You did. You quoted my entire post didn't you? Next time be more specific as to what you're refering when you blanket an entire post with a clever one-liner.
Furthermore, my response to art has nothing to do with you. So it led me even more to believe that you were just lazy and quoted the entire post rather than just the last part.
Let it be known that YOU alone created the hostility that was present in this thread. The suggestion that I have "blinders" on is one that could have been handled in a different, far less hostile manner. Good going.
Um by what stretch in reasoning am I starting a discussion on something being liberal or conservative when I quote your post saying that pseudo-patriotism comes mostly from conservatives?
You wrote it... you started it. It wasn't even in the discussion and you added it. Of course you do this in every thread so... big surprise there.
Then on top of it you declare that any judgements of any sort are now "hostile."... just wonderful.
The only thing that makes this so enjoyable is you just keep proving the point more and more.
Your worldview is so narrow that to disagree with you is equivalent to hostility.
[quote]blind·er n.
1. blinders A pair of leather flaps attached to a horse's bridle to curtail side vision. Also called blinkers.
2. Something that serves to obscure clear perception and discernment.
<hr></blockquote>
I quoted your entire post because I referred to the entire post.
Your conclusions are easy to find within the longer post.
[quote]That flag symbolized how American "blind pseudo-patriots" metaphorically desecrate the flag.
I'd like to go further and say that conservatives comprise most of that group. <hr></blockquote>
It's quite easy to see the rather odd leap you are making here. You go from art to bashing conservatives. My contention is that you go from pretty much anything to bashing conservatives. Hence the blinders....
DO conservatives comprise most of the blind patriots or not? That is the question, not what you think about how I look at art, not any comments about how narrow minded you think I am, not about the concept of bashing conservatives.
The question is DO conservatives comprise most of the blind patriots or not?
We can generalize that most people tend to get more conservative as they age. Why would it be so hard for conservatives to just say that "yeah, a few of our own take patriotism a bit too far and in the process create some sort of blind-patriotism?"
These are legitimate questions. What kind of person is more likely to be a "blind patriot?"
<strong>DO conservatives comprise most of the blind patriots or not? That is the question, not what you think about how I look at art, not any comments about how narrow minded you think I am, not about the concept of bashing conservatives.
The question is DO conservatives comprise most of the blind patriots or not?
We can generalize that most people tend to get more conservative as they age. Why would it be so hard for conservatives to just say that "yeah, a few of our own take patriotism a bit too far and in the process create some sort of blind-patriotism?"
Bzzzzzz....sorry.... we have some nice parting gifts for you. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote] However, part of being a patriot is the inherent desire to improve one's country. Part of that desire involves listening to criticism. I don't care who the source of the criticism is or what country they reside in or how corrupt their country is. That alone does not invalidate the criticism. It sickens me when I see these alleged American patriots do everything they can to dodge the issue.<hr></blockquote>
BR even goes to great lengths to say that he doesn't care about the source.
Hijacking the thread and changing it to be about conservative-bashing is....well what you do in about every thread... but still it isn't appropriate or on topic.
Now back to the point I was trying to originally make...
I certainly don't mind criticizing the U.S. or the government in particular. I think the thing that gets most people up in arms are issues from outsiders that pretend to be policy or criticism and in reality are measures intended to bring down America or seriously knock us down a peg or two.
When I look at the excuses cited here, they seem to me to simply be ways of asking if the party criticizing has any sort of moral or ethical high ground. I mean if you are saying someone is wrong, it is sort of de facto to others that you are saying you are right. People that question if someone has the high ground aren't "blind patriots."
Lastly I would say that in this world there are indeed dirty jobs to get done. Not everything is clean, neat, and has clearly delineated "sides." The fact that such problems do exist is often used as a means of criticizing the parties willing to deal with it rather than just the nature of the problem.
<strong>I certainly don't mind criticizing the U.S. or the government in particular. I think the thing that gets most people up in arms are issues from outsiders that pretend to be policy or criticism and in reality are measures intended to bring down America or seriously knock us down a peg or two.
