Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
400 bodybags
Author Message
calling_the_hogs Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,096
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 5
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #41
 
You have to WORK at thinking? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Shouldn't that be natural...you shouldn't have to WORK at it!

And doesn't the huge amount of libs teaching + the decay of education in schools have ANY coincedence?

I would think the first basis of rational thinking is how to survive. Kev chooses to be an engineer, making huge amounts of $$$. He went to school and took 4 yrs of tough classes to do it. Now he's successful. Props to him.

I busted tail in HS to get a scholarship, got a partial ride, and paid the rest of the way on my own sweat and tears, working. I'm now making sizeable income, have Roth IRAs and 401 (k) plans that are kicking tail, and am able to make choices without plunging into deep debts. I consider my route not the easiest, but a rational one since I'm reaping the benefits already.

Joe's a professor. I think teaching is an admirable profession; my dad's side comes from a long line of teachers. That's nothing to be ashamed for. The only irrational thinking there is if he chooses to stay there instead of taking a easier, but more importantly, more fulfilling route in the teaching profession.

Occupations don't decide rationality. For that, Dio and I finally agree on something. However, I don't agree with Joe's philosophy one iota. The fact that Kev doesn't either doesn't mean that either one of us is irrational. We might think each other is crazy, moronic, etc.... but on an occupational level, there is honor in all honest work.

WPS
12-22-2003 06:35 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
calling_the_hogs Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,096
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 5
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #42
 
As for Hightower's article..you know what's coming

[Image: Libsmeter.gif]

WPS
12-22-2003 06:53 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #43
 
calling_the_hogs Wrote:You have to WORK at thinking? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Shouldn't that be natural...you shouldn't have to WORK at it!

And doesn't the huge amount of libs teaching + the decay of education in schools have ANY coincedence?

I would think the first basis of rational thinking is how to survive. Kev chooses to be an engineer, making huge amounts of $$$. He went to school and took 4 yrs of tough classes to do it. Now he's successful. Props to him.

I busted tail in HS to get a scholarship, got a partial ride, and paid the rest of the way on my own sweat and tears, working. I'm now making sizeable income, have Roth IRAs and 401 (k) plans that are kicking tail, and am able to make choices without plunging into deep debts. I consider my route not the easiest, but a rational one since I'm reaping the benefits already.

Joe's a professor. I think teaching is an admirable profession; my dad's side comes from a long line of teachers. That's nothing to be ashamed for. The only irrational thinking there is if he chooses to stay there instead of taking a easier, but more importantly, more fulfilling route in the teaching profession.

Occupations don't decide rationality. For that, Dio and I finally agree on something. However, I don't agree with Joe's philosophy one iota. The fact that Kev doesn't either doesn't mean that either one of us is irrational. We might think each other is crazy, moronic, etc.... but on an occupational level, there is honor in all honest work.

WPS
If one thinks deeply and critically one must work at it, otherwise we'd come off just like RebelKev.
And, one must work at thinking or did calculus come as easy to you as crapping your pants when you were an infant?

And, I base my view of Kev's irrationality on his many posts, not that he disagrees with me. It is one thing to disagree with someone but to not provide any reasoning behind the disagree ment is an example of sloppy thinking.

Here's an example:
Person X says: "The death penalty is wrong. The state should not have the right to kill."
Person Y says: "I disagree because you are a commie liberal pinko."

Person Y responded with an unqualified insult. Person X, regardless of their political position, made an argument. Person Y is irrational because they can only argue with insults.

RebelKev argues along these lines and therefore he is irrational. He doesn't think about what his opponents are saying. He is only thinking about how to insult them or misrepresent what they are saying. Therefore, RebelKev is not very smart. Smart people think deeply, critically. A smart person would have responded to Person X with a counterargument that does not contain insults and deals with the issue at hand. In this case the death penalty.
12-22-2003 07:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
calling_the_hogs Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,096
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 5
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #44
 
One does not have to work at thinking deeply and critically.

