Get some ice ready to put on yer haid as you ponder this article…
Not all pHDs are equal is what I learned from reading this.
[The guy could take some time to edit his articles. He rambles.]
Er…I am not a deep thinker.
Well, it is interesting to read his article.
One of my friends, an advocator of Taiwanese education refomation, told me that people only see exaggerated figures so she took radical measure to express her ideas in many social movements.
This writer’s article is a good example to support her statement, and Micheal Moore’s Sicko is another one.
The comments below the article are interesting, too.
Double post, sorry.
Not all pHDs are equal is what I learned from reading this.[/quote]
Welcome to Real Life Mk 1, Mod 1
Another oddity on my screens.
I was thinking of penning a separate thread titled, “Why tolerate lying AmeriKKKan hatism?”, which was planned to address the furiously pointless debating style that seems to be a direct import from that wonderful country that gave us, well Fred for one, TC for another, and should have given ac_dropout an education but somehow despite it’s rich educational history, failed dismally. Oh, and Fox news.
I was hoping to point out the silly exchange of exaggerated abuse and nastiness and lies and counter lies that seem somehow linked to intellectual discussion, but which by necessity given the exaggerated extremes adopted, obviously negates the intellect. Why if we are debating a point does it always end like some silly undergrad debating society point scoring rather than solid conclusions? If we are debating fact, how can one party demonstrate “facts” to back their claim and another the “facts” to oppose it? Surely one party is lying, or to be generous, a frequent exchange of untruths and more importanlty known untruths is normal and indeed a widely accepted and regarded form in this kind of debate.
If AmeriKKKans have any trouble with the concepts I’m attempting to outline, then I would merely direct them to the vast social experiment run under the “Johhny Howard is a complete tosser” thread. After oodles of input there is no overt abuse between myself and my fellow Australians, despite the rabid language and positions I most certainly have adopted. There are no lies, no counter lies, merely a free flow of ideas that unsurprisingly ends with the conclusion, yes, Howard is a complete tosser.
End the hate now!
Love youse all, possums!
HG
HGC -
Your spell-check doesn’t seem to be working.
Or maybe you just haven’t learned how to use it.
HG
Doh!
Ooh good comeback! the old “you made a spelling mistake”! go join the other 20pg thread.
My question is:
Is it possible to be a conservative and believe in all the conservative tenets except one? Like, just for an example: What if a scientist was a dyed-in-the-wool conservative but then did some experiments that proved to him, conclusively, that global warming did exist? (just to take one example). Would he be able to modify his conservative beliefs to accomodate this new information? Or, by definition, has he suddenly become a liberal?
I only ask because conservatives seem so dogmatic and unified in their pursuit of conservative beliefs that they remind me of radical muslims at times. (Although I guess within their own culture, those guys are considered “conservative” too.)
Does being conservative mean you have to make up your mind about the world before any evidence is presented to you, and if the evidence makes you challenge what you believe, you’ve failed at conservatism?
lurkky -
Perhaps in your zeal to score points you overlooked the very insulting spelling HGC used for America.
Now this may be, and it looks like it is, completely beyond your understanding, but this spelling is quite common amongst the rabid anti-USA cabal and cutesy internet anarchists. My dismissive response was to this.
As to your attempt at a “one-size fits all” definition of what constitutes ‘conservative beliefs’…good luck. I think you’re going to have to 'Call Off YOur TirEd" stereotyping and accept the reality that diversity exists in places you here-to-fore did not know existed.
Would it be fair to say that some posters here try for a “one-size fits all” definition of what constitutes ‘liberal beliefs or thinking’ and that too would be just as unreasonable?
My point precisely.
“AmeriKKKa” as a spelling, i thought, was a punk reference, if a somewhat dated one.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]lurkky -
Perhaps in your zeal to score points you overlooked the very insulting spelling HGC used for America.
Now this may be, and it looks like it is, completely beyond your understanding, but this spelling is quite common amongst the rabid anti-USA cabal and cutesy internet anarchists. My dismissive response was to this.[/quote]
So which am I?
I used to think anarchists were cool but then all too hastily found that they simply didn’t wash enough and I myself have always maintained exacting standards on this front. That for me rules out cutesy.
I’m also no anti-USA cabal, well I’m one person for one and anyway I happily ate a hotdog once and found it quite good, despite the colouring of the skin being highly suspect and the contents of ill determined origin. Would it matter of I ate that thing in Taiwan?
But most of all, I LOVE!
HG
uhhh…attention whore? Thread hijacker? Bored office wank? Lovable fluff monkey?
I think the list might be rather long.
HGC, stop eating baby fetuses. At least not the ones that have been dipped in formaldehyde.
C’mon TC, don’t skip this one … c’mon, call that kettle black, you can do it …
B-b-but…liberals are all the same because they hate America!
Is the article supposed to be a joke? Sometimes I have trouble determining whether someone is being sarcastic.
The article starts out with:
Doesn’t sound like a joke yet. But then the next paragraph reads:
I think he’s joking. Right? He can’t possibly believe there are no conservatives who could be called looney, conspiratorial, or completely insane (“flaming” doesn’t fit because “flaming conservative” is not idiomatic). How about all those conspiracies surrounding Clinton (like that well-debunked “murder list”), or George Soros. I’d call those conservatives conspiratorial. Looney, completely insane? How about the guy who rails against the “gay” Teletubby, or claims America deserved 9/11 and Katrina because God is punishing us for tolerating gays? I’d call that pretty crazy. How about conservatives who believe the earth is at most 10,000 years old, that man was created in an instant and co-existed with dinosaurs, that evolutionary theory is nothing more than Satanic dissemination, that fossil evidence supporting evolutionary theory was planted by Satan? Talk about crazy conservatives. :loco:
There’s plenty of looney, knee-jerk, unthinking liberals too, but with 45% of the American populace as young-earth Creationists, there’s millions on the right side of the fence as well.
HGC,
Why are you using my name in vain?