Brenda O'Malley is home making dinner, as usual, when Tim Finnegan arrives at her door.
"Brenda, may I come in?" he asks. "I've somethin' to tell ya".
"Of course you can come in, you're always welcome, Tim. But where's my husband?"
"That's what I'm here to be telling ya, Brenda."
There was an accident down at the Guinness brewery..."
"Oh, God no!" cries Brenda. "Please don't tell me."
"I must, Brenda. Your husband Shamus is dead and gone. I'm sorry.
Finally, she looked up at Tim. "How did it happen, Tim?"
"It was terrible, Brenda. He fell into a vat of Guinness Stout and drowned."
"Oh my dear Jesus! But you must tell me true, Tim. Did he at least go quickly?"
"Well, Brenda... no. In fact, he got out three times to pee."
Just thought I'd lighten it up. LOL.
"To an Iraqi Child"
Moderator: scott
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
>>No, but very close. I did say "Humanity is not innately good.
>No again you didn't. You said it was innately bad. You are losing to your own arguments and you won't admit it.<
I think you need to reread that. "not innately good"=("innately bad" or "innately neutral").
>Your argument was if people were innately good bad would never have arisen. This is your logic Jonathan not mine, go back and look.<
I agree.
>Now it seems you are mirroring my words. Is this the direction you go in when you can't completely win over a discussion, by wearing the other person out?<
No, that only appears to be the direction I'm going in because you're confused.
>You seem to have problems getting the gist of what's being said and fall back to your conception of word meanings.<
I understand what you say, but it does not make sense. Rather than assume you're insane, I point out what word meanings are similar that would allow you to make sense and suggest that you're using words incorrectly.
>when respect can also mean an appreciation<
Babies have no appreciation either. It is impossible to prove they have any complex thoughts such as these, since there is no evidence of it. And since there is no evidence of it, it is natural to assume (via Ockham's razor) that they aren't there.
>Your example is simplified over all<
Don't just say it's simplified, say how.
>Can you prove that?<
Yes, I gave you the real life example of a spoiled rich kid. They are given what they want when they want. If they don't get it, they throw a fit until someone gives in, and then they get it. In psychology books there at least sections if not chapters on why this occurs, the symptoms, and how to reverse it. The symptoms include disrespect of others, usually to the point of treating them as no more than objects to be manipulated to the advantage of the patient, and an extremely overdeveloped sense of entitlement.
>Hmm I guess it is better to bring the child down than to help build them up huh?<
No; they need discipline but you don't squash their spirit.
>No again you didn't. You said it was innately bad. You are losing to your own arguments and you won't admit it.<
I think you need to reread that. "not innately good"=("innately bad" or "innately neutral").
>Your argument was if people were innately good bad would never have arisen. This is your logic Jonathan not mine, go back and look.<
I agree.
>Now it seems you are mirroring my words. Is this the direction you go in when you can't completely win over a discussion, by wearing the other person out?<
No, that only appears to be the direction I'm going in because you're confused.
>You seem to have problems getting the gist of what's being said and fall back to your conception of word meanings.<
I understand what you say, but it does not make sense. Rather than assume you're insane, I point out what word meanings are similar that would allow you to make sense and suggest that you're using words incorrectly.
>when respect can also mean an appreciation<
Babies have no appreciation either. It is impossible to prove they have any complex thoughts such as these, since there is no evidence of it. And since there is no evidence of it, it is natural to assume (via Ockham's razor) that they aren't there.
>Your example is simplified over all<
Don't just say it's simplified, say how.
>Can you prove that?<
Yes, I gave you the real life example of a spoiled rich kid. They are given what they want when they want. If they don't get it, they throw a fit until someone gives in, and then they get it. In psychology books there at least sections if not chapters on why this occurs, the symptoms, and how to reverse it. The symptoms include disrespect of others, usually to the point of treating them as no more than objects to be manipulated to the advantage of the patient, and an extremely overdeveloped sense of entitlement.
>Hmm I guess it is better to bring the child down than to help build them up huh?<
No; they need discipline but you don't squash their spirit.
Last edited by Jonathan on Thu May 12, 2005 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
Silver Eyes
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:42 pm
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
Jonathan your the one who is confused.
>>No, but very close. I did say "Humanity is not innately good.
>No again you didn't. You said it was innately bad. You are losing to your own arguments and you won't admit it.<
I think you need to reread that. "not innately good"=("innately bad" or "innately nuetral").
