Author |
Topic: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics (Read 86346 times) |
|
Gridiron Great
# 219
Go, Gridironettes!
 
  
Posts: 2568
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #275 on: May 28th, 2007, 12:22am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on May 27th, 2007, 11:42pm, Philly wrote:| I'm very, very happy to say that I don't watch the View. I do like Hasselbeck though... he's still got some good years left in Seattle and should still be a #1 starter despite losing Darrell Jackson. As for O'Donnell, I think Neil's fantasy value disappeared when he retired. |
|
Never watched it, never will. However:
Google the term "serial bully," Steggie. You will find Rosie there. Liz was being used by one, so she gets not only a pass but high praise for putting one of those creatures in its place. No wonder Liz is the wife of a football player (as in Tim, for those who don't know)!
|
|
 Logged |
“If life gives you lemons make orange juice. Let the rest of the world figure out how you did it.”
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #276 on: May 28th, 2007, 3:03pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 27th, 2007, 11:42pm, Philly wrote:| I'm very, very happy to say that I don't watch the View. |
|
As am I... I've just seen the instant replays about a thousand times now, though, and while O'Donnell  was surely out of bounds, the plays Hasselbeck  was calling didn't even make sense. While O'Donnell is surely cussèd, Hasselbeck just looked concussed.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
MordecaiCourage
Guest
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #277 on: May 31st, 2007, 12:26am » |
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
Quote:| Google the term "serial bully," Steggie. You will find Rosie there. Liz was being used by one, so she gets not only a pass but high praise for putting one of those creatures in its place. No wonder Liz is the wife of a football player (as in Tim, for those who don't know)! |
|
Agree Callie!!! Liz did put Rosie in her place in my opinion. Rosie looked like a rhino on a rampage while Liz stood her ground.
Quote:| the plays Hasselbeck was calling didn't even make sense. While O'Donnell is surely cussèd, Hasselbeck just looked concussed. |
|
Disagree Stegger!! Liz, held her own against a pretty powerful voice in that session. She held true to her beliefs, while Rosie kept trying different angles to make her point and to make Liz look weak. Bravo Liz, you proved you are not Rosie's punk!
|
| « Last Edit: May 31st, 2007, 12:28am by MordecaiCourage » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #278 on: May 31st, 2007, 6:40am » |
Quote Modify
|
Don't get me wrong... I too applaud her for standing up to that reckless biotch... It is true that she did not back down, and that in and of itself is a good thing. But, I wouldn't conflate that with pointed, well-informed argumentation. In terms of reasoning skills, mind you, informed by all the wrong information, Rosie seems to have a more supple mind than Liz... by, I regretfully have to say, a long shot. The one good move Liz made was sticking to the question Rosie was dodging. But, everything else she said was, and even that at a certain point became, more "cat fight" than "reasoned engagement". It's like she thought she had won by posing that one unanswerable question and didn't have any more logical work to do. She had her one triumph and left it at that, causing things to devolve into a cat fight, instead of "putting her away". And, I don't think she did that because she wanted to pull back. She just couldn't take the next logical steps. Anyway, I'm happy, like you guys, to have seen her, somebody, on the "right" stand up to these people. On the other hand, I wouldn't want "us" (whoever that is) to take Liz's performance as a model. Her "tack" (or lack thereof) is not going to get the job done. It will just lead us to a stalemate, at best. What she did is just beginning the fight back. Their "facts" need to be countered with sound and thoroughgoing reasoning, wielded like a hammer.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
MordecaiCourage
Guest
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #280 on: May 31st, 2007, 10:59am » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
Quote:| Rosie seems to have a more supple mind than Liz... by, I regretfully have to say, a long shot. |
|
Unfortunately ...true
Quote:| The one good move Liz made was sticking to the question Rosie was dodging. But, everything else she said was, and even that at a certain point became, more "cat fight" than "reasoned engagement". It's like she thought she had won by posing that one unanswerable question and didn't have any more logical work to do |
|
She did win BECAUSE she stuck with the original question. True to Rosie's (and other extremely liberal thinkers) modus operandi, the original question that she could not (excuse me..WOULD NOT answer) would have stopped the whole conversation rendering Rosie as the immediate, no doubt about it, LOSER!