When I look at the excuses cited here, they seem to me to simply be ways of asking if the party criticizing has any sort of moral or ethical high ground. I mean if you are saying someone is wrong, it is sort of de facto to others that you are saying you are right. People that question if someone has the high ground aren't "blind patriots."
Lastly I would say that in this world there are indeed dirty jobs to get done. Not everything is clean, neat, and has clearly delineated "sides." The fact that such problems do exist is often used as a means of criticizing the parties willing to deal with it rather than just the nature of the problem.
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
I contend who has the moral high ground matters none. It is ultimately the message that matters. Who cares if it is intended to knock us down a peg or two? If the claim has the potential of being valid, it should be examined and we should continue to work to improve ourselves. Mere words cannot hurt us. If the words are untrue, they shall be exposed as such. If the words have even the slightest bit of truth to them, we should put our effort into correcting the problem instead of bashing the source of the criticism.
I contend who has the moral high ground matters none. It is ultimately the message that matters. Who cares if it is intended to knock us down a peg or two? If the claim has the potential of being valid, it should be examined and we should continue to work to improve ourselves. Mere words cannot hurt us. If the words are untrue, they shall be exposed as such. If the words have even the slightest bit of truth to them, we should put our effort into correcting the problem instead of bashing the source of the criticism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe this generally does happen. However we often already have efforts in place and the criticism deals with those efforts. When you are pointing out a problem, I believe you correct in saying that regardless of the source we should make attempts to correct the problem.
However when you move on to criticism of the solution, you are doing two things. One you are clearly delineating how our own time, energies and resources are to be used. Secondly you are saying that you could use all these things in a better manner.
That to me does denote a need for a high ground. When we put our efforts into something that is one thing, when someone else wants to direct our efforts for us... that is another.
I believe this generally does happen. However we often already have efforts in place and the criticism deals with those efforts. When you are pointing out a problem, I believe you correct in saying that regardless of the source we should make attempts to correct the problem.
However when you move on to criticism of the solution, you are doing two things. One you are clearly delineating how our own time, energies and resources are to be used. Secondly you are saying that you could use all these things in a better manner.
That to me does denote a need for a high ground. When we put our efforts into something that is one thing, when someone else wants to direct our efforts for us... that is another.
Why can't one criticize a solution even if they don't have a leg to stand on? If the criticism of the solution is valid, that is all that matters.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And how do you determine if something is more "valid" when discussing allocation of more or less time, money, and energy on the solution to a problem?
You could contend that exercising 3 times a week is fine. I could say I want you to exercise 4, buy this weight equipment and eat this way.
You would turn to me and say, I should listen to you because.....especially if I am attempting to allocate your resources.
That is why I say there needs to be a higher ground from which the criticism is coming.
Besides how many people would you listen to for whom you could basically say "Do as I say, not as I do."
Exactly. When I'm reading posts, I try to ignore who the poster is. I want to judge each post based on its own intellectual merit--not on preconceived notions about the intentions of the poster. Critical statements about America (or any other issue for that matter) should be judged alone based on their own merits.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
Since when BR? You got a laugh out of me with this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Obviously you are referring to how I respond to your posts. Well, sorry to say it but there is often little or no intellectual merit in them...especially when you are talking about science. However, please know that I don't prejudge or ignore your posts even with your track record. I isolate each post from its poster and give each an equal chance. It's not like this takes any extra effort. This is how I normally read anything.
And how do you determine if something is more "valid" when discussing allocation of more or less time, money, and energy on the solution to a problem?
You could contend that exercising 3 times a week is fine. I could say I want you to exercise 4, buy this weight equipment and eat this way.
You would turn to me and say, I should listen to you because.....especially if I am attempting to allocate your resources.
That is why I say there needs to be a higher ground from which the criticism is coming.
Besides how many people would you listen to for whom you could basically say "Do as I say, not as I do."
