|
General Metalworking - All aspects of working with metal.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by Gunner Asch on July 19, 2008, 2:18 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:46:55 -0800, pyotr filipivich
>I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
>in talk.politics.guns :
>>On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:39:19 GMT, Dionisio
>>
>>>
>>>There are folks out there who have just enough brain cells to be functional,
but not
>>>enough to engage in critical thinking themselves. So, I'm mainly doing this
for them. Once
>>> confronted with something that doesn't make sense, they can puzzle things
out; But they
>>>don't make a habit of thinking of those things on their own.
>>
>>
>>Damn...fits Liberals to a T...except the part about puzzling things
>>out on their own...which is generally impossible for them. Hence the
>>talking points from the DNC
>
> Years ago, I ran across an essay which explained a lot of things.
>Writing on the subject of economics the author thought the greatest
>economic thinker was Jean Piaget. Piaget's work in child development
>had shown that children go through four phases of thinking. starting
>in a concrete phase and gradually adding the ability to abstractions.
>(E.G., kids really are testing to see if their bowl will fall to the
>floor now like it did last time. ) Anyway, Piaget found that not all
>children advanced at the same pace, and advancement tended to not be
>simultaneous (that is, all elements of a phase do not change over at
>the same time.) Apparently Piaget also found that some thing like
>half the adult population never reaches the ability to fully handle
>abstractions. This portion doesn't really "get" metaphors. If you
>mention "Adam's Smith's invisible hand" they will picture a guy with a
>hand which cannot be seen. It's not that they can't abstract, they
>just can't fully abstract. Consequently, they will search for physical
>manifestation of the Invisible Hand Setting Prices in the Market
>Place. That they often "find" one merely represents man's ability to
>find patterns even where there are none.
> They don't quite grasp that two groups may reach the same
>position because share similar logical foundations, not because they
>"co-inspire". They often don't understand that they have staked out
>a political position on the opposite side of their opponents, but both
>are working from the same presuppositions. E.G. The Religious Left
>and the Religious Right may differ in their intended aims, but both
>are working from the idea that by changing the physical situation, the
>desired philosophical/spiritual outcome can be reached. (Whether it
>be public housing, free lunches, proscriptions on too much sex in the
>movies. or prohibition on sales of cheap wines; the fundamental idea
>is that by making 'this" physical change, a better world will result.)
>
> So where does that leave us? In a world were a good percentage of
>the voting population "need" a simpler explanation of things, one
>which is not so "nuanced" by the implications of the application of
>abstract principles. They don't quite get that "Freedom is having to
>put up with things which piss you off.". That a Government which is
>big enough to determine what kinds of foods will be served in
>restaurants is also big enough to determine with whom you may have
>sex. They don't see the connection between government regulations
>to protect the environment and the high price of oil. How lack of
>gun control doesn't lead to high crime rates. How the Housing Crisis
>(be that the current plunge in prices, or the problem of "affordable
>housing") results from changes in the way the Government decides land
>is to be treated. I.e. if you restrict development of "rural" areas,
>then the number of people bidding on the available housing will go up,
>which means the people at the bottom get priced out of their
>residences. And so on and so forth.
> I'm sure there are some such in the Republican Party, but it seems
>to me that the Democrats have made a career out of not being able to
>connect the dots, or even recognizing the need to collect dots in the
>first place.
> And the current batch couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag
>if you wrote the syllogisms on the inside.
>
>
>tschus
>pyotr
Very very well said!!
Saved!!
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral
crisis maintain their neutrality",
John F. Kennedy.
|
|
Posted by Ed Huntress on July 20, 2008, 9:57 am
Please log in for more thread options
<snip>
>>
>> Piaget and conservative politics. Jesus H. Christ...
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>
> Indeed. And what a convoluted and long winded way to basically make the
> same
> old simple and tired generalizations about "liberals". How they are this
> or
> that and how they don't understand or have even the most basic common
> sense.
> Give me a break. I've been around for quite a while and in my experience
> the
> brightest people I've run into, with the most brains and best educations
> are
> liberals. When you want to find thinkers you look to the liberals. When
> you
> want someone who follows orders you find a conservative. How's that
> generalization? It's easy to generalize about any group and to find your
> political opponents lacking. But blanket statements about groups are often
> useless. Like in this case. One can make generalizations that are worth
> while but trying to paint liberals as not being as bright as anyone else
> or
> not having the ability to conceptualize abstractions is just your basic
> bullshit. As you would expect it is bullshit from a right winger. Isn't
> that
> exactly what you would expect?
>
> Hawke
Yeah, it is. Ideologues tend to be insecure thinkers who get along by
demonizing or belittling the other side. That's how they pump themselves up.
--
Ed Huntress
|
|
Posted by DrollTroll on July 20, 2008, 12:09 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>> Piaget and conservative politics. Jesus H. Christ...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ed Huntress
>>
>>
>> Indeed. And what a convoluted and long winded way to basically make the
>> same
>> old simple and tired generalizations about "liberals". How they are this
>> or
>> that and how they don't understand or have even the most basic common
>> sense.
>> Give me a break. I've been around for quite a while and in my experience
>> the
>> brightest people I've run into, with the most brains and best educations
>> are
>> liberals. When you want to find thinkers you look to the liberals. When
>> you
>> want someone who follows orders you find a conservative. How's that
>> generalization? It's easy to generalize about any group and to find your
>> political opponents lacking. But blanket statements about groups are
>> often
>> useless. Like in this case. One can make generalizations that are worth
>> while but trying to paint liberals as not being as bright as anyone else
>> or
>> not having the ability to conceptualize abstractions is just your basic
>> bullshit. As you would expect it is bullshit from a right winger. Isn't
>> that
>> exactly what you would expect?
>>
>> Hawke
>
> Yeah, it is. Ideologues tend to be insecure thinkers who get along by
> demonizing or belittling the other side. That's how they pump themselves
> up.
>
Except Idiotlogues are not thinkers. They are reciters, who recite
conveniently, circularly, and dyslexically.
Think Rush "Me? Take drugs???" Limbaugh.
>> When you want to find thinkers you look to the liberals. When you
>> want someone who follows orders you find a conservative. How's that
>> generalization?
Excellent!
With one flaw:
Liberals are not really a political party.
They are a *philosophical camp*, smart enough to realize that
change/humanism must occur through politics, but without the shameless
barbarism *required* to push change through the very messy, dirty, and
corrupt "political process".
And who are also, I'm afraid, not fully clued in to the works of Malthus,
Darwin, Orwell, Machiavelli et al.
All of whom are now being diabolically realized by the P4 chip and digital
satellites, whereby we tip our informational and collective psychological
hand every time we click that goddamm mouse.
Liberals in a sense reflect the dilemma:
Just how does a *true* pacifist defend himself, his wife, daughter against
rape, pillage, and plunder?
Answer: They don't, which is partly why you don't see too many true
pacifists.
Liberals will *always* be politically ineffectual. Brite indeed, but
ineffectual.
What I liked about the Piaget thing was that it was at least an *attempt* to
EXPLAIN troubling stuff--altho perhaps it was just another rationalized
political attack.
I have a different way of viewing democraps, repubic-ans, conservatives, and
my own explanation "for all this"-- but it is long-winded and ultimately
depressing, but essentially boiling down to Pogo: WE ourselves is the
enemy. "Why" is the long part.
The itty-bitty nitty-gritty bottomline to ALL of humanity's troubles is.....
and imo this is an even better Pogo......
Ready??
Here it is:
We (Merka) bought millions and millions of Ab Isolators from a pony-tailed
screaming ninny, who had nary an ab *anywhere* on his pudgy li'l body--so
pudgy, in fact, he had to wear a spandex body suit.
Yes indeedy.... Tony Little -- the Abless successfully hawking abs to the
(m)asses of Abless.
How collectively dumb was DAT purchase?
Mebbe the ponytail served as a marketing *distraction*?!
What does that say about our collective ability to reason?
Sheeit, forget reason.... to even correctly PERCEIVE!
AND, we elected Bush.... twice! The biggest
political/intellectual/philosophical embarrassment on the effing PLANET!!!
Who, btw, would have failed *every single one* of Piaget's tests, including
the one for 6 year olds, which was:
Take a quart of water, pour it into two pints, and ask: Do you still have
the same amount of water?
Bush, at 40 y.o., would have failed.
Gunner, had he been there in the sidelines, would proly be going:
Pssssst...... PSSSSST!!! Bushybaby, it's the same g-d volume, it's the
SAME!!!!
Bush of course would be intractable:
Sheeit, how can it be the same?? It's plain as day differ'nt to meee,
sheeeit....
And then he would have run right out and bought hisself an ab isolator.
And then, would not *ever* have realized that it wadn't working.... or that
Tony Little does not have and never will have abs.
Oh, one last note:
The Bilderberg/New World Order Dream Machine is in fact the Web, and
derivatives thereof. Which is why the Internet will always be free.
