yet to occur. From this perspective, Selassie is perceived as a messenger or emissary of God rather than a manifestation of God himself. Rastas holding to this view sometimes regard the deification of Haile Selassie as naïve or ignorant, in some cases thinking it as dangerous to worship a human being as God. There are various Rastas who went from believing that Haile Selassie was both God incarnate and the Second Coming of Jesus to seeing him as something distinct.
ellauri108.html on line 459: Members of the Twelve Tribes of Israel denomination, for instance, reject the idea that Selassie was the Second Coming, arguing that this event has yet to occur.
ellauri109.html on line 274: Shortly after the September 11 attacks, Searle wrote an article arguing that the attacks were a particular event in a long-term struggle against forces that are intractably opposed to the United States, and signaled support for a more aggressive neoconservative interventionist foreign policy. He called for the realization that the United States is in a more-or-less permanent state of war with these forces. Moreover, a probable course of action would be to deny terrorists the use of foreign territory from which to stage their attacks. Finally, he alluded to the long-term nature of the conflict and blamed the attacks on the lack of American resolve to deal forcefully with America's enemies over the past several decades.
ellauri115.html on line 298: Of course, we as Jews don't need some long-dead Frenchman to teach us to question. We've been questioning and arguing with the dogma (and with each other) through the Middle Ages, through the Renaissance, and beyond, carrying forward critical thinking through the centuries to today.
ellauri117.html on line 385: Find yourself passionately arguing with another human adult why a monster’s rocket launcher should be gold rather than black.
ellauri147.html on line 169: Adler's adaptation of the will to power was and still is in contrast to Sigismund Freud's pleasure principle or the "will to pleasure", and to Viktor Frankl's logotherapy or the "will to meaning". Adler's intent was to build a movement that would rival, even supplant, others in psychology by arguing for the holistic integrity of psychological well-being with that of social equality. His interpretation of Nietzsche's will to power was concerned with the individual patient's overcoming of the superiority-inferiority dynamic.
ellauri147.html on line 214: When Emily discovers Sylvie and Antoine arguing at work she tries to boost Sylvie's credibility at work by pretending that she came up with an idea to pair Antoine's perfumes with luxury hotels. Though of course it was Emily's idea all along.
ellauri147.html on line 225: Back at the chateau, Camille and her mother are arguing so Emily takes on refugees
ellauri153.html on line 554: Now that the problem of evil has been exposed as a conceptual confusion, the way is clear for a Jamesian science of religions and worldviews. The methods of grammatical description can be extended to the practices and ways of sense-making in different worldviews: how they give meaning to moral practices and how do they approach the intelligibility of the world? What practical responses do they have for coping with evil? For example, the grammar of seeing-as for models and metaphors can be applied to the metaphors in the Hebrew Bible for God’s activity to understand what it is to see the world as God’s creation. The grammar of virtues can be used to describe Buddhist practices and explore, how these approaches contribute to the human good. Similar approaches can be taken to secular worldviews as well. These descriptions can then be used to assess the worldviews through dialogical encounters between them. However, one thing should be clear. There is no point in devaluing the world by arguing for the meaninglessness of life or atheism on the basis of evil, or in giving justifications for evils that can stand in the way of divine or human meliorist projects of fighting for justice. To paraphrase the judgment of the Divine Judge in the Book of Job, such approaches are not even wrong. They are as meaningless as life itself.
ellauri156.html on line 691: The lawyer knew he was in trouble and tried to dig himself out (bad choice). He (like many lawyers then and now) thought he could get himself off the hook by arguing in terms of technicalities. And so he had a follow-up question for Jesus: “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus did not debate this man on his own terms. He was not willing to get into a word study in the original text. Instead, Jesus told a simple story, the story of the Good Samaritan.
ellauri161.html on line 535: Another propaganda film by Netflix! Too long, slow, and full of annoying overuse scene! Not recommended! Entire film full of boring conversation, and annoying overuse scene! Such as, overuse of the walking scene, overuse of the arguing scene, overuse of the calling names scene, overuse of the kissing scene, overuse of the staring scene, overuse of the driving scene, overuse of the eating scene, overuse of the drinking scene, overuse of the smoking scene, overuse of the taking pill scene, overuse of the singing scene, overuse of the song playing at the background scene, overuse of the watching video scene, overuse of the tweeting scene, overuse of the making speech scene, overuse of the blackout scene, overuse of the talking on the phone scene, and overuse of the interviewing scene!
