Comments for johntinker.com http://johntinker.com observations and opinions Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:54:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 Comment on privilege by John http://johntinker.com/2007/08/19/privilege/comment-page-1/#comment-21 John Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:25:08 +0000 http://johntinker.com/2007/08/19/privilege/#comment-21 When one says, "It is a privilege for to meet you," the person speaking is admitting of their sense of gratitude that comes with privilege. They are offering a credit to the person, from their own sense of the informal debt that is due to the one addressed. On the other hand, when one says, "You are a privileged person," they are essentially saying that that same debt is due. In the first case something is offered; in the second case something is demanded. When one says, “It is a privilege for to meet you,” the person speaking is admitting of their sense of gratitude that comes with privilege. They are offering a credit to the person, from their own sense of the informal debt that is due to the one addressed.

On the other hand, when one says, “You are a privileged person,” they are essentially saying that that same debt is due.

In the first case something is offered; in the second case something is demanded.

]]> Comment on privilege by copyexchange http://johntinker.com/2007/08/19/privilege/comment-page-1/#comment-16 copyexchange Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:55:25 +0000 http://johntinker.com/2007/08/19/privilege/#comment-16 I had thought privilege could be a positive thing, as in, "It is a privilege to finally make your acquaintance," or "It is a great privilege to enjoy the solitude of this forest." The <b>American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition</b>, provides only a negative connotation, saying in part that privilege is, " ... an advantage, an immunity, or a right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others." Regardless, I still consider it a privilege to be part of the human species, and obtain a view of the world unavailable to other beings. I hope that does not make me the oppressor of other beings, though I guess it does in some respects. I had thought privilege could be a positive thing, as in, “It is a privilege to finally make your acquaintance,” or “It is a great privilege to enjoy the solitude of this forest.”

The American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, provides only a negative connotation, saying in part that privilege is, ” … an advantage, an immunity, or a right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.”

Regardless, I still consider it a privilege to be part of the human species, and obtain a view of the world unavailable to other beings. I hope that does not make me the oppressor of other beings, though I guess it does in some respects.

]]> Comment on Bonnie and Sara stop a tank by John http://johntinker.com/2007/06/11/bonnie-and-sara-stop-a-tank/comment-page-1/#comment-5 John Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:01:49 +0000 http://johntinker.com/2007/06/11/bonnie-and-sara-stop-a-tank/#comment-5 Yes. I think that "conflict" is a central term, and that people will populate the slots surrounding it with whichever entities culture and personality derive for to populate those slots. Mainly, I see a structure, pre-existent, though the contents do vary among us. When the dominant culture was pushing East/West conflict, or Capitalist/Communist, I was perceiving a Civilian/Military conflict. Now the central conflict is, if not Islam/Judeo-Christian, then it is something (in the dominant and dominating culture) like Terrorist/GoodPerson. Which of those is the most bigoted may be debated. They are so shallow, that they can't last long. The tank driver was - me guessing - thinking in some kind of GoodPerson/BadPerson paradigm. That's pretty basic, and pretty old. So much so, that there is little current context. For keeping abreast of current events, I think Civilian/Military is a durable analysis. When it stops being so, so much the better. Yes. I think that “conflict” is a central term, and that people will populate the slots surrounding it with whichever entities culture and personality derive for to populate those slots. Mainly, I see a structure, pre-existent, though the contents do vary among us.

When the dominant culture was pushing East/West conflict, or Capitalist/Communist, I was perceiving a Civilian/Military conflict. Now the central conflict is, if not Islam/Judeo-Christian, then it is something (in the dominant and dominating culture) like Terrorist/GoodPerson. Which of those is the most bigoted may be debated. They are so shallow, that they can’t last long.

The tank driver was - me guessing - thinking in some kind of GoodPerson/BadPerson paradigm. That’s pretty basic, and pretty old. So much so, that there is little current context.

For keeping abreast of current events, I think Civilian/Military is a durable analysis. When it stops being so, so much the better.

]]>