It is you who needs to go back and look at your words. Ahem, this is yours, please look at the first and last sentences. Now, are you going to try and change this part of the discussion as well even though it is staring you right in the face?
I think I can proof that humanity is innately bad, by contradiction. You say that evil causes evil, and no one is evil to start with. So if you go way back in time to the first people, they must by definition be good, since no evil has been done to then to cause them to be evil, and they are good to start with. But if they're all good, then none of them does evil to any of the others, and they continue to be all good. They have kids, and since there is no evil in the world yet, and those kids are born good, then they stay good. It continues in this matter until this day, and at no point is evil able to get a foot hold. Therefore your conception of the nature of human psychology and evil has no explaination for how there is any evil in this world. Since there is evil in this world, then you must conclude that your conception is wrong. The correct conception is that evil causes evil and people are innately bad; they screw up at some point and evil gets a foothold, and then it is impossible for people to completely remove.
>Your argument was if people were innately good bad would never have arisen. This is your logic Jonathan not mine, go back and look.<
I agree.
>Now it seems you are mirroring my words. Is this the direction you go in when you can't completely win over a discussion, by wearing the other person out?<
No, that only appears to be the direction I'm going in because you're confused.
As I said your the one who's confused Jonathan, either that you you like playing games.
>You seem to have problems getting the gist of what's being said and fall back to your conception of word meanings.<
You do though Jonathan. You are a bit of a literalist, or you run around the subject. I could paste everything that''s been said and prove it like in the first part of this new post, but this is really boring. I said where this was going was ridiculous and you said I was using that term wrong. We'll no, I wasn't, I could just see how this was possibly going to go. There was a comic in the paper I saw this morning that, well I hope you can enjoy a roast because the scientist reminded me of you in this conversation. I hope you don't take offense to this because like I said I enjoy your other posts but I am going to paste that comic up because it is funny, (it even has a former rich kid in it. LOL).
I understand what you say, but it does not make sense. Rather than assume you're insane, I point out what word meanings are similar that would allow you to make sense and suggest that you're using words incorrectly.
Again, this all comes not from my incorrect use of a term but your refusing to admit that I was using your line of logic against you.
>when respect can also mean an appreciation<
Babies have no appreciation either. It is impossible to prove they have any complex thoughts such as these, since there is no evidence of it. And since there is no evidence of it, it is natural to assume (via Ockham's razor) that they aren't there.
So you do believe in ockhams razor, but you don't believe in ockhams razor, yet you don't really know why it is suppose to work, but you quote it for your use anyway. Hmmm, have you ever considered that you might in fact be insane? LOL D; Just a joke. So about the baby I guess you personally will never know either way. Tell me Jon what age can you remember to?
#1 >Your example is simplified over all<
Don't just say it's simplified, say how.
>Can you prove that?<
Yes, I gave you the real life example of a spoiled rich kid.
The above sentence is some proof right here towards sentence #1. I realize that below this paragraph you go into your example in more depth but you didn't do that with your original example of the rich kid. Not only that but your example of the rich kid doesn't at all fit the description I gave and was an easy out for you. With your first example, is this how you quantify something? For your second mention of it where are your facts? You said a real life example of a rich kid. Who is he? Where is he? Do you know him personally? Explain how this example if true at all fits the mold of what I was saying. Prove that by bringing a child up in the environment I stated makes a child a spoiled rich kid. As far as I know the environment I mentioned can still happen without the need for loads of cash. Prove that even if there was a lot of cash the kid would become spoiled and rich under the guidline I mentioned. Prove that this makes a messianic complex. Actually please don't. You've taken my point out of context once again and I really don't wish to see you validate something that is only your confused idea of what I said and not what I was really saying.
They are given what they want when they want. If they don't get it, they throw a fit until someone gives in, and then they get it.
But why do you think that this description is the same as the description for the type of upbringing I mentioned? It's not even close.
In psychology books there at least sections if not chapters on why this occurs, the symptoms, and how to reverse it. The symptoms include disrespect of others, usually to the point of treating them as no more than objects to be manipulated to the advantage of the patient, and an extremely overdeveloped sense of entitlement.
I'm not buying any of this Jonathan, whether studies have been done or not your mention of it is only a loose generalization.
>Hmm I guess it is better to bring the child down than to help build them up huh?<
No; they need discipline but you don't squash their spirit.
