RE: Socialism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 1:20:51 PM)

Then I hope you come to find some more wisdom.

Still, you are taking that out of context.  Could you refresh my memory as to what we (Zen and I) were talking about at that point you quoted me in?



CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 1:22:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol



quote:

ORIGINAL CuriousLord

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

It's alright.. I'm not really going to go any further with this (...) .



You uttered the nonsense that you wouldn't take this much further on the second page of this thread. It takes wisdom to accept one is wrong, or out of their depth.

Wisdom often comes with experience: remember that having the last word doesn't necessarily make you a 'winner', little one.


..why are you changing the post around, particularly managling the back quote..?



philosophy -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 1:24:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Oh, no; I'd stand by the point that I think you may've called ignorant.

If an Art's major came into one of my classrooms and tried to understand.. he couldn't.  He might be able to get things like 1+1.  I'd hope he'd even get the quadratic equation.  But could he solve the wave equation, even when slowly and plainly told how to do so?  I doubt it, as the thought processes necessary to do so haven't been developed.  It takes even people who are good at such things years of concentrated study in the prime of their youth to get such things; is it unreasonable to believe that it may be beyond people who are older and more set in their thoughts?

Editted to be fair.  It'd be rather silly of me to misrepresent you when I'm bashing other people for it.  :P


..perhaps true. Though i'd guarantee that in any given arts department you'll find the odd mathematician who crossed to the light/dark side.......and that's my major point. Come to an theatre class run by me........you'll find the basics of stage craft easy enough to grasp perhaps....but unless you've actually studied Stanislavsky you'll not get far in that subject.
You see, all we're both suggesting is that in order to really grasp a subject you have to commit to it. What i'm suggesting you stop appearing to imply, is that one set of students are intrinsically incapable of grasping another disciplines ideas.
i can waffle on at length about Fermats Last Theorem.......but i wouldn't be able to do the math that demonstrates it. you may be able to waffle happily on about shakespeare, but you wont be able to discuss it at the level i can.
That doesn't mean that you're incapable of it....it just means you haven't put the years in like i have. It's no reflection on your intrinsic qualities.



Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 1:25:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I appreciate the prospective.

I'm suggesting that there's a lot of mathematical and scientific concepts that are very high minded, and that if I were to stop working towards my studies of them for a while to pursue other sorts of things.. such as art.. while I may be able to resume them later, I'll not get as far as if I hadn't paused from them.

There's no apparent limit to the amount of knowledge that's possible, in human terms, before mortality takes us.  So if I want to get far, I have to use the time most productively.


CL, when I was in high school I had my education planned out to the doctorate. I was going to finish my five years of high school in four, going to major in astronomy, become an astronomer specializing in high-energy physics. Had the aptitude for math, science, etc.

My final year of high school, I discovered the arts and realized that while I'd spent my youth using my head, I'd ignored my heart.

And it changed everything.

Instead I became a writer, and a damn good one by most accounts.

And my fascination with the heart has only grown.

You speak of compassion for those starving. That comes from the heart, where art lives.

You speak of laziness, but what I see are people refusing to play a game they know to be rigged against them.

Being a writer may be "lazy", but writers have changed the world over and over again.



Zensee -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 1:26:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

So is it your point that I shouldn't worry about other people twisting my words because I twist theirs?  If so, what have I twisted?  (And, if not, don't count me as twisting your words; just clarify what you mean.)

Don't mistake me for amazed, though.  I don't expect much.


My point is you should worry about getting your own words (and head) straight before you even think of straightening out the words of others. And don't think I am going to parse the Gordian Knot of presumptions, incidents of stereotyping, wild accusations, hostile outbursts, rationalisations, back pedaling, passive-aggressive manipulations and general intellectual dishonesty you have produced over the past few days. Not just so you can dismiss it with one more evasion.

Again.

Especially since you have already dismissed this reply (or is that "prejustice" in action?).

I have played, "what do CL's words mean today" with you too many times. I'm just suggesting you to own what you say and accept the consequences of saying it, for a change.


Z.






Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 1:36:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Ah, gotcha.  But were they ever able to communicate the true ideas to lay men?  I know Hawkings only communicates the very surface level of things in his books (I'm read both "A Brief History of Time" and "The Elegant Universe").


