The best line (imho), with which I completely agree:
"The message of the series, says director Hassan Fathi, is that "what is endangering peace is extremist thinking, and political hard-liners that separate people from each other. God created people to love each other, regardless of religion.... Unfortunately [when it comes to] religion the current of extremism is always on, creating misunderstanding between cultures."
Goodness knows, when there's a war it's ALWAYS because some lunatic mysteriously wound up in charge. There's NEVER been such a thing as a conflict of national interests that couldn't be resolved by talking about it.
Lab, I don't think that President Bush is a lunatic but he is an extremist much in the same way Ahamadinejad is in Iran. The two are oddly similar in their approach to politics which is the point that I believe Hassan was trying to make.
Well, they're both male, they're both carbon-based life forms, and they're both politicians. Beyond that, the "odd similarities" between them lie in your favorite realm, "making shit up because it sounds good".
but he is an extremist much in the same way Ahamadinejad is in Iran.
Priceless.
If Hitler were reanimated, Mark would say "Now, Bush isn't a Jew-Kiler, like Zombie-Hitler, but he's got a lot of the same attriibutes, you must admit."
So, Mark, since he's an extremist "much in the same way" as A-jad... Surely you'd be willing to demonstrate the points of commonality?
(Yeah, I know, I kill me.)
I've been out of town (and might get yanked out again on short notice), but I notice you never answered my question (despite earlier insisting that you do ...( I don't answer the questions the way you want me to answer them but I do answer them) here.
When your students leave answers blank on the tests you give them, do you "agree to disagree?"
Unix, I didn't answer your question because it is a moot one. I don't assess my students with testing. Typical that a conservative would think that they only way to measure knowledge is by a test.My students write papers, have group discussion, and work on tangible projects. That is what they get graded on, as well as classroom participation.
My students disagree with me all the time. So what? I have conservatives, liberals, and everything in between. I bring a friend of mine, an evangelical Christian, to guest speak in class all the time. I have also had Islamic speakers. We all respect each other's views and generally have good debates in class, whatever the issue.
Lab, here are some thoughts for you:
1. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad are in power due to the support of religious extremists who want to force people to live their lives in a very strict, old fashioned way.
2. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad have one central goal in mind: control the world's oil reserves and reap large profit for their respective countries and allies.
3. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad believe that it is manifest destiny that their way is the RIGHT way.
4. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad actively seek to eliminate or skew any information, whether it is the media, the education system, or any other outlet of knowledge, that does not go along with this manifest destiny listed in #3.
5. In order to achieve 1-4, both Bush and Ahamadinejad use the logical fallacy of "appeal to fear" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear)
on a gullible population to achieve these ends.
6. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad could care less about serving their countries' or their people's interests.
7. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad have one central conviction: their own vanity.
Chavez is pretty much the same way, which is why I always get PO'd when Sean Penn or Harry Belafonte goes down there and shakes hands with him. He does the same shit that Bush does so what's the difference?
I don't assess my students with testing. Typical that a conservative would think that they only way to measure knowledge is by a test.My students write papers, have group discussion, and work on tangible projects. That is what they get graded on, as well as classroom participation.
And words don't even mean what you mean them to mean when you're using them at the same time.
That is what they get graded on
Then they're tested. The type of the tests is somewhat meaningless - other than to demonstrate you don't know what you're doing in the chosen field that you've held up as proof you should be taken seriously.
If you require your students to do work, for a grade, then you've tested them.
(I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop calling me a conservative. The conservatives would appreciate it as well.)
Anyway, back to the point, so when one of your students refuses to write a paper/deal with a point you've assigned them as part of their "assess"ment - do you "agree to disagree" because they've not mentioned it?
"I'll leave the psychological, philosophical, and physical dissection to others."
It's easy, Kevin. Here it comes ...
"1. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad are in power due to the support of religious extremists who WANT to force people to live their lives in a very strict, old fashioned way.
2. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad HAVE one central GOAL in mind: control the world's oil reserves and reap large profit for their respective countries and allies.
3. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad BELIEVE that it is manifest destiny that their way is the RIGHT way.
4. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad actively SEEK to eliminate or skew any information, whether it is the media, the education system, or any other outlet of knowledge, that does not go along with this manifest destiny listed in #3.
5. In order to achieve 1-4, both Bush and Ahamadinejad use the logical fallacy of "appeal to fear" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear)
on a gullible population to achieve these ends.
6. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad could CARE less about serving their countries' or their people's interests.
7. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad HAVE one central CONVICTION: their own vanity."
OK, Mark, do you see the highlights that I've added above? Sure you do. You're stupid, but not blind.
Now, in each and every case where I've highlighted your words above, you have stated, respectively: 1) what people want; 2) a goal that people have; 3) what people believe; 4) what people seek; and, 6) what people care about.
Here it comes, yet again (and why I'm trying yet again, I really can't figure out; perhaps it's "bang my head against the brick wall day").
How is it that you are able to read these people's minds such that you know these things?
Oh, I forgot -- you just know them, right?
You can't or won't give us any reason whatever to believe that you have any way of knowing that these assertions are true, will you? Some dude says so, and so you believe it's all true, and you can't tell the difference.
And now, for something completely different:
"I don't assess my students with testing."
Yes, you do.
"My students write papers, have group discussion, and work on tangible projects. That is what they get graded on ..."
And you determine, perhaps by an Ouija Board, how well they did. The papers, the discussions, and their work on projects are all tests of how well they have learned the subject matter.
"Typical that a conservative would think that they only way to measure knowledge is by a test."