Sorta reminds me of junk faxes: your paper, your ink, your electricity,
THEIR spam.
With free Internet, we are encouraged--bribed-- to fuck ourselves.
Vigorously.
Sheeit, the Bilderbergs ought to be paying for our CableTV and ISP charges,
AND giving us a Vaseline allowance.....
It's really elegantly poetic, how we have managed to fuck ourselves so
royally with butt an endless stream of electrical/optical 0's and 1's.
Pogo could not have known.....
--
DT
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
|
|
Posted by Ed Huntress on July 20, 2008, 12:31 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Piaget and conservative politics. Jesus H. Christ...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed. And what a convoluted and long winded way to basically make the
>>> same
>>> old simple and tired generalizations about "liberals". How they are this
>>> or
>>> that and how they don't understand or have even the most basic common
>>> sense.
>>> Give me a break. I've been around for quite a while and in my experience
>>> the
>>> brightest people I've run into, with the most brains and best educations
>>> are
>>> liberals. When you want to find thinkers you look to the liberals. When
>>> you
>>> want someone who follows orders you find a conservative. How's that
>>> generalization? It's easy to generalize about any group and to find your
>>> political opponents lacking. But blanket statements about groups are
>>> often
>>> useless. Like in this case. One can make generalizations that are worth
>>> while but trying to paint liberals as not being as bright as anyone else
>>> or
>>> not having the ability to conceptualize abstractions is just your basic
>>> bullshit. As you would expect it is bullshit from a right winger. Isn't
>>> that
>>> exactly what you would expect?
>>>
>>> Hawke
>>
>> Yeah, it is. Ideologues tend to be insecure thinkers who get along by
>> demonizing or belittling the other side. That's how they pump themselves
>> up.
>>
>
> Except Idiotlogues are not thinkers. They are reciters, who recite
> conveniently, circularly, and dyslexically.
> Think Rush "Me? Take drugs???" Limbaugh.
I hope I didn't give the wrong impression there, because I agree completely.
Ideology is a *substitute* for hard thinking.
>
>>> When you want to find thinkers you look to the liberals. When you
>>> want someone who follows orders you find a conservative. How's that
>>> generalization?
>
> Excellent!
>
> With one flaw:
>
> Liberals are not really a political party.
>
> They are a *philosophical camp*, smart enough to realize that
> change/humanism must occur through politics, but without the shameless
> barbarism *required* to push change through the very messy, dirty, and
> corrupt "political process".
Liberals as ineffectual reformers -- we're still on track. <g>
>
> And who are also, I'm afraid, not fully clued in to the works of Malthus,
> Darwin, Orwell, Machiavelli et al.
> All of whom are now being diabolically realized by the P4 chip and digital
> satellites, whereby we tip our informational and collective psychological
> hand every time we click that goddamm mouse.
Only I don't think anyone really is watching. At least, most of the time.
It's not like the clicks I used to get in my home telephone in 1970. That
was serious watching.
>
> Liberals in a sense reflect the dilemma:
> Just how does a *true* pacifist defend himself, his wife, daughter against
> rape, pillage, and plunder?
> Answer: They don't, which is partly why you don't see too many true
> pacifists.
>
> Liberals will *always* be politically ineffectual. Brite indeed, but
> ineffectual.
>
> What I liked about the Piaget thing was that it was at least an *attempt*
> to EXPLAIN troubling stuff--altho perhaps it was just another rationalized
> political attack.
Yeah, it was clever. And, yeah, it was another rationalization. We used to
do that kind of stuff when we were college sophomores. Smart kids, when they
get old enough to realize what you can do with some brains and study, can
cook up some mind-bending rationalizations. Of course, like the Piaget
ditty, they were all wrong.
>
> I have a different way of viewing democraps, repubic-ans, conservatives,
> and my own explanation "for all this"-- but it is long-winded and
> ultimately depressing, but essentially boiling down to Pogo: WE ourselves
> is the enemy. "Why" is the long part.
>
> The itty-bitty nitty-gritty bottomline to ALL of humanity's troubles
> is..... and imo this is an even better Pogo......
> Ready??
> Here it is:
>
> We (Merka) bought millions and millions of Ab Isolators from a pony-tailed
> screaming ninny, who had nary an ab *anywhere* on his pudgy li'l body--so
> pudgy, in fact, he had to wear a spandex body suit.
>
> Yes indeedy.... Tony Little -- the Abless successfully hawking abs to the
> (m)asses of Abless.
