“Psychological studies have shown that in order to convince a person of something he initially disagrees with, the presented arguments must be emaculate. The first nine arguments could be flawless and persuasive, but if the 10th is fallacious, all 10 will be rejected as a matter of reflex. These inaccuracies will be all conservatives will need to dismiss the book entirely. It will soon take its place on the shelf of ludicrous and rejected liberal ideas next to An Inconvenient Truth.”
“Why is believing in something 'bigger' than yourself a good thing? How does that make you a better person and/or more fit to run a country? Does it increase your knowledge of economics? Of civics? Does it make you a better negotiator? What exactly do you base that idea on?”
“'You should not refer to GM as "a workplace atrocity designed to eviscerate victims/customers unlucky enough to haplessly purchase one of our evil products." Also, don't write letters to newspapers in which you anonymously describe management as "devil worshippers and/or mass murderers with pants sewn from cash stolen out of the pockets of dead orphans." And again, make more coffee if you drink the last of it. It doesn't make itself, people!'”
hat1701d on May 17, 2014 at 04:17:57
“If it asn't such a morbid situation for so many families....and Monty Python's cast and crew were much younger, they could have a field day making a skit over this mess.”
May 10, 2014 at 17:09:43
“Whether one likes her music or not (one doesn't), the battle she is fighting in the culture war between hedonism and puritanism is an interesting one. How far toward one or the other extreme should society allow the needle to swing? Cyrus, I think, illuminates that question well, intentionally or not.
Perhaps some of the people who disavow her and claim she "needs professional help" are merely finding it hard to accept her unapologetic exploration of her sexuality.”
mightylou on May 13, 2014 at 13:39:24
“She is exploring her sexuality in the open public. Personal sexuality is just that "personal" not public.”
IkwiataIC2II on May 13, 2014 at 01:41:55
“Hogwash! She definitely has signs of ...........”
ny46 on May 12, 2014 at 17:51:25
“By suggesting "drugging" someone??? That's not exploring HER OWN sexuality.”
lordmi on May 12, 2014 at 17:41:42
“more likely her Stupidity ...,.
and maybe Yours ?”
TooLooze on May 12, 2014 at 12:49:18
“Good point and she seems a lot more balanced, sane and mature than the Duck Dynasty people do. But apparently sex is more controversial than religion based hate.”
Frankie Callaway on May 12, 2014 at 09:44:41
“she is advocating for and suggesting that it's good to drug and rape people... in what world is that cool...?”
llucretia300 on May 12, 2014 at 08:04:14
“Is this unapologetic exploration or exploitation?”
SADWING on May 11, 2014 at 22:09:02
“I agree...the country is full of puritans.”
kagu632418 on May 11, 2014 at 21:22:03
“What a crock .. You sound like a mental masturbator .. Maybe better to use your brain for mor eproductive things .. Nothing worse than a shrink that does not have a license to practice..”
Surrey345 on May 11, 2014 at 19:02:55
“She's just not that profound Kim.”
Todd Jacobs 2 on May 11, 2014 at 19:00:12
“"How far toward one or the other extreme should society allow the needle to swing? Cyrus, I think, illuminates that question well, intentionally or not."
Miley is definitely not the new spokes person regarding what behavior society should or shouldn't feel comfortable with. Holding a giant blow up penis isn't exactly "shocking" for many. There have been tons of artists, and not necessarily musicians, who have already explored what is or isn't accepted by society: Robert Maplethorpe, Lenny Bruce, Sex Pistols, Velvet Underground, Marilyn Manson, Prince, Cramps, and the list goes on and on...I'm not sure Miley's antics add very much to the debate.”
SallyStrange on May 11, 2014 at 17:57:20
“It's not a battle between puritanism and hedonism. There's nothing pleasurable about having your boundaries violated, as Miley suggests, and I don't see the pleasure in having sex with an unconscious person either. The breakdown here is between people who understand consent and people who don't.”
Dave Roberts 123 on May 11, 2014 at 17:43:21
“She isn't exploring her sexuality. She is not that talented and therefore is relying on shock tactics to get attention. It's exactly what lady gaga did same thing with madonna. You don't explore your sexuality as part of a marketing ploy.”
Ella Biondi on May 11, 2014 at 16:57:03
“It seems more like self promotion, than fighting the culture wars.”
donut999 on May 11, 2014 at 15:56:31
“Let me say one word. MONEY.”
debris54 on May 11, 2014 at 15:41:19
“you are confusing marketing with 'exploring' // this is 100% marketing - nothing else”
kcsandy on May 11, 2014 at 14:53:37
“Personally, I think a person's sexuality is a private thing. Explore it all you want, but do it with people who want to explore with you in private. The rest of us don't really want to watch.”
bmorganRN on May 11, 2014 at 14:21:06
“She's not exploring her sexuality. She's simply resorting to shock value to make up for her sad lack of talent.”