ellauri180.html on line 224: Literary assaults such as these have served to fuel the debates and even a Medline® search today reveals that in the last year alone, 155 reviews or letters have been published arguing for or against routine circumcision. However, studying the evolution of the medical indications provides us with a pleasing demonstration of how controversy drives scientific enquiry. We have already described how the surgeons of 100 years ago advocated circumcision for a wide variety of conditions, such as impotence, nocturnal enuresis, sterility, excess masturbation, night terrors, epilepsy, etc. There can be no doubt that a large element of surgical self-interest drove these claims. However, most of the contemporary textbooks also included epithelioma (carcinoma) of the penis amidst the morass of complications of phimosis. Although rare, once this observation had been made, it presumably filtered down through the textbooks by rote, rather than scientific study. A few reports had appeared in the early 20th century indicating that carcinoma of the penis was rare in circumcised men, but not until the debate over neonatal circumcision erupted in the medical press in the 1930s that this surgical `mantra' was put to the test. In 1932, the editor of the Lancet challenged Abraham Wolbarst, a New York urologist, to prove his contention (in a previous Lancet editorial), that circumcision prevented penile carcinoma. Wolbarst responded by surveying every skin, cancer and Jewish hospital in the USA, along with 1250 of the largest general hospitals throughout the Union. With this survey, he was able to show that penile cancer virtually never occurred in circumcised men and that the risk related to the timing of the circumcision. Over the years this association has been reaffirmed by many research workers, although general hygiene, demographic and other factors such as human papilloma virus and smoking status are probably just as important. However, Wolbarst established that association through formal scientific enquiry and proponents of the procedure continue to use this as a compelling argument for circumcision at birth.
ellauri183.html on line 166: In his lectures on the Book of Genesis in the 16th century, Martin Luther praised Abraham for his uncritical obedience to God – for the "blind faith" exhibited by his refusal to question whether it was right to kill Isaac. In the late 18th century, Immanuel Kant took the opposite view, arguing that Abraham should have reasoned that such an evidently immoral command could not have come from God. For Luther, divine authority trumps any claim on behalf of reason or morality, whereas for Kant there can be nothing higher than the moral law.
ellauri198.html on line 637: Archaeologists have applied the term "tophet" to large cemeteries of children found at Carthaginian sites that have traditionally been believed to house the victims of child sacrifice, as described by Hellenistic and biblical sources. This interpretation is controversial, with some scholars arguing that the tophets may have been children's cemeteries, rejecting Hellenistic sources as anti-Carthaginian propaganda. Others argue that not all burials in the tophet were sacrifices.
ellauri214.html on line 70: In response to a Twitter post about how COVID-19 has been affecting people who menstruate, Rowling wrote, “‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”. In this post, Rowling mocks trans people by insinuating that women who do not have a period are not real women. This tweet not only offended trans women who do not have periods, but also cisgender women born with medical conditions that prevent them from having a period, older women who have gone through menapause, and transgender men who still menstrate. Rowling has continued to bash transgender people by comparing hormone therapy to gay conversion therapy and tweeting articles arguing that transitioning is a medical experiment. Many have called Rowling out on her transphobia, and some have attempted to educate her on transgender issues and the difference between sex and gender. However, the author has not been receptive to these comments, and continues to deny that she is transphobic. Rowling’s transphobia has prompted Harry Potter actors Daniel Radcliff (Harry Potter), Emma Watson (Hermionie Granger), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley), and Evanna Lynch (Luna Lovegood) to show their support for the transgender community. The only actor staunchly standing on her side is Tom Veladro (Voldemort). Oops, I shouldn't have said the name.
ellauri222.html on line 143: As everyone has said, Bellow not least, “Augie March” was the breakthrough book. Bellow ascribed its origin to a visionary moment. In 1948, he had gone with Anita to Paris for two years, supported by a Guggenheim fellowship. (Bellow hated Paris.) He was at work on a novel called “The Crab and the Butterfly,” which apparently concerned two men arguing in a hospital room. In the version of the epiphany he told to Roth, he was walking to his writing studio one morning when he was distracted by the routine Parisian sight of the street gutters being flushed:
ellauri241.html on line 525: Saw this with pain, so arguing a want Näki tämän tuskalla, jäbä nähtävästi väitti kaipaavansa
ellauri262.html on line 394: The critic Sean Latham has defended Sayers, arguing that Wilson and Leavis simply objected to a detective story writer having pretensions beyond what they saw as her role of popular culture "hack". Latham says that, in their eyes, "Sayers' primary crime lay in her attempt to transform the detective novel into something other than an ephemeral bit of popular culture".