Obviously you consider "working at thinking" as studying.

You don't have to work at thinking to be good at calculus, you have to STUDY to be good at it. When you do that, you study the material that's inside the book, not at thinking.

WPS
12-22-2003 08:37 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #45
 
Quote:You are quite irrational and JBR is very rational because he thinks with precision! In short, JBR works at thinking, on the other hand, you don't! 

A year ago I would have said this quote was a sure sign of the Apocolypse.

Now I just say "Thanks, Dio!" :D

Anyway, I think this is, again, a useless chasing of rabbits. Can we stop having the "My daddy can beat up your daddy" convo and start having the convo about the thread heading again?

Silly me. Always wanting to stay on topic, I know. . . :wave:
12-23-2003 12:37 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SDSundevil Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,642
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #46
 
TMP

(TOO MUCH PROPAGANDA)

Just a shout out to the troops who are TCOB!
12-23-2003 01:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #47
 
calling_the_hogs Wrote:One does not have to work at thinking deeply and critically.

Obviously you consider "working at thinking" as studying.

You don't have to work at thinking to be good at calculus, you have to STUDY to be good at it. When you do that, you study the material that's inside the book, not at thinking.

WPS
Sorry JBR, as long as folks are going to make mistakes in reasoning, I will point it out. And, no one else stays on topic and to ask us to do so is an excercise in futility on this here site!

I consider, Calling The Hawgs, critical thinking as calisthenics for the mind (notice I didn't use the word "brain" here). Like physical calisthenics, critical thinking is not easy, it is not comfortable. Like calisthenics, one must work to think deeply and critically. In doing so one may uncover uncomfortable conclusions and propositions. The whole point of thinking critically and deeply (mental calisthenics) is to elicit some deeper truth lying dormant within the thinker.

Also consider critical thinking, deep thinking as "thought experiments."

While one studies calculus and other forms of academia (such as grammar and its rules) one is eliciting a deeper understanding of the logical relations between words or numbers, depending on what one is studying. It is the logical relations that one must work at understanding, i.e. the process of doing difficult mathematical operations. Whether you agree with this or not is beside the point, because when studying math (or anything else) the mind is working (provided one goes through the process diligently) out the logical relationships of the propositions.

And, you might be equivocating "studying" with "thinking" here. If one merely studies the content of books, then this sounds strangely like rote memorization. One can memorize all the facts they want, i.e. historical facts like the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, but just memorizing facts will not allow someone to understand exactly why and how the Japanese did this.
12-23-2003 07:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #48
 
Screw the topic. Let's talk about epistemology.

If you memorize the status quo axioms by rote memory, then how can you call such regurgitation "critical thinking"?

I think you mean, CTH, that spurting out pieties is so easy for you that you don't even consider it work.

I, on the other hand, really have to work hard to understand what you are saying. Then, I tell you what I think is wrong with it.

Thus, I think I've come to a new conclusion.

The reason we don't get anything solved on this board is because the Cons aren't thinking about what they're saying. They're just doing what they were trained to do in school. Memorize fact A.

Spit out fact A.

The only difference is you are memorizing opinions, which are of course wholly different from provable facts.

Rhetoric is not just "propaganda." The original rhetoriticians acknowledged that emotional delivery and other intangibles could have just as much weight as fact when arguing a point.

It does help, though, when you reach your own opinions through a process of critical thinking instead of listening to [insert talk radio host] and adopting verbatim whatever position they tell you is correct.

Which is why I think that when Dio and I ask for real arguments, all we get are canned fallacies.

We explode them. You post BS liberal pictures and slap each other on the back for thinking the same way.

Maybe it's high time y'all began working at thinking again, Cons. :laugh:
12-24-2003 02:10 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
morwell84 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 4
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #49
 
T-Monay820 Wrote:If it were the 1943 would you still be saying the samething about Japan and Germany? Doubtful. Why? Becuase this is a Republican president.
If I remember history class correctly in '43 we were attacked by the JAPANESE air force. An attack ordered by an actual country's government. It's unfair to compare 9/11 and the war on Iraq w/ Pearl Harbor. Last I checked the WTC was attacked by a terrorist faction, not by the Iraqi government, and there hasn't been a solid link made between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
12-24-2003 03:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #50
 
morwell84 Wrote:
T-Monay820 Wrote:If it were the 1943 would you still be saying the samething about Japan and Germany? Doubtful. Why? Becuase this is a Republican president.
If I remember history class correctly in '43 we were attacked by the JAPANESE air force. An attack ordered by an actual country's government. It's unfair to compare 9/11 and the war on Iraq w/ Pearl Harbor. Last I checked the WTC was attacked by a terrorist faction, not by the Iraqi government, and there hasn't been a solid link made between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Wrong stud. Pearl Harbor was December 7th, 1941 and we were attacked by the Japanese Navy.

Weren't you trying to insult my intelligence earlier? You might want to replace those blanks with live ammo.
12-24-2003 11:09 AM
Quote this message in a reply
morwell84 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 4
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #51
 
RebelKev Wrote:
morwell84 Wrote:
T-Monay820 Wrote:If it were the 1943 would you still be saying the samething about Japan and Germany? Doubtful. Why? Becuase this is a Republican president.
If I remember history class correctly in '43 we were attacked by the JAPANESE air force. An attack ordered by an actual country's government. It's unfair to compare 9/11 and the war on Iraq w/ Pearl Harbor. Last I checked the WTC was attacked by a terrorist faction, not by the Iraqi government, and there hasn't been a solid link made between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Wrong stud. Pearl Harbor was December 7th, 1941 and we were attacked by the Japanese Navy.

Weren't you trying to insult my intelligence earlier? You might want to replace those blanks with live ammo.
I'll concede I was wrong on the dates! 03-wink I've always been piss poor with remembering dates, and I guess that's what I get for posting at four in the morning. Mea cuelpa. :stupid: But that wasn't the point of my post. My point was that it was unfair to compare WWII with the war in Iraq. And I've posted a whole of three times, I don't remember insulting anyone's intelligence specifically, at least not on purpose.
12-24-2003 03:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #52
 
Iraq didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Bush stated that as well.
12-24-2003 03:21 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #53
 
RebelKev Wrote:Iraq didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Bush stated that as well.
They also don't seem to have had any WMDs, either.
12-24-2003 05:23 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #54
 
Oddball Wrote:
RebelKev Wrote:Iraq didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Bush stated that as well.
They also don't seem to have had any WMDs, either.
Tell that to the Kurds and Iranians.
12-24-2003 10:04 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #55
 
Oh, we knew about those...we sold them to him. We even gave him the instructions on how to use them. We also knew who he'd use them on, which is WHY we gave them to him.

However, if he had any left from back then, their shelf life was over, rendering them useless both as weapons and as a justification for going to war.
12-25-2003 09:12 AM
Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #56
 
RebelKev Wrote:Iraq didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Bush stated that as well.
Bush: "In the age of 9/11 and what that tragedy did to this great nation of peaceful people, the world is on notice that the United States will never render its security as the responsibility of others. We are responsible for our own security....that is why we are conducting operations in Iraq."

Bush has stated over and over that Saddam and Al Quayder (as he calls them) were linked. Everytime he gave justifications for war in Iraq, he mentioned 9/11. He never stated what you wrote. In fact, he has always used suggestion to do the talking, just like Rumsfled and Powell, and Rice and Wolfie. They very adeptly mentioned Saddam and Al Quayder in the same breath.
12-25-2003 11:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #57
 
KlutzDio I Wrote:
RebelKev Wrote:Iraq didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Bush stated that as well.
Bush: "In the age of 9/11 and what that tragedy did to this great nation of peaceful people, the world is on notice that the United States will never render its security as the responsibility of others. We are responsible for our own security....that is why we are conducting operations in Iraq."

