Gurdur

Indeed. Invitation seconded.

Oxymoron

You are kidding, aren't you?

If we convert Islamic countries like Malaysia in this way, where will we build the exploitative sweat-shops to manufacture trainers that make such products affordable?

galiel

I'm still trying to parse this impressive example of AOJ (academic obscurantist jargonosis).

I'm just a simple,self-educated guy trying to make an actual difference in the real world. No offense, but I can't remember the last time a starving villager, flogged woman or homeless refugee worried about whether the neoclassical framework, which derives its methodology from 19th century deductivism, has provided a sufficent empirical basis to make it credible.

Gurdur

Tsk, Galiel, here you shoot yourself in the foot.
JoeJoeJoe, who is a very honest person, and does a very good job at thinking things through, made a very decent inviation to you to join our thread.

Possibly it would have been far more wise of you to have simply accepted the invitatioon, rather than slamming JoeJoeJoe for his language or his concerns on a very non-essential point.

Naw. Bet you went through all grades at school.

And I could easily win at a competition of being a "simple guy". I used to be a trade union organizer, I've been through a couple of nasty strikes, I'm involved in African humanitarian aid and development.

As am I. Or JoeJoeJoe.

Really, Galiel, no offence, but I can't remember the last time I've seen someone who can quite so quickly destroy their own support, and drive off potential friends, simply by getting their nose up in the air so emphatically.

galiel

What about this board makes so many people think that this is about "building" support, or making friends? I am not running for office, have no interest in being popular here if it means not being honest, and act in absolutely no official capacity on this board.

I honestly don't understand why people feel the need to inject their posts with such opaque jargon. Of course, you choose not to believe that I mean what I say, you choose to read into it all sorts of hidden meanings. That is your choice, and your mistake. Perhaps you are simply unaccustomed to people who say what they think, not what people want to hear.

Having a prodigious vocabulary, as well as my own areas of professional expertise, I can play the jargon game as well as anybody. I certainly do not believe in limiting posts to monosyllabic grunts, and I hope that when people encounter an unfamiliar word here, they do as I do, immediately look up its meaning in a dicitonary (one of the main ways I developed the large vocabulary I have mastered).

I believe, however, that any idea that cannot be expressed in common English is either

a) Not suffiently thought-through, or,
b) deliberately exclusive and obscurantist.

By its very tone, the sentence in question excludes anyone who cares about the issues we have discussed but doesn't have an extensive academic grounding in its theoretical underpinnings. Since we are talking about a potential course of action, not a philosophical debate about theoretical constructs, I don't see the utility of communicating with jargon.

Note that your entire objection to my post has NOTHING to say about its content. It is all a critique of

1) its tone
2) your perception about the purpose of communicating ideas
3) your assumptions about my hidden agendas
4) personality clashes.

With respect, you or the poster could have chosen to respond with an explanation, in simple English, of what the phrase meant, and what its relevance was as a qualifier to the invitation.

No apology here for being honest. I'll choose integrity over popularity any day.

Gurdur

LOL, Galiel, you'll have to put in much more work to convince me your response indicated integrity, rather than a peevish reverse snobbery.

As for your supposed honesty, it's both irrelevant here, and unsubstantiated.

As for your demanding an explanation, it's irrelevant to the point I was making.

As for the argument you advance, first off you complain in Bugs&Complaints that people are more interested in personal abuse than in factual discussion, then you indulge in snobbery when invited to some factual discussion.
Now, just what is wrong with this picture ?

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

galiel

What makes you think discussions here are about proving user's integrity to you? Simply respond to what is written, to the content of people's ideas. You have shown your ability to do that very well. Don't turn this particular conversation into an obsessive quest to "win" rhetorical points. Let's either talk about the topic or not talk at all.

ad hom.

No demand was made. Please read what is written and respond to it, rather than engaging in all sorts of logical fallacies.

Perhaps what is wrong is that you are creating a false one. I find it quite ironic to call a plea for accessible language and indulgence in snobbery, and I find your entire post to be a pot calling a kettle black.

I still await an explanation of what that sentence of joejoejoe's meant, and what relevance it had to this discussion.

You may decide that I am insincere, in fact it seems you approached this whole conversation with that conclusion already fast in your mind. This brings into further question the sincerity of your invitation.I will take into account whenever I encounter you that you think I am a liar. Don't expect me to jump at your invitations.

I welcome joejoejoe's take on this, and look forward to his explaining to me what the sentence meant. It still seems to me that the invitation was tainted by a kind of jargonesque hoop through which I had to jump before deemed worthy to participate.

You are engaging in a typical game here on the boards, ignoring substance and attacking personality. It is another indication of the pathological culture that permeates this board.

avalanche:ix

"Actually, I'm tempted to say stark raving bonkers."

not my concern.

"Let's see why:
When people form attitudes, usually they build most upon some version of their parents, or a mirror-image, plus some tweaking to resolve contradictions or missing elements that are emotionally important to them."

irrelevant.


"No atheist is necessarily more "rational" than a theist."

i must disagree, and point at you and then mock you.

"Theism on the whole is not necessarily irrational, it's simply mistaken, quite a different kettle of fish; and unless you understand the difference, you will not understand religion."

i scarcely need to understand it in order to eliminate it.

"More than that, you fail to grasp completely why many people accept the institutions of religions, without accepting completely all the particular religion.
It's because, on the whole, they feel the need to have a symbol of ethics - a symbol of what is good, as an aim and goal, or inspiration."

spare me the lecture on human psychology, i understand these matters quite well, i just don't think it matters to what i envision. i could care less about what they want.


"Now onto neurology: just how do you imagine implants can increase rational thought ?"

rewire neurological pathways, i do actually have some neurologists/scientists as acquintances who do agree it's possible some time in the near future.

"Twaddle. By the way, who gets to build the implants ?"

korea.


"This idea has being mooted in various forms since the middle half of the 19th century. It has even been attempted on several occasions.
Each and every time the idea is mooted, it either is ignored, put into practice or disproven.
Each and every time it has been put into action, it has failed miserably."

i would hardly call communism a failure. sure, it's principal power collapsed, but that is not an argument against the efficiency of communism, as demonstrated by that other big communist power.
the soviet union was able to mass-produce and bear armies on a scale and speed no nationstate has been able to match.


"Now what do you think we learn from that ? hmmmm ?"

try harder.


"Naw, it's about psychology, cognition and ethics. Oh, and practicality."

i am not responsible for your lack of vision.

Devilnaut

Galiel (and forgive me for going off topic), the "thing" about this board is that it is a place for discussion. Discussion is extremely difficult when your discussion partner is not genuinely interested in your ideas or your opinions, only in analyzing and debunking them. It's not about "making friends", it's about not making enemies to the extent that someone will still be willing to share their ideas with you. If all you ever do is treat every discussion like some sort of contest to see who can demolish the opposition the fastest, nobody is going to want to bother even speaking to you.

Forgive me for saying but you really don't seem the least bit interested in anything anyone has to say. And once this is perceived by others, not many people will spend a lot of time preparing substantial posts directed at you. This isn't a big contest, it's a discussion and a sharing of ideas.

Your posts across the board seem to indicate that you find an absolute lack of value in anything whatsoever that doesn't align with your preconceived notions of what "should be".

Anyway sorry to digress.

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Gurdur

Nor is your little theory any concern of the world's, since it's so off-the-planet.

You'll have to do better than this if you wish to make a rational argument.

Since you already seem to have lept to false conclusions, your mocking of me seems to me to be a bit like being savaged by a sick sheep. But go ahead anyway !

Ah, delusions of grandeur and omnipotence. I'm sure we'll all happily observe while you elimnate theism.

Doubtful, very.

Ah, you prefer fantasy uninterrupted by facts.
OK, now I see.

You still haven't explained how that is supposed to increase rationalism.
In my very considered scientific opinion, I humbly think you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ah, the light dawns. You wish to troll.


Actually, it would be worse if you were responsible for my vision.