Individualism

[JetLeg]

From wiki on "individualism" :

Individualism is a term used to describe a moral, political, or social outlook that stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty. Individualists promote the exercise of individual goals and desires. They oppose most external interference with an individual's choices - whether by society, the state, or any other group or institution. Individualism is therefore opposed to holism, collectivism, fascism, communalism, statism, totalitarianism, and communitarianism...


I subscribe to this wholeheartedly. However, I would love somehow to defend this position with arguments. So far, it is just something which seems right to me, on an intuitive level, and I cannot give arguments in favor of it. It just seems natural. Can anyone suggest arguments in favor of individualism?

[ImaginalDisc]

You cannot prove that one moral principle is better than another, as long as it's logically valid. The only reason Individualism is better to you is because you prefer it. There's no touchstone of physical evidence to back up that sort of moral choice.

[Tristan Chi]

From wiki on "individualism" :

Can anyone suggest arguments in favor of individualism?

I could, but that would go against my individual goals.

[JetLeg]

You cannot prove that donations to poor nations is better than genocide, as long as it's logically valid. The only reason donations to poor nations is better to you is because you prefer it. There's no touchstone of physical evidence to back up that sort of moral choice.

Do you agree with that?

[drkitten]

You cannot prove that donations to poor nations is better than genocide, as long as it's logically valid. The only reason donations to poor nations is better to you is because you prefer it. There's no touchstone of physical evidence to back up that sort of moral choice.

Do you agree with that?

Absolutely. So would C.S. Lewis, a noted Christian theologian and apologist.

To briefly outline his argument : Logic is a way of evaluating and working with declarative statement about the world; things that are and are not. A proof is simply a lengthy way of showing that if this declarative sentence is true, then that one must also be true. Morality is a system of working with imperative statements, statements about what one should or should not do.

His observation is that no amount of premises in the declarative can yield a conclusion in the imperative. You cannot logically infer from the statement "pushing this button will save the world" that "you should push this button" without an additional axiom in the imperative "you should save the world."

His solution (see Men Without Chests) was to propose a system of axioms of morality, unquestionable truths about what people should and shouldn't do with which no one could disagree. Of course, as soon as he did, people pointed out that they disagreed with those truths he proposed.

Basically, "logic" won't carry the weight you want to place on it. Use the right tool for the job, guy....

[ImaginalDisc]

You cannot prove that donations to poor nations is better than genocide, as long as it's logically valid. The only reason donations to poor nations is better to you is because you prefer it. There's no touchstone of physical evidence to back up that sort of moral choice.

Do you agree with that?

Yes. You must choose which you prefer. It is up to you, and no one else, whether the lives and well being of others are important. It is up to you to decide if making sacrifices for the benefit of others is more important than seeking your own ambitions. There's nothing and no one to set moral priorities for you.

[sphenisc]

From wiki on "individualism" :

Individualism is a term used to describe a moral, political, or social outlook that stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty. Individualists promote the exercise of individual goals and desires. They oppose most external interference with an individual's choices - whether by society, the state, or any other group or institution. Individualism is therefore opposed to holism, collectivism, fascism, communalism, statism, totalitarianism, and communitarianism...


I subscribe to this wholeheartedly. However, I would love somehow to defend this position with arguments. So far, it is just something which seems right to me, on an intuitive level, and I cannot give arguments in favor of it. It just seems natural. Can anyone suggest arguments in favor of individualism?


Have you read the thread on confirmation bias?

[Tokenconservative]

You cannot prove that one moral principle is better than another, as long as it's logically valid. The only reason Individualism is better to you is because you prefer it. There's no touchstone of physical evidence to back up that sort of moral choice.

Mores, ethics and value also change over time. Which is why so many from a certain political persuasion believe that people like Colombus should be condemned, rather than lauded.

Plus, it's a lot easier to sit behind your laptop at Starbucks slamming Colombus today, than it would've been in the 15th century. Mostly becasue most people, unlike Americans today, didn't have enough liesure time--or enough time on the planet--to waste parsing the morality of people who lived in a completely different world 500 years before.

Tokie

[ImaginalDisc]

Mores, ethics and value also change over time. Which is why so many from a certain political persuasion believe that people like Colombus should be condemned, rather than lauded.

Plus, it's a lot easier to sit behind your laptop at Starbucks slamming Colombus today, than it would've been in the 15th century. Mostly becasue most people, unlike Americans today, didn't have enough liesure time--or enough time on the planet--to waste parsing the morality of people who lived in a completely different world 500 years before.

Tokie

Please cite even one paper published in a peer reviewed journal since 1993 supporting your claims about global warming.

[EHLO]

How's this;

individualism = selfish,
selfish = good,
therefore, individualism = good

-EHLO
(not a fan of any kind of 'ism')

[Tokenconservative]

Please cite even one paper published in a peer reviewed journal since 1993 supporting your claims about global warming.

Wow. Not only a doctrinaire, dogmatic, GW zealot, but a stalker, too!?

I'm flattered!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

How's this;

individualism = selfish,
selfish = good,
therefore, individualism = good

-EHLO
(not a fan of any kind of 'ism')

If you paint things with such a broad brush as this, you should probably do something about that tagline under your SN that reads "thinker." I'm not so sure it applies.

Tokie

[EHLO]

If you paint things with such a broad brush as this, you should probably do something about that tagline under your SN that reads "thinker." I'm not so sure it applies.

Tokie

That's not fair; I don't have any control over my "thinker" status. My response was mostly tongue in cheek and meant as a parody.

I do, however, think that individualism can manifest as selfishness, which I personally believe is a negative thing, but the OP wanted arguments in favor.

[ZirconBlue]

Plus, it's a lot easier to sit behind your laptop at Starbucks slamming Colombus today, than it would've been in the 15th century. Mostly becasue most people, unlike Americans today, didn't have enough liesure time--or enough time on the planet--to waste parsing the morality of people who lived in a completely different world 500 years before.

Tokie

Hmm. I would think that the main reason it is easier to do so today is that neither "Starbucks" nor "laptops" existed in the 15th century. Infinitely easier, in fact. Plus "Christopher Columbus" is an Anglicized version of his actual name. But, after that, I'd go with the "leisure time" thing.

[ImaginalDisc]

Wow. Not only a doctrinaire, dogmatic, GW zealot, but a stalker, too!?

I'm flattered!

Tokie

You've, to date, been entirely unable to find an iota of evidence to support your views. You are a liar.

[Tokenconservative]

That's not fair; I don't have any control over my "thinker" status. My response was mostly tongue in cheek and meant as a parody.

I do, however, think that individualism can manifest as selfishness, which I personally believe is a negative thing, but the OP wanted arguments in favor.

Hmmmm....I suppose the modern view of "individualism" would present this problem. The traditional (American) view of "individualism" is in fact the very furthest thing from selfishness, and relates to a man's (sorry...that's how they viewed things back in the day) reliance on himself and no one else (say, the lord of the Manor) as he makes his way in the world, hopefully making himself a valuable addition to society as a whole through his work, his good works, his raising children that he sends out into the world to also become valued members of society, etc.

Today, in our hyper-PC and near-socialist culture, it's believed by many that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is part of our Constitution. So of course, in this cultural mileu it become necessary to alter the original/actual meaning of the term to fit the socialist goals, and yes, that means making it sound "selfish."

Of course, individualism is essentially a definition of the opposite of "selfish," but the left knows well that the lie told often and loudly enough becomes the truth.

Look at Global Warming.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Hmm. I would think that the main reason it is easier to do so today is that neither "Starbucks" nor "laptops" existed in the 15th century. Infinitely easier, in fact. Plus "Christopher Columbus" is an Anglicized version of his actual name. But, after that, I'd go with the "leisure time" thing.

LOL!

I always love this kind of "argument." Since you can't produce a rational rebuttal of the assertion just made, instead quibble about "Anglicized" spellings and make what I hope is simply a silly-assed and not actually stupid comment about what technology did or did not exist as a means of "defeating" my analogy.

Wow.

Tokie

[JetLeg]

Hmmmm....I suppose the modern view of "individualism" would present this problem. The traditional (American) view of "individualism" is in fact the very furthest thing from selfishness, and relates to a man's (sorry...that's how they viewed things back in the day) reliance on himself and no one else (say, the lord of the Manor) as he makes his way in the world, hopefully making himself a valuable addition to society as a whole through his work, his good works, his raising children that he sends out into the world to also become valued members of society, etc.


Who are the thinkers that described indivudualism in such a way?

[drkitten]

Hmmmm....I suppose the modern view of "individualism" would present this problem. The traditional (American) view of "individualism" is in fact the very furthest thing from selfishness, and relates to a man's (sorry...that's how they viewed things back in the day) reliance on himself and no one else (say, the lord of the Manor) as he makes his way in the world, hopefully making himself a valuable addition to society as a whole through his work, his good works, his raising children that he sends out into the world to also become valued members of society, etc.


Or it would be if that view existed outside the rose-colored glasses of conservative fantasy, pining for the glories of a Golden Age that never was.

[Loss Leader]

From wiki on "individualism" :

Individualism is a term used to describe a moral, political, or social outlook that stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty. Individualists promote the exercise of individual goals and desires. They oppose most external interference with an individual's choices - whether by society, the state, or any other group or institution. Individualism is therefore opposed to holism, collectivism, fascism, communalism, statism, totalitarianism, and communitarianism...


I subscribe to this wholeheartedly. However, I would love somehow to defend this position with arguments. So far, it is just something which seems right to me, on an intuitive level, and I cannot give arguments in favor of it. It just seems natural. Can anyone suggest arguments in favor of individualism?


Just pick up Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged like every other seventeen year-old on the planet who thinks he's discovered individualism for the first time.

[Tokenconservative]

Who are the thinkers that described indivudualism in such a way?

No idea.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Or it would be if that view existed outside the rose-colored glasses of conservative fantasy, pining for the glories of a Golden Age that never was.

Hmmm...not sure I said the ideal is practical or even possible...Ideals so rarely are. Of course, in a complex society such as ours, such utter personal independence is simply not possible. Even Henry David found it necessary to go into town for various supplies and equipment...and to use the money from his inheritance to pay for them...

The interesting thing here is the vituperative response.

Tokie

[drkitten]

The interesting thing here is the vituperative response.


This forum tends not to be supportive of counterfactual nonsense. (shrug).

[Tokenconservative]

This forum tends not to be supportive of counterfactual nonsense. (shrug).


I guess you don't know what that big word means, then?

Tokie

[Loss Leader]

Hmmmm....I suppose the modern view of "individualism" would present this problem. The traditional (American) view of "individualism" is in fact the very furthest thing from selfishness, and relates to a man's (sorry...that's how they viewed things back in the day) reliance on himself and no one else (say, the lord of the Manor) as he makes his way in the world, hopefully making himself a valuable addition to society as a whole through his work, his good works, his raising children that he sends out into the world to also become valued members of society, etc.

Today, in our hyper-PC and near-socialist culture, it's believed by many that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is part of our Constitution. So of course, in this cultural mileu it become necessary to alter the original/actual meaning of the term to fit the socialist goals, and yes, that means making it sound "selfish."

Of course, individualism is essentially a definition of the opposite of "selfish," but the left knows well that the lie told often and loudly enough becomes the truth.

Look at Global Warming.

Tokie


Your "individual" leaves the manor house to make his own way in the world? First of all, did that ever actually happen even once in history? Second, do you give no credit to the preparation he got at the manor house - the best education, tutors, fencing instruction, exposure to those in power, stable home and family structure? Is every child born into poverty in the projects exactly the same in your mind as the fine, white young man leaving the manor house?

And then you cap it off with a strawman argument about the "left" and a non-sequitor about global warming. Not the strongest argument ever put forth.

[Tokenconservative]

Your "individual" leaves the manor house to make his own way in the world? First of all, did that ever actually happen even once in history? Second, do you give no credit to the preparation he got at the manor house - the best education, tutors, fencing instruction, exposure to those in power, stable home and family structure? Is every child born into poverty in the projects exactly the same in your mind as the fine, white young man leaving the manor house?

And then you cap it off with a strawman argument about the "left" and a non-sequitor about global warming. Not the strongest argument ever put forth.

Your left-socialist vituperation and eagerness to slam me apparently got in the way of your reading comprehension.

Not sure I said what you are here saying I said, if I may say so myself. It's always a good idea, I find, not to accidentally (it's okay to do it on purpose, but one must be more...expert in logical discourse than you appear to be) fill your own arguments with logical fallacies while taking someone else to task for theirs, especially when you cannot accurately identify them.

Your begging of the question aside for the moment: The American perspective on "individualism" arose from exactly the opposite of what your strawman, in high leftis dudgeon is here shrieking. The American experiment is (was) all about getting the common man out from under the yoke of the Manor. That whole "pursuit of..." thing (born, by the way in the English Revolution, but carried to fruition in our own). We finally accomplished that fully--on paper--in 1865, and have been slowly slipping back into a feudal system we call "socialism" (same diff, just a bigger House), since the 1930s.

So, I have no idea (and cannot possibly) what you are talking about, and of course cannot properly rebut your howling "argument," because it is not responding to anything _I_ said.

Best,
Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

And then you cap it off with a strawman argument about the "left" and a non-sequitor about global warming. Not the strongest argument ever put forth.

As to this...I don't believe I said "and this is the strongest argument ever put forth!" I've re-read my own words, and I just don't find that there.

However, as I stated in the post previous to this one, one must UNDERSTAND logical fallacies, before attempting to identify them in others' words.

For example: you claim that my mentioning of the left in this is a "strawman." I suppose to a limited way of thinking, that might be so, but a more...expansive mind would easily grasp my meaning here: the size, location, occupation of the Manor House really does not matter. It does not matter whether it's an actual castle on the hill, or say...an entire city located, say, on some swampland on the east coast of, say, the continental US. A manor, is a manor, is a manor.

Secondly: it's not a "non-sequitor" (you really need to Wiki these terms...yes, that's not the best/most accurate place to get information, but its a start for someone as...inexpert as you seem to be) to present an "analogy" ('nother term to look up) that is widely-known and current. Sure, I could've made an analogy to say, Lenin's propaganda war in 1916, but who but the most arcane among us would have any idea in hell what I'm going on about?

Instead, I chose something more well, current. We all know about Global Warming. It's my argument that Global Warming (the movement, not climatological events--hence the caps!) is a political, not scientific issue, and that Global Warming is JUST such a lie: told for so long, and shouted at such a volume that it has become "true."

Same as UFOS (oops! Did you look up "analogy"?). Something like 80% of Americans believe we at least "may have" been visited by um...well, "visitors." How can they think otherwise? Our culture is awash and has been for at least 20 years in "aliens." So-called "Grays" are now as much a part of the pop cultural landscape as Gwen Stepanie's legs or Lindsey Lohan's coke.

So too, is Global Warming a part of the pop-cultural landscape. It's taught as "fact" in our schools, and is presented as "all scientists agree!!!" in our media. Any public person--politician, scientist, weather forecaster-- who dares naysay it, quickly finds him/herself wading through protesters and justifying even the mildest expressed doubts.

It's no different from, say, expressing the heresy of a perspective that held that the earth orbited the sun, and not the other way 'round in say, 1400 or so. A guy could get himself burned at the stake!

Now of course, we don't literally burn people at the stake today, but any scientist today who dares express doubts about the CAUSE of global warming, will quickly find himself loosing funding, and sitting on a janitorial supplies acquistion committee at his university.

Tokie

[Loss Leader]

Your left-socialist vituperation and eagerness to slam me apparently got in the way of your reading comprehension...It's always a good idea, I find, not to accidentally (it's okay to do it on purpose, but one must be more...expert in logical discourse than you appear to be) fill your own arguments with logical fallacies while taking someone else to task for theirs, especially when you cannot accurately identify them...Your begging of the question aside for the moment...arose from exactly the opposite of what your strawman, in high leftis dudgeon is here shrieking...your howling "argument," because it is not responding to anything _I_ said...one must UNDERSTAND logical fallacies, before attempting to identify them in others' words...I suppose to a limited way of thinking, that might be so, but a more...expansive mind would easily grasp my meaning here...you really need to Wiki these terms...its a start for someone as...inexpert as you seem to be...'nother term to look up...oops! Did you look up "analogy"?...


Thank you for demonstrating firsthand what I had only heard about from others. Enjoy your stay here, however brief.

[drkitten]

And then you cap it off with a strawman argument about the "left" and a non-sequitor about global warming. Not the strongest argument ever put forth.

Actually, I believe it is the strongest argument Tokie has ever put forth. His grasp of the facts is limited only by his imagination, while his grasp of logic is limited only by the quality of education he got at his school.

[Jekyll]

The interesting thing here is the vituperative response.
Your left-socialist vituperation
Someone's found a new word. :D

[drkitten]

Now of course, we don't literally burn people at the stake today, but any scientist today who dares express doubts about the CAUSE of global warming, will quickly find himself loosing funding, and sitting on a janitorial supplies acquistion committee at his university.

Because, of course, there are no major government funding agencies staffed by Republicans who interject their political agendas into the decisions (like NASA).

Nor are there conservative think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation or the National Center for Public Policy Research.

For that matter, no heavy industry would be interested in funding research that tended to disprove the need for tigher emissions controls. Why, on planet-TokenConservative, the Tobacco Institute never existed....

[ImaginalDisc]

It's no different from, say, expressing the heresy of a perspective that held that the earth orbited the sun, and not the other way 'round in say, 1400 or so. A guy could get himself burned at the stake!


The difference, as you quite clearly know, is that the evidence overhwelmingly supports the conclusion that global warming is happening, and that it is largely anthropogenic.

If you have evidence to the contrary, present it.

[Tokenconservative]

Thank you for demonstrating firsthand what I had only heard about from others. Enjoy your stay here, however brief.

Well, good to see the water-cooler chat is all about me.

Yeah, I don't think I'll be here too much longer...the whiners (you included?) are already running to the mommies in here bleating their frightened complaints about that mean ol' Tokie.

Tokie

[cyborg]

Someone monikering themselves "Tokenconservative" may not be best positioned to consider the fallacies of politics inherent in any system.

[Tokenconservative]

Actually, I believe it is the strongest argument Tokie has ever put forth. His grasp of the facts is limited only by his imagination, while his grasp of logic is limited only by the quality of education he got at his school.

Wow. That's pretty snotty and classist. I wonder if this will generate a warning for you and an edit? It's much snottier than my comments to, I believe it was Phyz.

I imagine not.

Not that I'd argue with you. I was educated k-12 at a public school and my college was a small, mid-level city college of no real distinction.

You see...I've always had to work for a living, so I wasn't handed a nice Ivy League edjamakashun on a silver platter.

But if much of what I've seen in most of these threads, a virtual catalog of basic logical fallacies--from begging the question and ad homs (see above), to false dilemmas, oversimplifications and of course red herrings--is an indicator of the clearly much more expansive and expansive educations of my um...peers in here, then I can see that if nothing else, I saved a heckuva lot of money and got pretty much the same education.

Props to me!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Someone monikering themselves "Tokenconservative" may not be best positioned to consider the fallacies of politics inherent in any system.

Come see the violence inherent to the system!!!

Ah...so because you chose the SN "cyborg," I guess we also want to think twice about anything you have to say about say, the Borg?

You DO realize that such an assertion is so completly antilogical as to make you appear to be an utter n00b, right?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Someone's found a new word. :D

Actually, I just remembered it.

It's a lovely word, donchat think?

You have no idea what it means, huh?

Tokie

[cyborg]

Come see the violence inherent to the system!!!

I'm not getting the reference.

Ah...so because you chose the SN "cyborg," I guess we also want to think twice about anything you have to say about say, the Borg?

No.

You DO realize that such an assertion is so completly antilogical as to make you appear to be an utter n00b, right?

Metalogical is antilogical in the right logic.

[Tokenconservative]

The difference, as you quite clearly know, is that the evidence overhwelmingly supports the conclusion that global warming is happening, and that it is largely anthropogenic.

If you have evidence to the contrary, present it.

Mean global temps seem to be rising...slightly. As they have in the past (1970s, 1950s, 1930s, 1870s, etc., etc....). The cause(s) remain uncertain (save among religious Global Warmingists). Temps are also rising on Mars, Saturn, Pluto et al. We can be pretty sure that human activity has nothing to do with that, and yet some of us are dead-certain that ONLY human activity is to blame here.

Now, I will admit that human activity (puny tho it may be) may be playing a exacerbating role, but it is ceratainly not the main cause, and you cannot find one of those Holy Grail "peer reviewed" studies saying that it is, with 100% certainty, that is NOT questionable because of who/what generated it.

Sorry...that's just the way science works, and if you don't believe me, revisit your Kuhn.

Tokie

[cyborg]

and you cannot find one of those Holy Grail "peer reviewed" studies saying that it is, with 100% certainty

I for one would not trust such a study.

[ImaginalDisc]

Mean global temps seem to be rising...slightly. As they have in the past (1970s, 1950s, 1930s, 1870s, etc., etc....). The cause(s) remain uncertain (save among religious Global Warmingists). Temps are also rising on Mars, Saturn, Pluto et al. We can be pretty sure that human activity has nothing to do with that, and yet some of us are dead-certain that ONLY human activity is to blame here.

Now, I will admit that human activity (puny tho it may be) may be playing a exacerbating role, but it is ceratainly not the main cause, and you cannot find one of those Holy Grail "peer reviewed" studies saying that it is, with 100% certainty, that is NOT questionable because of who/what generated it.

Sorry...that's just the way science works, and if you don't believe me, revisit your Kuhn.

Tokie

Please cite even one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal since 1993 in support of your clams.

That is how science works. Gather evidence. Examine the data. Draw conclusion. Submit for peer review. Re-examine, re-review, re-submit.

[drkitten]

Not that I'd argue with you. I was educated k-12 at a public school and my college was a small, mid-level city college of no real distinction.

No, you weren't. You attended K-12 at a public school. "Education" is apparently something that happened to other people.

[Tokenconservative]

I'm not getting the reference.



No.



Metalogical is antilogical in the right logic.


Ignorance is as ignorance does...

Let me see if I follow: MY choice of a SN should be a warning to anyone about ______ but YOURs is simply well, whatever. Have I about nailed that one down?

Hmmm...nice parroting, but I'm not sure there is such a thing as "right" logic. Logic is logic is logic.

I guess, given your hyperliberalism, you wouldn't understand that. We all know that it all depends on what your definition of "is" is, huh?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

No, you weren't. You attended K-12 at a public school. "Education" is apparently something that happened to other people.

Yeah, good point. I can't argue with it. And yes, others of my cohort--those who attended private schools say, or schools in other countries-- were indeed educated.

That's why I sent my own kids to a private school K-9th.

Tokie

[cyborg]

Ignorance is as ignorance does...

Very perceptive - if unfortunately not metaperceptive.

Let me see if I follow: MY choice of a SN should be a warning to anyone about ______ but YOURs is simply well, whatever. Have I about nailed that one down?

Whilst your choice of handle may reflect an inherent stance on a subject and the context of your posts weigh heavily on that supposition deriving any such clear chain of cultural inference for my name; well, that is stretching it somewhat I would say.

Hmmm...nice parroting, but I'm not sure there is such a thing as "right" logic. Logic is logic is logic.

It is very much a shame you are not metaperceptive.

I guess, given your hyperliberalism, you wouldn't understand that.

I can interpret that at least three different ways.

We all know that it all depends on what your definition of "is" is, huh?

No. It rather more depends on our definition.

[Tokenconservative]

Please cite even one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal since 1993 in support of your clams.

That is how science works. Gather evidence. Examine the data. Draw conclusion. Submit for peer review. Re-examine, re-review, re-submit.


Sigh. Once again, I'll strive to explain how logical discourse works: I do not have to prove a negative. You are the one claiming TEOTWAWKI is nigh, thanks to my SUV, that means (again, in logical discourse) it falls to you to offer proof of that assertion...something with a bit more weight than, "ever'body knows it's happenin' Why even Al Gore sez so!!"

I'll wait while you search your Gospels for just the right link.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Very perceptive - if unfortunately not metaperceptive.



Whilst your choice of handle may reflect an inherent stance on a subject and the context of your posts weigh heavily on that supposition deriving any such clear chain of cultural inference for my name; well, that is stretching it somewhat I would say.



It is very much a shame you are not metaperceptive.



I can interpret that at least three different ways.



No. It rather more depends on our definition.


Wow. And I thought _I_ could spread the BS.

At least mine's orginal, not just regurgitated pablum from today's college lesson.

Tokie

[cyborg]

Wow. And I thought _I_ could spread the BS.

Is that an admission?

At least mine's orginal, not just regurgitated pablum from today's college lesson.

Yours is original?

It would appear one thinks rather highly of oneself does one not?

Troll away sir.

[Tokenconservative]

Is that an admission?



Yours is original?

It would appear one thinks rather highly of oneself does one not?

Troll away sir.

It's an observation.

Yes...it would appear that one does....

Tokie

[drkitten]

Sigh. Once again, I'll strive to explain how logical discourse works: I do not have to prove a negative.

That is (sometimes) how logical discourse works; that is not at all how mathematical or scientific discourse works.

There are any number of peer-reviewed works published since 1993 that state that you are wrong, that mean global temperature is rising and that human activity is a major cause. You will not find a single peer reviewed work since that date that claims that mean global temperature is not rising, nor will you find one that claims that mean global temperature is rising but that human activity is not a major cause.

You rather deceptively wrote earlier :


Now, I will admit that human activity (puny tho it may be) may be playing a exacerbating role,

Good. Every peer-reviewed article written since 1993 agrees with you.

but it is ceratainly not the main cause,

Every peer reviewed article written since 1993 disagrees with you.

and most deceptively

and you cannot find one of those Holy Grail "peer reviewed" studies saying that it is, with 100% certainty, that is NOT questionable because of who/what generated it.

You should have known when you wrote that paragraph that it was an unreasonable standard. Very few, if any, scientific papers do not include error bars -- scientists almost never make statements like 'with 100% certainty."

But here's a challenge you should be able to face. ID has claimed that no paper supporting your claims has appeared in the past 14 years. He's claiming the negative, so it should be simple for you to disprove him. As he wrote:

Please cite even one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal since 1993 in support of your clams.

I suspect that this will be -- just like your screeds about education -- ample proof that you have no rational basis whatsoever for any of your claims.

I'm quite sorry that you failed to be educated by your public school systems, but I have no doubt that others in those same classrooms did quite well.

[drkitten]

Wow. And I thought _I_ could spread the BS.

You certainly try to. Indeed, you've not done anything BUT.

[PAC]

100% certain? How often does this exist. If we all wait until we are 100% certain of anything we'll all be waiting on most everything.

[Loss Leader]

and of course red herrings


Says the man who injected global warming into a thread about individualism. Sheesh.:rolleyes:

[Tokenconservative]

Says the man who injected global warming into a thread about individualism. Sheesh.:rolleyes:

I always recomend reading for content (if one's aptitude for comprehension permit same).

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

That is (sometimes) how logical discourse works; that is not at all how mathematical or scientific discourse works.

There are any number of peer-reviewed works published since 1993 that state that you are wrong, that mean global temperature is rising and that human activity is a major cause. You will not find a single peer reviewed work since that date that claims that mean global temperature is not rising, nor will you find one that claims that mean global temperature is rising but that human activity is not a major cause.

You rather deceptively wrote earlier :



Good. Every peer-reviewed article written since 1993 agrees with you.



Every peer reviewed article written since 1993 disagrees with you.

and most deceptively



You should have known when you wrote that paragraph that it was an unreasonable standard. Very few, if any, scientific papers do not include error bars -- scientists almost never make statements like 'with 100% certainty."

But here's a challenge you should be able to face. ID has claimed that no paper supporting your claims has appeared in the past 14 years. He's claiming the negative, so it should be simple for you to disprove him. As he wrote:


I suspect that this will be -- just like your screeds about education -- ample proof that you have no rational basis whatsoever for any of your claims.

I'm quite sorry that you failed to be educated by your public school systems, but I have no doubt that others in those same classrooms did quite well.

I may well be mistaken, but I _believe_ this forum is not one of those "peer-reviewed" science journals, and is therefore, more reliant upon logical discourse than on peer-reviewed math and science.

And yet, neither you nor ID is able to produce the catalog of these articles. Meanwhile, you demand that I produce a catalog of those proving a negative.

Hmmm...I am pretty certain that a year or so ago the UN committee on destroying the US economy came out with the proclamation that the "debate is over," that the "scientific concensus" is that GW is happening and that man (US men, anyway) is the sole cause, with 100% certainty.

My education or lack thereof has not prevented me from making great big dusty piles of money, thank you very much.

Tokie

[Loss Leader]

I always recomend reading for content (if one's aptitude for comprehension permit same).



Says the man who injected global warming into a thread about individualism.

[drkitten]

And yet, neither you nor ID is able to produce the catalog of these articles. Meanwhile, you demand that I produce a catalog of those proving a negative.

Hmmm...I am pretty certain that a year or so ago the UN committee on destroying the US economy came out with the proclamation that the "debate is over," that the "scientific concensus" is that GW is happening and that man (US men, anyway) is the sole cause, with 100% certainty.

Except for the fact that it wasn't "the UN committee on destroying the US economy," yes. And the fact that it wasn't with 100% certainty, but merely "very likely" (which I think they defined as probability above 95%).

So you're aware of at least some scientific writings on the topic. For further entries in the catalogue, the report of that committee contained an extensive bibliography; feel free to use that as the catalog ID and I obliquely referred to. Start on page 832 of this file (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch10.pdf).

There's my offering for the "catalog." Now show me (and ID) a single post-1993 article supporting your views.



My education or lack thereof has not prevented me from making great big dusty piles of money, thank you very much.

Yes, well, Paris Hilton is an idiot, too. And she's almost certainly wealthier than you.

[Tokenconservative]

100% certain? How often does this exist. If we all wait until we are 100% certain of anything we'll all be waiting on most everything.

By all means. Much better to run about, waving our hands over our heads while shrieking that the sky is falling when we understand virtually nothing about the climte systems that we are so eager to go mucking about in to "save" our Mother, the Earth.

Ah....good plan.

Tokie

[drkitten]

By all means. Much better to run about, waving our hands over our heads while shrieking that the sky is falling when we understand virtually nothing about the climte systems that we are so eager to go mucking about in to "save" our Mother, the Earth.


Because, of course, the only alternative to "100% certain" is "understanding virtually nothing." That's why, for example, weather prediction never works with any certainty better than chance, and the Post Office still scans all envelopes by hand, because automatic handwriting analyis can only achieve 99.997% accuracy -- and therefore would deliver envelopes uniformly at random throughout the entire world.

Similarly, medical diagnosis is performed via rolling dice, and when your car conks out at the side of the road, the only solution is to buy a new one (since mechanics can never understand the cause of a breakdown with 100% certainty).

[JetLeg]

Yes, well, Paris Hilton is an idiot, too. And she's almost certainly wealthier than you.

Off-topic :

Don't you think you have to be smart to earn wealth?

[Loss Leader]

Off-topic :

Don't you think you have to be smart to earn wealth?


To earn it or to have it?

Incidentally, JetLeg, your question is a lot more on topic than any of this stuff TK started about global warming. At least the relationship between intelligence and wealth has something vaguely to do with individualism.



P.S. Perhaps you may need to be intelligent to earn wealth, but you certainly don't need to be intelligent to claim to earn wealth on an internet forum. In fact, it might be an indicator of the opposite.

[JetLeg]

To earn it of course, not to inherit it.

Negative example - televangelists?

Are they intelligent or not? Intelligent in a very certain sense?


And though my post is not as off-topic as global warming, the relationship to the OP is incidental at best.

[drkitten]

Don't you think you have to be smart to earn wealth?

No, indeed, quite the opposite. There's even a Wall Street maxim : "I'd rather be lucky than smart." An idiot who bought Microsoft at its IPO because he liked the name is probably a multimillionaire today.

[Tokenconservative]

Because, of course, the only alternative to "100% certain" is "understanding virtually nothing." That's why, for example, weather prediction never works with any certainty better than chance, and the Post Office still scans all envelopes by hand, because automatic handwriting analyis can only achieve 99.997% accuracy -- and therefore would deliver envelopes uniformly at random throughout the entire world.

Similarly, medical diagnosis is performed via rolling dice, and when your car conks out at the side of the road, the only solution is to buy a new one (since mechanics can never understand the cause of a breakdown with 100% certainty).

Yeah...it's either/or. Always.

So, let me see if I understand your "reasoning" here:
1. We know virtually nothing about weather, and even less about climate and are just beginning to dig into (say, the last 50 years) how the different systems/cycles of the planet work together therefore we...
2. Understand everything we need to about cyclical climate change and that in turn means we should...
3. Meddle in it on a global scale and that this is...
4. A darn good idear.

I'm not sure your begging of the question here is a terribly logical argument.

Let's try something else: we know from experience in such places as the Aswan Dam, the Aral Sea, the southern marshes in Iraq, the Colorado river, introduction of rabbits to Australia, nutria and kudzu to the American South, et al., that human interference even on a (relatively) small-scale invariably results in environmental and ecological disaster that either takes decades and tens of billions of dollars to fix (Aswa) or which we simply cannot fix (kudzu, rabbits, Colorado River...).

Your perspective (religious, zealous, doctrinaire Global Warmingist) holds that with this track record behind us, we should forge ahead and attempt to alter climate on a GLOBAL scale, despite the fact that we can barely predict local weather 6 days from now....

Ah...good plan!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Except for the fact that it wasn't "the UN committee on destroying the US economy," yes. And the fact that it wasn't with 100% certainty, but merely "very likely" (which I think they defined as probability above 95%).

So you're aware of at least some scientific writings on the topic. For further entries in the catalogue, the report of that committee contained an extensive bibliography; feel free to use that as the catalog ID and I obliquely referred to. Start on page 832 of this file (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch10.pdf).

There's my offering for the "catalog." Now show me (and ID) a single post-1993 article supporting your views.

Yes, well, Paris Hilton is an idiot, too. And she's almost certainly wealthier than you.

I'm always puzzled by forums like this...I crack a joke about some poster's putting down the bottle and am slammed with 6 warnings and that post is summarily executed.

You've called me a dozen names...outright, with no apparent kidding-around intent, you are just very, very angry at me...and the forum moderator(s) yawn and look the other way.

I wonder why that is.

Anyway, eventually, after I tire of batting you about like an injured mouse, I'll post some places you can go look up such data (not links--LIIIIINNNKKKKSSSSS!!!! tho).

The difference between me and Paris (besides my stunning good looks, I mean) is that I've been working for the past 35 years, not just having sex and doing drugs. In one way, Paris is smarter'n me: she had the good sense to pick her parents very, very wisely.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

To earn it or to have it?

Incidentally, JetLeg, your question is a lot more on topic than any of this stuff TK started about global warming. At least the relationship between intelligence and wealth has something vaguely to do with individualism.



P.S. Perhaps you may need to be intelligent to earn wealth, but you certainly don't need to be intelligent to claim to earn wealth on an internet forum. In fact, it might be an indicator of the opposite.

Let's examine this: DK calls me an uneducated, moronic idiot based upon my heretical views of her religion, and that's okay.

She harps on the fact that I was educated in a public school and then a public college, sniffing disdainfully at both while looking down a nose apparently educated in expensive boarding schools and Ivy League private colleges.

And somehow I am the bad guy here?

Hmmm....a very strange view of things.

Tokie

[Mashuna]

Anyway, eventually, after I tire of batting you about like an injured mouse, I'll post some places you can go look up such data (not links--LIIIIINNNKKKKSSSSS!!!! tho).



As an outside observer, I can confirm you're batting Dr K about, as effectively as if you were an injured mouse. :p

[Tokenconservative]

As an outside observer, I can confirm you're batting Dr K about, as effectively as if you were an injured mouse. :p

LOL.

Nice linguistic catch...but surely you must see how infuriated she is at me.

Not sure why that is, but there it is, and while I'm sure it's encouraging to her (assuming she is a her) to have all her internet "friends" gather in her corner and cheer her on against that mean ol' Tokie, the reality is, she is not half as cleaver, educated, informed nor intelligent as she believes herself to be.

Tokie

[Loss Leader]

Yeah...it's either/or. Always.

So, let me see if I understand your "reasoning" here:
1. We know virtually nothing about weather, and even less about climate and are just beginning to dig into (say, the last 50 years) how the different systems/cycles of the planet work together therefore we.


Actually, you didn't understand Dr. K's reasoning. You seem to have missed the point quite badly. Her statements about the weather were sarcasm aimed at your remarkable implication that if we do not understand something 100%, we know nothing about it.

In fact, she believes the opposite - even though we don't understand weather 100%, our current knowledge still allows us to make accurate statements about it.

As for whether you're being painted as the bad guy, the answer is yes. However, there is a very good reason for this: you enjoy being painted as the bad guy. You try to be painted as the bad guy. Your ego is only ever satisfied when you are recognized as the bad guy. Because of this, I feel very sorry for you.

[drkitten]

So, let me see if I understand your "reasoning" here:
1. We know virtually nothing about weather, and even less about climate and are just beginning to dig into (say, the last 50 years) how the different systems/cycles of the planet work together therefore we...
2. Understand everything we need to about cyclical climate change and that in turn means we should...
3. Meddle in it on a global scale and that this is...
4. A darn good idea.

It's quite evident that you don't understand my reasoning.

In point of fact, we know quite a bit about weather and climate... the point that seems to escape you. You seem to hold point #1 to be true, in flagrant defiance of reality and in the teeth of all that is rational....

[drkitten]

She harps on the fact that I was educated in a public school and then a public college, sniffing disdainfully at both while looking down a nose apparently educated in expensive boarding schools and Ivy League private colleges.

Quite the opposite. I harp on the fact that you merely attended but weren't educated in a public school and then a public college. I was educated at a public school and public college. I teach at an expensive private college, because my education was good enough to let me get there. See what a difference paying attention in class makes?

[Tokenconservative]

Actually, you didn't understand Dr. K's reasoning. You seem to have missed the point quite badly. Her statements about the weather were sarcasm aimed at your remarkable implication that if we do not understand something 100%, we know nothing about it.

In fact, she believes the opposite - even though we don't understand weather 100%, our current knowledge still allows us to make accurate statements about it.

As for whether you're being painted as the bad guy, the answer is yes. However, there is a very good reason for this: you enjoy being painted as the bad guy. You try to be painted as the bad guy. Your ego is only ever satisfied when you are recognized as the bad guy. Because of this, I feel very sorry for you.

As always, I appreciate free internet psychoanalysis and find it to be worth every penny of the cost!

Sheesh.

No, actually Dr. K demonstrates some very fundamental flaws in her reasoning. This may be because she's simply ignorant and uneducated, or it may be (my money's on this one) be because she is blinded by her faith: Global Warming.

I never said that we needed to understand 100% of a thing to um, understand any of the thing...or whatever it is you are attempting to say here. Personally, given human's track record (see: Aswan Dam, Aral sea, rabbits in Australia, etc, etc., etc.)however, I'd like to see us understand just a bit more about climate and what affects it before we go about either destroying the US economy (the actual aim of the Global Warming movement) or mucking about with the planet's natural cycles, about which we know next to nothing.

You, in your arrogance (and Dr. K) believe that we know quite enough to go ahead and launch some sort of global attempt to cool the planet down. Personally, I find that about the most dangerous thing I've heard of since people just like you (and probably you, and Dr. K if either of you are old enough) wanted to see the US unilaterally disarm in order to show the Soviet Union our "good faith" back in the 80s.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

It's quite evident that you don't understand my reasoning.

In point of fact, we know quite a bit about weather and climate... the point that seems to escape you. You seem to hold point #1 to be true, in flagrant defiance of reality and in the teeth of all that is rational....

Do we? So the fact that the models Global Warmingists rely upon to tell us what climate will be like in 10 or 20 or 100 years are unable to accurately predict PAST climate is just something you feel should be ignored, huh?

Our best meteorologists cannot tell me whether I will need #80 sunscreen at the beach next week or an umbrella, and you feel perfectly fine about allowing Algore to tell us what the world's climate will be like a century from now.

Yeah....some brilliant reasoning there (<---this comment will now appear in a moderator's warning to me).

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Quite the opposite. I harp on the fact that you merely attended but weren't educated in a public school and then a public college. I was educated at a public school and public college. I teach at an expensive private college, because my education was good enough to let me get there. See what a difference paying attention in class makes?


I'm sorry...what did you say? I musta drifted off...

Good for you. I teach (sometimes) and some of my area's worst public schools.

By the way: some of the smartest people I've ever met have been college profs. And some of the stupidest people I've ever met have been...college profs.

I wonder what would happen, were we to compare our what sociologists call "life chances."

And our current tax returns.

Tokie

[Mashuna]

I never said that we needed to understand 100% of a thing to um, understand any of the thing...or whatever it is you are attempting to say here.
How much do you think we currently understand, and how much do you think we need to understand?



Personally, given human's track record (see: Aswan Dam, Aral sea, rabbits in Australia, etc, etc., etc.)however, I'd like to see us understand just a bit more about climate and what affects it
How much more is 'a bit more'? What do you disagree with regarding our current understanding.


before we go about either destroying the US economy (the actual aim of the Global Warming movement) or mucking about with the planet's natural cycles, about which we know next to nothing.
Did you mean to post this part in the conspiracy theory section?



You, in your arrogance (and Dr. K) believe that we know quite enough to go ahead and launch some sort of global attempt to cool the planet down. Personally, I find that about the most dangerous thing I've heard of since people just like you (and probably you, and Dr. K if either of you are old enough) wanted to see the US unilaterally disarm in order to show the Soviet Union our "good faith" back in the 80s.

Tokie

Whearas you think we know quite enough to carry on exactly as we are, on the basis that the majority of evidence might be wrong? Personally, I find that about the most dangerous thing I've heard of since people like you came up with the doomsday device that would mean no-one would dare to attack. . .hang on, ignore that last bit, I think I've got you confused with Dr Strangelove.

[Loss Leader]

I never said that we needed to understand 100% of a thing to um, understand any of the thing...or whatever it is you are attempting to say here.


Oh, yes you implied that very thing. Right here:

100% certain? How often does this exist. If we all wait until we are 100% certain of anything we'll all be waiting on most everything.

By all means. Much better to run about, waving our hands over our heads while shrieking that the sky is falling when we understand virtually nothing about the climte systems that we are so eager to go mucking about in to "save" our Mother, the Earth.

Ah....good plan.


So, when PAC claimed that we can act without 100% certainty about global warming, you answered by offering the false dichotomy that we are acting while "we understand virtually nothing" about the subject.

Don't you know that lies make the baby Jesus cry?


You, in your arrogance (and Dr. K) believe that we know quite enough to go ahead and launch some sort of global attempt to cool the planet down.


Please point to any post that I have made in this or any other thread on this board in which I state that I want to "launch some sort of global attempt to cool the planet down." I never said such a thing. In fact, I don't believe that I ever made any statement about global warming at all in this thread except to point out that you introduced it as a red herring in a thread on individualism. I also may have mentioned that your desire to assign views to people and then disagree with them is indicative of your overall narcisism and that I felt pity for you.


Personally, I find that about the most dangerous thing I've heard of since people just like you (and probably you, and Dr. K if either of you are old enough) wanted to see the US unilaterally disarm in order to show the Soviet Union our "good faith" back in the 80s.


You have created a strawman in assigning me a belief about global warming which I did not espouse. You have created a red herring and a strawman in trying to link any of this to anybody's beliefs about unilateral disarmorment in the '80s.

You have done this in order to open up another front on which to disagree with people. Your need to be disliked is a symptom of your illness and I hope you seek treatment.

[Tokenconservative]

How much do you think we currently understand, and how much do you think we need to understand?

How much more is 'a bit more'? What do you disagree with regarding our current understanding.

Did you mean to post this part in the conspiracy theory section?

Whearas you think we know quite enough to carry on exactly as we are, on the basis that the majority of evidence might be wrong? Personally, I find that about the most dangerous thing I've heard of since people like you came up with the doomsday device that would mean no-one would dare to attack. . .hang on, ignore that last bit, I think I've got you confused with Dr Strangelove.

LOL.

Why not pile on?

I love dealing with nothing but illogic in the "debate" about the religion, Global Warming.

This is exactly the sort of oversimplification that has n00bs like Algore getting rish off this, taking money from rubes all over the planet.

And there it is...now all you have to do is mention Nazis, and your dismantling of Tokie will be complete! Anytime someone disagrees with your religion, just claim they are wearing a tinfoil hat. Hey, it's worked well for the Scientologists, eh?

Sheesh.

I'm sorry, I guess you musta missed the memo: how are we "carrying on exactly as before"? Before when? Last year? 1970? 1950? 1840? What year do you live in?

I guess you've not heard of all the big pushes to both develop alternative energy methods and those to force me to use them, as well as the big one (Kyoto) designed to destroy the US economy so that we (alone in the world...never mind far worse polluters such as Canada, China and India, and let's pretend Russia isn't arising anew as a filthy industrial power, that thumbs its nose at international environmental issues, too!)

And there it is, part deux. Clearly I hit a nerve with you... YOU were one of the dangerous Pollyannas running around shrieking "t-the Russians l-love their chilruns, too!!" and saying that the US should destroy all its nukes and hand the keys to the world over to the Kremlin.


Tokie

[Mashuna]

LOL.

Why not pile on?

I love dealing with nothing but illogic in the "debate" about the religion, Global Warming.

This is exactly the sort of oversimplification that has n00bs like Algore getting rish off this, taking money from rubes all over the planet.

And there it is...now all you have to do is mention Nazis, and your dismantling of Tokie will be complete! Anytime someone disagrees with your religion, just claim they are wearing a tinfoil hat. Hey, it's worked well for the Scientologists, eh?

Sheesh.

I'm sorry, I guess you musta missed the memo: how are we "carrying on exactly as before"? Before when? Last year? 1970? 1950? 1840? What year do you live in?

I guess you've not heard of all the big pushes to both develop alternative energy methods and those to force me to use them, as well as the big one (Kyoto) designed to destroy the US economy so that we (alone in the world...never mind far worse polluters such as Canada, China and India, and let's pretend Russia isn't arising anew as a filthy industrial power, that thumbs its nose at international environmental issues, too!)

And there it is, part deux. Clearly I hit a nerve with you... YOU were one of the dangerous Pollyannas running around shrieking "t-the Russians l-love their chilruns, too!!" and saying that the US should destroy all its nukes and hand the keys to the world over to the Kremlin.


Tokie

:confused:

No nerve hit, I enjoy a good laugh reading your posts.;)

I'm sorry to hear you think the world is out to destroy the US economy, and you think I wanted to hand over the keys to the world to the Kremlin. Again, you'd be better off in the conspiracy theory section with these ideas, as they're a mix of conspiracies and things you've just made up in your head.

Feel free to complain about other people using 'illogic' though, that one amuses me no end.

[Tokenconservative]

:confused:

No nerve hit, I enjoy a good laugh reading your posts.;)

I'm sorry to hear you think the world is out to destroy the US economy, and you think I wanted to hand over the keys to the world to the Kremlin. Again, you'd be better off in the conspiracy theory section with these ideas, as they're a mix of conspiracies and things you've just made up in your head.

Feel free to complain about other people using 'illogic' though, that one amuses me no end.

Thanks for the permission...I don't, by-the-by, lodge complaints with mods and admin....ever.

I am a grownup. I give as good as I get; I give no quarter and expect none in return.

In any case, my hyperbolic way of presenting such ideas aside, they are nonetheless accurate and not part of some "conspiracy." It's interesting that you choose this out. You are apparently unable to engage in rational discourse, so you dismiss me by screaming "conspiracy nut!!! Conspiracy nut!!"

Reality: the Western anti-nuke (unilateral disarmament) movement was funded directly through the Kremlin. We know this. The CPUSA (Communist Party USA) and various leftist anti-US (masquerading as simply anti-nuke) orgs. in Europe got money from Moscow and used it to stag "grass roots" protests against the near-genius Reagan-era build-up of arms in order to drive the USSR into economic meltdown.

As a dedicated leftist, you will laugh at the notion that Ronnie Raygun, napping in the Oval Office had anything to do with that. More rational thinkers recognize what happened.

Since the left could not bring the US down by disarming her, and in fact, their master the USSR was the one destroyed, they've co-opted the international environmental movement (and I am hardly the first one to notice this...one of the founders of Greenpeace also voiced the same concern) and are today using you as willing dupes, or what the Soviets used to call "useful idiots" to attack Western-styel market capitalism, the heart of which resides in the US.

If you've read Kyoto (and you have not) with anything approaching objectivity (which you do not possess) then you will agree that it is a thinly-disguised attempt to derail the US economy, and nothing more.

Of course, someone like me recognizing this is an enormous threat to your leftist beliefs, and so you must shriek "conspiracy nut!!! Conspiracy nut!!!" in the hopes of either shutting me up, or at minimum convincing others to dismiss what I have to say out-of-hand.

By the way: kudos to you and your movement. You've also done a good job dumbing the American populace down to such a level (through our public schools) that many WILL do just as you bid them do here, and dismiss me as a nut because they are unable to think for themselves.

You are winning. This does not make it good or right, it's just what is.

Tokie

[Mashuna]

Thanks for the permission...I don't, by-the-by, lodge complaints with mods and admin....ever.

I am a grownup. I give as good as I get; I give no quarter and expect none in return.

In any case, my hyperbolic way of presenting such ideas aside, they are nonetheless accurate and not part of some "conspiracy." It's interesting that you choose this out. You are apparently unable to engage in rational discourse, so you dismiss me by screaming "conspiracy nut!!! Conspiracy nut!!"

Reality: the Western anti-nuke (unilateral disarmament) movement was funded directly through the Kremlin. We know this. The CPUSA (Communist Party USA) and various leftist anti-US (masquerading as simply anti-nuke) orgs. in Europe got money from Moscow and used it to stag "grass roots" protests against the near-genius Reagan-era build-up of arms in order to drive the USSR into economic meltdown.

As a dedicated leftist, you will laugh at the notion that Ronnie Raygun, napping in the Oval Office had anything to do with that. More rational thinkers recognize what happened.

Since the left could not bring the US down by disarming her, and in fact, their master the USSR was the one destroyed, they've co-opted the international environmental movement (and I am hardly the first one to notice this...one of the founders of Greenpeace also voiced the same concern) and are today using you as willing dupes, or what the Soviets used to call "useful idiots" to attack Western-styel market capitalism, the heart of which resides in the US.

If you've read Kyoto (and you have not) with anything approaching objectivity (which you do not possess) then you will agree that it is a thinly-disguised attempt to derail the US economy, and nothing more.

Of course, someone like me recognizing this is an enormous threat to your leftist beliefs, and so you must shriek "conspiracy nut!!! Conspiracy nut!!!" in the hopes of either shutting me up, or at minimum convincing others to dismiss what I have to say out-of-hand.

By the way: kudos to you and your movement. You've also done a good job dumbing the American populace down to such a level (through our public schools) that many WILL do just as you bid them do here, and dismiss me as a nut because they are unable to think for themselves.

You are winning. This does not make it good or right, it's just what is.

Tokie

You misunderstand, I wasn't suggesting you complain to a mod, just carry on whining about it in your posts - that's the funny part.

The other part I picked out was you making things up in your head. That's the rest of what you've written. I see you've described it as 'a hyperbolic way of presenting things', but as far as I can make out, you're just typing gibberish.

You've complained that I and my movement (and our leftist beliefs) have dumbed down the American populace to such an extent that they are unable to recognise the objectivity and truth of your analysis. If you're going to go for hyperbole, it has to at least bear some relation to the truth (Unless my influence in the 80's as a six year old in Wales had some kind of effect on US education though bizzare chaos theory, in which case I apologise).

Honestly, I have no desire to shut you up or persuade people to dismiss you out of hand. If you just carry on posting, that'll do the job just fine.

[bokonon]

and of course red herrings
Says the man who injected global warming into a thread about individualism. Sheesh.:rolleyes:
Um, that wasn't Tokenconservative, that was ImaginalDisk. The OP asked about logically proving the moral value of individualism, various people argued that it couldn't be done, and Token observed that such values change over time with a comment about Starbucks sippers slamming Columbus.

Then ID chimed in, with what I took at the time to be a poke at something he considered a non-sequitur, but what I realize now was a quarrel in another thread somewhere, asking TC to support his views on global warming, and it was off to the races.

Carry on.

[JetLeg]

Thanks bokonon,

More to the issue of the OP -

The question of individualism has effect on our political thinking. Some political systems assume that individualism is simply bad. Others, seem to assume that it is good, adocating for a certain type of government.


Most people here would probably vote against a fascist government.


But if you assert that there is no way to prove idea of individualism - it is just a belief, right? Why don't you imply the motto of "If you have a belief for which you do not have evidence, just keep it to yourself"? If you assert that it is only a belief, and it is just as valid as lack-of-individualism, why do you act on it, contrary to the keep-it-to-yourself-until-you-have-evidence idea?


Perhaps the global-warming thread can be moved to a new thread?

[Tokenconservative]

Um, that wasn't Tokenconservative, that was ImaginalDisk. The OP asked about logically proving the moral value of individualism, various people argued that it couldn't be done, and Token observed that such values change over time with a comment about Starbucks sippers slamming Columbus.

Then ID chimed in, with what I took at the time to be a poke at something he considered a non-sequitur, but what I realize now was a quarrel in another thread somewhere, asking TC to support his views on global warming, and it was off to the races.

Carry on.

Yes...well, I do tend to attract my stalkers. I might be flattered if I were a younger, thinner, cuter man with the rich, lustrous locks of youth.

But I digress (prolly from seeing too many Cialis spots).

I like that: "Starbucks sippers." Says much in far fewer words than I typically use: "some lefty sitting with the laptop he bought with last month's trustfund dividend while sipping his venti soy latte with double non-fat soy foam and extra cinamon sprinkles..."

Yours is much catchier...I am going to steal it. Liberally.

ID has been following me around doing this...everytime I say ANYthing, he shrieks in response "prooooooovvvvveeee global warming isn't happening!!!"

It was cute at first, like the first time a new puppy piddles in the middle of the floor. Awwwwww! After the 20th time, it's just boring. The difference is that you can train a new puppy to go on the papers. I, apparently, cannot train ID to understand that it's not my job to either prove a negative or make his arguments for him...no matter how clever he is in attempting to get me to do so.

The issue of "individualism": Exactly so. It has changed radically over the years. In Medieval Europe, of course "individualism" meant a knight or other lord riding out to do his thing: chopping off the heads of peasant, raping and pillaging in the Holy Land...whatever.

When the American experiment began, it was recognized (revolutionarily) that no man should be lord and no man should be serf. Remnants of the serf mentality in most of Europe are one thing that have kept them from escaping socialism. Here in the US, leftists today believe that "individualism" means the individual bowing to the pressure of the whole and working for the betterment of the larger society BEFORE working for the betterment of he and his.

This of course, CAN be extended to the GW debate in which it is argued that eeeeevvviiiillll capitalist pigs are intent upon destroying the planet for their own selfish needs (and then, as the argument goes on the TRULY loony left, leaving the planet for their city of glass on the "dark" side of the moon...)

Tokie

[JetLeg]

When the American experiment began, it was recognized (revolutionarily) that no man should be lord and no man should be serf.

Another example to my post above -

If you think that this assumption is not possible to prove, then it puts it in the same status you ascribe to a belief in a personal god. You do ask the believers not to enforce their beliefs on others, and I see the sense in it. You claim that beliefs should be seperated from the public government. But, when it comes to the quoted belief, which lacks any evidence, you think that it is important to base the government upon this... Looks inconsistent to me

[Tokenconservative]

Thanks bokonon,

More to the issue of the OP -

The question of individualism has effect on our political thinking. Some political systems assume that individualism is simply bad. Others, seem to assume that it is good, adocating for a certain type of government.


Most people here would probably vote against a fascist government.


But if you assert that there is no way to prove idea of individualism - it is just a belief, right? Why don't you imply the motto of "If you have a belief for which you do not have evidence, just keep it to yourself"? If you assert that it is only a belief, and it is just as valid as lack-of-individualism, why do you act on it, contrary to the keep-it-to-yourself-until-you-have-evidence idea?


Perhaps the global-warming thread can be moved to a new thread?


I am confused: individualism = Fascism?

Hmmm. Well, fascism is an interesting form of government, in its truest form. And while fascism of the sort practiced in Germany and Italy certainly permitted for individual success (so long as you were recognized as one PERMITTED to succeed) the overarching view was that you still had to dance to the government's tune.

Not a lot different from what many in business in America find today. Some of this is necessary of course, some is designed to punish the successful, some is just a part of the nonsense of larger and larger government and its need to justify itself and its continued growth.

I'm in your camp on the argument issue. I come to forums to argue ideas, not engage in endless rounds of throwing OTHER people's ideas at each other via links--LIIIIIINNNKKKKSSSSSSSS!!!

Gawd that bores me. I also find that younger people are losing the ABILITY to engage in spirited, rational debate without doing this and without demanding it of their opponent. That is distressing. When you cannot read, digest, incorporate into your own thinking the ideas of others, and then submit your OWN argument, you are little more than a parrot.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Another example to my post above -

If you think that this assumption is not possible to prove, then it puts it in the same status you ascribe to a belief in a personal god. You do ask the believers not to enforce their beliefs on others, and I see the sense in it. You claim that beliefs should be seperated from the public government. But, when it comes to the quoted belief, which lacks any evidence, you think that it is important to base the government upon this... Looks inconsistent to me


Not sure what you are saying, I guess. Of course this is possible to prove, just read the writings of the American Founders. Not sure whether they "proved" it, but they surely made some pretty good arguments, as did others upon whose thinking they built. Just because I offer no links--LIIIIINNKKKKSSSSS!!!!--to those writings does not mean they don't exist. I offer no links--LIIIINNNKKKKSSSSS!!!--proving the sun rises in the east, but I'll still make this assertion: the sun rises in the east.

Existentially/philosophically, of course, it all pretty much boils down to belief. I believe I cannot walk through walls, but physics tells me there really is no reason for that belief since there is this vast amount of space between the atoms that make up "me" and the atoms that make up "wall."

I don't claim that beliefs should or even CAN be seperated from human government. I suppose if we put robots in charge...but that assumes some other robot is programming them...that was programmed by another robot....I just don't see it.

Tokie

[Loss Leader]

When the American experiment began, it was recognized (revolutionarily) that no man should be lord and no man should be serf.


Yes. I remember the dramatic and emotional mass freeing of the slaves that occurred on July 5, 1776.

I'm joking, of course. The statement you just made has absolutely no relationship to reality.

[Tokenconservative]

Yes. I remember the dramatic and emotional mass freeing of the slaves that occurred on July 5, 1776.

I'm joking, of course. The statement you just made has absolutely no relationship to reality.

Oh, dangit!!! I fergotted!

Since it wasn't perfect, it therefore must be eeeevvviiilllllllll!!!!

I sometimes actually wish I were a liberal. It's tough going through life being saddled with an ability to think.

Tokie

[Loss Leader]

Since it wasn't perfect, it therefore must be eeeevvviiilllllllll!!!!


Once again, you attempt to saddle me with arguments I did not make. I did not argue that the concept of individualism on which the country was founded "wasn't perfect." I did not argue that anything was "evil" or, as you put it. "eeeevvviiilllllllll". What I said was that what you describe as the concept of individualism on which the country was founded did not exist. It never existed. The thing that you are claiming to be true is completely, utterly and totally untrue in each and every respect.

It appears that you're just parrotting some sort of Horace Greeley mid 1800s myth about the "old days" that wasn't even true back then.

[Tokenconservative]

Once again, you attempt to saddle me with arguments I did not make. I did not argue that the concept of individualism on which the country was founded "wasn't perfect." I did not argue that anything was "evil" or, as you put it. "eeeevvviiilllllllll". What I said was that what you describe as the concept of individualism on which the country was founded did not exist. It never existed. The thing that you are claiming to be true is completely, utterly and totally untrue in each and every respect.

It appears that you're just parrotting some sort of Horace Greeley mid 1800s myth about the "old days" that wasn't even true back then.

This is a standard argument of those on the hate/blame America first side (liberals). You can now claim it is not your own (the SOP "well...that's them, it's not ME!" argument), but what you MEANT by your statement about the slaves is clear to anyone able to think his or her way out of a wet paper sack.

That argument is: since the US (gov't, culture, whatever) is not PERFECT, was not founded in perfection (see: slavery; see: women's rights, see: Indians, etc., etc.) then it should, as we have learned it must be from our Lords Zinn and Chomsky, be decried as a failure, complete.

I take a...different view. I take the view that yes, our nation has and always has had its flaws, has done some bad things, even some truly terrible things (see: Tuskeegee), but that in context and and on balance, it has done, as a nation, far more good in the world than bad, and far more good in the world than has any other nation in history.

This, of course is utter anathema to a left-liberal.

So be it. Because of the freedoms our form of government allows you express, you are free to be wrong in your thinking. I wonder: could you go to say, N. Korea and in a public school there, tell your students what a corrupt, failed place N. Korea is? Could you have done so in Russian, circa 1985? Germany, circa 1942? England, circa 1776?

My description of individualism is an ideal. Can ideals ever be achieved. Maybe, maybe not. In context, at the time, the founding of this nation signalled the first time in history since the Roman republic collapsed (and this was far from the perfection you demand, as was the Greek democracy before it) when the individual was recognized as having to bow to no man (nor even his government).

You don't like this, and so you pretend that this was not the intent of the Founders because they, in their ignorant, benighted state of white maleness, forgot to extend this to wymyn, or slaves or Indians or fillintheblank.

This, then says: since it was not perfect, it should be dismissed.

I think what you said was quite clear.

Tokie

[Loss Leader]

This is a standard argument of those on the hate/blame America first side (liberals). You can now claim it is not your own (the SOP "well...that's them, it's not ME!" argument), but what you MEANT by your statement about the slaves is clear to anyone able to think his or her way out of a wet paper sack.

That argument is: since the US (gov't, culture, whatever) is not PERFECT, was not founded in perfection (see: slavery; see: women's rights, see: Indians, etc., etc.) then it should, as we have learned it must be from our Lords Zinn and Chomsky, be decried as a failure, complete.

I take a...different view. I take the view that yes, our nation has and always has had its flaws, has done some bad things, even some truly terrible things (see: Tuskeegee), but that in context and and on balance, it has done, as a nation, far more good in the world than bad, and far more good in the world than has any other nation in history.

This, of course is utter anathema to a left-liberal.

So be it. Because of the freedoms our form of government allows you express, you are free to be wrong in your thinking. I wonder: could you go to say, N. Korea and in a public school there, tell your students what a corrupt, failed place N. Korea is? Could you have done so in Russian, circa 1985? Germany, circa 1942? England, circa 1776?

My description of individualism is an ideal. Can ideals ever be achieved. Maybe, maybe not. In context, at the time, the founding of this nation signalled the first time in history since the Roman republic collapsed (and this was far from the perfection you demand, as was the Greek democracy before it) when the individual was recognized as having to bow to no man (nor even his government).

You don't like this, and so you pretend that this was not the intent of the Founders because they, in their ignorant, benighted state of white maleness, forgot to extend this to wymyn, or slaves or Indians or fillintheblank.

This, then says: since it was not perfect, it should be dismissed.

I think what you said was quite clear.

Tokie


As poorly reasoned a post as I have ever read.

[Tokenconservative]

As poorly reasoned a post as I have ever read.


Really?

I'll take from that the implication that you never read your own, then.

Tokie

[ZirconBlue]

Not sure what you are saying, I guess. Of course this is possible to prove, just read the writings of the American Founders. Not sure whether they "proved" it, but they surely made some pretty good arguments, as did others upon whose thinking they built. Just because I offer no links--LIIIIINNKKKKSSSSS!!!!--to those writings does not mean they don't exist. I offer no links--LIIIINNNKKKKSSSSS!!!--proving the sun rises in the east, but I'll still make this assertion: the sun rises in the east.

Existentially/philosophically, of course, it all pretty much boils down to belief. I believe I cannot walk through walls, but physics tells me there really is no reason for that belief since there is this vast amount of space between the atoms that make up "me" and the atoms that make up "wall."

I don't claim that beliefs should or even CAN be seperated from human government. I suppose if we put robots in charge...but that assumes some other robot is programming them...that was programmed by another robot....I just don't see it.

Tokie

So, do you have some sort of macro on your computer that automatically replaces "links" with "links --LIIIIINNKKKKSSSSS!!!!" If not, you should look into that. It might save you a lot of time.

[Loss Leader]

This is a standard argument of those on the hate/blame America first side (liberals).


Ad hominem and non sequitor. Actually, all ad hominem attacks are non sequitors.


That argument is: since the US (gov't, culture, whatever) is not PERFECT, was not founded in perfection (see: slavery; see: women's rights, see: Indians, etc., etc.) then it should, as we have learned it must be from our Lords Zinn and Chomsky, be decried as a failure, complete.


Strawman. I never made this argument. For that matter, I don't think Zinn or Chomsky ever did, either.

Please provide any evidence you have that the "liberal" argument is that since the US was not founded in perfection, it must be decried as a failure. Please provide any evidence that Zinn or Chomsky ever made this argument.


I take a...different view. I take the view that yes, our nation has and always has had its flaws, has done some bad things, even some truly terrible things (see: Tuskeegee), but that in context and and on balance, it has done, as a nation, far more good in the world than bad, and far more good in the world than has any other nation in history.


I'm not sure how to classify this. Nobody has argued any of these points. You are taking a position that nobody here has disagreed with. So, it's a fallacy of relevance, a reverse strawman. You've just staked out a position on a completely irrelevant point in order to attempt to draw a distinction between my argument and yours. Unfortunately for you, that distinction does not exist.


This, of course is utter anathema to a left-liberal.


This is not a logical fallacy. It's just a statement without evidence. Please provide evidence that your point of view is anathema to the "left-liberal." Since I don't think it's possible to form a functional definition of "left-liberal" (or, at least, not one that doesn't use the above test as part of its definition), I'm pretty sure your statement cannot as a matter of fact be supported by any evidence.


So be it. Because of the freedoms our form of government allows you express, you are free to be wrong in your thinking. I wonder: could you go to say, N. Korea and in a public school there, tell your students what a corrupt, failed place N. Korea is? Could you have done so in Russian, circa 1985? Germany, circa 1942? England, circa 1776?


This is a non sequitor. No one is arguing any of this with you. Another fallacy of relevance. In fact, you have yet to make a single point that actually addresses the topic of discussion.


My description of individualism is an ideal.


This is true. It's an ideal born in the second half of the nineteenth century, though. It's roots in Western Civilization are no older than about 1845 and really became popular between 1870 and 1890. Not surprisingly, the myth that the US had been founded on self-reliance became popular right at the time of massive economic expansion and opportunity throughout the US when, for the first time, self-reliance and fortune-making really became possible.


This is not a subject for debate. Any good history of the 1800s should cover it.



Can ideals ever be achieved. Maybe, maybe not.


This is another non sequitor. I have not argued that your ideal was imperfect, I have argued that what you believe was an ideal at the founding of the country was not. You are factually incorrect about what ideals people had at the country's start. I do not disagree as a matter of philosophy that ideals and reality are not always consistent. That doesn't make you any less wrong, though.


In context, at the time, the founding of this nation signalled the first time in history since the Roman republic collapsed (and this was far from the perfection you demand, as was the Greek democracy before it) when the individual was recognized as having to bow to no man (nor even his government).


This is dead wrong. Every word of it is wrong.

First, the idea of democracy is far older than the founding of the US. Read up on the history of India. And long before the American Revolution, the Carribean islands had enjoyed a warm reputation for being nearly lawless. For that matter, exactly how much less free do you believe England was than the US in 1776? You may be surprised to learn that in many ways individualism and human right was much more prized there than in the US. Heck, the American Revolution didn't have nearly as much to do with not bowing to a King as it did to not paying taxes for wars we didn't care about. Had King George withdrawn the Intolerable Acts more quickly and taken a more hands off approach in general, there would have been no revolution. Look at Canada.

Second of all, where did you ever get the silly idea that the American Revolution introduced the idea of not having to bow to a government? At every point in the Revolution, the colonies had functioning governments. At every point, people paid taxes and governments provided services. Heck, the Whiskey Rebelion was about nothing but the fact that government was going to remain as oppressive and omnipresent as it ever had been.

Get to a library. You know nothing about your own history.


You don't like this, and so you pretend that this was not the intent of the Founders because they, in their ignorant, benighted state of white maleness, forgot to extend this to wymyn, or slaves or Indians or fillintheblank.

This, then says: since it was not perfect, it should be dismissed.


You are wrong. My argument has nothing to do with any of that. My argument is that the concept of "individualism" was not an important part of America during revolutionary times. My argument is that you have been taken in by a bit of historic revisionism that took place over a hunder and thirty years ago. My argument is that your knowledge of American history is horrifically poor and that you should find a good high school course in the subject before writing again.

My argument is that your style of argument is illogical and unpersuasive and that your knowledge base is insufficient and unconvincing.

[cyborg]

we go about either destroying the US economy (the actual aim of the Global Warming movement)

The CT forum is that away...

Oh and you do yourself no favours by continuing to berate a WELSH person (since you seem to have failed to pick up on this) as if they fit into your narrow-minded American view of what politics entails. (Namely with-us, against-us: which are you?)

THAT does make you a CT nut I'm afraid since you are unable to comprehend any other explanation for why anyone would disagree with you.

[Tokenconservative]

The CT forum is that away...

Oh and you do yourself no favours by continuing to berate a WELSH person (since you seem to have failed to pick up on this) as if they fit into your narrow-minded American view of what politics entails. (Namely with-us, against-us: which are you?)

THAT does make you a CT nut I'm afraid since you are unable to comprehend any other explanation for why anyone would disagree with you.

Hmmmm...not sure how I'd pick up on your being WELSH...but mea culpa, anywhooo...is it not permitted to berate the WELSH? Some law or something over there? I know you get into fistfights when you berate the IRISH...but the WELSH?

Yes, my view is American-centric, that's for sure. Because, of coures, America is in her primacy, and our culture pretty much runs the planet right now. That's also been the case with other cultures in the past...the Spanish, the French...some other country just of the coast of continental Europe...the name escapes me at the moment...

What's a CT?

I am quite able to comprehend other explanations for disagreeing with me. Whether those are honest or not, is another issue.

So, the Global Warmingist who shriekds "it's a scientific consensus!!!!! (science does not work that way). The UN SAYYYYSSSS SOOOOO!!!" (um...the UN is a POLITICAL body, and is just about the most anti-America such as exists on the planet. Oh, and they want to help Iran destroy Isreal, too, which to a rational--key term--mind seems a bit counter to their name and original charter...).

The Kyoto Accord was designed entirely as a means of "punishing" the US for being free market capitalist, and being economically successful.

If not, please point out to this ignorant, benighted, xenophobic (and no doubt) racist American (we know there's none of THAT in Jolly Old!) when the "emerging economies" of India, Pakistan, and especially China will, butterfly-like, finish "emerging."

I can't find a date for that in my copy of Kyoto. Mayhaps you have an updated version that includes those dates?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

So, do you have some sort of macro on your computer that automatically replaces "links" with "links --LIIIIINNKKKKSSSSS!!!!" If not, you should look into that. It might save you a lot of time.

LOL. Good idea. But no need, really. I key at something like 85wpm, with a 90%+ accuracy rate....

Tokie

[cyborg]

Hmmmm...not sure how I'd pick up on your being WELSH...but mea culpa,

I'm not Welsh. *Sigh* You really aren't paying any attention to what anyone else is saying at all are you?

Whether those are honest or not, is another issue.

And of course you assume they are not honest because you have already decided the 'true' reasons for anyone disagreeing with you.

Mighty neat and tidy that.

So, the Global Warmingist who shriekds "it's a scientific consensus!!!!! (science does not work that way).

Uh, science does work by consensus actually.

The UN SAYYYYSSSS SOOOOO!!!" (um...the UN is a POLITICAL body, and is just about the most anti-America such as exists on the planet.

LOL.

That's just too funny for words. Especially given the amount of influence the US weilds in the UN.

But, you know, persecution complexes are *wonderful* mechanisms for rallying to a cause.

Oh, and they want to help Iran destroy Isreal, too, which to a rational--key term--mind seems a bit counter to their name and original charter...).

Yep. CT forum is that away... (Figure out what CT means FFS).

The Kyoto Accord was designed entirely as a means of "punishing" the US for being free market capitalist, and being economically successful.

Yep. CT forum is still that away...

If not, please point out to this ignorant, benighted, xenophobic (and no doubt) racist American (we know there's none of THAT in Jolly Old!) when the "emerging economies" of India, Pakistan, and especially China will, butterfly-like, finish "emerging."

So you don't know how economics works either?

Not surprising. Maybe you should look up 'labor costs' at some point and realise that 'punishing' the US economy for its inefficiencies in many industries doesn't require anything more than the 'free market' you seem to think is being distorted here against US interests.

You're outnumbered roughly 7 to 1 by those countries you named. Think that might have anything to do with it?

I can't find a date for that in my copy of Kyoto. Mayhaps you have an updated version that includes those dates?

You know what does Kyoto really have to do with anything since the US didn't follow it anyway?

It's just a signature on a piece of paper currently. I hardly think you can blame it for anything.

[Tokenconservative]

Ad hominem and non sequitor. Actually, all ad hominem attacks are non sequitors.

Strawman. I never made this argument. For that matter, I don't think Zinn or Chomsky ever did, either.

Please provide any evidence you have that the "liberal" argument is that since the US was not founded in perfection, it must be decried as a failure. Please provide any evidence that Zinn or Chomsky ever made this argument.

I'm not sure how to classify this. Nobody has argued any of these points. You are taking a position that nobody here has disagreed with. So, it's a fallacy of relevance, a reverse strawman. You've just staked out a position on a completely irrelevant point in order to attempt to draw a distinction between my argument and yours. Unfortunately for you, that distinction does not exist.

This is not a logical fallacy. It's just a statement without evidence. Please provide evidence that your point of view is anathema to the "left-liberal." Since I don't think it's possible to form a functional definition of "left-liberal" (or, at least, not one that doesn't use the above test as part of its definition), I'm pretty sure your statement cannot as a matter of fact be supported by any evidence.

This is a non sequitor. No one is arguing any of this with you. Another fallacy of relevance. In fact, you have yet to make a single point that actually addresses the topic of discussion.

This is true. It's an ideal born in the second half of the nineteenth century, though. It's roots in Western Civilization are no older than about 1845 and really became popular between 1870 and 1890. Not surprisingly, the myth that the US had been founded on self-reliance became popular right at the time of massive economic expansion and opportunity throughout the US when, for the first time, self-reliance and fortune-making really became possible.

This is not a subject for debate. Any good history of the 1800s should cover it.

This is another non sequitor. I have not argued that your ideal was imperfect, I have argued that what you believe was an ideal at the founding of the country was not. You are factually incorrect about what ideals people had at the country's start. I do not disagree as a matter of philosophy that ideals and reality are not always consistent. That doesn't make you any less wrong, though.

This is dead wrong. Every word of it is wrong.

First, the idea of democracy is far older than the founding of the US. Read up on the history of India. And long before the American Revolution, the Carribean islands had enjoyed a warm reputation for being nearly lawless. For that matter, exactly how much less free do you believe England was than the US in 1776? You may be surprised to learn that in many ways individualism and human right was much more prized there than in the US. Heck, the American Revolution didn't have nearly as much to do with not bowing to a King as it did to not paying taxes for wars we didn't care about. Had King George withdrawn the Intolerable Acts more quickly and taken a more hands off approach in general, there would have been no revolution. Look at Canada.

Second of all, where did you ever get the silly idea that the American Revolution introduced the idea of not having to bow to a government? At every point in the Revolution, the colonies had functioning governments. At every point, people paid taxes and governments provided services. Heck, the Whiskey Rebelion was about nothing but the fact that government was going to remain as oppressive and omnipresent as it ever had been.

Get to a library. You know nothing about your own history.

You are wrong. My argument has nothing to do with any of that. My argument is that the concept of "individualism" was not an important part of America during revolutionary times. My argument is that you have been taken in by a bit of historic revisionism that took place over a hunder and thirty years ago. My argument is that your knowledge of American history is horrifically poor and that you should find a good high school course in the subject before writing again.

My argument is that your style of argument is illogical and unpersuasive and that your knowledge base is insufficient and unconvincing.

Why is it that only liberals claim that an identification of what they are is an insult/attack/ad hom? You can say "that Tokie is such a...CONSERVATIVE!!!" and I will not take that as an insult.

Whether you specifically made the argument or not, it is part 'n parcel of your perspective, and is therefore not a strawman.

Every liberal in the US, anyway, (and yes, I realize that in Europe, those terms mean approximately the opposite of what they mean here) believes that since Jefferson and Washington owned slaves, this somehow negates them as great thinkers and of course, negates those parts of our Constitution libs would like to do away with, such as our freedoms to speak and to keep and bear arms.

If I took a position nobody has argued, THAT is a strawman and/or begging the question. I take the wider view: if you are liberal (US version) you MUST hold certain "truths" to be self-evident: GW Bush is responsible for Global Warming, human-caused Global Warming is a FACT like the laws of thermodynamics, and it can only be solved by destroying the US economy, etc., etc.

Ah, the old Lefty Playbook standby: when all else fails, try some Equivocation! Yeah...that's right...nobody can define "liberal" but of course "conservative" is easy to define: pig-ignant, un-so-fist-eye-kated, backwoods, racist, sexist, homo"phobic" redneck, warmongering, chickenhawk hater.

Again: that would not then, be a non-sequitor, but rather a strawman or begging the question. If you don't understand these terms, please don't simply sprinkle your posts with them in the hope of so confusing this conservative (see definition, above) that I'll just say "gawrsh thet thar feller shore is a smart'un! Why, jest looks at the way he'uns throws aroun' them big words!"

Of course, any ideal of this sort evolves over time, and while it was not (as libs, Chomsky, Zinn, et al. demand) perfect at its inception with our founders, circa approx. the 1770s, the ideal of an individual white man's supporting himself, and his family and his country for that matter were, if you will, borrowed from the Roman version of same wherein society is modeled after and flows upward from the family unit of Man, Wife, Children.

Of course modern liberals have turned this on its head to say that what the Founders (American) really meant was that Wife, Children should be supported by State and that Man does not matter.

Again: you implicit in what you have to say about this is the argument that since this ideal was neither perfectly formed nor perfectly executed at its inception, it is thereby to be dismissed.

And people have been arguing for oh, 230+ years now over what the American Founders "meant" by just about every tittle and jot they put to paper. Of course, only a liberal (see again: Zinn, Chomsky) will argue that what they REALLY meant was what modern liberals NEED them to have meant in order to push their political points.
Equally so, most people in Europe and their political bretheren here (liberals) must shriek "that isn't what they meant!!!" because if they don't belittle and downplay the original intent as somehow less lofty and honorable than it actually was, they have to admit that regardless of these men being men of their times, they were nevertheless great men with great minds who did something nobody else had ever done, and whose feats have rarely been emulated and have virtually never been carried off with this level of success (now being put paid to by liberals), since.

Liberals are horrified by the freedoms the Founders intended for the INDIVIDUAL and their friends in Europe, serf-born, are frequently unable to understand it, and when they get even the tiniest whiff of what it portends, view it with abject loathing and horror that, if anything, bests that of even American liberals.

I speak here, of course, of Old Europe. In New Europe, they understand quite well the boot heel of government suppression and many there are working to make sure they keep it off their necks now that Ronald Reagan and the United States have helped them wrest free from it.

Many in Old Europe view this with particular distaste as these freemen (Americans) have managed to export their revlolution to Europe.

By the way: a REAL ad hom is the one with which you close this diatribe. At least when I employ ad homs, I know what they are, and I am honest about it. If I think you are stupid and ignorant, I call you stupid and ignorant. I dont' hide behind lots of flowery language about high school texts and suchlike. I don't happen to think YOU are stupid and ignorant, but I do believe you have been thoroughly taken in by the left-liberal revisionist view of American history. By the way: about the last place you are going to find an honest interpretation of American history is in an American public schools textbook!

Tokie

[cyborg]

Why is it that only liberals claim that an identification of what they are is an insult/attack/ad hom?

Uh because:

1) Even if the people you are arguing with *ARE* liberals IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE MERIT OF THE ARGUMENT.
2) Because just by asking that question you engage in well-poisoning. Damn, you love the fallacies like they're going out of fashion.
3) Because you assume anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal.
4) Because you assume you even know what the hell the terms you are using mean.

If I took a position nobody has argued, THAT is a strawman and/or begging the question. I take the wider view: if you are liberal (US version) you MUST hold certain "truths" to be self-evident: GW Bush is responsible for Global Warming, human-caused Global Warming is a FACT like the laws of thermodynamics, and it can only be solved by destroying the US economy, etc., etc.

Wait... I'm confused.

You say you're not engaging in strawmen and then go right ahead and construct a MASSIVE one that applies to all 'liberals'; which of course is the correct appelation for anyone who happens to disagree with you.

It's all nice and neat I'll give you that.

believes that since Jefferson and Washington owned slaves, this somehow negates them as great thinkers

No they don't - they recognise these people for what they were and hence don't make ludicrous assertions about concepts they couldn't have supported in a modern context SINCE THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO SEE INTO THE FUTURE!

Damn. Leave those corpses alone already. Can't you Americans formulate an opinion without having to refer back to long dead people to think what their opinion might be?

Yeah...that's right...nobody can define "liberal" but of course "conservative" is easy to define: pig-ignant, un-so-fist-eye-kated, backwoods, racist, sexist, homo"phobic" redneck, warmongering, chickenhawk hater.

And you can justify this persecution complex how now?

Oh wait, I forgot. You don't engage in strawmen.

Carry on.

because if they don't belittle and downplay the original intent as somehow less lofty and honorable than it actually was, they have to admit that regardless of these men being men of their times, they were nevertheless great men with great minds who did something nobody else had ever done,

You really can't seperate the two concepts of disagreeing with something said whilst still respecting someone else can you? You really can't.

[Loss Leader]

<snip lots of invectives.


So that's your argument style? I accuse you of flinging around a bunch of ad hom attacks and then making unsupported and wrong assertions of fact. You answer by flinging around a bunch of ad hom attacks and then making unsupported and wrong assertions of fact? Did you investigate any of my assertions regarding the myth of individualism's entry into popular culture in the nineteenth century?


Why is it that only liberals claim that an identification of what they are is an insult/attack/ad hom?


Do you have any evidence that "only liberals" make this claim?


Whether you specifically made the argument or not, it is part 'n parcel of your perspective, and is therefore not a strawman.


Did you really type that without guile? If I didn't make that argument, what evidence do you have that it is part of my perspective? The answer is you have no evidence. You are just assigning the belief to me for no logical reason. That's a strawman.


Every liberal in the US, anyway, (and yes, I realize that in Europe, those terms mean approximately the opposite of what they mean here) believes that since Jefferson and Washington owned slaves, this somehow negates them as great thinkers and of course, negates those parts of our Constitution libs would like to do away with, such as our freedoms to speak and to keep and bear arms.


Evidence?


If I took a position nobody has argued, THAT is a strawman and/or begging the question. I take the wider view: if you are liberal (US version) you MUST hold certain "truths" to be self-evident: GW Bush is responsible for Global Warming, human-caused Global Warming is a FACT like the laws of thermodynamics, and it can only be solved by destroying the US economy, etc., etc.


Ah, so here you expose the flaw in your reasoning. You have defined "liberals" as people who "must" hold certain beliefs. Since the beliefs are wrong, you say, liberals must be wrong. Actually, you have no reason to have defined "liberal" in that manner. You have no evidence that "liberals" really think these things. In fact, there is no agreed-upon definition of "liberals" to begin with.

You have literally created a strawman out of thin air - a man who does not exist anywhere except in your imagination. It certainly does not describe me or my beliefs. More importantly, it has nothing to do with the fact that your ideas about the dominent themes during revolutionary times are incorrect.


Ah, the old Lefty Playbook standby: when all else fails, try some Equivocation! Yeah...that's right...nobody can define "liberal" but of course "conservative" is easy to define: pig-ignant, un-so-fist-eye-kated, backwoods, racist, sexist, homo"phobic" redneck, warmongering, chickenhawk hater.


These statements come from nowhere. I have not attempted to define "conservative." I have not labeled you as a "conservative." I do not believe your ideas about individualism are wrong based in any part on you being a "conservative." I believe your ideas are wrong because they are factually incorrect.


Again: that would not then, be a non-sequitor, but rather a strawman or begging the question. If you don't understand these terms, please don't simply sprinkle your posts with them in the hope of so confusing this conservative (see definition, above) that I'll just say "gawrsh thet thar feller shore is a smart'un! Why, jest looks at the way he'uns throws aroun' them big words!"


Yes, this particular strawman argument is a non-sequitor or however one spells it.


Of course, any ideal of this sort evolves over time, and while it was not (as libs, Chomsky, Zinn, et al. demand) perfect at its inception with our founders, circa approx. the 1770s, the ideal of an individual white man's supporting himself, and his family and his country for that matter were, if you will, borrowed from the Roman version of same wherein society is modeled after and flows upward from the family unit of Man, Wife, Children.


This is the point where you just repeat your previous assertions. They are still wrong. The things you are saying about the concept of individualism are factually incorrect. I have asked that you provide any authority for your misguided statements and you have refused. Perhaps it would be instructive for you if I took the lead.

Here is a link (http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/) to probably the single most important philosophical document of revolutionary America. Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense was a smash run-away hit with the American populace. It encapsulated all of the feelings of the colonists and became a roadmap for what an independent republic would look like. I believe that if there is a theme to the American Revolution, it is found in these pages.

Here is what Paine has to say on the subject of individualism:

[T]he strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same.

This, of course, in not the ringing endorsement of individualism you might have been expecting. It is, however, perfectly consistent with American philosophy at the time.

As always, I invite you to show me a contemporanious source that outines what you believe individualism meant in revolutionary times. Perhaps something in the letters of Silence Dogood (http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf1/contents.htm) might support your point. Maybe you can find what you continue to claim to be true in the Federalist Papers (http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/).

Or maybe this quote begins to sum up your views of American individualism:

I would have you believe that success in life is within the reach of everyone who will truly and nobly seek it ... that there is abundance of work for those who are wise enough to look for it where it is—and that, with sound morality and a careful adaptation of means to ends, there is in this land of ours larger opportunities, more just and well grounded hopes, than in any other land whereon the sun ever shone. There is work for all....

I'm sure that the above quote is exactly the type of thinking on which you believe America was founded. The problem for you is that it was said by horace Greeley on Noveber 11, 1867 (http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/etas/1/). That's because this concept of individualism arose roughly a hundred years later than you think it did.


Of course modern liberals have turned this on its head to say that what the Founders (American) really meant was that Wife, Children should be supported by State and that Man does not matter.


I never said this and I doubt you could provide evidence that "modern liberals" believe this.


Again: you implicit in what you have to say about this is the argument that since this ideal was neither perfectly formed nor perfectly executed at its inception, it is thereby to be dismissed.


Again: You are wrong.

The concept that you call "individualism" was not one of the themes of revolutionary America. It arose about a hundred years later. You are welcome to try to provide e v i d e n c e that I am wrong. I'm not, but you're welcome to try.


I don't happen to think YOU are stupid and ignorant, but I do believe you have been thoroughly taken in by the left-liberal revisionist view of American history.


You have been taken in by the pro-industrial revisionist view of American history of the second half of the nineteenth century.


By the way: about the last place you are going to find an honest interpretation of American history is in an American public schools textbook!


What histories have you read that disagree with the contents of your public school textbooks?

[Tokenconservative]

Uh because:

1) Even if the people you are arguing with *ARE* liberals IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE MERIT OF THE ARGUMENT.
2) Because just by asking that question you engage in well-poisoning. Damn, you love the fallacies like they're going out of fashion.
3) Because you assume anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal.
4) Because you assume you even know what the hell the terms you are using mean.

Wait... I'm confused.

You say you're not engaging in strawmen and then go right ahead and construct a MASSIVE one that applies to all 'liberals'; which of course is the correct appelation for anyone who happens to disagree with you.

It's all nice and neat I'll give you that.

No they don't - they recognise these people for what they were and hence don't make ludicrous assertions about concepts they couldn't have supported in a modern context SINCE THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO SEE INTO THE FUTURE!

Damn. Leave those corpses alone already. Can't you Americans formulate an opinion without having to refer back to long dead people to think what their opinion might be?



And you can justify this persecution complex how now?

Oh wait, I forgot. You don't engage in strawmen.

Carry on.



You really can't seperate the two concepts of disagreeing with something said whilst still respecting someone else can you? You really can't.

1. Um, no...actually, in any "education" discussion political ideology is very relevant..you need to know where a person sits before you allow them to tell you where they stand.
2. The difference between me and...others in this forum is that when I use a fallacy, I KNOW that I am using it.
3. No. I assume that anyone who posits liberal 1deas and ideals is a um...well...you can finish it.
4. I do know what these terms mean in America...you are apparently European? They mean something else there, which often causes confusion.

Yes...I know you are.

That is not necessarily a strawman, but it is the fallacy of absolutes. Yes, I agree...not "all" liberals (American def.) agree with/think this, that or the other thing, but in America, no PUBLIC liberal may move even one tiny toe off the approved Liberal Plantation lest he be burned at the stake. So, I apply the "all" to the larger body of American liberalism with some good cause. I don't have much time for the typical (Playbook) liberal false-lament of "not me!" either.
If a liberal can assume from the beginning that I, as a conservative am (therefore/thereby) an ignorant, unsophisticated, backwoods, racist, sexist, xeno"phobic," homo"phobic" redneck chickenhawk hater, then I can assume the average liberal is what I assume he or she to be.

What's good for the goose....

Thank you. I am pretty practiced at this.

I refer back to long-dead (white male) people because our liberals will not allow them to rest in peace. You see, here, the "American experiment" has been deemd, by our left, as a failure since Washington, Jeffferson et al., owned slaves. It is the LEFT which applies modern sensibilities to the past...this is why they argue every year that we should not celebrate Colombus's discovery of the New World, because of what came after.

For some reason, this is ignored when looking at the Spanish-Mexican culture south of our border and how it came to be.

Tokie

[cyborg]

The difference between me and...others in this forum is that when I use a fallacy, I KNOW that I am using it.

On ignore you go then Troll.

[Mashuna]

If a liberal can assume from the beginning that I, as a conservative am (therefore/thereby) an ignorant, unsophisticated, backwoods, racist, sexist, xeno"phobic," homo"phobic" redneck chickenhawk hater, then I can assume the average liberal is what I assume he or she to be.

What's good for the goose....


Just out of interest, have people been assuming from the beginning that you're ignorant, etc?

[ImaginalDisc]

Just out of interest, have people been assuming from the beginning that you're ignorant, etc?

Because his posts have been devoid of evidence, facts, and logic, but full of racist overtones, xenophobia, and political hackery from the word "go?"

[Loss Leader]

<snip out all ad hom attacks>


And yet still no evidence that the concept of "individualism" was an important theme in revolutionary America.

[drkitten]

Just out of interest, have people been assuming from the beginning that you're ignorant, etc?

No, but Tokie made it clear that he was ignorant, &c. pretty fast.

For example, he entered this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90206&page=6) at post 226, and was engaged relatively civilly by Six7s for four or five posts until he started responding to Six's requests for clarificaition and evidence with his usual "well, I'm wiser than you, so you're just stupid if you don't see instantly how correct I am." By post 250 he was in full-on rant mode.

If he doesn't want people to view him as an "ignorant, unsophisticated, backwoods, racist, sexist, xeno"phobic," homo"phobic" redneck chickenhawk hater," he should do a less convincing impersonation.

[Tokenconservative]

Because his posts have been devoid of evidence, facts, and logic, but full of racist overtones, xenophobia, and political hackery from the word "go?"

And...there it is.

[Loss Leader]

Because his posts have been devoid of evidence, facts, and logic, but full of racist overtones, xenophobia, and political hackery from the word "go?"


It's a shame, too, because I really would have enjoyed a conversation about individualism's place in the evolving myth of the American experience - from Greeley to Virginia Slims.

Sadly, it is not to be.

[Tokenconservative]

No, but Tokie made it clear that he was ignorant, &c. pretty fast.

For example, he entered this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90206&page=6) at post 226, and was engaged relatively civilly by Six7s for four or five posts until he started responding to Six's requests for clarificaition and evidence with his usual "well, I'm wiser than you, so you're just stupid if you don't see instantly how correct I am." By post 250 he was in full-on rant mode.

If he doesn't want people to view him as an "ignorant, unsophisticated, backwoods, racist, sexist, xeno"phobic," homo"phobic" redneck chickenhawk hater," he should do a less convincing impersonation.

I love having stalkers....

You know, it's just as easy to key 'etc.' as '&c.' But I guess '&c.' is "cooler," huh, "Dr."?

I looked through those posts and I don't find any post with my moniker in which I said that.

Liberals ENTER any debate with conservatives with this definition of "conservative": ignorant, unsophisticated, backwoods, racist, sexist homo and xenophobic redneck warmongering, chickenhawk hater.

This is the liberal DEFINITION of "conservative." This is why they do not even think that it's an insult to refer to/call a conservative any of these things and are truly puzzled by conservatives who react with umbrage at being called these things. The liberal reasons: but they ARE these things! It's NOT an insult!!

So I expect liberals to view me that way, whether my impersonation is convincing or not.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

It's a shame, too, because I really would have enjoyed a conversation about individualism's place in the evolving myth of the American experience - from Greeley to Virginia Slims.

Sadly, it is not to be.

LOL. I love the way some will allow themselves to be led by their noses.

Any thinking person can see that I'm not racist. But in today's political climate, it's not the weight of the evidence that matter, but rather the nastiness of the claim.

"Dr" Kittne shrieks "Tokie is clearly a raaacccciisssttt because um...well...he just is!!!" and all the little ducks fall demurely into their proper place behind, walking and quacking along.

I had hoped a forum in this site would offer a...let's call it "better" quality of thinker.

I was mistaken.

Tokie

[Loss Leader]

LOL. I love the way some will allow themselves to be led by their noses.

Any thinking person can see that I'm not racist. But in today's political climate, it's not the weight of the evidence that matter, but rather the nastiness of the claim.

"Dr" Kittne shrieks "Tokie is clearly a raaacccciisssttt because um...well...he just is!!!" and all the little ducks fall demurely into their proper place behind, walking and quacking along.



Um ... please indicate when, if ever, I agreed you were a racist. Perhaps there is evidence of racism and xenophobia in your posts and perhaps there is not. I never considered the subject and I certainly didn't comment on it. I have not accepted such a claim without evidence and I have not asked for evidence. The claim is irrelevant to me.

What I have stated is that you have not answered any of the points I have made regarding the fact that "individualism" was not a theme during revolutionary times. You have not provided contemporaneous sources or, actually, any sources that dispute this. You have not responded to the authority I have cited from Paine, Greeley, Madison, Hamilton and the other guy who wrote the Federalist Papers. All you have doneis repeat your statements without evidence and accuse those who disagree with you of being "liberals."

I assume that you are either unwilling or unable to offer a better argument. Either way, as I said, it's a shame.

[Tokenconservative]

Um ... please indicate when, if ever, I agreed you were a racist. Perhaps there is evidence of racism and xenophobia in your posts and perhaps there is not. I never considered the subject and I certainly didn't comment on it. I have not accepted such a claim without evidence and I have not asked for evidence. The claim is irrelevant to me.

What I have stated is that you have not answered any of the points I have made regarding the fact that "individualism" was not a theme during revolutionary times. You have not provided contemporaneous sources or, actually, any sources that dispute this. You have not responded to the authority I have cited from Paine, Greeley, Madison, Hamilton and the other guy who wrote the Federalist Papers. All you have doneis repeat your statements without evidence and accuse those who disagree with you of being "liberals."

I assume that you are either unwilling or unable to offer a better argument. Either way, as I said, it's a shame.


Hmm..I see. A tip, if I may?

It is probably not a good idea to quote someone who IS accusing another of all sorts of heinous things, and express agreement with them, if you don't actually agree with them, and if you in fact either find what they are saying extraneous, or disagree with it.

It's rather like nodding and smiling when someone talks about how much they love haggis, even though you can't stand the stuff. Anyone watching will think that all that nodding and smiling you are doing is an indicator of your agreement.

As to this other: I am not interested enough in this issue to go digging around in it to that extent.

Tokie

[Loss Leader]

Hmm..I see. A tip, if I may?

It is probably not a good idea to quote someone who IS accusing another of all sorts of heinous things, and express agreement with them, if you don't actually agree with them, and if you in fact either find what they are saying extraneous, or disagree with it.

It's rather like nodding and smiling when someone talks about how much they love haggis, even though you can't stand the stuff. Anyone watching will think that all that nodding and smiling you are doing is an indicator of your agreement.

As to this other: I am not interested enough in this issue to go digging around in it to that extent.



As I said, it's a shame. This is especially true as you were the one who brought the issue up. You will pardon me if I do not take you at our word that you are "not interested enough in this issue."

[cyborg]

So I expect liberals to view me that way,

No, you WANT "liberals" to view you that way because you have a persecution complex - which seems to be proportionally linked to your inability to substantiate any particular view on a subject.

You DO NOT have stalkers - there are plenty people here are more than capable to recall the actions of myriad posters in multiple threads without having to specifically think about doing it at the time. I doubt Dr K gives that much of a crap about you - certainly not as much as your ego would dearly love.

Either way this "Liberal" is "EXITING" this debate with a definition for "Tokenconservative" of (in a language I hear US conservatives understand) "moran."

[Tokenconservative]

As I said, it's a shame. This is especially true as you were the one who brought the issue up. You will pardon me if I do not take you at our word that you are "not interested enough in this issue."

Hmmm...with all due respect, I believe that if you look at the OP, you'll find it's not me.

Best,
Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

No, you WANT "liberals" to view you that way because you have a persecution complex - which seems to be proportionally linked to your inability to substantiate any particular view on a subject.

You DO NOT have stalkers - there are plenty people here are more than capable to recall the actions of myriad posters in multiple threads without having to specifically think about doing it at the time. I doubt Dr K gives that much of a crap about you - certainly not as much as your ego would dearly love.

Either way this "Liberal" is "EXITING" this debate with a definition for "Tokenconservative" of (in a language I hear US conservatives understand) "moran."

Hmmm....so you hold that ID or "Dr" Kitten following me around to virtually every thread I've posted in in this forum and shrieking at me "PROOOOOVVVEEEEEE!!!!!! GLOBAL WARMINGGGGGGGG!!!!!! ISN'T HAPPEEEENNIIGGG!!" is entirely in keeping with the standards of modern, rational discourse and in fact proves these two to be expert at such discourse?

Interesting. I've never looked at it that way, but mayhaps I am in error.

I would HOPE that nobody in here gives "much of a crap" about me. They don't know me. I'm just a relatively random collection of electrons on a screen to them. If they did give much more than "a crap" about me, it would signal serious mental/emotional issues.

Now, far be it from me to say that _I_ don't have serious mental/emotional issues (Gaia knows I've gotten enough free, online mental evaluations from licensed professionals--apparently--all of whom seem to agree I'm a loony!), but at least I don't attach much importance to the maunderings and shrieking of those I encounter in forums like this.

And finally...um...your last paragraph here suggests you may want to adjust your meds.

Tokie

[cyborg]

Interesting. I've never looked at it that way, but mayhaps I am in error.

Hmm... well Dr K has made some 10,000 odd posts. You know, maybe Dr K just gets around a lot? Either way you'll have to ask Dr K. I'm just saying assume incompetence before malice.

And finally...um...your last paragraph here suggests you may want to adjust your meds.

Given what you just said that is fairly ironic. Perhaps you missed the fact I was aping your language patterns and throwing in a bit of cultural reference too? Or do you recognise this and are now making a meta-statement about your own need to 'adjust your meds'?

Oh, there are just so many wonderful ways of thinking about it.

[Tokenconservative]

Hmm... well Dr K has made some 10,000 odd posts. You know, maybe Dr K just gets around a lot? Either way you'll have to ask Dr K. I'm just saying assume incompetence before malice.

Given what you just said that is fairly ironic. Perhaps you missed the fact I was aping your language patterns and throwing in a bit of cultural reference too? Or do you recognise this and are now making a meta-statement about your own need to 'adjust your meds'?

Oh, there are just so many wonderful ways of thinking about it.

Ah, the old "I gots more posts n' you...I must be right!!!" argument.

Yeah...I'm not much of a believer in that.

I am not assuming malice. I am witnessing psychosis. That's the best way to view any "true believer" who exhibits this sort of "burn the heretic!" attitude toward someone with whom they disagree.

I know I am not the most erudite and articulate person in the world, but I should hope my "language patterns" are a bit more I dunno...patterny, than that slop of tossed together words. Perhaps its not a "language pattern" problem on my end but a comprehension problem on yours?

And look: so far, I've not taken any shots at anyone for their not being smart enough to have been born an American. Why do you keep attempting to bait me into such a debate?

I mean...at least you are not French.

Tokie

[Mashuna]

Ah, the old "I gots more posts n' you...I must be right!!!" argument.

Yeah...I'm not much of a believer in that.



Fortunately, that wasn't the argument presented, so no need to worry.

[Tokenconservative]

Fortunately, that wasn't the argument presented, so no need to worry.

Whew! Cuz you know....it really LOOKED like you wuz.

Tokie

[Mashuna]

Whew! Cuz you know....it really LOOKED like you wuz.

Tokie

Well, I was just butting in, so I may be in error.

You accused Dr K of following you about.

Cyborg said that as Dr K has lots of posts, this is an indication of Dr K posting in many places, not just where you post.

You took this as Cyborg claiming Dr K's arguments were right because of the number of posts.

I disagreed with your interpretation.

You posted the part I've quoted above.

I typed this reply (I think we're up to date now).

[cyborg]

Ah, the old "I gots more posts n' you...I must be right!!!" argument.

Yeah. I didn't make it. I am simply making a statement about posting frequency - that is you should expect to see frequent posters more, um... frequently. Yes?

I know I am not the most erudite and articulate person in the world, but I should hope my "language patterns" are a bit more I dunno...patterny, than that slop of tossed together words.

Drawing attention to some particularly salient features here is how my response was based on the pattern you constructed:

Liberals ENTER any debate with conservatives with this definition of "conservative": ignorant, unsophisticated, backwoods, racist, sexist homo and xenophobic redneck warmongering, chickenhawk hater.

Either way this "Liberal" is "EXITING" this debate with a definition for "Tokenconservative" of (in a language I hear US conservatives understand) "moran."

Perhaps its not a "language pattern" problem on my end but a comprehension problem on yours?

And look: so far, I've not taken any shots at anyone for their not being smart enough to have been born an American. Why do you keep attempting to bait me into such a debate?

If you are not deliberately trolling then I will point it out again: you are engaging in precisely the behaviour you are complaining everyone else is trying to make you engage in. As such I simply find such statements as the above amusingly ironic.

[Tokenconservative]

Well, I was just butting in, so I may be in error.

You accused Dr K of following you about.

Cyborg said that as Dr K has lots of posts, this is an indication of Dr K posting in many places, not just where you post.

You took this as Cyborg claiming Dr K's arguments were right because of the number of posts.

I disagreed with your interpretation.

You posted the part I've quoted above.

I typed this reply (I think we're up to date now).


Well, I collect stalkers as others might butterflies....

And you misunderstand: I am sure "Dr" Kitten posts everywhere. I am, as any reasonable person will understand, only talking about her posts that directly pertain to me.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Yeah. I didn't make it. I am simply making a statement about posting frequency - that is you should expect to see frequent posters more, um... frequently. Yes?

Drawing attention to some particularly salient features here is how my response was based on the pattern you constructed:

Liberals ENTER any debate with conservatives with this definition of "conservative": ignorant, unsophisticated, backwoods, racist, sexist homo and xenophobic redneck warmongering, chickenhawk hater.

Either way this "Liberal" is "EXITING" this debate with a definition for "Tokenconservative" of (in a language I hear US conservatives understand) "moran."

If you are not deliberately trolling then I will point it out again: you are engaging in precisely the behaviour you are complaining everyone else is trying to make you engage in. As such I simply find such statements as the above amusingly ironic.

Yeah, someone else tried to make that "posting frequency" argument, too. Pretty weak. Obviously, I am not going out to the "Dining" forum and saying "see!!! SEEEE!!! I said yester day that I like Arby's and "Dr" Kitten said 3 years ago that she like Burger King!!! She's STALKING ME!!!!!"

The fact is she (and ID) have been going into every thread IN HERE that I've been posting in SINCE I ARRIVED and shrieking "prooooovvvveeeee Glogal Warming isn't happpppeeennnniiiingggggggg!!!!" at me, whether the thread is about GW or not.

That's stalking.

Wow. I guess I am even dumber than I thought your "salient points"? Swooosh! RIGHT over my tiny little pinhead!

And what's a "moran"? I used to go to school with a guy NAME Moran...is that who you mean?

No, actually, I am RESPONDING to exactly the behaviour I am identifying. There's a difference, subtle to be sure...but a difference, nonetheless.

And I am not sure why you are so ...brittle about not being an American. I mean, I understand why you might be disappointed, I would be too! Still and all, you seem to have confused me with someone slamming other, lesser countries in here.

Tokie

[cyborg]

Is there any reason why you are not using the quote feature?

That's stalking.

Fair enough - I was not trying to 'prove' to you that Dr K was not 'stalking' you merely trying to provide alternative hypotheses.

As I said your whole persecution complex does not engender any sympathy around these parts. If you want to see everything as adversarial that's your choice but I am not trying to brow beat you.

Wow. I guess I am even dumber than I thought your "salient points"? Swooosh! RIGHT over my tiny little pinhead!

Why do perfectly cromulent words bother you so?

And what's a "moran"? I used to go to school with a guy NAME Moran...is that who you mean?

Maybe you should keep up with the cultural idioms of your chosen political affiliations?

http://memewatch.com/thelist/archives/pix/morans.html

Now before you go ballistic about me making some cheap liberal shot (as if I thought somehow people who automatically subscribe to such political leanings are automatically paragons of rationality) or something please recall that you were talking about how you are stereotyped in a particular way by everyone here because you are a conservative. This is just a more concrete example of that sort of thing that, since you seem to love viewing yourself as being persecuted, I thought you'd enjoy.

No, actually, I am RESPONDING to exactly the behaviour I am identifying.

And what behaviour do you think it is you are responding to? What form do you think your response takes? What are you hoping to achieve?

And I am not sure why you are so ...brittle about not being an American. I mean, I understand why you might be disappointed, I would be too!

Weak.

[Tokenconservative]

Is there any reason why you are not using the quote feature?

Fair enough - I was not trying to 'prove' to you that Dr K was not 'stalking' you merely trying to provide alternative hypotheses.

As I said your whole persecution complex does not engender any sympathy around these parts. If you want to see everything as adversarial that's your choice but I am not trying to brow beat you.

Why do perfectly cromulent words bother you so?

Maybe you should keep up with the cultural idioms of your chosen political affiliations?

http://memewatch.com/thelist/archives/pix/morans.html

Now before you go ballistic about me making some cheap liberal shot (as if I thought somehow people who automatically subscribe to such political leanings are automatically paragons of rationality) or something please recall that you were talking about how you are stereotyped in a particular way by everyone here because you are a conservative. This is just a more concrete example of that sort of thing that, since you seem to love viewing yourself as being persecuted, I thought you'd enjoy.

And what behaviour do you think it is you are responding to? What form do you think your response takes? What are you hoping to achieve?

Weak.

I believe I am using the quote feature.

Um...I guess I have misled you. I am not trying to elicit sympathy, nor is it symptomatic of a "persecution complex." I am making an observation based upon the evidence: I notice that "Dr. Kitten--and ID for a time-- has come into every thread I've posted in and demanded that I prove GW is not happening.

What you are doing is almost like telling a mob guy who has turned state's evidence that he's being paranoid. So what if a little red dot suddenly appears on his forehead?

I don't know what "cromulent" means.

Who/what are the cultural idioms of my "chosen political affiliations" and please explain why it's necessary to "keep up" with them? I am not a liberal. Niether my ideologies nor my morals change depending upon who is being put forth by my movement as my "leader." I have the strenght of my convictions, and those convictions do not waggle in the wind like a stained blue dress on the clothes line.