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
Honestly, sometimes the best criticisms come from those that aren't deeply involved in the topic at hand. A new perspective can be a very good thing. Look, if the suggestion itself is stupid and you are an expert, feel free to ignore it. However, whether or not a solution is ignored should be based on the merits of the solution itself and not the credentials of the person who wrote the solution.
What happens if an anonymous solution to a world problem is posted and it is very very good? It is the best thing you have ever read in your life? Then it is found out that a 14 year old boy wrote it. Do you just ignore it now because he doesn't have the same world experience as you? No. You don't.
Obviously you are referring to how I respond to your posts. Well, sorry to say it but there is often little or no intellectual merit in them...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You've been taking lessons from The Master? Just curious...
It's those little pipeline zingers that get me every time...
Honestly, sometimes the best criticisms come from those that aren't deeply involved in the topic at hand. A new perspective can be a very good thing. Look, if the suggestion itself is stupid and you are an expert, feel free to ignore it. However, whether or not a solution is ignored should be based on the merits of the solution itself and not the credentials of the person who wrote the solution.
What happens if an anonymous solution to a world problem is posted and it is very very good? It is the best thing you have ever read in your life? Then it is found out that a 14 year old boy wrote it. Do you just ignore it now because he doesn't have the same world experience as you? No. You don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose what you say could basically not be ruled out, however I consider it a statistically unlikely. Obviously it works much better in the abstract rather than in reality.
I mean I suppose that when the U.S. is criticized for something like Kyoto, that a 14 year old somewhere could know the exact way our entire country could reduce emmisions, create new technologies and maybe even new industries while costing the actual economy as little as possible.
I suppose again it is possible for this messanic 14 year old to know more than rooms full of people with advanced degrees. However again I consider it unlikely.
Most of the time lack of experience = naive solutions that are unsophisticated in their means of dealing with complex problems.
Perhaps you could be a bit less abstract and suggest a scenario, even if it is hypothetical, where the U.S. has dismissed a solution better than their own solution from a party that had a) a better solution b) nothing to gain (not deeply involved and a fresh face)
I suppose what you say could basically not be ruled out, however I consider it a statistically unlikely. Obviously it works much better in the abstract rather than in reality.
I mean I suppose that when the U.S. is criticized for something like Kyoto, that a 14 year old somewhere could know the exact way our entire country could reduce emmisions, create new technologies and maybe even new industries while costing the actual economy as little as possible.
I suppose again it is possible for this messanic 14 year old to know more than rooms full of people with advanced degrees. However again I consider it unlikely.
Most of the time lack of experience = naive solutions that are unsophisticated in their means of dealing with complex problems.
Perhaps you could be a bit less abstract and suggest a scenario, even if it is hypothetical, where the U.S. has dismissed a solution better than their own solution from a party that had a) a better solution b) nothing to gain (not deeply involved and a fresh face)
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
Third parties are dismissed all the time for being "too radical."
Anyway, what I really wanted to say was that sometimes a fresh perspective can lead to the best results. I am a computer tech at an elementary school. I'm very good at what I do. However, every once in a while I am utterly frustrated by a problem that makes no sense and refuses to go away. Sometimes I'll explain the problem to someone who knows very little about computers and they will sometimes give what I think are the dumbest suggestions...but you know what? Some of those suggestions I thought were just ref**kingdiciulous actually worked. They didn't have preconceived notions of how things were supposed to work and it was the lack of such bias that allowed them to come up with a creative solution that I would have never thought of.
Look...if you see something that says "IRAK R TEH SUK BOM THEM," sure...ignore it. However, don't just dismiss things outright because of lack of experience. It is sometimes the lack of bias that comes with that experience that can help lead to the best solutions.
Comments
<strong>
You did. You quoted my entire post didn't you? Next time be more specific as to what you're refering when you blanket an entire post with a clever one-liner.