Quote:| She just couldn't take the next logical steps. |
|
When you are dealing with someone like Rosie, there really is no next logical step!!! Her only recourse was to stay with the original arguement, which she knew that she was 100% correct about. Rosie deflects the point that someone else is trying to make by bashing that person and their point by offering up negative points about other unrelated subjects. By doing that she makes you discredit the person telling you the facts. The tendency thereafter is to forget about the subject matter at hand. Makes you hate the person who is trying to help you to the point you will not take anything they say as fact. Man, Rosie would actually be a great politician..Democrat of course!!! 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #283 on: Jun 14th, 2007, 6:58pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Callie, I appreciate your take on conspiracy theories (and don't entirely disagree; I think the weakest of them are as you say). What I am expressing in that extremely condensed quote there, though, is a bit more pithy (and generous) of an observation (point being, the more generous you are to the opinion you're taking down, the more powerful is the take-down). I'm not getting "schooled" in Philosophy for nothing.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #285 on: Jun 14th, 2007, 7:31pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Absolutely nothing, why do you ask, i.e., how did you come to form that question, i.e., what about what I wrote made you think that they do?  Getting the right answers is all about asking the right questions. 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Gridiron Great
# 219
Go, Gridironettes!
Posts: 2568
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #287 on: Jun 15th, 2007, 1:48am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 14th, 2007, 6:58pm, StegRock wrote:| Callie, I appreciate your take on conspiracy theories (and don't entirely disagree; I think the weakest of them are as you say). What I am expressing in that extremely condensed quote there, though, is a bit more pithy (and generous) of an observation (point being, the more generous you are to the opinion you're taking down, the more powerful is the take-down). I'm not getting "schooled" in Philosophy for nothing. |
|
OK then, let's just talk about the generosity, since I obviously was not being pithy. (I like pithy.)
How is it more generous to say that something is intellectually vain than to say that it is back-fill for an established opinion? (Come on, it's the slowest month in football...  )
<pass the popcorn, MC>
|
|
Logged |
“If life gives you lemons make orange juice. Let the rest of the world figure out how you did it.”
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #288 on: Jun 15th, 2007, 5:42am » |
Quote Modify
|
Okay, that question is somewhat better stated. Ultimately, though, the qualities "pithy" and "generous" regarded the "aphorism" itself as a whole, not just the direct object of the aphorism, "intellectual vanity". To attribute those qualities only to the direct object is to miss the point and, might I say, the beauty  of the aphorism.
In any event, my aphorism is more "generous" (and, therefore, more robust of a critique/commentary) in the following way...
I don't necessarily think that ALL conspiracy theories are baseless "convenient" conjecture for which the "convenient" facts are ALL found after the fact. In any event, that's merely the weakest form of conspiracy theorization and not much of a victory to "aphoristically" knock. I am willing to concede that some conspiracy theories are based in (genuinely, if not rigorously, uncovered) facts, after which are formulated a theory, for which more "(now) convenient" facts are sought and played up. (I digress... Once in a blue moon there is a conspiracy theory that basically has gotten it right, and, I would venture a guess that usually it is one that was formulated in this latter way I describe, not the former way.) The point, though, is that that latter stronger brand of conspiracy theory is the one to attack, and my aphorism leaves room for the critique of that more robust brand of conspiracy theorization. In that way I, with (the open-endedness of) my aphorism, am being more "generous" to the conspiracy theorist, granting him/her the best case conspiracy theorization process possible,... but, then, knocking it down. Again, the general point is that if you take your opponent's position in its weakest light, you run the (great) risk of getting it wrong (and definitely not advancing the discussion at all), whereas, if you are "generous" to your opponent and see his/her position in the best light possible, you a) open yourself to the common ground the two of you may actually share, from which the facilitation of truly healthy, productive and progressive dialogue can commence, or b) position yourself for a resounding victory.
In fact, however, Callie, my aphorism was NOT written with that specifically in mind or to accomplish that job per se. It dispenses with both the weak and strong conspiracy theorists only insofar as it taps into an even more general sensibility, that being the confidence we have in ourselves "to figure things out", "to put the puzzle together", "to demystify the mysterious". That is what I am terming "intellectual vanity". It is the facet of the human character conspiracy theories play into. Whether the conspiracy theorist is theorizing "weakly" or "strongly", or, for that matter, rightly or wrongly, he/she is, in any event, partaking in probably the most "intellectually vain" of any endeavor the human mind can take on.
Now, granted, I don't know when you first read my aphorism there, Callie, but, for the love of Friedrich Nietzsche,  ... like the way you don't just chug down a good brandy; you swirl it around your mouth a bit, you gotta meditate on a good aphorism, swirl it around your mind for a bit, before responding to it. After all, to bring this around full circle, you want to make sure you've given it the most generous reading possible. 
Bottom line, I don't think there is anything in that aphorism for you not to love, Callster. 
[Honestly, perhaps the subtext I wrote along with that aphorism in my "Journal of Thoughts" would have made its meaning clearer. I just don't know if you guys have the stomach for it, so I'm witholding it (not that it's anything heinous, but... sometimes you gotta know when to say when). You guys are welcome to take some stabs at what that subtext is. It is another pithy one-liner, but, again, only insofar as it is a subtext to the main aphorism. On its own, frankly speaking, it would just be trash talk.]
