Author |
Topic: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics (Read 86053 times) |
|
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 #77 on: Sep 9th, 2004, 11:46am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Sep 9th, 2004, 7:50am, junkyardjake wrote:| Believe me, I have this discussion with many strong-willed people, and you are as unyielding as any of them. |
|
As you are as well, my friend.  Don't present it as though it were a one-way street..., namely you against the/this world or whatever (at least that is somewhat how it appears you are stating it). 
Quote:I am not trying to persuade you, I'm just stating the facts as they exist.
Speaking of truth, if you are ever ready to cart out that encyclopedia of facts and supporting evidence you are hiding that show how Bush didn't lie about the imminent threat that Iraq posed, feel free. |
|
I fear that you are confusing truth with (a string of) facts. In any event, the certitude of factual data is epistomologically dubious. You are awfully confident and bold in your ability to perceive (ALL of) the facts "as they exist". Of course, again, this speaks nothing of truth. 
Quote:| I'm not sure what exactly is supposed to be discussed on a 'politics' thread,.. |
|
Is this situation akin to your not knowing about/understanding my not wanting to devulge my songs on the music thread, i.e., you hadn't read/(mindfully/consider-ately) paid attention to it enough to understand what I was up to/going on? Most did and went along accordingly or at least grokked it to the degree that no explanation on my part was necessary if they did biff. Did you not read through the first handful of posts of this thread and see the pattern/what's going on here? bgsgfan surely did as per his post on the previous page and his point of trying to "bring this back around"? The approach was MUCH different than yours has been; it was much less acrimony-filled. Remember, as most forget, that on an on-line message-board forum reading is just as important, if not more so, than posting. People on these message-board forums tend to want to post their thoughts in a knee-jerk type of way in response simply to the "subject line" of a thread instead of reading through the thread first and seeing what is really going on.
Quote:| Lastly, for anyone who's undecided out there concerning the November election, and you are still convinced that GW Bush is somehow worthy of the office of President, take a look at these photos from his cheerleader days back at Yale: |
|
Case in point,...  when (deductive and careful inductive) logic(al truth) is fleeting, just go with a fallacious ad hominem attack. 
...
Once again, I have presented (little to) nothing "political" in this thread. My "call" is more to you as a compatriot (and friend) to be more cogent, not for me or us, but for yourself mainly. I, again, ultimately, could care less where you wind up. I am just trying to (help you) make sure that HOW you ended up where you wound up is acceptable... to you, not me... especially as it, with your deluge of facts, etc., etc., herein, almost seems more like you are trying to convince yourself, not me or anybody else.
|
|
 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 #78 on: Sep 9th, 2004, 12:25pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 9th, 2004, 11:55am, junkyardjake wrote:| Don't worry yourself about that, i know what I'm talking about. |
|
GREAT! There is nothing further to discuss.
Quote:| Go get some facts and we'll talk. |
|
Go get some cogency and we'll talk.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 9th, 2004, 12:29pm by Stegfucius » |
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 #79 on: Sep 9th, 2004, 1:26pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I am not in any way, shape or form calling you indecisive. That is a miscontruing on your part.
As for the rest, I am satisfied with the "conclusion" (especially vis-a-vis the time I can allot to this at this point in time... I have messed with this way too much today, bottom line).
In any event, you said you are not trying to persuade me, so...
I GOTTA GO! 
|
|
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 #80 on: Sep 9th, 2004, 6:13pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 9th, 2004, 5:20pm, junkyardjake wrote:
...
Okay, I gotta go,... really.  ... 
|
|
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 #82 on: Sep 11th, 2004, 11:53am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 10th, 2004, 6:18pm, junkyardjake wrote:| The 'communist' part is obvious, as in your self-professed preference for some yet to be invented Utopian state of government. |
|
To call my theory and notion (which we discussed in brief on the phone and which I have presented fairly adequately here on this thread) "communist" is to not pigeon-hole it into an "-ism" and, ultimately, not do it justice. For one thing, the word "Communism" just has way too many pejorative connotations (some justified, many not) at this point in history for "communism" to really be understood. As I have stated before (including on the phone with you), "Communism" based on a Marxian revolution (of sorts) was destined to be a failure. As per St. Thomas More, capitalism must first runs its course. The transition (to "mutual exchange") must be natural and not forced (and is not likely even possible for hundreds of years and absolutely impossible now).