ellauri262.html on line 445: Consequently, a member of the human species may not necessarily fit the definition of "person" and thereby not receive all the rights bestowed to a person. Hence, such philosophers have engaged in arguing that certain disabled individuals (such as those with a mental capacity that is similar to or is perceived as being similar to an infant) are not persons. This philosophy is also supposedly open to the idea that such non-human persons as machines, animals, and extraterrestrial intelligences may be entitled to certain rights currently granted only to humans. The basic criteria for the entitlement of rights, are the intellect (thinking ability, problem solving in real life circumstances and not mere calculation), and sometimes empathy (but not necessarily, because not all humans are empathetic; but indifference in the pain of others and crime are certainly criteria for the deprivation of rights. Genuine empathy is not required to achieve acceptable behavior, but a digital limbic system and a dopaminergic pathways alternative, would deliver a more acceptable result for future MPs judging on rights expansion.). Personism may have views in common with transhumanism.
ellauri285.html on line 759: Fredrickson wrote a response in which she conceded that the mathematical aspects of the critical positivity ratio were "questionable" and that she had "neither the expertise nor the insight" to defend them, but she maintained that the empirical evidence for the existence of a critical positivity ratio was solid. Brown, Sokal, and Friedman, the rebuttal authors, published their response to Fredrickson´s "Update" the next year, maintaining that there was no evidence for a critical positivity ratio. Losada declined to respond to the criticism (indicating to the Chronicle of Higher Education that he was too busy running his consulting business).[verification needed] Hämäläinen and colleagues responded later, passing over the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal claim of failed criteria for use of differential equations in modeling, instead arguing that there were no fundamental errors in the mathematics itself, only problems related to the model´s justification and interpretation.
ellauri285.html on line 777: Fredrickson responded to the critique by agreeing that Losada´s mathematical modelling was "questionable" and did not show that there are precise values of the ratio, but also arguing that the evidence for the benefits of a high positivity/negativity ratio is solid. Fredrickson noted that Losada declined to respond to the criticism.[11] The American Psychologist proceeded to formally retract as invalid the mathematical modeling elements of Fredrickson and Losada´s paper, including the specific critical positivity ratios of 2.9013 and its upper limit.
xxx/ellauri044.html on line 1207: Rajneesh (born Chandra Mohan Jain, 11 December 1931 – 19 January 1990), also known as Acharya Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shri Rajneesh, and later as Osho (/ˈoʊʃoʊ/), was an Indian godman, mystic and founder of the Rajneesh movement. During his lifetime he was viewed as a controversial new religious movement leader and mystic. His parents, Babulal and Saraswati Jain, who were Taranpanthi Jains, let him live with his maternal grandparents until he was seven years old. By Rajneesh's own account, this was a major influence on his development because his grandmother gave him the utmost freedom, leaving him carefree without an imposed education or restrictions. In the 1960s he travelled throughout India as a public speaker and was a vocal critic of socialism, arguing that India was not ready for socialism and that socialism, communism, and anarchism could evolve only when capitalism had reached its maturity. He caused controversy in India during the late 1960s and became known as "the sex guru". Kun Intia kävi kuumaxi se siirsi bisnisit Oregoniin. Lopulta se potkittiin pois sieltäkin ja palautettiin Intiaan. Aiivan läpi paska äijä.
xxx/ellauri075.html on line 120: Lev Isaakovich Shestov (Russian: Лев Исаа́кович Шесто́в; 31 January [O.S. 13 February] 1866 – 19 November 1938), born Yehuda Leib Shvartsman (Russian: Иегуда Лейб Шварцман), was a Russian existentialist and religious philosopher. He is best known for his critiques of both philosophic rationalism and positivism. His work advocated a movement beyond reason and metaphysics, arguing that these are incapable of conclusively establishing truth about ultimate problems, including the nature of God or existence. Contemporary scholars have associated his work with the label "anti-philosophy.
xxx/ellauri084.html on line 594: Film critic André Bazin (1918-1958) is notable for arguing that realism is the most important function of cinema. His call for objective reality, deep focus, and lack of montage are linked to his belief that the interpretation of a film or scene should be left to the spectator. This placed him in opposition to film theory of the 1920s and 1930s, which emphasized how the cinema could manipulate reality.
xxx/ellauri085.html on line 407: “No such theory has been found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories, including J.A. Schumpeter’s monumental 1,260-page History of Economic Analysis. Yet this non-existent theory* has become the object of denunciations from the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post to the political arena. It has been attacked by Professor Paul Krugman of Princeton and Professor Peter Corning of Stanford, among others, and similar attacks have been repeated as far away as India. It is a classic example of arguing against a caricature instead of confronting the argument actually made.”
xxx/ellauri085.html on line 543: President Trump sold his 2017 tax cuts as “rocket fuel” for the economy, arguing that freeing up money for the wealthy would allow them to hire more workers, pay better wages and invest more. The tax savings, in other words, would trickle down from the rich to everyone else.