Furthermore, my response to art has nothing to do with you. So it led me even more to believe that you were just lazy and quoted the entire post rather than just the last part.
Let it be known that YOU alone created the hostility that was present in this thread. The suggestion that I have "blinders" on is one that could have been handled in a different, far less hostile manner. Good going.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um by what stretch in reasoning am I starting a discussion on something being liberal or conservative when I quote your post saying that pseudo-patriotism comes mostly from conservatives?
You wrote it... you started it. It wasn't even in the discussion and you added it. Of course you do this in every thread so... big surprise there.
Then on top of it you declare that any judgements of any sort are now "hostile."... just wonderful.
The only thing that makes this so enjoyable is you just keep proving the point more and more.
Your worldview is so narrow that to disagree with you is equivalent to hostility.
[quote]blind·er n.
1. blinders A pair of leather flaps attached to a horse's bridle to curtail side vision. Also called blinkers.
2. Something that serves to obscure clear perception and discernment.
<hr></blockquote>
I quoted your entire post because I referred to the entire post.
Your conclusions are easy to find within the longer post.
[quote]That flag symbolized how American "blind pseudo-patriots" metaphorically desecrate the flag.
I'd like to go further and say that conservatives comprise most of that group. <hr></blockquote>
It's quite easy to see the rather odd leap you are making here. You go from art to bashing conservatives. My contention is that you go from pretty much anything to bashing conservatives. Hence the blinders....
Nick
The question is DO conservatives comprise most of the blind patriots or not?
We can generalize that most people tend to get more conservative as they age. Why would it be so hard for conservatives to just say that "yeah, a few of our own take patriotism a bit too far and in the process create some sort of blind-patriotism?"
These are legitimate questions. What kind of person is more likely to be a "blind patriot?"
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<strong>DO conservatives comprise most of the blind patriots or not? That is the question, not what you think about how I look at art, not any comments about how narrow minded you think I am, not about the concept of bashing conservatives.
The question is DO conservatives comprise most of the blind patriots or not?
We can generalize that most people tend to get more conservative as they age. Why would it be so hard for conservatives to just say that "yeah, a few of our own take patriotism a bit too far and in the process create some sort of blind-patriotism?"
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bzzzzzz....sorry.... we have some nice parting gifts for you. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote] However, part of being a patriot is the inherent desire to improve one's country. Part of that desire involves listening to criticism. I don't care who the source of the criticism is or what country they reside in or how corrupt their country is. That alone does not invalidate the criticism. It sickens me when I see these alleged American patriots do everything they can to dodge the issue.<hr></blockquote>
BR even goes to great lengths to say that he doesn't care about the source.
Hijacking the thread and changing it to be about conservative-bashing is....well what you do in about every thread... but still it isn't appropriate or on topic.
Now back to the point I was trying to originally make...
I certainly don't mind criticizing the U.S. or the government in particular. I think the thing that gets most people up in arms are issues from outsiders that pretend to be policy or criticism and in reality are measures intended to bring down America or seriously knock us down a peg or two.
When I look at the excuses cited here, they seem to me to simply be ways of asking if the party criticizing has any sort of moral or ethical high ground. I mean if you are saying someone is wrong, it is sort of de facto to others that you are saying you are right. People that question if someone has the high ground aren't "blind patriots."
Lastly I would say that in this world there are indeed dirty jobs to get done. Not everything is clean, neat, and has clearly delineated "sides." The fact that such problems do exist is often used as a means of criticizing the parties willing to deal with it rather than just the nature of the problem.
Nick
<strong>I certainly don't mind criticizing the U.S. or the government in particular. I think the thing that gets most people up in arms are issues from outsiders that pretend to be policy or criticism and in reality are measures intended to bring down America or seriously knock us down a peg or two.
When I look at the excuses cited here, they seem to me to simply be ways of asking if the party criticizing has any sort of moral or ethical high ground. I mean if you are saying someone is wrong, it is sort of de facto to others that you are saying you are right. People that question if someone has the high ground aren't "blind patriots."