Quote:Bush Lied  ----> Who Cares |
|
For the millionth fuckin' time, I am not saying he lied. YOU are! Don't put words in my mouth, damn it! He might have played his hand... the hand he was dealt over-aggressively, and as any good card player does he definitely concealed what cards he could (assuming we are playing stud poker) or should (the degree to which I am Machiavellian, i.e., I don't think we/I should/need to know everything 1) for security and strategic military purposes and 2) because many to most laypeople are shortsighted and cannot see the bigger picture, unable to see the world... things beyond now, their lifetimes and their concerns), I do NOT think he boldly lied. And, in any event, I think his actions were consistent with a bigger truth/reality and according goal (which I have explained on this thread, at this site quite thoroughly and lucidly).
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 19th, 2008, 6:15pm by Stegfucius » |
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 #86 on: Sep 21st, 2004, 12:06pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 21st, 2004, 11:54am, junkyardjake wrote:| Wow, I'm impressed, he's now officially up to Assistant to the First Lady's Limosine driver on my write-in ticket. |
|
|
|
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 #90 on: Oct 30th, 2004, 4:34pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 30th, 2004, 4:16pm, junkyardjake wrote:Oh you are quite welcome, feel free to actually read them to. I guess I scared away the crickets on this board, noone has said anything for over a month.
So how's school going, and since when did you become interested in substance ?  |
|
Whatever, dude, keep gettin' your fill of propaganda and patching together that bumper-sticker philosophy of yours... There is time in life only to read so much. Best to identify and weed out the garbage efficiently so "true substance" can be seen (by the contemplative mind).
You did not "scare" anybody off. I was the main or perhaps even only person entertaining your "deal". When I no longer had time to, and still don't, it went dead. Your whole schtick is  and most even-tempered, level-headed people don't even want to bother with it/be bothered by it.
School is great, by the way. Learning a lot about "substance", "truth-seeking" and "deduction", not "rhetoric" and "digging for examples", the art of lawyers.
...
Anyway, on to a (long overdue and overdue long ) post...
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
GM
# 58
"Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
Posts: 498
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #91 on: Oct 30th, 2004, 5:08pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Wow, you are grouchy 
I know, it's always propaganda and conspiracy when we hear things that we don't agree with. Just like Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, evidently there is not a shred of factual material in that.
Quote:| You did not "scare" anybody off. |
|
I hope not, I wasn't inferring that I did.
Quote:| Learning a lot about "substance", "truth-seeking" and "deduction" |
|
Terrific, that would be refreshing, I'll believe it when I see it.
Quote:| not "rhetoric" and "digging for examples", the art of lawyers. |
|
Ouch, although I can't say you are completely inaccurate on the digging for examples part.
|
|
Logged |
"A child of five could understand this (someone fetch me a child of five)" - Groucho Marx
|
|
|
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 #92 on: Oct 30th, 2004, 5:18pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 30th, 2004, 5:08pm, junkyardjake wrote:| Just like Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, evidently there is not a shred of factual material in that. |
|
Good lying is always entrenched in half-truths. The point is that the sum total of the half-truths presented do NOT equal the bigger claims being asserted. Sure, there may be a (tendentiously-selected) shred here and a(n equivocally-presented) shred there. But, they are just what they are... shreds, and which is what that movie should be cut up into.
|
|
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 #93 on: Oct 30th, 2004, 7:10pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I ran out of time to post my response to Callie's question below and elaborate on issues we were discussing back then regarding Israel prior to Klockner's post... I had hand-written the following back then. I am now going to type it on up and post. I had put much thought into it and feel that it is still worth sharing...
on Aug 18th, 2004, 10:26pm, Callie wrote:| The second question is, do you have a three book list of the major influences of your political thinking? |
|
(In response to the question...) Nothing directly or specifically, really, Callie. I tend not to read (destined-to-be) dated, albeit contemporary, stuff that is politically-skewed and books that can be largely told by their covers. "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy", gee, what's that book about?
 | I DIGRESS...