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 15th, 2007, 2:35pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
steelkings
Guest
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #289 on: Jun 15th, 2007, 4:26pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
on Jun 14th, 2007, 6:41pm, Callie wrote:I think that conspiracy theories are more of an after-market thing. People form a convenient opinion and then troll for "facts" to back it up.
(My personal fave is the obvious and statistically proven fact that global warming is caused by the decline in the number of pirates. But now we have Johnny Depp, just in the nick in time. )
<I regret this post already.> |
|
Regret It! As well you should young lady. Did you know that after I started recycling, (It cost me 48.00 dollars a year to Rays trash service and, I know....I could recycle those bills to the Grid Iron...But..) by seperating the plastics, metals and paper products. I.E, newspaper, cereal boxes, shoe boxes, cardboard, yada yada. I have more than cut my trash that go's to the dump in half. Now Mrs. Callie, If I were govenor, It wouldn't cost me 48.00 dollars to recycle. It would cost 48.00 dollars if I didnt. Arent you glad you brought it up?
As for you Popcorn Boy.  Make sure you toss that popcorn box in the paper pile along with the 200 dollars worth of 2007 Fantasy football magazines and that great big pile of cheet sheets your gonna use to fall in somewhere behind Dr. Karma (Me) in the 2007 duece league.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 15th, 2007, 4:29pm by steelkings » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #291 on: Jun 20th, 2007, 10:41pm » |
Quote Modify
|
With all these candidacy announcements for President, I'd like to get out on the table a (celebrity) ticket (of sorts) I would vote for... in a heartbeat...
Bill O'Reilly and Judith Sheindlin
I don't know how everything would come out in the wash regarding the (so-called) "issues" (I don't agree with either of them 100% of the time), but I know that these two could deliver just the kind of "dripping with common sense", "reason-laiden", "back to the basics", "responsibility-focused" tongue-lashing we NEED as a society right now (and I'm not jerkin' you all's chains). 
O'Reilly and Sheindlin '08!!! 
Write it up or write 'em in! In any case, let's get it RIGHT!
Incidentally, I would suggest Bill  Cowher for Secretary of Defense! 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
MordecaiCourage
Guest
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #294 on: Jun 21st, 2007, 10:53am » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
on Jun 20th, 2007, 10:41pm, StegRock wrote:With all these candidacy announcements for President, I'd like to get out on the table a (celebrity) ticket (of sorts) I would vote for... in a heartbeat...
Bill O'Reilly and Judith Sheindlin
I don't know how everything would come out in the wash regarding the (so-called) "issues" (I don't agree with either of them 100% of the time), but I know that these two could deliver just the kind of "dripping with common sense", "reason-laiden", "back to the basics", "responsibility-focused" tongue-lashing we NEED as a society right now (and I'm not jerkin' you all's chains).
O'Reilly and Sheindlin '08!!!
Write it up or write 'em in! In any case, let's get it RIGHT!
Incidentally, I would suggest Bill Cowher for Secretary of Defense! |
|
I'm thinking more along the lines of O'Reilly and Ted Nugent!!!
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #296 on: Jun 21st, 2007, 3:58pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Don't disagree with the Goodell suggestion. He hasn't had enough face-time for me, though. I don't feel like I've seen enough into the guy's soul yet.
...
on Jun 21st, 2007, 1:22am, cwhams wrote:  have ya gone  a philosophy dude gone 
Well Stego, if O'Reily will make you the VP and minister of defense  , well you got my vote! |
|
This post, on a few different levels, made my day last night. This kind of talk can go a long way to keepin' the old Stegger at bay... if you follow. 
...
O'Reilly and Sheindlin '08!!!
 
Write it up or write 'em in! In any case, let's get it RIGHT!
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #298 on: Jun 22nd, 2007, 2:45pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 22nd, 2007, 9:26am, Philly wrote:| I wanted to thank you for posting those pics Steg. Honestly, I had absolutely no idea who Judith Sheindlin even was. Is she a real judge or just someone playing a judge on TV? I've never seen her show. |
|
It's Judge Judy of Judge Judy, and, yes, she's really a judge, a really good judge by and large... from the New York City family court system [a noble area of judgeship as compared to, let's say, divorce court; "the family", after all, is the source of much, if not all, of the trouble in America and is what needs to be fixed (which, incidentally, accords with the philosophy of my boy Confucius )]. She really shoots from the hip... like Bill. What I like is that they come from different perspectives ("left" and "right"), but end up at a similar commonsensical place.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Games
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
on Judge Judy 