Okay so now your heading my way.
>>No, but very close. I did say "Humanity is not innately good.
>No again you didn't. You said it was innately bad. You are losing to your own arguments and you won't admit it.<
I think you need to reread that. "not innately good"=("innately bad" or "innately nuetral").
It is you who needs to go back and look at your words. Ahem, this is yours, please look at the first and last sentences. Now, are you going to try and change this part of the discussion as well even though it is staring you right in the face?
I think I can proof that humanity is innately bad, by contradiction. You say that evil causes evil, and no one is evil to start with. So if you go way back in time to the first people, they must by definition be good, since no evil has been done to then to cause them to be evil, and they are good to start with. But if they're all good, then none of them does evil to any of the others, and they continue to be all good. They have kids, and since there is no evil in the world yet, and those kids are born good, then they stay good. It continues in this matter until this day, and at no point is evil able to get a foot hold. Therefore your conception of the nature of human psychology and evil has no explaination for how there is any evil in this world. Since there is evil in this world, then you must conclude that your conception is wrong. The correct conception is that evil causes evil and people are innately bad; they screw up at some point and evil gets a foothold, and then it is impossible for people to completely remove.
>Your argument was if people were innately good bad would never have arisen. This is your logic Jonathan not mine, go back and look.<
I agree.
>Now it seems you are mirroring my words. Is this the direction you go in when you can't completely win over a discussion, by wearing the other person out?<
No, that only appears to be the direction I'm going in because you're confused.
As I said your the one who's confused Jonathan, either that you you like playing games.
>You seem to have problems getting the gist of what's being said and fall back to your conception of word meanings.<
You do though Jonathan. You are a bit of a literalist, or you run around the subject. I could paste everything that''s been said and prove it like in the first part of this new post, but this is really boring. I said where this was going was ridiculous and you said I was using that term wrong. We'll no, I wasn't, I could just see how this was possibly going to go. There was a comic in the paper I saw this morning that, well I hope you can enjoy a roast because the scientist reminded me of you in this conversation. I hope you don't take offense to this because like I said I enjoy your other posts but I am going to paste that comic up because it is funny, (it even has a former rich kid in it. LOL).
I understand what you say, but it does not make sense. Rather than assume you're insane, I point out what word meanings are similar that would allow you to make sense and suggest that you're using words incorrectly.
Again, this all comes not from my incorrect use of a term but your refusing to admit that I was using your line of logic against you.
>when respect can also mean an appreciation<
Babies have no appreciation either. It is impossible to prove they have any complex thoughts such as these, since there is no evidence of it. And since there is no evidence of it, it is natural to assume (via Ockham's razor) that they aren't there.
So you do believe in ockhams razor, but you don't believe in ockhams razor, yet you don't really know why it is suppose to work, but you quote it for your use anyway. Hmmm, have you ever considered that you might in fact be insane? LOL D; Just a joke. So about the baby I guess you personally will never know either way. Tell me Jon what age can you remember to?
#1 >Your example is simplified over all<
Don't just say it's simplified, say how.
>Can you prove that?<
Yes, I gave you the real life example of a spoiled rich kid.
The above sentence is some proof right here towards sentence #1. I realize that below this paragraph you go into your example in more depth but you didn't do that with your original example of the rich kid. Not only that but your example of the rich kid doesn't at all fit the description I gave and was an easy out for you. With your first example, is this how you quantify something? For your second mention of it where are your facts? You said a real life example of a rich kid. Who is he? Where is he? Do you know him personally? Explain how this example if true at all fits the mold of what I was saying. Prove that by bringing a child up in the environment I stated makes a child a spoiled rich kid. As far as I know the environment I mentioned can still happen without the need for loads of cash. Prove that even if there was a lot of cash the kid would become spoiled and rich under the guidline I mentioned. Prove that this makes a messianic complex. Actually please don't. You've taken my point out of context once again and I really don't wish to see you validate something that is only your confused idea of what I said and not what I was really saying.
They are given what they want when they want. If they don't get it, they throw a fit until someone gives in, and then they get it.
But why do you think that this description is the same as the description for the type of upbringing I mentioned? It's not even close.
In psychology books there at least sections if not chapters on why this occurs, the symptoms, and how to reverse it. The symptoms include disrespect of others, usually to the point of treating them as no more than objects to be manipulated to the advantage of the patient, and an extremely overdeveloped sense of entitlement.