You would have to define "true ideas" for me before I could answer.

However, Gould has several books out on evolution and Sagan was responsible for the contact discs on the two satellites (forgotten their names) that left the solar system.

All three have popularized science and spoken with laymen.



CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 1:39:21 PM)

"And don't think I am going to parse the Gordian Knot of presumptions, incidents of stereotyping, wild accusations, hostile outbursts, rationalisations, back pedaling, passive-aggressive manipulations and general intellectual dishonesty you have produced over the past few days. Not just so you can dismiss it with one more evasion."

I'll admit, though, I did have a hostile outburst against Shakti after she somehow tried to represent me as a war hawk for America's previous wars in one hell of a long rant.  Still, I really think that you're emotional in your judgement here.

I appreciate you making the accusations without supporting them.  It's certainly not passive aggressive.  :P*

*PS-  This is sarcasm, not an attempt to you hurt.  You have to remember that, for whatever reasons, I'm here because this place is more enjoyable than the alternatives in the place I go through to me.  If I really were upset at you, I'd close this, insult you (which I assure you I'm also capable of, even if I chose to pass on it more often), or.. I don't know.  Just in general be pissy.

I don't have anything against you.  I'll call you on the things you're saying, particularly the insults, but don't mistake me as someone who hates you.



Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 1:41:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

is it unreasonable to believe that it may be beyond people who are older and more set in their thoughts?



oya ;-)

you don't want to go there, trust me.



Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 1:42:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

The differences between Lashra and CuriousLord go much deeper than gender.


Agreed.

quote:

I think the person who is blinded by the chromosomes in this situation is you.


I will acknowledge the possibility, but here is why I don't think it is probable:

Just as you were able to empathize with Lashra to see beyond what she said to what she meant, I was able to empathize with CuriousLord to see beyond what he said to what he meant. If both of us had made the extra effort in both cases, we might both have seen things differently in both cases. There are definite problems with the positions forwarded in both cases, and in both cases something different was intended from what was forwarded, and in both cases there were a number of unproductive sentiments expressed along the way Since you understood this logic in the other thread (demonstrated by employing it), I am hoping you can apply it here, also.

If you still think I am blinded by chromosomes and are willing to explain why you think so (here, or in a PM), I'll have a look in the mirror.

Barring that, it seems more likely to me that I am biased by ideology and familiarity.

Health,
al-Aswad.




Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 1:44:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

It's alright. Aswad was kind to speak on my behalf, though I'm fine without an excuse


Just to clarify: I wasn't speaking on your behalf.

I was trying to raise the signal-to-noise ratio for the topic you intended to raise, because I'd like to discuss that topic, and not the noise.

Health,
al-Aswad.




CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 1:45:49 PM)

Point taken.

Actually, my apologies.  To imply that you'd say things as fact just to support someone would be to accuse you of intellectual dishonsety, and it's apparent you do well in avoiding such things.  I'm sorry for that; it really was rather rude.

I suppose it was my way of disagreeing in a way.  I still feel like people should've been able to understand.  Could've and should've, though, are different, and I suppose I didn't to appreciate that.

This whole thread, in the way it's gone, irks me.  I really don't think I was that difficult to understand if people honestly tried to get what I meant.  They could've matched up what I was saying to the closest good idea to understand; hell, they could've told me what words may've better expressed myself if they honestly wanted to help communication.  But it's degraded quite a bit despite the true possibility for a better view.

And, I mean, I even saw that this could happen, so I buffered the thing with disclaimers both before and after citing my own views as the consquence of irrational thought.  Yet, still.. I mean, this is kind of messed up, you know?  At least, that's how I see it.



thompsonx -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 1:46:23 PM)