Look, there is an inherent, long-term contradiction between the political system of democrary and the economic system of capitalism, which is just starting to come out in western democratic, capitalist societies, and which, I betchya, is not even addressed in this "in-the-box", politically-motivated analysis/critique. |
|
|  |
To answer your question with a bit more specificity, a couple contemporary pieces that might stand up for an extended while (in history) that I've perused, Peter F. Drucker's Post-Capitalist Society, Philip K. Howard's The Death of Common Sense and Billy O'Reilly's Who's Looking Out For You?. Mind you, these are not pieces I take from cover to cover as gospel (no book do I). For a little more comprehensive picture of readings that have affected my worldview more generally, take a look-see at the "G.T.K.Y.G. - Book Club" thread. I, moreover, also believe that the ancients and books that have stood (more of) the test of time have potentially more to say of value in general than people and books written contemporaneously.
...
At any rate, prior to piling reading material up (to a degree that is unreasonable for the average human mind and within the average human lifespan to complete with a degree of intelligibility), you need to give your brain a workout. Just like you couldn't get on a football field without some serious physical training first, your brain needs training too. Incidentally, that's actually what I think Philosophy is about first and foremost; it is the weightroom for your mind. You want to hone your reasoning skills, phenomenologically almost. You want to make sure you can think straight, so to speak, and think "through" an issue "to" its truth.
I believe that to really understand an "issue" you have to confront the issue head-on and learn about the "issue" itself, not the sides of the issue, which are competing for "popular" support. What I mean... For example, take the "issue" of Israel and Palestine. You read the Old Testament and the Talmud and the Koran. You read up on and watch shows about the relevant history from objective sources (that you can "tell" are not subjective or "motive-ated", like the ones I've mentioned here on this thread regarding North and South Korea). You make some Jewish/Israeli and Muslim/Palestinian friends and pick their brains. You perhaps even try to visit Israel, preferably with some Hebrew and Arabic under your belt so you can communicate with the locals. Then and only then if you find yourself leaning in one direction, you possibly pick up some material expressing the opposite position so as to challenge yourself.
| I DIGRESS...
What the point is is that there is a serious, underlying epistomological question here, one that begs the question, "what/how much can we know certainly?" Is getting at the "truth" of something about collecting more and more "knowables" (setting aside the "unknowables", for argument's sake), no less those of just one side of the "debatable"? |
|
| |
(Back around to where I was before Klockner's post and, mind you, still am...) I actually do not feel very comfortable about my take on Israel. I have a take, but I feel it is generalized and surely incomplete. Bottom line, I myself waver between our needing to remain firm in our support of Israel and cutting our losses with Israel and backing off our supporting them. Ultimately, I just do not know,  but what I do/can understand causes me to usually lean (very cautiously, i.e. dispassionately, i.e. not passionately like JYJ seems to be) in the direction of the former position of sticking beside Israel. However, I do have an intimate and more complete understanding and my finger on the pulse of what is going on on the Korean peninsula. And, my time in Korea along with some further travels amounting to significant experience outside America, I have somewhat of a general non-domestic/semi-global perspective that is transferable to some small degree (I like to think, given my study of the art of thinking (for itself)) and can give me just a sliver of insight into international issues in general, such as Israel. But, that would only be to the degree that I have done my homework on Israel, which, again, is not that much.
And, yet, it takes A LOT (epistomologically, but I would like to simply say really, speaking)! Not many people really understand the issue of Israel even though many have opinions on it. And just because someone seems to have a firm stance doesn't mean they "really" do (have a firm foundation to this stance). They may just be speaking from a "platform", moreover, one, given our systemically bipartisan system, that must merely be contrary to the other's. Likewise, in kind, just because someone wavers does not mean they understand less. They may just be being humble and/or in the process of wrestling with the issue.
...
That was where I finished writing back in mid-August...
For Mr. Quotey, I'd like to include the following quotes which jumped out at me when I encountered them in light of the reasoning I left off with above; they are from this little-known guy, DESCARTES, from 375 or so years ago:
"...many people do not know what they believe, since believing something and knowing that one believes it are different acts of thinking, and the one often occurs without the other."
"And so I thought that since the sciences contained in books - at least those based upon merely probable, not demonstrative, reasoning - is compounded and amassed little by little from the opinions of many different persons, it never comes so close to the truth as the simple reasoning which a man of good sense naturally makes concerning whatever he comes across."
"...so I learned not to believe too firmly anything of which I had been persuaded only by example..."
"...in practical life it is sometimes necessary to act upon opinions which one knows to be quite uncertain just as if they were indubitable. But since I now wished to devote myself solely to the search for truth, I thought it necessary to do the very opposite and reject as if absolutely false everything in which I could imagine the least doubt..."