I'm not buying any of this Jonathan, whether studies have been done or not your mention of it is only a loose generalization.
>Hmm I guess it is better to bring the child down than to help build them up huh?<
No; they need discipline but you don't squash their spirit.
Okay so now your heading my way.
Last edited by Silver Eyes on Thu May 12, 2005 3:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
Silver Eyes
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:42 pm
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
The Batman is not, literally, a bat - the evil Dr. Literal is clearly insane :)
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
>Ahem, this is yours, please look at the first and last sentences. Now, are you going to try and change this part of the discussion as well even though it is staring you right in the face?<
Do you mean >"No, but very close. I did say "Humanity is not innately good."< verses >"not innately good"=("innately bad" or "innately nuetral").<?
>You are a bit of a literalist<
Yes, I have no other choice. I can't read your tone or body language, so I must go by exactly what you say. I'm not going to just look past your sophistry for the sake of making what you say coherent, if that's what you expect.
>but this is really boring.<
No one's got a gun to your head; I've enjoyed our conversation. Speaking of which, it happens to allow me to prove I'm not a mental slave, as you've postulated. A mental slave does not seek out such conversations as we've had, and yet in addition to you I've had them with Michael, Gordon, many people elsewhere on the net a few years ago, and a myriad of people in real life.
>I said where this was going was ridiculous and you said I was using that term wrong.<
I never said you used the word "ridiculous" incorrectly.
>well I hope you can enjoy a roast because the scientist reminded me of you in this conversation. I hope you don't take offense to this<
Don't worry, the comic's funny, and I am being literal.
>Again, this all comes not from my incorrect use of a term but your refusing to admit that I was using your line of logic against you.<
I have never denied that you tried to use my line of logic against me, I denied that you managed to do so successfully. Your proof that if all people were innately bad then there would be no good in the world does not hold up unless 'innately bad'='evil through and through', and it doesn't.
>So you do believe in ockhams razor, but you don't believe in ockhams razor, yet you don't really know why it is suppose to work, but you quote it for your use anyway. Hmmm, have you ever considered that you might in fact be insane? LOL D; Just a joke. So about the baby I guess you personally will never know either way. Tell me Jon what age can you remember to?<
Yes; no; originally; yes. Off the top of my head, three for sure. But I can remmeber all sorts of things, I just can't pull it out of thin air, something must remind me first.
>but you didn't do that with your original example of the rich kid.<
That is correct, I figured you know the stereotype, you don't need me to spell it out.
>You said a real life example of a rich kid. Who is he?<
I did say that, I was hoping that you could just fill in the blanks, we're talking generally enough that it really doesn't matte exactly who. Unfortunately in this case (regardless of you saying not to answer these), I do not follow the lives of the rich and famous to any real extent.
>Not only that but your example of the rich kid doesn't at all fit the description I gave and was an easy out for you.<
Then I have clearly misunderstood the description you gave, do you care to clarfiy it for me?
Do you mean >"No, but very close. I did say "Humanity is not innately good."< verses >"not innately good"=("innately bad" or "innately nuetral").<?
>You are a bit of a literalist<
Yes, I have no other choice. I can't read your tone or body language, so I must go by exactly what you say. I'm not going to just look past your sophistry for the sake of making what you say coherent, if that's what you expect.
>but this is really boring.<
No one's got a gun to your head; I've enjoyed our conversation. Speaking of which, it happens to allow me to prove I'm not a mental slave, as you've postulated. A mental slave does not seek out such conversations as we've had, and yet in addition to you I've had them with Michael, Gordon, many people elsewhere on the net a few years ago, and a myriad of people in real life.
>I said where this was going was ridiculous and you said I was using that term wrong.<
I never said you used the word "ridiculous" incorrectly.
>well I hope you can enjoy a roast because the scientist reminded me of you in this conversation. I hope you don't take offense to this<
Don't worry, the comic's funny, and I am being literal.
>Again, this all comes not from my incorrect use of a term but your refusing to admit that I was using your line of logic against you.<
I have never denied that you tried to use my line of logic against me, I denied that you managed to do so successfully. Your proof that if all people were innately bad then there would be no good in the world does not hold up unless 'innately bad'='evil through and through', and it doesn't.