Lastly I would say that in this world there are indeed dirty jobs to get done. Not everything is clean, neat, and has clearly delineated "sides." The fact that such problems do exist is often used as a means of criticizing the parties willing to deal with it rather than just the nature of the problem.
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
I contend who has the moral high ground matters none. It is ultimately the message that matters. Who cares if it is intended to knock us down a peg or two? If the claim has the potential of being valid, it should be examined and we should continue to work to improve ourselves. Mere words cannot hurt us. If the words are untrue, they shall be exposed as such. If the words have even the slightest bit of truth to them, we should put our effort into correcting the problem instead of bashing the source of the criticism.
<strong>
I contend who has the moral high ground matters none. It is ultimately the message that matters. Who cares if it is intended to knock us down a peg or two? If the claim has the potential of being valid, it should be examined and we should continue to work to improve ourselves. Mere words cannot hurt us. If the words are untrue, they shall be exposed as such. If the words have even the slightest bit of truth to them, we should put our effort into correcting the problem instead of bashing the source of the criticism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe this generally does happen. However we often already have efforts in place and the criticism deals with those efforts. When you are pointing out a problem, I believe you correct in saying that regardless of the source we should make attempts to correct the problem.
However when you move on to criticism of the solution, you are doing two things. One you are clearly delineating how our own time, energies and resources are to be used. Secondly you are saying that you could use all these things in a better manner.
That to me does denote a need for a high ground. When we put our efforts into something that is one thing, when someone else wants to direct our efforts for us... that is another.
Nick
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
<strong>
I believe this generally does happen. However we often already have efforts in place and the criticism deals with those efforts. When you are pointing out a problem, I believe you correct in saying that regardless of the source we should make attempts to correct the problem.
However when you move on to criticism of the solution, you are doing two things. One you are clearly delineating how our own time, energies and resources are to be used. Secondly you are saying that you could use all these things in a better manner.
That to me does denote a need for a high ground. When we put our efforts into something that is one thing, when someone else wants to direct our efforts for us... that is another.
Nick
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: trumptman ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why can't one criticize a solution even if they don't have a leg to stand on? If the criticism of the solution is valid, that is all that matters.
<strong>
Why can't one criticize a solution even if they don't have a leg to stand on? If the criticism of the solution is valid, that is all that matters.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And how do you determine if something is more "valid" when discussing allocation of more or less time, money, and energy on the solution to a problem?
You could contend that exercising 3 times a week is fine. I could say I want you to exercise 4, buy this weight equipment and eat this way.
You would turn to me and say, I should listen to you because.....especially if I am attempting to allocate your resources.
That is why I say there needs to be a higher ground from which the criticism is coming.
Besides how many people would you listen to for whom you could basically say "Do as I say, not as I do."
Nick
<strong>
Besides how many people would you listen to for whom you could basically say "Do as I say, not as I do." </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is where the United States needs to take the lead and quit arms sales to non-democratic countries or to some list of friendly places.
<strong>
Exactly. When I'm reading posts, I try to ignore who the poster is. I want to judge each post based on its own intellectual merit--not on preconceived notions about the intentions of the poster. Critical statements about America (or any other issue for that matter) should be judged alone based on their own merits.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since when BR? You got a laugh out of me with this.
<strong>
Since when BR? You got a laugh out of me with this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Obviously you are referring to how I respond to your posts. Well, sorry to say it but there is often little or no intellectual merit in them...especially when you are talking about science. However, please know that I don't prejudge or ignore your posts even with your track record. I isolate each post from its poster and give each an equal chance. It's not like this takes any extra effort. This is how I normally read anything.
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
<strong>
And how do you determine if something is more "valid" when discussing allocation of more or less time, money, and energy on the solution to a problem?
You could contend that exercising 3 times a week is fine. I could say I want you to exercise 4, buy this weight equipment and eat this way.
You would turn to me and say, I should listen to you because.....especially if I am attempting to allocate your resources.
