Rebooting

I have been too apathetic too long again. So, I will try to resume my daily writing/acceleration plan. 100 words/day for the rest of this month, all of next month and increase it by 100 each month up to, say, 400 and see if I can sustain that. I know I will not be able to make it each and every day but at least having the time set aside for it should help and practice is a much better way to improve skill than, say, hoping.

Today saw 134 bad new words. Now, I sleep. Tomorrow is a day for looking busy.

That Thing Which Hath No Will

    Yes, I was intending to go to sleep after that last post; my head hurts and all. However, I found myself turning over one of shelleybear 's late posts in my mind, trying to understand how it could have happened.
    The thought that keeps returning to my mind is that the jury has been dishonest in reaching their conclusion. At least, I am assuming events occurred as described in the linked article. Even though I was not there and have no access to any of the evidence I have no reason to believe otherwise (I try to be aware of the provisionality of my knowledge in all cases, usually not explicitly and with the optimistic thought that people realise this. This time I could be bothered.) so for now I think any dishonesty must lie in the verdict.
    Have I rambled into a thicket? I think I have. I say dishonesty because how else can they, with video footage of the assault and the admission of the assaulter, still find these people* guilty?

( * )

    There is a disconnect in me. I keep trying and failing to guess at the thought path that would lead people to conclude it is okay to reach the verdict they did. Is there something I am missing? A detail of the trial or law perhaps, if not in the minds of those involved? Perhaps the answer is as simple as 'the jurors were unethical and took advantage of an opportunity to have the legal system punish people they disliked'.
    My mind wandered all the way into how people make decisions about right and wrong and the relatively easy target of Divine Command theory, rubbish idea that it is. The connection is forgotten for now, alas, but I did have a hypothetical debate with a hypothetical proponent of the theory (there are still real ones about) who maintained for the purposes of this train of thought that the killing of human beings is wrong because God says it is wrong.
    Ve attempted to refuse my doubly hypothetical yet based in reality question 'what if God declared it a good act to kill humans of class X (where X is not a category of people who have committed a crime [although if you were to maintain that disobedience toward God were itself a capital crime I suppose they still would be {unless we stipulate also that they have not actually committed any disobedience and merely fall into an identifiable category <parentheticals, whee!>}])?' by claiming 'God would not do that'.
    Of course, I pressed on the matter of, if God's will/decree is what defines right and wrong there is no reason why such a decree should not be made**. Ve claimed, then, that God is eternal, unchanging and necessarily as Ve is or else there could not be existence, therefore such hypothetical questions are invalid because there is no possibility in any reality - it is not a sensible question.
    I consider this to be a concession of the argument since I think it requires some set of principles prior to God which dictate Vis nature and, by extension, what is moral. The original purpose of writing this entire post was to ask if that were a valid objection to my hypothetical question but since in the writing I have concluded it is not I am now asking if I am in fact mistaken. I am sure I have made some unjustified/unjustifiable leap somewhere.
    And of course, one of the dangers of conducting arguments where one takes both sides is a tendency to use weaker arguments for the side not favoured but since there is only one question at stake in this case I have hopefully not been too bad.

**Well, if a previous decree were that right and wrong could not be changed in future there would be, actually. I did not realise this at the time.

Captain's Log: Stardate 2252.108

The Fresh Cat has been assigned to escort Convoy #473 to the Gomeisa System. Our journey has been uneventful so far, and the Captain of the Wild Path has proven delightful company. All that remains for our current mission is to drop out of high warp for the final approach to the Gomeisa Starbase.

Lt. Commander Ll'Ressa

Captain's Log - Additional:
Sensors report two Orion PRs at long range. Their response to my hail was... unfriendly. Going to red alert.

Captain's Log - Additional:
I managed to anchor and obliterate the first PR before it could get within a hundred thousand kilometres of the convoy, however the second slipped through and opened fire. Fortunately there was only minimal damage before the Fresh Cat laid open its shields. Somehow, I am not surprised the Wild Hearts was more amenable to our demand that they leave the system after that. Her commander vowed we would meet again as he fled and I shared a laugh with my crew.

Incidentally, the view of Gomeisa II from the Starbase lounge is spectacular.

Lt. Commander Ll'Ressa, Lyran Star Empire

Bounce

    Responding to one of my posts just below, stacis_leak  mentioned the blasphemy challenge. I was going to say that one of the purposes of the challenge was to raise awareness of disbelief and let people know it is okay to question their church but now I have checked the site itself and see no mention of any purpose but the winning of free DVDs so I suppose that was a post hoc justification.
    I do think that, as a tool for persuading others to investigate it may not be so effective (no evidence either way for me, right now) since one of the main responses from Christians seems to be horror that people could risk themselves so carelessly and utterly (that and attempting to define away the blasphemy), not the thought that 'these people are so confident of their stance, I wonder if there is anything to it'.
    So, I wanted to consider what might be a counter-challenge, something to mirror it from the other side. What I came up with was people demonstrating their belief in an afterlife by arranging for the posting of a video of their suicide. That would certainly produce horror in those who do not believe there is an afterlife and it would certainly not make me wonder if there was something to their beliefs; without some evidence apart from mere conviction I would simply think them deluded to the point of self destruction.
    Well, it does not make a perfect analogy. So far as I know most religions prohibit suicide (which I suppose is necessary for a religion promising paradise to be successful).

The act of appearing busy

    I overslept again - must get back into a sleeping pattern that plays well with others - and woke just fifteen minutes before I was due to be at TAFE so I threw on some not-pyjama clothes, told the Jehovah's Witness I was in a hurry, answered the phone and told my mother the same when she asked why I was there to answer it, and made my way over without hurrying because when you are driving that is illegal.
    It took me a while to find the room I was meant to be in. The building turned out to be at the far end of the grounds and there was a missing digit on the printout I had which directed me first to a janitor's closet. However, there was no drama and everything appears to be in order, although there was a display of eerie librarian powers when the teachers all seemed to know my name by sight without me ever mentioning it.
    Then back home to repair the bathroom doorknob which I am proud say is now sturdy again. According to my sister Monroe is becoming easier to provoke into life, although she still needs hoisting to her feet to get started.
    And here we are.

Deferential Diagnosis?

( Click/Cut )