>So you do believe in ockhams razor, but you don't believe in ockhams razor, yet you don't really know why it is suppose to work, but you quote it for your use anyway. Hmmm, have you ever considered that you might in fact be insane? LOL D; Just a joke. So about the baby I guess you personally will never know either way. Tell me Jon what age can you remember to?<
Yes; no; originally; yes. Off the top of my head, three for sure. But I can remmeber all sorts of things, I just can't pull it out of thin air, something must remind me first.
>but you didn't do that with your original example of the rich kid.<
That is correct, I figured you know the stereotype, you don't need me to spell it out.
>You said a real life example of a rich kid. Who is he?<
I did say that, I was hoping that you could just fill in the blanks, we're talking generally enough that it really doesn't matte exactly who. Unfortunately in this case (regardless of you saying not to answer these), I do not follow the lives of the rich and famous to any real extent.
>Not only that but your example of the rich kid doesn't at all fit the description I gave and was an easy out for you.<
Then I have clearly misunderstood the description you gave, do you care to clarfiy it for me?
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
Silver Eyes
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:42 pm
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
>Ahem, this is yours, please look at the first and last sentences. Now, are you going to try and change this part of the discussion as well even though it is staring you right in the face?<
Do you mean >"No, but very close. I did say "Humanity is not innately good."< verses >"not innately good"=("innately bad" or "innately nuetral").<?
>You are a bit of a literalist<
Yes, I have no other choice. I can't read your tone or body language, so I must go by exactly what you say. I'm not going to just look past your sophistry for the sake of making what you say coherent, if that's what you expect. ''
I thnk what I said is pretty coherent. Ralph understood it even though he thinks I lack wisdom when it comes to the need for war.
>but this is really boring.<
No one's got a gun to your head; I've enjoyed our conversation.
Well I'm glad you did. I'm not trying to be an ass but I just saw how this conversation was going off course and it had.
Speaking of which, it happens to allow me to prove I'm not a mental slave, as you've postulated. A mental slave does not seek out such conversations as we've had,
Not in the way I meant though. You believe in a type of system, a system thats been here for a while. You defend it. By your reasoning I don't think you've questioned it as deeply as it could be questioned.
and yet in addition to you I've had them with Michael, Gordon, many people elsewhere on the net a few years ago, and a myriad of people in real life.
>I said where this was going was ridiculous and you said I was using that term wrong.<
I never said you used the word "ridiculous" incorrectly.
Actually you are correct on that one. I said it's ridiculous and you said it is ridiculous and that I was using the term wrong. I misread this as you saying I used the word ridiculous wrong.
>well I hope you can enjoy a roast because the scientist reminded me of you in this conversation. I hope you don't take offense to this<
Don't worry, the comic's funny, and I am being literal.
>Again, this all comes not from my incorrect use of a term but your refusing to admit that I was using your line of logic against you.<
I have never denied that you tried to use my line of logic against me, I denied that you managed to do so successfully. Your proof that if all people were innately bad then there would be no good in the world does not hold up unless 'innately bad'='evil through and through', and it doesn't.
So then why does innately good hold up in your argument but innately bad doesn't? Good, bad, they seem pretty equal in opposition to me. You know algebra Jonathan you should surely know that the argument you supplied can be held to both cases.
>So you do believe in ockhams razor, but you don't believe in ockhams razor, yet you don't really know why it is suppose to work, but you quote it for your use anyway. Hmmm, have you ever considered that you might in fact be insane? LOL D; Just a joke. So about the baby I guess you personally will never know either way. Tell me Jon what age can you remember to?<
Yes; no; originally; yes. Off the top of my head, three for sure. But I can remmeber all sorts of things, I just can't pull it out of thin air, something must remind me first.
>but you didn't do that with your original example of the rich kid.<
That is correct, I figured you know the stereotype, you don't need me to spell it out.
Won't you admit this is a copout? Yes I know the stereotype. A stereotype is based on real information but it is just that, a stereotype, a charicature. It is not scientifically factual and it definitely didn't apply to my statements, and especially falls apart because you originally said it was proof. A stereotype isn't proof. With this you can now see why this is tiresome.
>You said a real life example of a rich kid. Who is he?<
I did say that, I was hoping that you could just fill in the blanks, we're talking generally enough that it really doesn't matte exactly who. Unfortunately in this case (regardless of you saying not to answer these), I do not follow the lives of the rich and famous to any real extent.
Ah but your such an expert that you can state it as a proof positive example towards an argument (even though it doesn't fit my statement)? See my point don't you? Why make statements where you say This is proof, when in fact it's not any kind of proof at all, especially since you profess not to be an expert. Wait I know what's coming next so heres your words again.