That is why I say there needs to be a higher ground from which the criticism is coming.
Besides how many people would you listen to for whom you could basically say "Do as I say, not as I do."
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
Honestly, sometimes the best criticisms come from those that aren't deeply involved in the topic at hand. A new perspective can be a very good thing. Look, if the suggestion itself is stupid and you are an expert, feel free to ignore it. However, whether or not a solution is ignored should be based on the merits of the solution itself and not the credentials of the person who wrote the solution.
What happens if an anonymous solution to a world problem is posted and it is very very good? It is the best thing you have ever read in your life? Then it is found out that a 14 year old boy wrote it. Do you just ignore it now because he doesn't have the same world experience as you? No. You don't.
<strong>
Obviously you are referring to how I respond to your posts. Well, sorry to say it but there is often little or no intellectual merit in them...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You've been taking lessons from The Master? Just curious...
It's those little pipeline zingers that get me every time...
<strong>
Honestly, sometimes the best criticisms come from those that aren't deeply involved in the topic at hand. A new perspective can be a very good thing. Look, if the suggestion itself is stupid and you are an expert, feel free to ignore it. However, whether or not a solution is ignored should be based on the merits of the solution itself and not the credentials of the person who wrote the solution.
What happens if an anonymous solution to a world problem is posted and it is very very good? It is the best thing you have ever read in your life? Then it is found out that a 14 year old boy wrote it. Do you just ignore it now because he doesn't have the same world experience as you? No. You don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose what you say could basically not be ruled out, however I consider it a statistically unlikely. Obviously it works much better in the abstract rather than in reality.
I mean I suppose that when the U.S. is criticized for something like Kyoto, that a 14 year old somewhere could know the exact way our entire country could reduce emmisions, create new technologies and maybe even new industries while costing the actual economy as little as possible.
I suppose again it is possible for this messanic 14 year old to know more than rooms full of people with advanced degrees. However again I consider it unlikely.
Most of the time lack of experience = naive solutions that are unsophisticated in their means of dealing with complex problems.
Perhaps you could be a bit less abstract and suggest a scenario, even if it is hypothetical, where the U.S. has dismissed a solution better than their own solution from a party that had a) a better solution b) nothing to gain (not deeply involved and a fresh face)
Nick
<strong>
I suppose what you say could basically not be ruled out, however I consider it a statistically unlikely. Obviously it works much better in the abstract rather than in reality.
I mean I suppose that when the U.S. is criticized for something like Kyoto, that a 14 year old somewhere could know the exact way our entire country could reduce emmisions, create new technologies and maybe even new industries while costing the actual economy as little as possible.
I suppose again it is possible for this messanic 14 year old to know more than rooms full of people with advanced degrees. However again I consider it unlikely.
Most of the time lack of experience = naive solutions that are unsophisticated in their means of dealing with complex problems.
Perhaps you could be a bit less abstract and suggest a scenario, even if it is hypothetical, where the U.S. has dismissed a solution better than their own solution from a party that had a) a better solution b) nothing to gain (not deeply involved and a fresh face)
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
Third parties are dismissed all the time for being "too radical."
Anyway, what I really wanted to say was that sometimes a fresh perspective can lead to the best results. I am a computer tech at an elementary school. I'm very good at what I do. However, every once in a while I am utterly frustrated by a problem that makes no sense and refuses to go away. Sometimes I'll explain the problem to someone who knows very little about computers and they will sometimes give what I think are the dumbest suggestions...but you know what? Some of those suggestions I thought were just ref**kingdiciulous actually worked. They didn't have preconceived notions of how things were supposed to work and it was the lack of such bias that allowed them to come up with a creative solution that I would have never thought of.
Look...if you see something that says "IRAK R TEH SUK BOM THEM," sure...ignore it. However, don't just dismiss things outright because of lack of experience. It is sometimes the lack of bias that comes with that experience that can help lead to the best solutions.