ellauri159.html on line 1242: Fake objectivity and be skeptical of emotional appeals, except when dealing with an emotional audience. Otherwise it is fine to make your writing impersonal, even abrasive. A trusted editor can help you soften your tone to more effectively connect with the bleeding hearts. Adolf the Great had one. Your arguments will be better received if you engage the patriotic heart as well as the nazi mind.
ellauri412.html on line 692: Dawkins is right. He says what Darwin told us. One guy's good is the other guy's bad. Rape feels great for the rapist, he would not do it otherwise. The atheist can perhaps categorize rape as undesirable, or unpleasant, or sub-optimal for society. But they have no real basis on which to label it objectively morally wrong. Your moral outrage at that child’s rape belies your atheism, my friend. Well, who needs objectivity, suum quique is quite enough.
xxx/ellauri113.html on line 93: The Principle of Reason, the text of an important and influential lecture course that Martin Heidegger gave in 1955-56, takes as its focal point Leibniz's principle: nothing is without reason. Heidegger shows here that the principle of reason is in fact a principle of being. Much of his discussion is aimed at bringing his readers to the "leap of thinking," which enables them to grasp the principle of reason as a principle of being. This text presents Heidegger's most extensive reflection on the notion of history and its essence, the Geschick of being, which is considered on of the most important developments in Heidegger's later thought. One of Heidegger's most artfully composed texts, it also contains important discussions of language, translation, reason, objectivity, and technology as well as remarkable readings of Leibniz, Kant, Aristotle, and Goethe, among others. And lots of black-and-white pictures of scantily dressed women.
xxx/ellauri157.html on line 345: In treating Jacob Frank, the most nihilistic of these late Sabbatians, Scholem strikes a curious note. He starts his essay by criticizing all others who had written on Sabbatianism for their lack of objectivity, often expressed in pejorative language. Yet, when he arrives at Jacob Frank, he suddenly sheds his objective tone and launches into an invective-filled description of Frank as a tyrannical and corrupt imposter. How to understand this jarring shift?
xxx/ellauri167.html on line 572: With the whole world watching, the three major news networks brought the show into millions of Americans’ living rooms. They covered the ensuing mayhem which sparked a national debate about objectivity and journalistic integrity. Senator Abraham Ribicoff only saw textbook police brutality and Gestapo tactics, being an east coast kike. But millions of flyover state Middle Americans, the “silent majority,” saw different.
5