Sinergy
Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
quote:
None of us have displayed "know-it-all-itis" in this thread, and I'm actually very proud of everyone here, even if I do disagree, and will rhetorically attack their positions.
You know you never addressed my position, so I have decided you must agree with it.
edited from my original comment to state that I do not want you to state "pride" in my postings while attacking my Daddy's, I find that behavior very distasteful. And I find my Daddy's comments quite appropriate.
*shrugs*
Assume whatever you wish.
FirmKY
At times in my life I have been an academic. There are certain attributes that make a successful scholar.
1) An academic studies a subject in depth from multiple sides before arriving at a conclusion. One thing that frequently happens is that the person doing the scholarly research discovers through research that their personal opinion is horribly wrong. A good example was Kevin Phillips researching his own party (Republican) and the influence of the Pentecostal Evangelical religions. He started out Republican, and after he learned about it, he was filled with a sense of dread about what "his" party had become. His book on the entire subject is "American Theocracy," which is quite an eye-opener. Well researched, well documented, endless footnotes and endnotes and bibliographical information, and well written.
2) An academic studies the various sides in depth in order to come up with a defensible position with sources, analyses, etc.
3) An academic publishes their findings EXPECTING and HOPING FOR what is known as "peer review." In so far as thread is concerned, what they post is published with the idea in mind that people can peruse their arguments, offer up criticism, argue with factual information, in order to further the scholarly discussion. Such efforts on the part of other academicians is seen as a positive influence on a scholarly work, not as some "snarky" argumentation.
On the other hand, you have people who publish things on, say, an internet web site expounding endlessly about their personal opinion on a subject. When this position is argued with, many people...
1) Refuse to discuss, refute, provide contradictory information about, points made by other people.
2) Use name calling and other argumentative behaviors to try to demean the other poster, in essence, attacking the messenger and not the message.
3) Single-mindedly insist that their opinion is correct without bothering to provide any empirical evidence to support it, or else providing some non sequiter (like a dictionary definition) without providing any supporting information to tie the non-sequiter definition proposed to the subject they are attempting to prove.
I may not agree with most of the things which many people who post on here post, but I read them anyways hoping I can learn something. But when it devolves into simple bickering and nastiness, it reminds me too much of my job, which involves my being nasty and picking fights with people. At this point, I get bored and wander away.
Just me, etc.
Sinergy
_____________________________
"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"
"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle
|
RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread