Roxxxanne wrote:... And BTW, I have 94% recall, I've been tested.
I suspect you're tested regularly, Chrissy.
kuvasz wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:HoW tough is this to follow Kuvy?
One need not feel inferior to not feel superior.
Does that really tax your brain cells?
Because I am fond of you I will try and explain:
If one doesn't feel superior, it doesn't necessarily follow that one feels inferior.
I don't know how I can say this without it appearing insulting, but the mundane is by definition not profound, and the statement can have a corollary actually more profound and realistic,
I don't know that you are able to say anything without appear insulting, but that is besides the point. Of course the mundane is not the profound but "superior" is not synonomous with "profound," and more importantly, "mundane" is not synonomous with "inferior, " and, in any case, the discussion concerns a sense of superiority or inferiority, not their states.
Quote:If one doesn't feel superior, it doesn't necessarily follow that one doesn't feel inferior.
This is not quite a corollary of my statement and is no more profound than stating "if the ball is not blue, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is not red."
making it more concrete and valuable to the discussion at hand but since neither proposition can tested, what is the point in bringing either up? You well might have stated that ice cream has no bones.
The point of bringing it up?
[quote="blatham"] ...And after all, it isn't as if that 'superiority thing' is the sole province of folks on the liberal side. Though perhaps finn will show me wrong here by confessing his conservativism's inferiority and junior status.
I'm fine with with a diversion from the topic or a given point, but if you are going to question the point of a given posting, it usually helps to keep in touch with context. Not so easy to do on these multiple page threads, and so it probably makes sense to avoid questioning the "point" of a given post.[/color]
In other words, there is a contented realm between a sense of superiority and a sense of inferiority. Let's call it disengaged, well-adjusted, possesed of a sense of equilibrium...surely you can catch on now. Our laughable self-professed Buddhists might understand if they understood Buddhism as more than a "cool" label to self-apply.
Yes it's called the Middle Way or Golden Path, the personal mean between the corporeal sensate world and asceticism. But those who follow the path find their confidence often considered arrogance by the incompetent.
If you feel competent to debate Buddhism with its followers on-site I invite you to do so, because your other argument is with Buddhists who I haven't seen on the thread but how I am sure that being so would just smile at you. But again you set up a straw man Buddhist, just to knock him down. Its hard to say who understands Buddhism even the Buddha knew how hard it was to pass on his vision of Enlightenment; the "Flower Sermon" of the Buddha is directly related to recognizing that difficulty and one recalls the words of linguist Henreich Zmmer on such matters:
Once again context:
[quote="JLNobody"] Exactly, Rox. As a "Buddhist" I try to be humble but conservatives make that so difficult. I try very hard to ignore flattery (on the rare occasions that I receive it), but someone asked me once how it felt to be a liberal in the very conservative city in which I live. I said, it presents me with the problem of feeling so superior.
Roxxy wrote: Funny that you mentioned Buddhist teachings as I was about to mention the same thing.
[/color]
And, yeah, they just smile at me...all the time.
Quote:" The best things cannot be told; the second best things are misunderstood; and the third best are everyday conversation."
Heinrich Zimmer
But what specifically was your point in attacking Buddhists, for not understanding the ineffible? That's like attacking Charlie Brown and Snoopy?
As someone who goes on the attack as often as a starving Rottweiler, it's amusing that you would question the reasoning behind my attack. Check the context I've provided, but beyond that...I enjoy it as much as I imagine you do.
Can you contribute with more than glib versions of "I know you are but what am I?"
Please confess that you were simply being bitchy and actually did understand the concept. I don't know that I can take many more disappointments from you.
No. The loose use of value judgments of quality as engines of behavior is nonsensical in this discussion. Words have meaning, and the examples used render them so amorphous in definition that they can be cobbled together to meet any circumstance. Language is supposed to remove the ambiguity of thought. It hadn't showed that to be true, No, indeed it is Humpty- Dumptyism of the First Sort.
Sez you
Stop telling me you're fond of me. It creeps me out. I've told you before, dinner and drinks are fine, but I'm not going to bed with you. and you can go to the air port men's room by yourself, thank you very much!
Oh come on now Kuvy, surely you tire of amorous adventures with Hungarian hounds.
[/color]
[/quote]
btw
[/quote]
btw
"Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.
Scientists at New York University and the University of California, Los Angeles, showed through a simple experiment to be reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information. "
The above taken from the first two paragraphs of the initial post - does it really mean that tolerating ambiguity and conflict is a positive trait? Like appeasement prior to WWII? That was tolerating ambiguity. Giving up the Sudetenland to maintain peace in Europe? That sounds like a good tolerance of ambiguity (I hope the reader catches the sarcasm).
Does the location of these two universities mean anything to anyone? Like NYU is in the heart of the Greenwich Village. Does anyone vote Republican in the Village? What about the University of California?
I hope the psychology labs are also doing research on autism, or bi-polar disorder, etc. Was this research really a good use of the university's monies?
I think a more important fact is the number of flip-flops worn by liberals. Since brains seem to correlate to the liberal/conservative spectrum, let's not ignore feet.
Geez..
What is it with conservatives? They can't read the entire article?
Quote:does it really mean that tolerating ambiguity and conflict is a positive trait?
Your question is pointless if you had bothered to read the article.
Another not-so-supportive take on this so-called study:
http://www.slate.com/id/2173965
Damn those Conservatives over there at Slate.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:Finn sniffed:
Quote:
I forgot about my reference to my Australian friends, but obviously you did not.
How gratifying.
Almost as much so as you adopting my sig-line.
I adopted
your sig-line? WTF?
The Nietzche quote TTF ---I've used it for at least 2 years now.
Ask JTT, he always delighted in using "insipid" in his replies to me.
It is a great line though. Maybe your glomming it was based on a sub-concious urging.
Of course I don't think I want to venture any further into the realm of your sub-concious.
At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
---Friedrich Nietzsche
And BTW, I have 94% recall, I've been tested.
I'm still gratified that my comments do not occupy that 6% dead zone of yours. I've not been tested but I doubt my recall is beyond 75% I hasten to assure you that your comments do reside within my 25% dead zone. I even forgot you were once Chrissy until Tico pointed it out.
1) 94% recall is a movie quote, look it up
2) I ran across the quote independently, I do ignore 94% of your posts though
3) I wasn't ever anyone else but me
Roxxxanne wrote:3) I wasn't ever anyone else but me
Yes, but how many of you have there been now?
I can't quite recall the exact number.
Roxxy
1) No thanks.
2) I'd bet otherwise
3) What Tico said
I have always felt that Al Franken is the epitome of manliness.
That's how I feel about Mae West.
I am convinced that the difference is physiological. Those on the right might have a missing gene.
