0
   

WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 11:22 am
http://www.ronscott.com/editorial/RonScottPieFace.gif
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 11:23 am
PDiddie wrote:
perception wrote:
Do I detect a complete dislocation between visual perception and the end target in the brain?


Sounds to me like you need to re-boot your detector.


I think you should request Craven to succinctly and lucidly explain it to you Laughing I'm fairly certain he will be happy to oblige.

PDid

Have you read the foregoing stuff about the hive activity? Craven, in his insightful way has brought some enlightenment and relevance to some of the distasteful activities on the forum.

I will be the first to admit that I have just contributed and will now "wash my mouth" with soap.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 11:30 am
Perception,

I don't even know what you guys are arguing about. Don't expect any input from me, even after reading it I don't know what it's about.

And as to "distasteful activities" my post was focused more on inevitable (or nearly so) group dynamics in which there is an ideology outnumbered by another. "Distasteful isn't something I'd use to describe it.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 11:35 am
Tartarin wrote:
I'm at a loss to figure out what has made Craven decide to drop, as he has done several times now in the past couple of months, into vigorous but peaceable discussions and lay a trip on one or another participant. There's a personal aspect (the part I call sickening and embarrassing because I was sickened by it and embarrassed for him) which doesn't need airing here. To the extent to which these drop-ins dampen or narrow discussion, I find them sad and inexplicable. I think Blatham has been remarkably congenial about it. Where I would differ is in the importance given to whether we all like each other. There are a lot of enormously likeable people here, but for me the issue is trustworthiness, not likeability. I think the level of trust took a hit last night in this thread.


I have just witnessed the new worlds record for the most complete example of deep denial in culpability Shocked
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 11:44 am
Tartarin wrote:

I'm at a loss to figure out what has made Craven decide to drop, as he has done several times now in the past couple of months, into vigorous but peaceable discussions and lay a trip on one or another participant.


My discussion was civil. This is not something that can be said of yours.

Quote:
There's a personal aspect (the part I call sickening and embarrassing because I was sickened by it and embarrassed for him) which doesn't need airing here.


Your opinion about what needs airing and what doesn't differs from mine. My post was about the group dynamics of being outnumbered and you decided to come in with insults.

Quote:
I think Blatham has been remarkably congenial about it.


I agree, I also think I have given him no reason not to.


Quote:
I think the level of trust took a hit last night in this thread.


I think the levels of "trust" are exactly where they were.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 11:46 am
blatham wrote:
First, that there is a style of rhetoric which has evolved in voices from the 'right' which is unique in its anti-intellectualism (the prime examples being Rush and Coulter). I've seen this style, and the cliches which attend it, arrive on abuzz and here (and in other boards and letters to editors) and it is carbon-copy stuff, and deeply unreflective, and uses fallacies with the zest of a pitbull. It's Rupert Murdoch, rather than Walter Cronkite. Though voices on the 'left' can do this too, I am certain that if one could devise some criteria for analysing text to measure this, my perception would be validated.


I don't think it's possible to analize this. People are willing to overlook their own fallacies and that of ideological brothers and sisters.

If you qualify your statement with something like agression you could make a case for the right's nuts being more agressive IMO. But as to fallacy it's common enough and intentionally used enough that I don't think you can indict one side over the other.

Quote:
Second, I do think we are running up against what I and deb point to...a reluctance to investigate negatives about the US presence in the world. And a very deep polarization within America which more than a few smart and experienced polical observers describe as more pronounced than they have witnessed in their lifetimes. It's a critical time, and I think we all intuitively understand that.


No qualm here. America is one of the most polarized nations on earth and these are polarized times. It's been going in that direction for years.

Quote:
It's an open board, which has a lot of positives, but negatives too. One big fat negative seems related to what you point towards...a minority voice can be relegated to a closet, while out in the main room, so many voices are yelling about such different subjects that careful investigation is hobbled by the chaos.

It's the human condition, you are right. Disorderly conduct, though most agreeable in love-making, is a dilemma in many human affairs.


I hadn't meant to highlight the type of reaction so much as the simple group dynamics of being outnumbered.

Simply by being outnumbered one is disadvantaged. Even if everyone in the "hive" is unfailingly civil the newbie doesn't have the energy to address them all.

Because of the imbalance discussion can be thwarted, and there will be no dissent to discuss the issue with.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 11:46 am
and I always though Nixon's "I am not a crook" was the most complete example of deep denial of culpability. I guess brevity doesn't count. Although Reagan's explanation of Irangate "I don't remember" has to rank pretty high. Even Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" far outranks anything coming from Tart. But then I could be wrong.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 11:53 am
Craven wrote:
And as to "distasteful activities" my post was focused more on inevitable (or nearly so) group dynamics in which there is an ideology outnumbered by another. "Distasteful isn't something I'd use to describe it.


In all the confusion and disruptions recently I completely missed the publishing of your new world dictionary. Please forgive me.