Typical that you that you can't call a spade a spade.
"Chavez is a socialist/communist - so that means he means well."
Well, that's what he says he is but he is nothing more than a dictator with short man syndrome bent on accumulating as much power and wealth as he can, regardless of how many lives he ruins in the process. Most leaders are like this...although not as short :)
"when one of your students refuses to write a paper/deal with a point"...do you "agree to disagree"
Again, a moot point because it's never really happened. I understand what you are driving at here, Unix, and I believe I have apologized in the past if I don't answer all of your questions. The reasons for this are usually any or all of the following.
1. I am busy with school.
2. I am busy studying.
3. I am busy with my family
4. I am busy with my friends.
I would like to think that I am allowed freedom of choice...to pick the questions that I am interested in responding to as well...is that OK? Or do I not have that individual freedom?
"How is it that you are able to read these people's minds such that you know these things?"
I don't have to read their minds. Their words speak for themselves. So do their actions. Of course, you have to be open to hearing and seeing these things and I guess I'm not sure that you are or you want to, DJ.
It's not "some dude." It's me. I examine daily events in the world and usually begin by asking myself: what is the motivation behind this action? Why are they doing this? Once you know the right questions, the answers become obvious.
"I understand what you are driving at here, Unix, and I believe I have apologized in the past if I don't answer all of your questions. The reasons for this are usually any or all of the following.
1. I am busy with school.
2. I am busy studying.
3. I am busy with my family
4. I am busy with my friends.
I would like to think that I am allowed freedom of choice...to pick the questions that I am interested in responding to as well...is that OK? Or do I not have that individual freedom?"
Bullshit.
You spend far more words, and therefore more time and effort, not answering his questions, hemming and hawing and dancing around the answers, than it would take to just answer his questions. Yet again, you simply make excuses, and yet again, you fool no one.
"I don't have to read their minds. Their words speak for themselves."
We keep asking you to point us to their words such that we can see them for ourselves, and you keep ignoring our requests. YOU are not believable, and so I don't believe you have heard any of their words in which they say that they believe what you claim they believe. You make shit up, which means you have a hole to dig yourself out of before you can be believed. You refuse even to try.
"So do their actions. Of course, you have to be open to hearing and seeing these things and I guess I'm not sure that you are or you want to, DJ."
I'm open to anything, particularly reality, but I don't jump to conclusions as to their motives, nor do I claim to read their minds, nor do I ascribe to them motivations that are based on motivations that I ascribe to them.
"It's not "some dude." It's me."
You say it's true, so it's true, is that it? You have just admitted to subscribing to dogma, dude. Again, thanks for the affirmation.
"I examine daily events in the world and usually begin by asking myself: what is the motivation behind this action? Why are they doing this?" Once you know the right questions, the answers become obvious."
Which means you don't need any investigation or any rational analysis based on any stinking facts to get in your way. You just ask questions of yourself and POOF, you have the answers, and you just KNOW the answers are correct. And to think that you would lecture us about logical fallacies ...
Well, all that is what we thought about you. Thanks for confirming it. No respect at all, dude, no respect at all.
I believe I have apologized in the past if I don't answer all of your questions.
Most recently, you declared (as I've quoted and requoted back to you), that you do answer my questions.
(http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/4685054642067854730/)
Now, it's one thing if you don't get around to something. But somewhat-not-amazingly-to-me, it's always once you've gotten your ass thoroughly handed to you - enough that even you start - start! - to notice.
You ignored my first question about how you'd deal with the same problem. You've still dodged it, but tried to use a "gotcha" - which backfired, as it showed you didn't even know what you're doing!
I would like to think that I am allowed freedom of choice...to pick the questions that I am interested in responding to as well...is that OK? Or do I not have that individual freedom?
You've got all the freedom in the world, Mark. (Until your preferred candidates are elected.)
But you can't dodge every substantiatve question, beg off on hard questions, and then expect us to think you've given sufficient thought to your policy, or even any thought at all.
That's what you've done, Mark. Insisted you're someone worth listening to, then when asked for specifics as to why, dithered, moved the goalposts around (When you didn't notice you were being scored upon, and the scoreboard was incrementing wildly), accused me and others of "distorting language", and distorted the everlasting shit out of the English language to try and make non-factual arguments.
Just - ex-fucking-xactly like what "testing" means.
"I don't test! Ha!"
*we all put heads in hands*. "Yes, yes you do."
"No! I don't! I grade! I give essays! No tests! HA! HA!"
"I would like to think that I am allowed freedom of choice...to pick the questions that I am interested in responding to as well...is that OK? Or do I not have that individual freedom?"
deserves its own response.
You have the same freedoms that everyone else does. Unix's complaint, indeed the complaint of pretty much all the rest of us, isn't about freedom, it's about credibility. If you don't want to respond to his or anyone else's requests, that's up to you, but if you won't support your assertions such that we can check them for validity (to the extent they can be checked), then you have no reason to expect them to be believed. You are into dogma, we are not.
So, whether or not you have the freedom to choose what to answer and what not to answer is a red herring. Whether or not you want credibility is the issue. You have destroyed yours quite thoroughly. You can exercise your freedom to not respond, and thereby forego any prospect of credibility, or you can try to gain some. The choice is yours and yours alone.
Mark, this all suddenly jelled. I'll be in the woods all day tomorrow, so I'm hammering it now.
This
"I examine daily events in the world and usually begin by asking myself: what is the motivation behind this action? Why are they doing this? Once you know the right questions, the answers become obvious."
is utterly priceless. The ink is dry and there's no going back.
