If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com orrecusantathaf *at* gmail.com
Started by Recusant, November 08, 2015, 08:20:40 AM
Quote...Truman sent reporters scurrying for their dictionaries when he denounced Republican "snollygosters." He turned to the puzzled press corps, chewing their pencils at trainside, and quipped, "Better look that word up, it's a good one." Later in the speech he suggested, "I wish some of these snollygosters would read the New Testament and perform accordingly." Short explained that the word meant "a pretentious, swaggering, prattling fellow."-- Ken Hechler, Working with Truman: A Personal Memoir of the White House Years (1982)
QuoteA snollygoster is a fellow who wants office, regardless of party, platform or principles, and who, whenever he wins, gets there by the sheer force of monumental talknophical assumnacy.-- Editor, Columbus Dispatch (1895)
QuoteGoring, who was now general of the horse, was no more gracious to prince Rupert, than Wilmot had been; and had all the other's faults, and wanted his regularity, and preserving his respect with the officers. Wilmot loved debauchery, but shut it out from his business; never neglected that, and rarely miscarried in it. Goring had a much better understanding, and a sharper wit, (except in the very exercise of debauchery, and then the other was inspired,) a much keener courage, and presentness of mind in danger: Wilmot discerned it farther off, and because he could not behave himself so well in it, commonly prevented, or warily declined it; and never drank when he was within distance of an enemy: Goring was not able to resist the temptation, when he was in the middle of them, nor would decline it to obtain a victory; and in one of those fits, he had suffered the horse to escape out of Cornwall; and the most signal misfortunes of his life in war had their rise from that uncontrollable license. Neither of them valued their promises, professions, or friendships, according to any rules of honour or integrity; but Wilmot violated them the less willingly, and never but for some great benefit or convenience to himself; Goring without scruple, out of humour, or for wit's sake; and loved no man so well, but that he would cozen him, and then expose him to public mirth for having been cozened: therefore he had always fewer friends than the other, but more company; for no man had a with that pleased the company better. The ambition of both was unlimited, ans so equally incapable of being contented; and both unrestrained, by any respect to good-nature or justice, from pursuing the satisfaction thereof: yet Wilmot had more scruples from religion to startle him, and would not have attained his end by any gross or foul act of wickedness: Goring could have passed those pleasantly, and would, without hesitation, have broken any trust, or done any act of treachery, to have satisfied an ordinary passion or appetite; and, in truth, wanted nothing but industry (for he had wit, and courage, and understanding, and ambition, uncontrolled by any fear of God or man) to have been as eminent and successful in the highest attempt in wickedness of any man in the age he lived in, or before. Of all his qualifications, dissimulation was his masterpiece; in which he so much excelled, that men were not ordinarily ashamed, or out of countenance, with being deceived but twice by him.-- Edward Hyde, 1st earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England (1704)
QuoteThere are two features of moral cognition requiring explanation: belief in particular moral norms, and the fundamental belief that there is a normative moral reality at all. The dominant sociobiological and evolutionary psychological approach focuses on the former. It views moral norms as "epigenetic rules" that may not be fully reducible to but do emerge from genetic proclivities to adaptive behaviors: for example, incest avoidance, parental care, and repaying cooperative investments. But if these behaviors have adaptive value and we are genetically disposed to them, then why have moral norms? A common answer is that since human behavior is labile—which is itself an adaptation, but an adaptation that if unconstrained can result in disbenefits—we need "back-up mechanisms" to restrict the range of behaviors. Parents do desert or abuse their children, incest does occur, and sex and close contact with corpses do occur. Our innate repugnancies may not always be effectively constraining. In the film Lawrence of Arabia, an American reporter extols the virtues of Lawrence to Prince Faisal: "Prince, Lawrence is so merciful!" The Prince replies: "For Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion; for me, mercy is a convention. Judge for yourself which is the more reliable of the two." By the end of the movie, Lawrence is shouting, "Take no prisoners!"— Jeffrey P. Schloss, "Darwinian Explanations of Morality: Accounting for the Normal but Not the Normative" (PDF) in Understanding Moral Sentiments: Darwinian Perspectives? (2014)
QuoteThere lived not long since, in a certain village of the Mancha, the name of whereof I porposely omit, a gentleman of their calling that use to pile up in their halls old lances, halberds, morions, and such other armours and weapons. He was, besides, master of an ancient target, a lean stallion, and a swift greyhound. His pot consisted daily of somewhat more beef than mutton: a gallimaufry each night, collops and eggs on Saturdays, lentils on Fridays, and now and then a lean pigeon on Sundays, did consume three parts of his rents; the rest and remnant thereof was spent on a jerkin of fine puce, a pair of velvet hose, with pantofles of the same for the holy-days, and one suit of the finest vesture; for therewithal he honoured and set out his person on the workdays. He had in his house a woman-servant of about forty years old, and a niece not yet twenty, and a man that served him both in field and at home, and could saddle his horse, and likewise manage a pruning-hook. The master himself was about fifty years old, of a strong complexion, dry flesh, and a withered face. He was an early riser, and a great friend of hunting. Some affirm that his surname was Quixada, or Quesada (for in this there is some variance among the authors that write his life), although it may be gathered, by very probable conjectures, that he was called Quixana. Yet all this concerns our historical relation but little: let it then suffice, that in the narration thereof we will not vary a jot from the truth.