I also note your lectures to me on several points and again I apologize for my failure to notice your recent receipt of the honorary degree of " Professor of all knowledge"
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 11:58 am
dyslexia wrote:
and I always though Nixon's "I am not a crook" was the most complete example of deep denial of culpability. I guess brevity doesn't count. Although Reagan's explanation of Irangate "I don't remember" has to rank pretty high.



Laughing And don't forget---Clinton's " I didn't inhale" AND I---NEVER----HAD ----SEXUAL----RELATIONS -----WITH -----THAT ----WOMAN.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 12:01 pm
Apology accepted. ;-)

Perception, despite that both you and Tartarin are taking my comments as an indictment of a particular group they were not offered in that spirit.

It's not claiming to know everything, it's just not having a dog in that fight right now.

My comments were intended to be about the conflicting desires of wanting an opponent and then wanting to beat them to kingdom come. Of wanting to discuss something outside of an amen-club but at the same time being off put by the opposing ideology.

They also addressed the group dynamics of being outnumbered in a debate and how that difficults discussion.

They were not intended to be a validation of the opinions you've attached to them. That I reject having my post attached to your comments is just that. I reject having my post attached to your comments. This it is and nothing more.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 12:12 pm
What I find amusing is Tart's denial of culpability and a very adept tactic of shifting blame. Regardless of your perception of each participants acceptance or denial of your comments I found your comments relevant and timely. I also accept your rejection of any attachment or validation I may have placed on your comments.

We each have our motives for making certain comments and I certainly don't presume to have any inkling of yours but on the other hand you seem to understand everything there is to know about us, our motives and group dynamics.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 12:14 pm
I don't know all the motives, not sure I'd want to.

I can guess at them, and that is what I have done. Any time someone speaks of the motivation of others it's ultimately a guess.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 12:17 pm
Wheew --- man you wear me out. I pass.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 12:21 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
I don't know all the motives, not sure I'd want to.

I can guess at them, and that is what I have done. Any time someone speaks of the motivation of others it's ultimately a guess.


I lied----you know sometimes I think you are absolutely brilliant and then sometimes as now-----I tend to re-evaluate my conclusions. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 12:25 pm
A moment of weakness, eh?

Seriously, I think it works like this: when you agree with me i'm brilliant, and when you don't I'm not.

And wanna know the twist? It can be no other way, unless you purposefully hold opinions you consider to be wrong.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 12:31 pm
Now I really do ---PASS.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 12:49 pm
I'm not sure why everyone is so dissatisfied here. I think we have good discussions.........and sometimes one or more of us loses control of ourselves and says something rude or irrelevant.......but all in all, we have good, edifying discourse. I admit our interaction would be better if we were all more open to the ideas of others........I don't mean agreeing, but at least a willingness to try on the ideas of the opposing perspective. I can't think of a better way to learn and develop my own perspective than by comparing my ideas to opposing ones. I've learned a lot here.

And I'm not quite sure what you mean, Craven when you say george's style is not intellectually satisfying. I don't find his attempts to be friendly unintellectual. Perhaps we could all be a bit more open to the ideas of others........at least be thoughtful about them before popping back. At the same time, of course, we could continue to bounce other's ideas off our own. I think I'll try that.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 12:56 pm
When I wrote that I realized it was up for interpretation.

George can be very intellectually satisfying, but there is only so much George to go around and I think sometimes he skips the debate and goes for friendly discussion.

I don't think his attempts to be friendly are unintellectual, but I do think he sometimes forgoes debate to be friendly. For someone who has his/her heart set on a debate it will not satisfy.

No knock on George, it was a comment on his good nature and how sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 01:13 pm
Lola

It's not really IMO an issue of being disatisfied-----I have said on numerous occasions that this is the most intellectually stimulating and entertaining thread on the board. I give George full credit for being able to engage participants in a very pleasant but never condescending manner and to treat each participant as an individual with a very perceptive mode of operation but yet adapting and appealing to each participant effectively.

I agree with you and disagree with Craven that George's essays have been intellectually unsatisfying----I would contend just the opposite.

Uh oh---I've just read Craven's latest. Craven is correct ------ there is not enough "George" to go around so you'll just have to "put up" with the occasional comment from me. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2003 06:46 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Seriously, I think it works like this: when you agree with me i'm brilliant, and when you don't I'm not.

And wanna know the twist? It can be no other way, unless you purposefully hold opinions you consider to be wrong.


thats not true i've read stuff by people that made me think - damn, thats brilliant - and still disagreed with it virulently.

(guess all that means is that i always think i am just a tad more brilliant still myself <grins>)

talk about brilliant - just for on-thread record, too - your post about group (hive) dynamics was, too.

ok i'm outa here again, was just checking in for a minute after coming back home again, but i gotta sleep now. will reply to threads + pm's later.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 07:56:58