The quest is over. We now know how you arrive at the bizarre beliefs you splatter these pages with. We know it because you've told us in plain English, and using simple words, too.
You read the papers, as it were, then ask why someone would do what you read that they did, and then, by golly, you know the answer. It's all so simple, really. You ask yourself the right questions and, because you ask yourself the right questions, the answers just pop into your mind as if by magic.
That's really special, isn't it?
Magic is powerful stuff, ya see. With magic, you don't need investigations because you don't need facts, you don't need logic because you don't need rational thought, and you can't be convinced that you are wrong because your mind doesn't use the mechanisms that show you to be wrong! If the answer just pops into your head without you having to do any of that investigatin' stuff, then, by gum, the answer just has to be right, doesn't it?
It explains a lot, Mark. It explains why you simply do not respond to requests for the sources of the facts from which your points of view are logically reasoned. You don't show us where we can verify those facts because you don't know where they are, nor do you know whether or not they exist. You don't show us how your points of view are logically reasoned from those facts because they aren't logically reasoned from facts. You don't need no stinking facts, you don't need no stinking logic, and you don't need no stinking rationality, because you just ask yourself the right questions and PRESTO, the answers appear.
And the best part is, you get to make shit up and nobody will ever know that you did, because no one can tell the difference between you making shit up and you getting the answers just by asking yourself the right questions! Making shit up is indistinguishable from magic, and magic trumps reality!
For once, you are believable, as this explanation describes your behavior perfectly. It's one thing to suspect this of you, Mark, but it's quite refreshing to see you confess to it in your own words.
Don't reply to DJ immediately.
Well, of course, you can. But I'll suggest that you ruminate on what he's told you.
Because what he's said is largely what I've figured out, and been trying to get you to discover. But I hadn't distilled, if you will, the precise issues, and I actually skimmed what you said, and missed your admission.
But it's what I've been trying to get you to recognize - DJ's put it in a concise, very good explanation.
Think on what he's .. what's the new-agey term.. oh, yeah, lensed for you from your own words.
Of course, you have to be open to hearing and seeing these things and I guess I'm not sure that you are or you want to, DJ.
But, Mark, when things that don't fit what you've deduced are pointed out to you, you change the subject, or start ignoring those questions. I'm not asking you to answer me, or DJ.
Just think about it for a day or so. Does it make sense the way you've described it, the way DJ's lensed for you?
Then decide if that's how policy should be decided upon and judged?
(DJ: Very good, concise, and well written analysis. Kudos. )
"We keep asking you to point us to their words such that we can see them for ourselves"
I do but you refuse to watch any of the films or read many of the web sites I link. Again, not my fault.
"You can exercise your freedom to not respond, and thereby forego any prospect of credibility"
I gave up a long time ago on having credibility with some posters here. Remember, I have been co-opted by the liberal indoctrination machine :)
"You read the papers..."
Well, I also read this blog because I think everyone here makes some valid points. They certainly have made me think and have altered my perceptions on many things, not just the gun issue. So, DJ, whether you want to or not, you, in a small way, aid me in looking at issues from another angle and ultimately, asking the right questions.
I do but you refuse to watch any of the films or read many of the web sites I link.
Err, nazzofast, Guido. We do visit the web sites you link to. What we object to is your linking to them as sources of FACT. So far, they have not been. They've been sources of OPINION that happen to agree with your own.
And if it makes you feel any better, I am planning on watching Why We Fight this weekend. I've read the reviews thoroughly and it looks interesting, though the repeated comparisons to Farenheit 9/11 are not a plus.
"So, DJ, whether you want to or not, you, in a small way, aid me in looking at issues from another angle and ultimately, asking the right questions."
In a small way, huh? It sticks in your craw like a big wad of old peanut butter, doesn't it?
What I am trying to get you to understand, indeed what we all have been trying to get you to understand for a long time, is not that you are asking the wrong questions, rather it is that, ultimately, the mechanism by which you try to get answers to questions, even the right questions, is fundamentally wrong.
The core error is embodied in this statment of yours:
"I examine daily events in the world and usually begin by asking myself: what is the motivation behind this action? Why are they doing this? Once you know the right questions, the answers become obvious."
When I read that statement of yours, I recalled this statement by St. Augustine:
"A characteristic of heretical sects is to be incapable of seeing what is obvious to everyone else."
That summarizes your evaluations of our thoughts perfectly, doesn't it? To you, we are a heretical sect, as it were, who cannot see what is obvious to you, and therefore we are wrong.
Once again, I offer a simple observation, the truth of which is self-evident:
Reality is what it is, regardless of whether or not you like it, and regardless of what you think of it.
The most fundamental error you make is no less than chutzpah on a cosmic scale, to wit, believing that reality simply must be such that it is in accord with what is obvious to you. The sheer arrogance you embody in behaving from that point of view numbs the mind.
To illuminate this, I'll use a simple device, the rhetorical question:
Why must reality be what is obvious to you, but not what is obvious to Kevin, or to me, or to any of the other 6.3 billion people on this planet? Goddamn, man, are you really that important?"
On another level, to state that, in order to find the answers to questions of "what is the motivation behind this action", you have only to ask questions of yourself, means that you have all the knowledge within yourself that is required to answer such questions, that your knowledge is both sufficient and infallible.
Again a rhetorical question: Goddamn, man, do you really know it ALL?