CL:
You deprecate art majors for having fun with their study but you freely admit that you have fun with your study...seems to be more than a little bit of a disconnect here.
You seem to think that the intellectual effort to be a science major is somehow qualitatively different than the intellectual effort to be an art major.  If you would simply walk around the art department you will find most every classroom has a sign that says Art is 90% work and 10% talent.  Do you think that is just some little platitude to make everyone think that art is not fun?
Do you suppose that art majors do not need to know any science?  If so then how would a sculptor know how to calculate the eutectic temperature of the alloy he was casting?  How would the potter know how to calculate reduction  temperatures?  Or how to formulate glazes for different colors....Do you suppose that the artist that work for Tiffany are unaware of the chemical and physical properties of glass and how to attain different colors?
On the front page of my copy of the Harvard catalog (1969) it states that the purpose of a college education is to give the student the necessary breadth and depth of knowledge to become productive members of society.
That is why you as a science major are required to take liberal arts classes instead of only taking science classes...that is what distinguishes a trade school from a college.
You rant on about how the art major does not do anything to alleviate the sufferings of mankind and ask the rhetorical question... is this acceptable?  Unless you are planning on donating all of your  earnings in excess of your needs, to the alleviation of the suffering of mankind and dedicating all of your scientific energy toward the relief of mankind's suffering then your statement would seem to be jejune at best and disingenuous at worst.
thompson



Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 1:49:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

It is the responsibility of the communicator to make themselves understood to their audience, not of the listener to extract a clear meaning from the wreckage of emotional outbursts and definitions de jour.


It's not my responsibility to tend to a girl who's just done a ragdoll tumble over the hood of a car at 30-35mph.
Last time it happened, though, I did exactly that: I tended to her, at my own expense.
A listener can go above and beyond the strict requirements.

Seeing as the topic has been clarified more, why not turn the other cheek and get on with the clarified topic, or askiing that it be restated?

Health,
al-Aswad.




Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 1:56:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

A listener can go above and beyond the strict requirements.



Indeed.

Communication works both ways.

But there are so few savants in the socratic method.



thompsonx -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 2:12:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

It is the responsibility of the communicator to make themselves understood to their audience, not of the listener to extract a clear meaning from the wreckage of emotional outbursts and definitions de jour.


It's not my responsibility to tend to a girl who's just done a ragdoll tumble over the hood of a car at 30-35mph.
Last time it happened, though, I did exactly that: I tended to her, at my own expense.
A listener can go above and beyond the strict requirements.

Seeing as the topic has been clarified more, why not turn the other cheek and get on with the clarified topic, or askiing that it be restated?

Health,
al-Aswad.



Aswad:
I would submit that that is a task better suited to the OP since he(and possibly Mortimer or Charley) knows what he wants to say.
thompson








Zensee -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 2:23:39 PM)

Not sure what caring for an accident victim has to do with clear verbal communication, Aswad. While a listener does have their own responsibility in communication, surely the bulk of it rests with the originator making sure they organise their ideas and present them clearly. One of my chronic complaints to CL is his use of migrating definitions and similar equivocations after the fact.

I believe CL has presented his ideas clearly, it is just that he will not own that his statements were contemptuous, insulting and ignorant of the facts about the people and institutions he was railing against. His subsequent dodging and weaving has only exacerbated the matter.

The topic as stated, was that a bunch of people whose way of being in the world was incomprehensible or unpalatable to the OP, were lumped in a category equally misunderstood by the OP but understood, in context, to be a category of bottomless, vitriolic contempt. I think that is a fair description.

If the topic has been changed since then, I would appreciate an update, as you offered. Thank you.


Z.



CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 2:26:08 PM)

So you're saying that I meant to call a bunch of people lazy pot smokers, etc.. and that I'm only saying that's not what I meant because I'm trying to cover my tail?



Zensee -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 2:27:26 PM)

You said a whole lot more than that and you know it. Stop playing the coy victim and own your words.


Z.



thompsonx -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 2:30:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Oh, no; I'd stand by the point that I think you may've called ignorant.

If an Art's major came into one of my classrooms and tried to understand.. he couldn't.  He might be able to get things like 1+1.  I'd hope he'd even get the quadratic equation.  But could he solve the wave equation, even when slowly and plainly told how to do so?  I doubt it, as the thought processes necessary to do so haven't been developed.  It takes even people who are good at such things years of concentrated study in the prime of their youth to get such things; is it unreasonable to believe that it may be beyond people who are older and more set in their thoughts?

Editted to be fair.  It'd be rather silly of me to misrepresent you when I'm bashing other people for it.  :P

CL:
I am not sure where you go to school but the quadratic equation is usually taught in the first or second year of high school not college.  "Freshman algebra" means freshman in high school it is a make up class not a university level class.
thompson








CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 2:35:47 PM)

So anything I say, you're going to take with the assumption that I'm secretly just hateful?



Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875