Unfortunately in this case (regardless of you saying not to answer these), I do not follow the lives of the rich and famous to any real extent.
>Not only that but your example of the rich kid doesn't at all fit the description I gave and was an easy out for you.<
Then I have clearly misunderstood the description you gave, do you care to clarfiy it for me?
Na I think it's pretty clear of itself. If you take the time, something you don't seem inclined to be doing, to go back and look you'll see the definitions I gave.
Your right Jonathan no one is holding a gun to my head but tell me, I'm right also aren't I? Your a bit of a game player?
Do you mean >"No, but very close. I did say "Humanity is not innately good."< verses >"not innately good"=("innately bad" or "innately nuetral").<?
>You are a bit of a literalist<
Yes, I have no other choice. I can't read your tone or body language, so I must go by exactly what you say. I'm not going to just look past your sophistry for the sake of making what you say coherent, if that's what you expect. ''
I thnk what I said is pretty coherent. Ralph understood it even though he thinks I lack wisdom when it comes to the need for war.
>but this is really boring.<
No one's got a gun to your head; I've enjoyed our conversation.
Well I'm glad you did. I'm not trying to be an ass but I just saw how this conversation was going off course and it had.
Speaking of which, it happens to allow me to prove I'm not a mental slave, as you've postulated. A mental slave does not seek out such conversations as we've had,
Not in the way I meant though. You believe in a type of system, a system thats been here for a while. You defend it. By your reasoning I don't think you've questioned it as deeply as it could be questioned.
and yet in addition to you I've had them with Michael, Gordon, many people elsewhere on the net a few years ago, and a myriad of people in real life.
>I said where this was going was ridiculous and you said I was using that term wrong.<
I never said you used the word "ridiculous" incorrectly.
Actually you are correct on that one. I said it's ridiculous and you said it is ridiculous and that I was using the term wrong. I misread this as you saying I used the word ridiculous wrong.
>well I hope you can enjoy a roast because the scientist reminded me of you in this conversation. I hope you don't take offense to this<
Don't worry, the comic's funny, and I am being literal.
>Again, this all comes not from my incorrect use of a term but your refusing to admit that I was using your line of logic against you.<
I have never denied that you tried to use my line of logic against me, I denied that you managed to do so successfully. Your proof that if all people were innately bad then there would be no good in the world does not hold up unless 'innately bad'='evil through and through', and it doesn't.
So then why does innately good hold up in your argument but innately bad doesn't? Good, bad, they seem pretty equal in opposition to me. You know algebra Jonathan you should surely know that the argument you supplied can be held to both cases.
>So you do believe in ockhams razor, but you don't believe in ockhams razor, yet you don't really know why it is suppose to work, but you quote it for your use anyway. Hmmm, have you ever considered that you might in fact be insane? LOL D; Just a joke. So about the baby I guess you personally will never know either way. Tell me Jon what age can you remember to?<
Yes; no; originally; yes. Off the top of my head, three for sure. But I can remmeber all sorts of things, I just can't pull it out of thin air, something must remind me first.
>but you didn't do that with your original example of the rich kid.<
That is correct, I figured you know the stereotype, you don't need me to spell it out.
Won't you admit this is a copout? Yes I know the stereotype. A stereotype is based on real information but it is just that, a stereotype, a charicature. It is not scientifically factual and it definitely didn't apply to my statements, and especially falls apart because you originally said it was proof. A stereotype isn't proof. With this you can now see why this is tiresome.
>You said a real life example of a rich kid. Who is he?<
I did say that, I was hoping that you could just fill in the blanks, we're talking generally enough that it really doesn't matte exactly who. Unfortunately in this case (regardless of you saying not to answer these), I do not follow the lives of the rich and famous to any real extent.
Ah but your such an expert that you can state it as a proof positive example towards an argument (even though it doesn't fit my statement)? See my point don't you? Why make statements where you say This is proof, when in fact it's not any kind of proof at all, especially since you profess not to be an expert. Wait I know what's coming next so heres your words again.
Unfortunately in this case (regardless of you saying not to answer these), I do not follow the lives of the rich and famous to any real extent.
>Not only that but your example of the rich kid doesn't at all fit the description I gave and was an easy out for you.<
Then I have clearly misunderstood the description you gave, do you care to clarfiy it for me?