This goes right to the core of the problem, Mark. What is "obvious" to you means what is in accord with your personal likes, dislikes, prejudices, biases, and so on, none of which have any necessary agreement with reality. You are no more infallible than you are omniscient. The fundamental error in this is embodied in the cliche garbage in, garbage out, the circularity of results of which is visible in your blather. For example: President Bush is an evil, capitalistic pig, so of course his reason for making war in Iraq was only to enrich his friends! President Bush made war in Iraq only to enrich his friends, so of course he is an evil, capitalistic pig!
Yet again a rhetorical question: Goddamn, man, can you not see the fallacy in this method of thought?
This explains the many (hundreds?) of times that I have complained about you jumping to conclusions. Statements of the form "you think ...", or "you believe ...", or "you want ..." could easily be the answers to questions such as "do you think ...", or "do you believe ...", or "do you want ...", or they could be the answers to more general questions such as "what do you ...". But you don't ask those questions about the person whom you are engaged in a discussion with. Instead, you take the astoundingly arrogant approach of telling him what he thinks, what he believes, what he wants, instead of asking him.
Yet again a rhetorical question: Goddamn, man, do you know more about the person you're talking to than HE does?
This also explains the many (hundreds?) of times that I have complained about you stating things that you cannot possibly know the truth or falseness of. Statements of the form "he thinks ...", or "he believes ...", or "he wants ..." could easily be the answers to questions such as "does he think ...", or "does he believe ...", or "does he want ...", or they could be the answers to more general questions such as "what does he ...". But you don't ask those questions because you can't; you have no opportunity to. Oh, you can ask, but you'll get no answer. Instead, you take the astoundingly arrogant approach of telling us what he thinks, what he believes, what he wants, when you cannot possibly know.
Finally, a last rhetorical question: Goddamn, man, are you a mind reader, too?
Sometimes, Mark, the answer to the question, "What is the motivation behind this action?" is, "I don't know." When the only way to find out is to ask the person involved, and you can't ask him or he isn't saying, then is the time for intellectual honesty, for simple integrity, and for the only correct answer, which is, "I don't know."
I suggest that you learn, because you (ahem!) obviously don't follow it, this maxim from Heinlein:
“What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" -- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; FACTS ARE YOUR SINGLE CLUE. GET THE FACTS!" (emphasis added)
I suggest also that you learn and follow this maxim:
"If what seems obvious to you doesn't match the facts, then what is obvious to you just isn't so. You should match your thinking to reality, because reality won't match itself to your thinking. Get the facts and admit the limits of your understanding of reality. Sometimes the best you can do is admit that you don't know something."
And substituting, "I just know it," rightfully condemns you to contempt.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
Mark Twain
If you act on the basis of _knowing_ things that you cannot possible know, it is pure chance if you don't end up in trouble.
It's pretty common among engineers that they know why they know what they know -- and more importantly, they know when they don't know something. It's probably a tautology to say this always applies to a good engineer. Too bad there are so many teachers it appears to not apply to.
The sheer arrogance you embody in behaving from that point of view numbs the mind.
Yes, that line is deserving of bold, and underline and italic. I was even going to venture adding to it - but I thought better of doing so. That which is done well speaks for itself.
BTW, Mark (assuming you're still reading this comment thread given the rhetorical and epistemological whuppin' handed out above) I just completed my first viewing of Why We Fight.
Initial response: Well done film, absolutely not in the mold of Michael Moore. It makes several important points. It does not, however make any suggestions, useful or otherwise. Perhaps this is a good thing.
I will be posting on it hopefully this weekend. Thanks for the recommendation.
P.S.: Now I see why you have wrapped your worldview around the "Empire" meme.
It's another example of word manipulation - again, not done by the Right.
Yeah, I'm still reading. No prob on the ass whuppin. It's all good.
Glad to hear you've watched the film Why We Fight. Just so you know, I do plan on getting God and Gold. Funds are tight right now so more than likely to will end up in my Christmas stocking. I hope that you post something down the line about it again as I would be interested in (and am looking forward to reading) Mead's references to Reinhold Niebuhr in the book and what you thought of them.
Remember which presidential candidate is a fan of Reinhold Niebuhr? :)
So, now that you have seen Why We Fight, I hope that you trust, ever so slightly, that when I say you will like a film, you will. I encourage you (and everyone else here) to see The Kingdom. For the action alone, you will love it but the ending....ah the ending (really don't want to give it away, it's so...ah, can't do it)...let's just say it really falls in line with many perceptions on this blog.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/11/quotes-of-day.html (36 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Well, this has been up for a couple of hours, and no one has commented yet.
Kevin, I think we're _all_ afraid of you. ;)
(*Shhhhhhh!* We'wre huntin' wiberals!) ;)
Some cultures are more equal than others.
--Bastardization of Animal Farm
Hey, how's this for multiculturalism?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1127/p01s06-wome.html
The best line (imho), with which I completely agree:
"The message of the series, says director Hassan Fathi, is that "what is endangering peace is extremist thinking, and political hard-liners that separate people from each other. God created people to love each other, regardless of religion.... Unfortunately [when it comes to] religion the current of extremism is always on, creating misunderstanding between cultures."
God created people to love each other
Then He failed miserably.
God created people to love each other
Odd, I thought we were created to take care of his animals in The Garden. I'll have to read genesis again to see if I missed it.
I still like the apple part. God should have seen that coming a mile away. Mankind doing what it's told? Yeah, right. That's how we got America.
Goodness knows, when there's a war it's ALWAYS because some lunatic mysteriously wound up in charge. There's NEVER been such a thing as a conflict of national interests that couldn't be resolved by talking about it.
The Maloney quote is correct, but only because women are emotional and men want to get laid.