Mark5301 on May 11, 2014 at 13:34:46
“Not remotely. There's no high minded philosophical battle here, there's just an entertainer trying to adapt to being too old to be Hannah Montana. When your talent is marginal you need a huge inflatable penis and GHB jokes.”
Seiena Cyrus on May 11, 2014 at 13:10:50
“exploring her sexuality is one thing. Even suggesting she drugs people to force them into sex is a whole other thing that should be considered disturbing and dangerous.”
Jim in California on May 11, 2014 at 12:32:42
“Seriously? The culture war is between hedonism and puritanism. How narrow-minded and over the top. No one is asking Miley to apologize for their sexual exploration. It's just that the average person doesn't sit on the commode in open public for good reason. This is one of those instances. It's that simple.”
LB62 on May 11, 2014 at 12:15:53
“I would agree with you if she were truly battling a culture war. The only war she's battling is the war to keep herself in the news.”
Runs from Scissors on May 11, 2014 at 11:50:31
“She's not exploring, she's drawing attention to herself as a schlock jock. She acts like she's the first person to have sexuality. If she wants to explore her sexuality, she can go get herself some instead of acting like a party favour.”
anywaylm on May 11, 2014 at 11:20:47
“That is just so much BS”
lurkinman on May 11, 2014 at 10:43:42
“You can't honestly believe that.”
IronHead on May 11, 2014 at 10:26:00
“As a mentioned in my post, she's just borrowing from the rave scene. This type of thing hasn't been shocking or daring since the early 1990's warehouse parties. And one of the influences on the rave scene was Studio 54 disco-era hedonism, so it goes back even further.”
ram2727 on May 11, 2014 at 10:25:26
“Dancing with blow-up genitalia onstage is not about her sexuality. It's about getting attention and being gross. Exploring her sexuality would relate to what she does sexually offstage. Don't mistake it..this is for attention and to sell tickets. It's not about her own sexuality.”
juls1314 on May 11, 2014 at 09:21:21
“You give her too much credit. She's not doing anything nearly as profound. She's trying to distance herself from her Hannah Montana image, but instead of using her voice, she is using her body.”
ruckas356 on May 11, 2014 at 06:34:38
“self exploration or self exploitation ?”
GeorgeGee on May 11, 2014 at 04:45:57
“Sounds like you want that needle to swing all the way to dead left. That's perverse, just like the needle at the far right. The war you allude to can only be avoided (it's a war that cannot be one) if more people begin to range towards the middle, plus or minus a notch or two.”
mrknobs on May 11, 2014 at 03:59:25
“She's not fighting any noble battle or even being sexual. She's just another mediocre talent using shock value to make money. Pathetic!”
Fran Jaime on May 11, 2014 at 02:22:43
“Exploring her sexuality is fine. Suggesting the use of spiked cocktails is not.”
Sarah Bonner on May 10, 2014 at 23:09:39
“Talking about spiking other people's drinks (which carries the inference of rape) isn't something that should be tolerated, even by the "public sexuality is awesome!" crowd.”
lowprofile on May 10, 2014 at 20:31:09
“What "culture war between hedonism and puritanism?"
I'm sorry...there's nothing new here. She isn't breaking new ground or raising interesting questions about hedonism vs puritanism or swinging any needles into uncharted territory.
There's no higher purpose to her performance choices beyond pulling every stunt she can come up with to exploit sex and her physical assets to the max so as to attract as much attention as possible and garner as much free publicity as possible (and - gotta give her credit - it's a good deal more attention and publicity than she'd get by just going out on the stage and singing, even tho she's also very good at that).
It's simple exhibitionism, nothing new, and usually effective. If you want to view it as something more or attach some kind of important cultural or sociological meaning to it, that's fine, but please also accept that some of us who weren't born yesterday are just too cynical and bored to participate.”
dduncan4163 on May 10, 2014 at 20:08:12
solskin101 on May 10, 2014 at 20:08:11
“What utter blather and nonsence you are spewing .....give it up for Lent”
“Maybe I misunderstand you, but aren't you contradicting yourself in the second paragraph? You say "Being uncomfortable with [gay sex]... seems to be limited to hetero men." And then you finish by saying "don't assume straight men are uncomfortable with male homosexuality." Well,,, didn't you just assume exactly that earlier in the paragraph?
Perhaps in a verbose way, you are trying to say that MANY men but not ALL are uncomfortable with gay sex?”
RLavigueur on May 8, 2014 at 14:22:14
“By "largely limited to heterosexual men" what I intended to get across is that heterosexual men are significantly more likely to respond with disgust or discomfort to images of male homosexual intimacy than heterosexual women are to respond to images of female homosexual intimacy, while in general, relatively few gay or lesbian individuals are disgusted by or uncomfortable with heterosexual intimacy.
That doesn't mean that ALL straight men are uncomfortable seeing two men kiss or hold hands or have PG13 sex in a mainstream movie, which would probably be more clear if you hadn't left out a word from the second sentence of mine that you quoted. My point was that a lot of straight guys who get uncomfortable when they see two men hold hands or kiss simply assume that their gut feeling of discomfort is just part of being heterosexual, when in reality there are a significant (and quickly growing) number of heterosexual guys, especially in the younger generations, who aren't bothered by it at all.”
“We need inequality to stimulate innovation and motivation. But more inequality does not necessarily mean more motivation. At some point the returns diminish. If a person is poor and is motivated to work hard by the expectation of, say, making 1000 times more money than the average person if he makes a groundbreaking innovation, then he would be JUST AS motivated if he only expected to make 900 times as much. Or much less, for that matter.
This, to me, is what fiscal conservatives, who seem to believe that a linear, parallel progression between money and motivation exists - i.e. if a person's expectation is to make 10% more money from his work, he will work 10% harder - apparently don't understand.
This is why inequality is useful up to a point, after which it is harmful.”
“Obviously they wouldn't 'think of making babies' every time. It would all take place on an unconscious level. They would generally tend to be less worried or concerned about casual sex, which, all else being equal, will result in more sex partners.”
“Yes, but it's becoming increasingly clear that that aphorism is not a suitable description of any economic system. A rising tide lifts all boats, yes, but a wealthy person becoming wealthier does not necessarily make a poor person wealthier as well.”
“He's not completely wrong, though, is he? You bring up the topic of quantitative analysis on a first date, nine times out of 10, she'll be bored with you. He made it sound as if women generally don't understand it, when what he should have said was that, on a date, the vast majority of them don't care.
It would likely work in reverse too, mind. A professional woman talking about it to your average, Duck Dynasty watching man, would probably also be wasted effort. It's really not a man vs woman thing, but a boring vs exciting topic of conversation thing.”
“Well, there's plenty of peanut butter in all of the supermarkets in my local area of the supposed peanut butter backwater nation of Denmark, so maybe they didn't look hard enough? Of course, I have no idea if it's the same as the stuff you eat in the US. Yes, we love us some Nutella instead :-)”
“Harris is certainly well-liked and good at what he does, but I would be very disappointed if he got the job. I really don't see him as that funny, and there are just so many much better options out there.”
“It's ironic that there's actually more of a movement for acknowledging climate change in the business world than there is among politicians and conservatives. Businesses are increasingly seeing hard evidence that their practices are unsustainable in the long run and are changing their approach, though still of course slower than we could hope.
Forget about trying to convince the politicians and the average joe conservative. If we haven't done it by now, it's not going to happen. As Sam Harris is fond of saying: 'If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to present that they should value evidence?'
Just wait until more droughts have cut into food production and water availability like it has in Australia, and the lobbyists will be telling the politicians to get their facts straight, lest more companies go under. As always, politicians will be the last ones to get it.”
“In your response you've made largely true statements but neglected to point out why you believe them to be problematic. Do you not believe the value of money should be controlled? Why not? Do you not believe corporations should be regulated in order to prevent them from enriching themselves on society's expense? Why not?”
Robert Buttons on Nov 9, 2013 at 15:19:42
“The value of money shouldn't controlled because it will ALWAYS be controlled in a way to benefit only the controllers.
An economy is NOT a zero sum game. A successful corporation doesn't necessarily become successful at the expense of society. Trade is mutually beneficial.
That being said, when corporations partner with government (ie JPM, Citibank, Jon Corzine's MF Global) to screw the populace and get away scot-free, then it is at society's expense. But in nearly ALL of these circumstances it is the partnership with govt that is corrupting.”
“Poverty is privatized, so when the free market fails an enormous part of the population, government needs to step in and do what only government can do: rein in the excessive greed of corporations that is the direct cause of the poverty.”
Robert Buttons on Nov 8, 2013 at 19:37:43
“We haven't seen the free market in a long time. The govt controls the value of our money. Govt regulators infest every layer in that construct previously known as the private sector.”