Na I think it's pretty clear of itself. If you take the time, something you don't seem inclined to be doing, to go back and look you'll see the definitions I gave.
Your right Jonathan no one is holding a gun to my head but tell me, I'm right also aren't I? Your a bit of a game player?
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
>So then why does innately good hold up in your argument but innately bad doesn't? Good, bad, they seem pretty equal in opposition to me. You know algebra Jonathan you should surely know that the argument you supplied can be held to both cases.<
You are right, I finally get what you're saying. My proof that 'humanity is innately bad' is wrong, because my reasoning implied that 'innately good'='good through and through', and I didn't realize it! In retrospect I am an idiot, if you assume people are innately good they are nontheless capable of bad.
Of course, I still stand by my conclusion even if it can't be proven (that's not as irrational as it sounds, I use logic every day, but no one can prove that works).
>It is not scientifically factual and it definitely didn't apply to my statements, and especially falls apart because you originally said it was proof.<
Stereotypes are based on statistics, so they are factual. They are not immune to mistakes though because no one really sits down and does the math, so there is the chance of selectively remembering instances that support what you already want to believe.
It seemed to me that it did apply to your statements. I have read them, and clearly I just didn't understand.
>If you take the time, something you don't seem inclined to be doing,<
It took no small amount of time to have written my previous replies (thought this one's going pretty fast), and the links I've provided along the way don't just provide themselves.
>Your a bit of a game player?<
No.
You are right, I finally get what you're saying. My proof that 'humanity is innately bad' is wrong, because my reasoning implied that 'innately good'='good through and through', and I didn't realize it! In retrospect I am an idiot, if you assume people are innately good they are nontheless capable of bad.
Of course, I still stand by my conclusion even if it can't be proven (that's not as irrational as it sounds, I use logic every day, but no one can prove that works).
>It is not scientifically factual and it definitely didn't apply to my statements, and especially falls apart because you originally said it was proof.<
Stereotypes are based on statistics, so they are factual. They are not immune to mistakes though because no one really sits down and does the math, so there is the chance of selectively remembering instances that support what you already want to believe.
It seemed to me that it did apply to your statements. I have read them, and clearly I just didn't understand.
>If you take the time, something you don't seem inclined to be doing,<
It took no small amount of time to have written my previous replies (thought this one's going pretty fast), and the links I've provided along the way don't just provide themselves.
>Your a bit of a game player?<
No.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
Silver Eyes
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:42 pm
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
Jonathan, no hard feelings, I appreciate your participation, now that you said you aren't a game player I get it as well. Your a pretty good sport over all.
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
i don't mean to butt in but i have read you'r posts for several days and i am a little puzled looks like a discusion on contending with evil wheather you can or not i myself have never found a way to contend directly with evil only it's sorce whitch is greed and that only within myself most people are ready wllling and abel to reconize the evil in enyone else not realizing they may have those same quilitys their own self lot easer to look out at others than it is to look at whats inside our self mabey this thread is only about the evil or not of war but it still springs out of greed on one side or both somewhere it became actceptiable that soulders get maimed and killed well i once was one of those soldiers as were many of you and that is totally not actceptiable you can discuss the result of greed which is war or do something about it's cause again greed if you wonwer why their called soldiers just read the first four letters their sold as cannon foder for greed just thinking with my typeing finger have a good evening
the uneducated
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
i should have add this so i'll add it now ........1Tm:6:10: For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.........trouble is they pierce many others with with sorrows too
the uneducated
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
Re: re: "To an Iraqi Child"
terry5732 wrote:No good people have been targeted by US forces in this conflict.
On the other hand ONLY good people are targeted by the terrorists(news sanitized -insurgents).
Wow, everything's so simple then. "We're" always right and "they're" always wrong. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
So whenever our troops shoot up a car there must have been terrorists inside, right?
E.g http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6871483/site/newsweek/
terry5732 wrote:Accidents happen.
Get over it.
Oh, I see. I guess I was over-complicating things again. I had no idea the world is such a simple place. Thanks Terry.
-Scott
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
Since one of the kids had a wound in the back (he must have been facing backward to the direction of the car's motion at some point), and there were six kids squeezed in the back seat, I can imagine that something was going on back there which distracted the parents long enough for them to not react to the soldiers. It is just terrible, but it still is an accident, and Terry didn't deny that those happened, he only denied that we target civilians.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.