Lab, I don't think that President Bush is a lunatic but he is an extremist much in the same way Ahamadinejad is in Iran. The two are oddly similar in their approach to politics which is the point that I believe Hassan was trying to make.
"God created people to love each other" -- Hassan Fathi
Well, now, who found that out? -- Mark Twain
Well, they're both male, they're both carbon-based life forms, and they're both politicians. Beyond that, the "odd similarities" between them lie in your favorite realm, "making shit up because it sounds good".
but he is an extremist much in the same way Ahamadinejad is in Iran.
Priceless.
If Hitler were reanimated, Mark would say "Now, Bush isn't a Jew-Kiler, like Zombie-Hitler, but he's got a lot of the same attriibutes, you must admit."
So, Mark, since he's an extremist "much in the same way" as A-jad... Surely you'd be willing to demonstrate the points of commonality?
(Yeah, I know, I kill me.)
I've been out of town (and might get yanked out again on short notice), but I notice you never answered my question (despite earlier insisting that you do ...( I don't answer the questions the way you want me to answer them but I do answer them) here.
When your students leave answers blank on the tests you give them, do you "agree to disagree?"
Unix, I didn't answer your question because it is a moot one. I don't assess my students with testing. Typical that a conservative would think that they only way to measure knowledge is by a test.My students write papers, have group discussion, and work on tangible projects. That is what they get graded on, as well as classroom participation.
My students disagree with me all the time. So what? I have conservatives, liberals, and everything in between. I bring a friend of mine, an evangelical Christian, to guest speak in class all the time. I have also had Islamic speakers. We all respect each other's views and generally have good debates in class, whatever the issue.
Lab, here are some thoughts for you:
1. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad are in power due to the support of religious extremists who want to force people to live their lives in a very strict, old fashioned way.
2. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad have one central goal in mind: control the world's oil reserves and reap large profit for their respective countries and allies.
3. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad believe that it is manifest destiny that their way is the RIGHT way.
4. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad actively seek to eliminate or skew any information, whether it is the media, the education system, or any other outlet of knowledge, that does not go along with this manifest destiny listed in #3.
5. In order to achieve 1-4, both Bush and Ahamadinejad use the logical fallacy of "appeal to fear" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear)
on a gullible population to achieve these ends.
6. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad could care less about serving their countries' or their people's interests.
7. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad have one central conviction: their own vanity.
Chavez is pretty much the same way, which is why I always get PO'd when Sean Penn or Harry Belafonte goes down there and shakes hands with him. He does the same shit that Bush does so what's the difference?
Wow. Just wow.
Mark, I'm amazed to find out that there are only 5 crayon colors in your personal universe.
Actually, I'm not. It explains quite a bit about you.
I'll leave the psychological, philosophical, and physical dissection to others.
Just... Wow.
One thing, though: (Chavez) does the same shit that Bush does so what's the difference?
Chavez is a socialist/communist - so that means he means well.
I can't believe you didn't get the memo.
I don't assess my students with testing. Typical that a conservative would think that they only way to measure knowledge is by a test.My students write papers, have group discussion, and work on tangible projects. That is what they get graded on, as well as classroom participation.
And words don't even mean what you mean them to mean when you're using them at the same time.
That is what they get graded on
Then they're tested. The type of the tests is somewhat meaningless - other than to demonstrate you don't know what you're doing in the chosen field that you've held up as proof you should be taken seriously.
If you require your students to do work, for a grade, then you've tested them.
(I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop calling me a conservative. The conservatives would appreciate it as well.)
Anyway, back to the point, so when one of your students refuses to write a paper/deal with a point you've assigned them as part of their "assess"ment - do you "agree to disagree" because they've not mentioned it?
Lab, here are some thoughts for you:
I wouldn't exactly.... think that "thoughts" would be an appropriate name for those points.
"I'll leave the psychological, philosophical, and physical dissection to others."
It's easy, Kevin. Here it comes ...
"1. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad are in power due to the support of religious extremists who WANT to force people to live their lives in a very strict, old fashioned way.
2. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad HAVE one central GOAL in mind: control the world's oil reserves and reap large profit for their respective countries and allies.
3. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad BELIEVE that it is manifest destiny that their way is the RIGHT way.
4. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad actively SEEK to eliminate or skew any information, whether it is the media, the education system, or any other outlet of knowledge, that does not go along with this manifest destiny listed in #3.
5. In order to achieve 1-4, both Bush and Ahamadinejad use the logical fallacy of "appeal to fear" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear)
on a gullible population to achieve these ends.
6. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad could CARE less about serving their countries' or their people's interests.
7. Both Bush and Ahamadinejad HAVE one central CONVICTION: their own vanity."
OK, Mark, do you see the highlights that I've added above? Sure you do. You're stupid, but not blind.
Now, in each and every case where I've highlighted your words above, you have stated, respectively: 1) what people want; 2) a goal that people have; 3) what people believe; 4) what people seek; and, 6) what people care about.
Here it comes, yet again (and why I'm trying yet again, I really can't figure out; perhaps it's "bang my head against the brick wall day").
How is it that you are able to read these people's minds such that you know these things?
Oh, I forgot -- you just know them, right?
You can't or won't give us any reason whatever to believe that you have any way of knowing that these assertions are true, will you? Some dude says so, and so you believe it's all true, and you can't tell the difference.
And now, for something completely different:
"I don't assess my students with testing."
Yes, you do.
"My students write papers, have group discussion, and work on tangible projects. That is what they get graded on ..."