xxx/ellauri122.html on line 1203: However, despite her stylized and artificial appearance, Lukyanova strongly dislikes the Barbie monicker, arguing that she is just "a classy girl."
xxx/ellauri129.html on line 656: Elizabeth's lawyers, Stephen Moore and John W. Orr, responded by calling witnesses from the neighborhood that knew the Packards but were not members of Theophilus' church. These witnesses testified they never saw Elizabeth exhibit any signs of insanity, while discussing religion or otherwise. The final witness was Dr. Duncanson, who was both a physician and a theologian. Dr. Duncanson had interviewed Elizabeth and he testified that while not necessarily in agreement with all her religious beliefs, she was sane in his view, arguing that "I do not call people insane because they differ with me. I pronounce her a sane woman and wish we had a nation of such women.
xxx/ellauri129.html on line 662: With that, she did not go back to her former life, but became a national celebrity of sorts, publishing "an armload of books and criss-crossing the United States on a decades-long reform campaign", not only fighting for married women's rights and freedom of speech, but calling out against "the power of insane asylums". She became what some scholars call "a publicist and lobbyist for better insanity laws". As scholar Kathryn Burns-Howard has argued, Packard reinvented herself in this rôle, earning enough to support her children and even her estranged husband, from whom she remained separated for the rest of her life. Ultimately, moderate supporters of women's rights in the northern U.S. embraced her, weaving her story into arguments about slavery, framing her experience as a type of enslavement and even arguing in the midst of the Civil War that a county in the midst of freeing African-American slaves should do the same for others who suffered from abusive husbands. Some argue that she seemed oblivious to her racial prejudice in arguing that white women had a "moral and spiritual nature" and suffered more "spiritual agony" than formerly enslaved African-Americans. Even so, others say that her story provided "a stirring example of oppressed womanhood" that others did not.
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 165: Cassius Dio even reports that the Boudica uprising in Britannia was caused by Seneca forcing large loans on the indigenous British aristocracy in the aftermath of Claudius's conquest of Britain, and then calling them in suddenly and aggressively. Seneca was sensitive to such accusations: his De Vita Beata ("On the Happy Life") dates from around this time and includes a defence of wealth along Stoic lines, arguing that properly gaining and spending wealth is appropriate behaviour for a philosopher.
xxx/ellauri193.html on line 172: His lawyer, Jan van Rooyen, in arguing for a lenient sentence, said the fact that Regaga was asleep when killed, was a mitigating factor, as “she did not see it coming.”
xxx/ellauri224.html on line 540: The protectors park the duo's car, a Renault Le Car, behind a mail truck for them to find the following morning. Fred and Barney salvage their relationships with the twins and discover the special treat from the girls turns out to be matching berets with Fred's and Barney's tiny penises embroidered in the front. The protectors, seeing the problem, leave a gift for their girlfriends (and, for the two men): Penis Enhancement Necklaces. The film ends with Fred, Barney, and the twins going out for Chinese food in Fred's car, while arguing about what their tattoos say.
xxx/ellauri225.html on line 418: Thomas Yingling objects to the traditional, New Critical and Eliotic readings of Crane, arguing that the "American myth criticism and formalist readings" have "depolarized and normalized our reading of American poetry, making any homosexual readings seem perverse." Thomas E. Yingling was associate professor of English at Syracuse University until his death from AIDS-related causes in 1992. Even more than a personal or political problem, though, Yingling argues that such "biases" obscure much of what the poems make clear; he cites, for instance, the last lines of "My Grandmother´s Love Letters" from White Buildings as a haunting description of estrangement from the norms of (heterosexual) family life:
xxx/ellauri250.html on line 733: In 2018, as she was starting her career in AI research, Joseph recalls being introduced to a prominent man in the field connected to EA. Joseph was 22 and still in college; he was nearly twice her age. As they talked at a Japanese restaurant in New York City, she recalled, the man turned the conversation in a bizarre direction, arguing “that pedophilic relationships between very young women and older men was a good way to transfer knowledge,” Joseph says. “I had a sense that he was grooming me.” (Joseph says she told her roommate about the alleged incident. The roommate confirmed that conversation to TIME.)
xxx/ellauri268.html on line 349: Many argue that the pervasive nature of antisemitic tropes means the Gringotts goblins and their ilk do no harm. Most children watching the “Harry Potter” films wouldn’t have picked up on the reference. The British charity Campaign Against Antisemitism, for example, tweeted a statement arguing that there are “centuries of association of Jews with grotesque and malevolent creatures in folklore” and that “those who continue to use such representations are often not thinking of Jews at all” but are innocently thinking “of how readers or viewers will imagine goblins to look.”
43