(JYJ, my friend, a good dose of Cartesian "radical doubt", though not necessary for most, could be useful to you.)
"Living here, amidst this great mass of busy people who are more concerned with their own affairs than curious about those of others, I have been able to lead a life as solitary and withdrawn as if I were in the most remote desert, while lacking none of the comforts found in the most populous cities."
(That was brought up really just to juxtapose my experience(s) living in Korea for seven years to Descartes's nine in Holland.)
- "Discourse on the Method", Parts 2, 3 & 4
...
Lastly, to bring this back around full-circle to the truer spirit of Callie's question and something I said I was going to post months ago before Callie's question... The following are TV shows that I would HIGHLY recommend to any right-minded person able to think on his or her own:
"Dennis Miller" (CNBC) - http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/TV_Info/P72123.asp
"Hard Ball with Chris Matthews" (MSNBC) - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/
"Scarborough Country" (MSNBC) - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/
"Meet The Press with Tim Russert" (MSNBC) - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
"The O'Reilly Factor" (FNC) - http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly
"FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace" (FNC) - http://www.foxnews.com/fns
"Heartland with John Kasich" (FNC) - http://www.foxnews.com/heartland
"ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" (ABC) - http://abcnews.go.com/Sections/WNT/ (but not with Koppel, one is enough; Jennings is ("relatively") better than the other choices)
I didn't suggest "Hannity & Colmes", which, mind you, I do like, but is hardcore, and Sean Hannity, whom, mind you, I like a lot, is just way partisan even for me sometimes, and Colmes is just a wishy-washy liberal, whose role is so "staged".
Dennis Miller would probably be my #1 choice, but I've watched more of Bill O'Reilly, my #2 man, in fact. Tim Russert is fantastic, but he has to take too much of a middle-ground approach given the format of his show(s) and conceal his truly "red" blood. In any event, from any of these shows or a combination thereof, one can get a pretty fair and balanced version of things. This is a little bit late in the going for this election. But, I guess that is good. It is more consistent with what the "original" point of this thread was supposed to be, i.e. no partisan flag-waving.
...
Okay, that's it... I'm going home.  ...  (mind you, according to JYJ, the book in front of "me smiley" there contains no substance) Oh, and by the way,... the irony... I still haven't received my absentee ballot, which I applied for two weeks ago, and probably won't in time. I guess the Democratic powers-that-be-for-now in New Jersey are holding it back.  ...
 -"They killed Steggie's vote!" "You, bastards!"-
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 30th, 2004, 7:24pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
GM
# 58
"Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
Posts: 498
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #94 on: Nov 1st, 2004, 1:06am » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| Good lying is always entrenched in half-truths. The point is that the sum total of the half-truths presented do NOT equal the bigger claims being asserted. Sure, there may be a (tendentiously-selected) shred here and a(n equivocally-presented) shred there. But, they are just what they are... shreds, and which is what that movie should be cut up into. |
|
Have you even seen the documentary ? Are you really being intellectually honest in your opinion here ? You seem to harbor disdain for the regurgitation of partisan rhetoric, yet if you told me that this quote was directly attributed to Ann Coulter, I would be inclined to believe it.
Maybe you should follow your own advice and actually form your own conclusion. By the way, it is common knowledge that Moore assembled an extensive team of lawyers and fact-checkers, and if you would like to reference the background material of all these facts they are conveniently listed on Moore's site:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=16
Thank you for the Descartes quotes, it made me research him a bit. (Unfortunately, I believe I have to conclude he was a serious drinker, or maybe invented recreational mushrooms).
Quote:| "...many people do not know what they believe, since believing something and knowing that one believes it are different acts of thinking, and the one often occurs without the other." |
|
I'm really not sure what the relevance of this quote is. As you should know, Dr. Philosphophy, even Descartes himself had ultimately rejected his absurd hypothesis that certain knowledge was impossible. He reconciled his 'how do I know if I am just dreaming my conclusions ?' by making a cognitive decision that *od existed and that He would not deceive.
In any event, is there not a difference between philosphical skepticism and scientific skepticism ?
Philosophical skepticism - Obviously relates to some of the issues that Descartes wrestled with after consuming large quantities of his homemade spirits. What does it mean to think ? Is knowledge possible ? Does *od exist ? Do our perceptions match reality ? Why did I wakeup in my neighbors barn with a tattoo of Mighty Mouse on my ass ?