Bush has stated over and over that Saddam and Al Quayder (as he calls them) were linked. Everytime he gave justifications for war in Iraq, he mentioned 9/11. He never stated what you wrote. In fact, he has always used suggestion to do the talking, just like Rumsfled and Powell, and Rice and Wolfie. They very adeptly mentioned Saddam and Al Quayder in the same breath.
A threat to our country? Yes. Being responsible for 9/11? No. They paid terrorists, had a terrorist training camp, tried to assassinate HW Bush, and were a threat to the stability of a region vital to the world.

[b]
Quote:Bush has stated over and over that Saddam and Al Quayder he calls them) were linked.
</b>



:lolup: Hey, I never said he was the most articulate person in the world. By the way, I have never heard him call them that, if anything he over-pronunciates Al Queda. There are FAR more words he says that he can be picked on about. What the hell is a Peninshula? Anyway, Merry Christmas.
12-25-2003 11:51 AM
Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #58
 
RebelKev Wrote:A threat to our country? Yes. Being responsible for 9/11? No. They paid terrorists, had a terrorist training camp, tried to assassinate HW Bush, and were a threat to the stability of a region vital to the world.

[b]
Quote:Bush has stated over and over that Saddam and Al Quayder he calls them) were linked.
</b>



:lolup: Hey, I never said he was the most articulate person in the world. By the way, I have never heard him call them that, if anything he over-pronunciates Al Queda. There are FAR more words he says that he can be picked on about. What the hell is a Peninshula? Anyway, Merry Christmas.
A threat to the U.S.? You've got to be kidding me! How can a man with a weakened military be a threat to the mighty U.S. when we were watching his every move? We had our satellite cameras focused on his nation, we controlled the airspace of his nation, we had inspectors on the ground, etc, etc.

He was not a threat.

He possibly did threaten GHWBush's life. But that was not the reason GW Bush cited for justifying the war.

As far as Saddam being a threat to the region and the world, that is laughable. That region has never been stable and merely ousting one dictator and occupying his country will not bring stability to that region of the world, especially when we pick and choose which dictators have to go without any sort of even-handedness about it. If we think Saddam is bad, then by the same reasoning process, Sharon is bad, as are the Kuwaitis, the Saudis and the Syrians. All of these have one-party totalitarian systems in which the multitudes of their citizenry are rounded up and jailed for disagreeing with the respective regimes.

We just picked the weakest of the bunch and went after him to show Americans that we can kick butt in response to 9/11.

As far as Saddam paying terrorists and training them, that claim is spurious! Do you have any sort of evidence to back up that claim?
Assuming the claim is true, for the sake of argument, then we have to attack and occupy various other nations around the world--nations that have far more extensive terrorism ties and training facilities. I am thinking specifically of Saudi Arabia.

I have not been in favor of this war for primarily three reasons and they are as follows:
1. The president did not argue persuasively that this war was necessary.
2. After 9/11 the American people needed to feel better about themselves by watching our troops beat up on an obviously weaker nation.
3. Attacking nations without clear justification is bad policy and it will haunt us in unimaginable ways for the rest of this century.

There are other reasons why I did not and do not agree with this war but the top 3 reasons are the primary ones.

There was no need to respond to my quip about the way the president speaks. That was very unimportant considering the meat of my previous post. Happy Kwaanza!
12-25-2003 01:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #59
 
And Happy All Holidays to everybody on the board (insert self-righteous pose HERE)!

Anyway, back to point #1 in this topic jumping thread. . .why aren't we honoring our dead servicemen like the Italians?

Would it be because showing an actual DEATH might weaken morale for an already unjust war?

If we concede that not honoring dead servicemen is good public relations policy (because body bags are, of course, a negative message) then doesn't that make Dumbya et al. awfully well stupid?

I mean, if we're over there to bring democracy to a poor downtrodden country (that we crushed and then starved) then it seems like we would exalt all of the fallen as heroes.

Cons? Y'all put down that egg nog and answer some questions. :wave:
01-02-2004 06:59 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.