And you determine, perhaps by an Ouija Board, how well they did. The papers, the discussions, and their work on projects are all tests of how well they have learned the subject matter.
"Typical that a conservative would think that they only way to measure knowledge is by a test."
Typical that you that you can't call a spade a spade.
Oh, and I'm not a conservative, either.
"Chavez is a socialist/communist - so that means he means well."
Well, that's what he says he is but he is nothing more than a dictator with short man syndrome bent on accumulating as much power and wealth as he can, regardless of how many lives he ruins in the process. Most leaders are like this...although not as short :)
"when one of your students refuses to write a paper/deal with a point"...do you "agree to disagree"
Again, a moot point because it's never really happened. I understand what you are driving at here, Unix, and I believe I have apologized in the past if I don't answer all of your questions. The reasons for this are usually any or all of the following.
1. I am busy with school.
2. I am busy studying.
3. I am busy with my family
4. I am busy with my friends.
I would like to think that I am allowed freedom of choice...to pick the questions that I am interested in responding to as well...is that OK? Or do I not have that individual freedom?
"How is it that you are able to read these people's minds such that you know these things?"
I don't have to read their minds. Their words speak for themselves. So do their actions. Of course, you have to be open to hearing and seeing these things and I guess I'm not sure that you are or you want to, DJ.
It's not "some dude." It's me. I examine daily events in the world and usually begin by asking myself: what is the motivation behind this action? Why are they doing this? Once you know the right questions, the answers become obvious.
"I understand what you are driving at here, Unix, and I believe I have apologized in the past if I don't answer all of your questions. The reasons for this are usually any or all of the following.
1. I am busy with school.
2. I am busy studying.
3. I am busy with my family
4. I am busy with my friends.
I would like to think that I am allowed freedom of choice...to pick the questions that I am interested in responding to as well...is that OK? Or do I not have that individual freedom?"
Bullshit.
You spend far more words, and therefore more time and effort, not answering his questions, hemming and hawing and dancing around the answers, than it would take to just answer his questions. Yet again, you simply make excuses, and yet again, you fool no one.
"I don't have to read their minds. Their words speak for themselves."
We keep asking you to point us to their words such that we can see them for ourselves, and you keep ignoring our requests. YOU are not believable, and so I don't believe you have heard any of their words in which they say that they believe what you claim they believe. You make shit up, which means you have a hole to dig yourself out of before you can be believed. You refuse even to try.
"So do their actions. Of course, you have to be open to hearing and seeing these things and I guess I'm not sure that you are or you want to, DJ."
I'm open to anything, particularly reality, but I don't jump to conclusions as to their motives, nor do I claim to read their minds, nor do I ascribe to them motivations that are based on motivations that I ascribe to them.
"It's not "some dude." It's me."
You say it's true, so it's true, is that it? You have just admitted to subscribing to dogma, dude. Again, thanks for the affirmation.
"I examine daily events in the world and usually begin by asking myself: what is the motivation behind this action? Why are they doing this?" Once you know the right questions, the answers become obvious."
Which means you don't need any investigation or any rational analysis based on any stinking facts to get in your way. You just ask questions of yourself and POOF, you have the answers, and you just KNOW the answers are correct. And to think that you would lecture us about logical fallacies ...
Well, all that is what we thought about you. Thanks for confirming it. No respect at all, dude, no respect at all.
Mark:
I believe I have apologized in the past if I don't answer all of your questions.
Most recently, you declared (as I've quoted and requoted back to you), that you do answer my questions.
(http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/4685054642067854730/)
Now, it's one thing if you don't get around to something. But somewhat-not-amazingly-to-me, it's always once you've gotten your ass thoroughly handed to you - enough that even you start - start! - to notice.
You ignored my first question about how you'd deal with the same problem. You've still dodged it, but tried to use a "gotcha" - which backfired, as it showed you didn't even know what you're doing!
I would like to think that I am allowed freedom of choice...to pick the questions that I am interested in responding to as well...is that OK? Or do I not have that individual freedom?
You've got all the freedom in the world, Mark. (Until your preferred candidates are elected.)
But you can't dodge every substantiatve question, beg off on hard questions, and then expect us to think you've given sufficient thought to your policy, or even any thought at all.
That's what you've done, Mark. Insisted you're someone worth listening to, then when asked for specifics as to why, dithered, moved the goalposts around (When you didn't notice you were being scored upon, and the scoreboard was incrementing wildly), accused me and others of "distorting language", and distorted the everlasting shit out of the English language to try and make non-factual arguments.
Just - ex-fucking-xactly like what "testing" means.
"I don't test! Ha!"
*we all put heads in hands*. "Yes, yes you do."
"No! I don't! I grade! I give essays! No tests! HA! HA!"
Truly, your intellect is staggering.
And this
"I would like to think that I am allowed freedom of choice...to pick the questions that I am interested in responding to as well...is that OK? Or do I not have that individual freedom?"
deserves its own response.
You have the same freedoms that everyone else does. Unix's complaint, indeed the complaint of pretty much all the rest of us, isn't about freedom, it's about credibility. If you don't want to respond to his or anyone else's requests, that's up to you, but if you won't support your assertions such that we can check them for validity (to the extent they can be checked), then you have no reason to expect them to be believed. You are into dogma, we are not.
So, whether or not you have the freedom to choose what to answer and what not to answer is a red herring. Whether or not you want credibility is the issue. You have destroyed yours quite thoroughly. You can exercise your freedom to not respond, and thereby forego any prospect of credibility, or you can try to gain some. The choice is yours and yours alone.
Whatcha gonna do, dude?