Which fortunately contrasts with the far more practical form of skepticism:
Scientific skepticism - Where one does not accept the veracity of a claim until solid evidence is produced.
(which by the way requires examples and facts...however inconvienient that might be)
For example, your assertation that America was attacked because of 'envy' is rather superficial when evaluated against the weight of actual testimony, facts and evidence. None of which I will bore you with here, lest I be accused of giving uninvited quotes and examples.
As far as your media list, I think it is great, I like Tim Russert the best, as I have mentioned to you, and Chris Matthews is boisterous, but usually informative. John Kasich and Scarborough are rather partisan, but you can tell that they genuine in character, and that's important. I can't say anything nice about Bill O'Reilly, especially in light of his recent settlement of a sexual harrassment suit, so I won't. As far as Dennis Miller, he has pretty much lost his objectivity and the only reason he is probably still on the air is because 'Kudlow and Kramer' and 'The McEnroe Show' are somehow more embarrassing. However, he is still without question one of the funniest guys on the planet.
Two sources you forgot to mention are:
CSPAN, the only truly unbiased and non-partisan political media source.
http://www.c-span.org/
and
'The Daily Show' with Jon Stewart - Even funnier than Miller, completely irreverent in it's lambasting of the entire political process and corporate media whores that make it even more unbearable.
"Four correspondents! Zero credibility!.....Even better than being informed!"
But the real joke? The University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey reports that Daily Show viewers follow the presidential campaign more closely and are more educated than the average American.
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/
Also, don't forget to check out Stewart's book, 'America' (Currently number #1 on Amazon, as well as the NY Times nonfiction bestseller list).
|
|
Logged |
"A child of five could understand this (someone fetch me a child of five)" - Groucho Marx
|
|
|
Gridiron Great
# 219
Go, Gridironettes!
 
Posts: 2568
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #95 on: Nov 1st, 2004, 1:32am » |
Quote Modify
|
Yeah, guys. I watch all of the shows you have both mentioned (except Jennings). You can argue that they are all pushing their points, and they are.
But the thing that interests me most is that Steg is in the philosophy world, sounds like Jake is in the lawyer world, and I am in the psychology world. If politics is anything, it is the intersection of these three worlds. Philosophy, law, and psychology of human behavior.
What do you guys have to say about that? Or do I get ignored? Unintentionally - to stay on your argument, I know.
But what is the reality to you? That is what makes a difference to the morons who cannot think, so they need to know. This is not spin. This is actual thinking! Go from there?
|
|
Logged |
“If life gives you lemons make orange juice. Let the rest of the world figure out how you did it.”
|
|
|
Red Zone Master
GBRFL2er
CBFL Champ - '03
# 18
He ain't on the all-time list because he's pretty.
Posts: 1296
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #96 on: Nov 1st, 2004, 8:27am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 1st, 2004, 1:32am, Callie wrote: If politics is anything, it is the intersection of these three worlds. Philosophy, law, and psychology of human behavior.
|
|
That is the first really different (to me) and exciting thing I have heard in this thread. Thanks.
Random Thoughts
Quote:
I heard this quote in the movie The Gladiator. It sounds like something that probably came from another source, . Ayhow, I worry that we have become the mob. With such an emphasis on the democratc process, and an apparent ever declining morality, the rights of individuals in the minority are getting burried more and more.
Quote:| You can not legislate morality. |
|
One of the most moronic "Bumper Sticker" slogans ever. Thou shall not kill. Obviously the basis of law is morality.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 1st, 2004, 8:28am by bgsgfan » |
Logged |
11/20/04 - Buckeyes salvage season by stomping that team from up north. (Posted 11/14/04)
|
|
|
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 #97 on: Nov 1st, 2004, 6:09pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Jake, I don't know what to say. You surely are a know it ALL!
Descartes's end-game reconciliation NEVER changed his stance on the process (to get there), on the "method". ... But, I digress... You know it all. What am I thinking? You know ALL of your facts... and ALL of mine... and ALL of the facts necessary to get at the ABSOLUTE objective truth of it ALL. I don't know why I just don't go out and buy an idol of you and Justin McCareins and start lighting incense and bowing.  In any event, I was being a bit facetious ( , Jeff) and using hyperbole regarding your need for "radical doubt" (obviously, Descartes's "radical doubt" is a source of major contention). The rest was completely sincere, the quotes that is.