> How collectively dumb was DAT purchase?
> Mebbe the ponytail served as a marketing *distraction*?!
>
> What does that say about our collective ability to reason?
> Sheeit, forget reason.... to even correctly PERCEIVE!
>
> AND, we elected Bush.... twice! The biggest
> political/intellectual/philosophical embarrassment on the effing PLANET!!!
>
> Who, btw, would have failed *every single one* of Piaget's tests,
> including the one for 6 year olds, which was:
>
> Take a quart of water, pour it into two pints, and ask: Do you still have
> the same amount of water?
>
> Bush, at 40 y.o., would have failed.
> Gunner, had he been there in the sidelines, would proly be going:
> Pssssst...... PSSSSST!!! Bushybaby, it's the same g-d volume, it's the
> SAME!!!!
>
> Bush of course would be intractable:
> Sheeit, how can it be the same?? It's plain as day differ'nt to meee,
> sheeeit....
>
> And then he would have run right out and bought hisself an ab isolator.
> And then, would not *ever* have realized that it wadn't working.... or
> that Tony Little does not have and never will have abs.
>
> Oh, one last note:
>
> The Bilderberg/New World Order Dream Machine is in fact the Web, and
> derivatives thereof. Which is why the Internet will always be free.
> Sorta reminds me of junk faxes: your paper, your ink, your electricity,
> THEIR spam.
>
> With free Internet, we are encouraged--bribed-- to fuck ourselves.
> Vigorously.
> Sheeit, the Bilderbergs ought to be paying for our CableTV and ISP
> charges, AND giving us a Vaseline allowance.....
>
> It's really elegantly poetic, how we have managed to fuck ourselves so
> royally with butt an endless stream of electrical/optical 0's and 1's.
>
> Pogo could not have known.....
You really have to write a book before you lose that thought, DT.
--
Ed Huntress
|
|
Posted by Strabo on July 21, 2008, 11:29 pm
Please log in for more thread options Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Piaget and conservative politics. Jesus H. Christ...
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. And what a convoluted and long winded way to basically make the
>>>> same
>>>> old simple and tired generalizations about "liberals". How they are this
>>>> or
>>>> that and how they don't understand or have even the most basic common
>>>> sense.
>>>> Give me a break. I've been around for quite a while and in my experience
>>>> the
>>>> brightest people I've run into, with the most brains and best educations
>>>> are
>>>> liberals. When you want to find thinkers you look to the liberals. When
>>>> you
>>>> want someone who follows orders you find a conservative. How's that
>>>> generalization? It's easy to generalize about any group and to find your
>>>> political opponents lacking. But blanket statements about groups are
>>>> often
>>>> useless. Like in this case. One can make generalizations that are worth
>>>> while but trying to paint liberals as not being as bright as anyone else
>>>> or
>>>> not having the ability to conceptualize abstractions is just your basic
>>>> bullshit. As you would expect it is bullshit from a right winger. Isn't
>>>> that
>>>> exactly what you would expect?
>>>>
>>>> Hawke
>>> Yeah, it is. Ideologues tend to be insecure thinkers who get along by
>>> demonizing or belittling the other side. That's how they pump themselves
>>> up.
>>>
>> Except Idiotlogues are not thinkers. They are reciters, who recite
>> conveniently, circularly, and dyslexically.
>> Think Rush "Me? Take drugs???" Limbaugh.
>
> I hope I didn't give the wrong impression there, because I agree completely.
> Ideology is a *substitute* for hard thinking.
>
Kind of hard to do without it...
ideology
1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual,
social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political
and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting
it into operation.
3. Philosophy.
a. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
4. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.
[Origin: 1790–1800; ideo- + -logy; cf. F idéologie]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Tell us what you use.
<snipped>
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Heller Staples | April 2, 2007, 10:32 am |
| What was he thinking. | April 7, 2006, 1:07 am |
| What was he thinking. | April 7, 2006, 1:12 am |
| Thinking about the unthinkable? | November 11, 2006, 5:12 pm |
| Creative thinking | May 12, 2008, 1:38 pm |
| Thinking of Winter Welding | September 5, 2008, 3:34 pm |
| Import Manicure & Pedicure tools from us. | December 13, 2006, 9:17 am |
| get your gradually driving thinking in addition to my era | August 12, 2007, 7:50 pm |
| A unique way of stiffening an import 9x12 lathe... | February 26, 2007, 1:04 pm |
| Re: spin forming on air | October 3, 2007, 8:55 pm |
|
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>in talk.politics.guns :