Mark, this all suddenly jelled. I'll be in the woods all day tomorrow, so I'm hammering it now.
This
"I examine daily events in the world and usually begin by asking myself: what is the motivation behind this action? Why are they doing this? Once you know the right questions, the answers become obvious."
is utterly priceless. The ink is dry and there's no going back.
The quest is over. We now know how you arrive at the bizarre beliefs you splatter these pages with. We know it because you've told us in plain English, and using simple words, too.
You read the papers, as it were, then ask why someone would do what you read that they did, and then, by golly, you know the answer. It's all so simple, really. You ask yourself the right questions and, because you ask yourself the right questions, the answers just pop into your mind as if by magic.
That's really special, isn't it?
Magic is powerful stuff, ya see. With magic, you don't need investigations because you don't need facts, you don't need logic because you don't need rational thought, and you can't be convinced that you are wrong because your mind doesn't use the mechanisms that show you to be wrong! If the answer just pops into your head without you having to do any of that investigatin' stuff, then, by gum, the answer just has to be right, doesn't it?
It explains a lot, Mark. It explains why you simply do not respond to requests for the sources of the facts from which your points of view are logically reasoned. You don't show us where we can verify those facts because you don't know where they are, nor do you know whether or not they exist. You don't show us how your points of view are logically reasoned from those facts because they aren't logically reasoned from facts. You don't need no stinking facts, you don't need no stinking logic, and you don't need no stinking rationality, because you just ask yourself the right questions and PRESTO, the answers appear.
And the best part is, you get to make shit up and nobody will ever know that you did, because no one can tell the difference between you making shit up and you getting the answers just by asking yourself the right questions! Making shit up is indistinguishable from magic, and magic trumps reality!
For once, you are believable, as this explanation describes your behavior perfectly. It's one thing to suspect this of you, Mark, but it's quite refreshing to see you confess to it in your own words.
Markadelphia actually grades his students? I can't believe he's such a reactionary!?!
The self-esteem! The self-esteem. [/cheesyImitationBrandoDialog]
Mark:
Don't reply to DJ immediately.
Well, of course, you can. But I'll suggest that you ruminate on what he's told you.
Because what he's said is largely what I've figured out, and been trying to get you to discover. But I hadn't distilled, if you will, the precise issues, and I actually skimmed what you said, and missed your admission.
But it's what I've been trying to get you to recognize - DJ's put it in a concise, very good explanation.
Think on what he's .. what's the new-agey term.. oh, yeah, lensed for you from your own words.
Of course, you have to be open to hearing and seeing these things and I guess I'm not sure that you are or you want to, DJ.
But, Mark, when things that don't fit what you've deduced are pointed out to you, you change the subject, or start ignoring those questions. I'm not asking you to answer me, or DJ.
Just think about it for a day or so. Does it make sense the way you've described it, the way DJ's lensed for you?
Then decide if that's how policy should be decided upon and judged?
(DJ: Very good, concise, and well written analysis. Kudos. )
juris_imprudent:
The self-esteem! The self-esteem. [/cheesyImitationBrandoDialog]
Are... my methods Unsound?
"We keep asking you to point us to their words such that we can see them for ourselves"
I do but you refuse to watch any of the films or read many of the web sites I link. Again, not my fault.
"You can exercise your freedom to not respond, and thereby forego any prospect of credibility"
I gave up a long time ago on having credibility with some posters here. Remember, I have been co-opted by the liberal indoctrination machine :)
"You read the papers..."
Well, I also read this blog because I think everyone here makes some valid points. They certainly have made me think and have altered my perceptions on many things, not just the gun issue. So, DJ, whether you want to or not, you, in a small way, aid me in looking at issues from another angle and ultimately, asking the right questions.
I do but you refuse to watch any of the films or read many of the web sites I link.
Err, nazzofast, Guido. We do visit the web sites you link to. What we object to is your linking to them as sources of FACT. So far, they have not been. They've been sources of OPINION that happen to agree with your own.
And if it makes you feel any better, I am planning on watching Why We Fight this weekend. I've read the reviews thoroughly and it looks interesting, though the repeated comparisons to Farenheit 9/11 are not a plus.
but you refuse to watch any of the films or read
Again, Mark, you're wrong about past events that you can definately look at. (No wonder you're so bad at predicting what's to come!)
It does tell us volumes about you, your observations, projections, and internal categories, however.
Very, very seriously - stop and go back and read what DJ said. Try and look at it as if he was describing someone else.
"So, DJ, whether you want to or not, you, in a small way, aid me in looking at issues from another angle and ultimately, asking the right questions."
In a small way, huh? It sticks in your craw like a big wad of old peanut butter, doesn't it?
What I am trying to get you to understand, indeed what we all have been trying to get you to understand for a long time, is not that you are asking the wrong questions, rather it is that, ultimately, the mechanism by which you try to get answers to questions, even the right questions, is fundamentally wrong.
The core error is embodied in this statment of yours:
"I examine daily events in the world and usually begin by asking myself: what is the motivation behind this action? Why are they doing this? Once you know the right questions, the answers become obvious."
When I read that statement of yours, I recalled this statement by St. Augustine:
"A characteristic of heretical sects is to be incapable of seeing what is obvious to everyone else."
That summarizes your evaluations of our thoughts perfectly, doesn't it? To you, we are a heretical sect, as it were, who cannot see what is obvious to you, and therefore we are wrong.
Once again, I offer a simple observation, the truth of which is self-evident:
Reality is what it is, regardless of whether or not you like it, and regardless of what you think of it.