My whole point all along, Jake, is that the total often does not equal the sum of the parts; the trees themselves are not the forest, and you keep on beating me over the head with engine parts and trees.
...
Callie, that surely is an interesting observation. Noted and worthy of further investigation.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 1st, 2004, 6:23pm by Stegfucius » |
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 #98 on: Nov 1st, 2004, 6:30pm » |
Quote Modify
|
For those who remain undecided...
on Jun 30th, 2004, 3:15pm, StegRock wrote:| While hanging out and rapping with Markie (Skcus Redef) last night, a VERY intriguing way to approach the upcoming Presidential election FOR UNDECIDEDS came to me... The months, weeks and days leading up to the election will likely be some of the most dangerous and threatening times our country has seen since 9/11 and thwarting attacks is going to be no small task for our government. If you remain undecided as the election approaches (like Mark here) and ultimately find yourself in the voting booth without a significant, successful attack on our country having been pulled off in the period leading up to the election, you may just want to throw all the rhetoric out in the trash where it belongs and vote for the proof in the pudding, Bush. |
|
Election's tomorrow and NO HOMELAND ATTACKS (since 9/11). "Our" guys have either done a great job of protecting us and at least limiting the threat of al-Qaeda (like or lump "our" method) OR "our" actions haven't created as much more hatred in the Muslim world toward us as many so absolutely and confidently "know" and would have you believing, or should I say "knowing", too. Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding of our very daily homeland lives since 9/11. DON'T OVER-THINK IT (tomorrow)!
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
GM
# 58
"Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
Posts: 498
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #99 on: Nov 1st, 2004, 9:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| You surely are a know it ALL! |
|
I appreciate your conspicuously sarcastic flattery, but if I truly knew anything, I would not have picked the Minnesota Vikings defense in your CBFL league (they are good for a minus 50 points every week evidently, f&&king Ted Cottrell, I should have known after seeing him last year as Jets coordinator).
I think I have finally figured out the stock market though, let me know when you are ready to invest and maybe I can save you some money with my horror stories.
Quote:
I don't....Descartes was a drunken idiot.
Quote:| Election's tomorrow and NO HOMELAND ATTACKS (since 9/11). |
|
Does this make Bill Clinton twice the super-fantastic President ? Afterall, 8 years transpired between the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 2001 attack.
Quote:| If politics is anything, it is the intersection of these three worlds. Philosophy, law, and psychology of human behavior. |
|
Great point Callie, in fact modern politics might be more realistically portrayed as mostly psychology, a whole lot of school-yard rock fight, and a very sparse amount of law and philosophy.
I would venture to say that there seems to be a very strong parallel between the marketing of say, toothpaste, and a modern Presidential candidate. With toothpaste, you know the crap all does the same thing, but companies will spend millions on package design, fancy advertising and focus groups and surveys to determine sentiment and opinions.
In the end, marketers are just looking for those subtle cognitive triggers to sell their new undifferentiated crappy product; the basis upon which you choose toothpaste is more likely based on who creates the best perception.
The same thing applies to GW Bush and John Kerry, there are no discernible differences between these jackasses and they know it. So they rely on polls to figure what to support and say, and advertising to alter perceptions. In the end, it's totally about psychology and which line of bullshit you choose to believe.
Quote:| the rights of individuals in the minority are getting burried more and more. |
|
Amen to that bgsgfan
Quote:| You can not legislate morality. |
|
You correct in a universal sense, but this adage tacitly assumes that reprehensible behavior that is dangerous to society (i.e. criminal offenses such as robbery), and behavior that results in damages to others without intention (i.e. negligence,such as a supermarket that doesn't pick up banana peels) are implicitly covered by legislation.
The type of behaviors that this aphorism applies to involve those that present no harm to others, or should not be made obligatory because of our American value of individual autonomy. For example, it's certainly worthwhile to donate to charity, but should this behavior be mandated by law ? Also consider, if you see someone choking in a restaurant, intervening with the Heimlich Maneuver is of course the moral thing to do, but the law prescribes no obligation to do so.
|
|
Logged |
"A child of five could understand this (someone fetch me a child of five)" - Groucho Marx
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Games
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
That's what I meant. Let's not waste precious hard-drive space with dictionary "quotes" now, please. As if... Haven't we enough cut-and-pasted quotes on this here thread? "the Gridiron" is (supposed to be) about original content!