You'll excuse me if I again admit to having no idea what you are talking about. You'll have to further excuse me for not accessing that link. I rarely do links, and never do them when provided by strangers. Once burned and all that sort of rot.
Moreover, I'm a bit old school. I believe the one making an assertion should provide the actual data (with references where necessary) digested, analyzed and summarized for public consumption, rather than simply relying upon links--LIIIIIINNNKKKSSSS!!!--to carry the weigh of my arguments.

What behavior: again, no idea what you are talking about. You'll have to be more specific or refer back to something I said within your text, as is the customary method.

Form of response: um...words? No..sentences? Overlong paragraphs?

What I hope to acheive: a bit of entertainment.

Tokie

[cyborg]

I believe I am using the quote feature.

Let me clarify then: it is being used but you are not really using it. If you are just going to respond in one contiguous chunk there's not much point quoting me.

Um...I guess I have misled you. I am not trying to elicit sympathy, nor is it symptomatic of a "persecution complex."

The way you behave leads me to conclude otherwise.

I am making an observation based upon the evidence: I notice that "Dr. Kitten--and ID for a time-- has come into every thread I've posted in and demanded that I prove GW is not happening.

Like I said if that's happening then fair enough. You'll just have to take it up with them or report to the mods if they're being off-topic.

If you have no desire to resolve this situation then it is this that leads me to conclude that you want it this way.

What you are doing is almost like telling a mob guy who has turned state's evidence that he's being paranoid. So what if a little red dot suddenly appears on his forehead?

No, what I'm doing is telling you to stop being so melodramatic and, if - and this is a big if - if you want any resolution to the situation that the way you're going about it simply isn't going to work.

I don't know what "cromulent" means.

It's a Simpsons reference.

Used in an ironical sense to mean legitimate, and therefore, in reality, spurious and not at all legitimate. Assumes common knowledge of the inherent Simpsons reference.

Who/what are the cultural idioms of my "chosen political affiliations" and please explain why it's necessary to "keep up" with them?

A cultural idiom is, essentially, a little identifiable bit of culture. It is not necessary to keep up with any of them unless you want to be able to understand them when they crop up.

I am not a liberal.

I think we are all perfectly clear on this point.

Niether my ideologies nor my morals change depending upon who is being put forth by my movement as my "leader."

I don't understand what this has to do with anything I've said.

I have the strenght of my convictions, and those convictions do not waggle in the wind like a stained blue dress on the clothes line.

Again, I don't get the relevance here.

You'll excuse me if I again admit to having no idea what you are talking about.

Ignorance is excusable. The desire to remain ignorant is not.

You'll have to further excuse me for not accessing that link. I rarely do links, and never do them when provided by strangers. Once burned and all that sort of rot.

It is your choice not to trust me. The image linked is quite harmless though.

Moreover, I'm a bit old school. I believe the one making an assertion should provide the actual data (with references where necessary) digested, analyzed and summarized for public consumption, rather than simply relying upon links--LIIIIIINNNKKKSSSS!!!--to carry the weigh of my arguments.

Links form references to data - it is hence a provision of it. If you choose not to follow links for whatever reason that is your choice but it is no good then complaining that the other person has not met their burden.

What behavior: again, no idea what you are talking about. You'll have to be more specific or refer back to something I said within your text, as is the customary method.

I cannot tell you what behaviour it is you think you are responding to when you tell me you are responding to a behaviour.

Form of response: um...words? No..sentences? Overlong paragraphs?

Describing the typography of your response doesn't really enlighten me as to your semantic intent.

What I hope to acheive: a bit of entertainment.

And what is your entertainment contingent on? I don't doubt that pretty much everyone who comes here does so to be 'entertained'. The question is by what means you wish to extract it.

[fishbob]

Numbered for my convenience:

1 - This is a standard argument of those on the hate/blame America first side (liberals). You can now claim it is not your own (the SOP "well...that's them, it's not ME!" argument), but what you MEANT by your statement about the slaves is clear to anyone able to think his or her way out of a wet paper sack.

2 - That argument is: since the US (gov't, culture, whatever) is not PERFECT, was not founded in perfection (see: slavery; see: women's rights, see: Indians, etc., etc.) then it should, as we have learned it must be from our Lords Zinn and Chomsky, be decried as a failure, complete.

3 - I take a...different view. I take the view that yes, our nation has and always has had its flaws, has done some bad things, even some truly terrible things (see: Tuskeegee), but that in context and and on balance, it has done, as a nation, far more good in the world than bad, and far more good in the world than has any other nation in history.

4 - This, of course is utter anathema to a left-liberal.

5 - So be it. Because of the freedoms our form of government allows you express, you are free to be wrong in your thinking. I wonder: could you go to say, N. Korea and in a public school there, tell your students what a corrupt, failed place N. Korea is? Could you have done so in Russian, circa 1985? Germany, circa 1942? England, circa 1776?

6 - My description of individualism is an ideal. Can ideals ever be achieved. Maybe, maybe not. In context, at the time, the founding of this nation signalled the first time in history since the Roman republic collapsed (and this was far from the perfection you demand, as was the Greek democracy before it) when the individual was recognized as having to bow to no man (nor even his government).

7 - You don't like this, and so you pretend that this was not the intent of the Founders because they, in their ignorant, benighted state of white maleness, forgot to extend this to wymyn, or slaves or Indians or fillintheblank.

8 - This, then says: since it was not perfect, it should be dismissed.

9 - I think what you said was quite clear.

10 - Tokie

1 - BS. Complete and utter BS.
2 - BS. Complete and utter BS.
3 - Perfectly reasonable. I wonder what response would be generated by pointing out additional 'terrible things'.
4 - BS. Complete and utter BS.
5 - Irrelevant
6 - Perfectly reasonable except for the "the perfection you demand" part. Just couldn't resist a quick dip back into the BS?
7 - BS. Complete and utter BS.
8 - BS. Complete and utter BS.
9 - Yes it was.
10 - Yes you are.

From this analysis, Tokie appears quite capable of reasoned discourse, but chooses hide the valid bits of his posts beneath the layers of thick steaming brownness. Why would somebody do this? Unless he has an AM radio talk-show, what would be the point?

[Ancestor]

I suggest we begin to send out the generation ships ASAP.

[Tokenconservative]

Let me clarify then: it is being used but you are not really using it. If you are just going to respond in one contiguous chunk there's not much point quoting me.
The way you behave leads me to conclude otherwise.
Like I said if that's happening then fair enough. You'll just have to take it up with them or report to the mods if they're being off-topic.
If you have no desire to resolve this situation then it is this that leads me to conclude that you want it this way.
No, what I'm doing is telling you to stop being so melodramatic and, if - and this is a big if - if you want any resolution to the situation that the way you're going about it simply isn't going to work.
It's a Simpsons reference.
A cultural idiom is, essentially, a little identifiable bit of culture. It is not necessary to keep up with any of them unless you want to be able to understand them when they crop up.
I think we are all perfectly clear on this point.
I don't understand what this has to do with anything I've said.
Again, I don't get the relevance here.
Ignorance is excusable. The desire to remain ignorant is not.
It is your choice not to trust me. The image linked is quite harmless though.
Links form references to data - it is hence a provision of it. If you choose not to follow links for whatever reason that is your choice but it is no good then complaining that the other person has not met their burden.
I cannot tell you what behaviour it is you think you are responding to when you tell me you are responding to a behaviour.
Describing the typography of your response doesn't really enlighten me as to your semantic intent.
And what is your entertainment contingent on? I don't doubt that pretty much everyone who comes here does so to be 'entertained'. The question is by what means you wish to extract it.

That first bit sounds like a challenge...

I don't report things to the mods. Ever. I'm a big boy. I give no quarter and expect none in return. I WILL back off if it becomes apparent to me that I am dealing with a kid, howmsoever.

I don't mind the acrimony, if that's what you are saying. And it's not meladrama, it's observation. You may imbue my words with whatever "tone" you wish when reading them. I can assure you I am not sitting here blowing a blood vessel over any of this. I am not subject to nervous breakdowns because I am a carrier.

I prefer South Park or Zim references. Much more intellectual.

I watch South Park. I keep up with all the American cultural idioms. And some of the ferrin ones...not that they really matter.

A better way of putting it: stupidity is genetic, ignorance is not. More importantly, on the issue at hand, I find that many are agressively ignorant.

I am sure the link is harmless. It is still my policy.

Yes, it is quite right to claim the other has not met their burden. It is not up to ME to run about reading stuff to prove YOUR argument. It is one thing to provide a link as a reference to what you are using as evidence in your argument, rather like an old guy like me would refer back to a particular book, article, etc. I would not simply fax you a copy of the book and tell you "you read this then figure out what argument I am making."

This, by the way, is another part of the directed "dumbing down" of Americans, taking away the ability (purposefully) to engage in rational discourse.

I can't tell you what behavior it is you say I am responding to when you tell me that I am responding to a behavior you are responding to.

Sure it does. I told you my caps are emphasis, for my ease, rather than selecting and italacizing...you take it as screaming if you will. The context should tell you it's not, but that's up to you.

Entertainment: Indeed.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Numbered for my convenience:


1 - BS. Complete and utter BS.
2 - BS. Complete and utter BS.
3 - Perfectly reasonable. I wonder what response would be generated by pointing out additional 'terrible things'.
4 - BS. Complete and utter BS.
5 - Irrelevant
6 - Perfectly reasonable except for the "the perfection you demand" part. Just couldn't resist a quick dip back into the BS?
7 - BS. Complete and utter BS.
8 - BS. Complete and utter BS.
9 - Yes it was.
10 - Yes you are.

From this analysis, Tokie appears quite capable of reasoned discourse, but chooses hide the valid bits of his posts beneath the layers of thick steaming brownness. Why would somebody do this? Unless he has an AM radio talk-show, what would be the point?


Of course I am able to engage in reasoned, rational discourse. Better than most in here, even better than those who find it necessary to trumpet their high level of "education." Of course, in the interwebby I can be an astronaut, if I want.

But you are correct: I can engage in very reasoned discourse when _I_ want to. I control the horizontal, I control the vertical....

And I like piling on thick steaming brownness where it best applies.

I am assuming you are talking about brownies fresh from the oven, of course.

Tokie

[Mashuna]

I'm a bit old school. I believe the one making an assertion should provide the actual data (with references where necessary) digested, analyzed and summarized for public consumption, rather than simply relying upon links--LIIIIIINNNKKKSSSS!!!--to carry the weigh of my arguments.


Cool - when are you going to start?

[cyborg]

That first bit sounds like a challenge...

Yes, to you I'm sure it would. Your personality defect is not conducive to effective communication here however.

If you are challenging me to act in such a way I gracefully concede.

I keep up with all the American cultural idioms.

Except the ones you are totally unaware of.

I find that many are agressively ignorant.

Yes. It would appear so.

It is not up to ME to run about reading stuff to prove YOUR argument.

If you do not read communication cannot occur in a medium dominated by text.

is another part of the directed "dumbing down" of American

No. If you request evidence providing sources is the de facto standard here if no where else. Especially since this place is full of scientists for whom this is the norm.

I can't tell you what behavior it is you say I am responding to when you tell me that I am responding to a behavior you are responding to.

I see.

Sure it does. I told you my caps are emphasis, for my ease, rather than selecting and italacizing...you take it as screaming if you will. The context should tell you it's not, but that's up to you.

There is no context for this sentence.

[cyborg]

Of course I am able to engage in reasoned, rational discourse. Better than most in here,

And you measure this ability how?

Of course, in the interwebby I can be an astronaut, if I want.

No, you can claim to be an astronaut. You do not actually become one.

And I like piling on thick steaming brownness where it best applies.

Yes. I think it's quite clear the threshold level required for you to start acting aggressively.

[Tokenconservative]

Cool - when are you going to start?

When I run across someone able to do the same.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Yes, to you I'm sure it would. Your personality defect is not conducive to effective communication here however.

If you are challenging me to act in such a way I gracefully concede.

Except the ones you are totally unaware of.

Yes. It would appear so.

If you do not read communication cannot occur in a medium dominated by text.

No. If you request evidence providing sources is the de facto standard here if no where else. Especially since this place is full of scientists for whom this is the norm.

I see.

There is no context for this sentence.

First, since the quote feature of this forum works the way it does, you need to do a little more work.

Challenge: Ah...another free psychological assesment via the interwebby! I should probably start catloging these.

Reading: What's this "r-reading" of which you speak?

Evidence: Let's try this: you show me ONE article in ANY professional journal publication where the worker(s) say, "we don't have time here to actually make our assertions, so we suggest you, dear reader, go look up these other publications, read them, then come back here and agree with our conclusions! Just ONE.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

And you measure this ability how?

No, you can claim to be an astronaut. You do not actually become one.

Yes. I think it's quite clear the threshold level required for you to start acting aggressively.

By cubits.

But online I can claim to be anything I want...like say, a Dr.

You call it "agressive" I call it assertive. To-may-to (wimpy), to-mah-to (manly).

Tokie

[catbasket]

TC (may I call you TC?), as a lurker on this thread I have to say that your posts here come across as incredibly arrogant. Nothing personal, just thought you might need reminding that all we "see" of you is your posts.

Here's a song I wrote for you:

Tokie!
The most effectual Tokie!
Whose intellectual close friends get to call him T.C.
Providing it's with dignity.
Tokie!
The indisputable leader of the gang.
He's the boss, he's a VIP, he's the championship.
He's the most tip top,
Tokie.
Yes, he's the chief, he's the king,
But above everything,
He's the most tip top,
Tokie!


Snow - leftist wimpy USA-loving Welsh liberal.

[Complexity]

Off-topic :

Don't you think you have to be smart to earn wealth?


How old are you?

[Tokenconservative]

TC (may I call you TC?), as a lurker on this thread I have to say that your posts here come across as incredibly arrogant. Nothing personal, just thought you might need reminding that all we "see" of you is your posts.

Here's a song I wrote for you:

Tokie!
The most effectual Tokie!
Whose intellectual close friends get to call him T.C.
Providing it's with dignity.
Tokie!
The indisputable leader of the gang.
He's the boss, he's a VIP, he's the championship.
He's the most tip top,
Tokie.
Yes, he's the chief, he's the king,
But above everything,
He's the most tip top,
Tokie!


Snow - leftist wimpy USA-loving Welsh liberal.

You can call me anything you like, as long as you don't call me late for dinner...

I have noticed over much time on this here interwebby thingy (actually, going all the way back to when you had to go to bulletin board thingies) that anyone who vehemently disagrees with you and engages you with any level of spirited debate is "arrogant" while those of a more...milquetoast, turn-the-other-cheek sort and of course, anyone who agrees with you are the most, well, agreeable sorts.

And boring.

Love the song. Any ideas for a tune to put it to? "Windy," perhaps?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

How old are you?

Yes...that's an odd thing to say, isn't it?

I've known a number of "internet whizkids" who stumbled into something they could market to people confused about what the 'net was and would become and what it would do for them back oh, circa 1994-2000 for whom "smart" is not one of those adjectives that leaps most readily to mind when I think about them.

And they now have homes in Bermuda.

I've also known a number of people who "earned" their wealth primarily by making very wise choices in parents.

That's not to say there are not some very smart people out there who have done very smart things to earn their wealth and even the odd sort who is smart despite having inherited theirs.

But the existence of those who are wealthy but stupid (Paris Hilton, anyone) almost to the flatworm level, puts paid to the argument that you have to be "smart" to be or even become wealthy.

Example: many in here insist that I aspire to the intellectual heights of a Paris Hilton, but many in here would also call me "wealthy" if they know me better.

Tokie