The most fundamental error you make is no less than chutzpah on a cosmic scale, to wit, believing that reality simply must be such that it is in accord with what is obvious to you. The sheer arrogance you embody in behaving from that point of view numbs the mind.
To illuminate this, I'll use a simple device, the rhetorical question:
Why must reality be what is obvious to you, but not what is obvious to Kevin, or to me, or to any of the other 6.3 billion people on this planet? Goddamn, man, are you really that important?"
On another level, to state that, in order to find the answers to questions of "what is the motivation behind this action", you have only to ask questions of yourself, means that you have all the knowledge within yourself that is required to answer such questions, that your knowledge is both sufficient and infallible.
Again a rhetorical question: Goddamn, man, do you really know it ALL?
This goes right to the core of the problem, Mark. What is "obvious" to you means what is in accord with your personal likes, dislikes, prejudices, biases, and so on, none of which have any necessary agreement with reality. You are no more infallible than you are omniscient. The fundamental error in this is embodied in the cliche garbage in, garbage out, the circularity of results of which is visible in your blather. For example: President Bush is an evil, capitalistic pig, so of course his reason for making war in Iraq was only to enrich his friends! President Bush made war in Iraq only to enrich his friends, so of course he is an evil, capitalistic pig!
Yet again a rhetorical question: Goddamn, man, can you not see the fallacy in this method of thought?
This explains the many (hundreds?) of times that I have complained about you jumping to conclusions. Statements of the form "you think ...", or "you believe ...", or "you want ..." could easily be the answers to questions such as "do you think ...", or "do you believe ...", or "do you want ...", or they could be the answers to more general questions such as "what do you ...". But you don't ask those questions about the person whom you are engaged in a discussion with. Instead, you take the astoundingly arrogant approach of telling him what he thinks, what he believes, what he wants, instead of asking him.
Yet again a rhetorical question: Goddamn, man, do you know more about the person you're talking to than HE does?
This also explains the many (hundreds?) of times that I have complained about you stating things that you cannot possibly know the truth or falseness of. Statements of the form "he thinks ...", or "he believes ...", or "he wants ..." could easily be the answers to questions such as "does he think ...", or "does he believe ...", or "does he want ...", or they could be the answers to more general questions such as "what does he ...". But you don't ask those questions because you can't; you have no opportunity to. Oh, you can ask, but you'll get no answer. Instead, you take the astoundingly arrogant approach of telling us what he thinks, what he believes, what he wants, when you cannot possibly know.
Finally, a last rhetorical question: Goddamn, man, are you a mind reader, too?
Sometimes, Mark, the answer to the question, "What is the motivation behind this action?" is, "I don't know." When the only way to find out is to ask the person involved, and you can't ask him or he isn't saying, then is the time for intellectual honesty, for simple integrity, and for the only correct answer, which is, "I don't know."
I suggest that you learn, because you (ahem!) obviously don't follow it, this maxim from Heinlein:
“What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" -- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; FACTS ARE YOUR SINGLE CLUE. GET THE FACTS!" (emphasis added)
I suggest also that you learn and follow this maxim:
"If what seems obvious to you doesn't match the facts, then what is obvious to you just isn't so. You should match your thinking to reality, because reality won't match itself to your thinking. Get the facts and admit the limits of your understanding of reality. Sometimes the best you can do is admit that you don't know something."
And substituting, "I just know it," rightfully condemns you to contempt.
(*STANDING OVATION!!!*)
Bravo, Sir! Bravo!
I would ask for an encore, but that would be sadistic.
I'm... Not worthy.
*bows Wayne's World-style to DJ*
I'm not worthy!
*bows again*
(*blushes*)
Aw, shucks. Thank you, sirs, quite sincerely.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
Mark Twain
If you act on the basis of _knowing_ things that you cannot possible know, it is pure chance if you don't end up in trouble.
It's pretty common among engineers that they know why they know what they know -- and more importantly, they know when they don't know something. It's probably a tautology to say this always applies to a good engineer. Too bad there are so many teachers it appears to not apply to.
The sheer arrogance you embody in behaving from that point of view numbs the mind.
Yes, that line is deserving of bold, and underline and italic. I was even going to venture adding to it - but I thought better of doing so. That which is done well speaks for itself.
BTW, Mark (assuming you're still reading this comment thread given the rhetorical and epistemological whuppin' handed out above) I just completed my first viewing of Why We Fight.
Initial response: Well done film, absolutely not in the mold of Michael Moore. It makes several important points. It does not, however make any suggestions, useful or otherwise. Perhaps this is a good thing.
I will be posting on it hopefully this weekend. Thanks for the recommendation.
P.S.: Now I see why you have wrapped your worldview around the "Empire" meme.
It's another example of word manipulation - again, not done by the Right.
I'll write about that, too.
Yeah, I'm still reading. No prob on the ass whuppin. It's all good.
Glad to hear you've watched the film Why We Fight. Just so you know, I do plan on getting God and Gold. Funds are tight right now so more than likely to will end up in my Christmas stocking. I hope that you post something down the line about it again as I would be interested in (and am looking forward to reading) Mead's references to Reinhold Niebuhr in the book and what you thought of them.
Remember which presidential candidate is a fan of Reinhold Niebuhr? :)
So, now that you have seen Why We Fight, I hope that you trust, ever so slightly, that when I say you will like a film, you will. I encourage you (and everyone else here) to see The Kingdom. For the action alone, you will love it but the ending....ah the ending (really don't want to give it away, it's so...ah, can't do it)...let's just say it really falls in line with many perceptions on this blog.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>