Diversity of Everything but Thought

"

Quote:

If we keep worrying about abortion, gay marriage, Bill Clinton's BJ's as if it is the only thing that defines us as American

s."
There's more?

0 Replies

dyslexia, for some people, especially those with smooth frontal lobes, no, there is not more. Besides, if they had to think about everything, their heads might explode. That would be messy.

0 Replies

THe only problem is, glitterbag, that this thread isn't about abortion, gay marriage, or Bill Clinton's BJ's. There are several threads elsewhere covering those things, however, as well as problems living under Chinese/Pakistan/Middle East/ former USSR rule. And the whole idea here was to decide whether Universities are already a hotbed of learning (a desirable thing) or if anything needs to be done in order to accomplish that.

At least that was my hopes for the thread despite the fact that others want to make it something different.

We're a pretty diverse group capable of thinking of more than one thing, but welcome to the thread Glitterbag and join right in.

0 Replies

glitterbag--

You haven't lived your whole life yet, so be careful how you judge people.

0 Replies

To Lash and Fox, thanks for the input. Sorry you were unable to distinguish between what I said and what you hoped the thread would be about. If it helps any, I will state that diversity and understanding of differences is sliding into obscurity. Too many folks are only concerned about your voter registration and have bought into both parties vilification efforts to take even a minute to consider that others might have a point at least worth listening to, even if you don't agree. Here's your chance to convince me I need to only accept group-think as the answer to all the problems. Where is the evidence that University types are all Democrats? When I registered to vote, I don't remember providing my occupation only proof of citizenship and age. If you really think that too many University educators can only accept a liberal adgenda, then keep your college age children at home, and home school them like so many others who are afraid of outside (read life experience) influences corrupting the correct life path that they have chosen for their children.

One last thing for Lash, I truely regret that you can't tell the difference between having an opinion and passing judgement. I'll give you a C for effort, however, after you have some years under your belt, you might be able to tell the difference. I'll give you a hint, people can hold different opinions but still respect the opinions of others. In the old days, we refered to this as tolerance. However the definition of tolerance as found in the dictionary is rarely how it is perceived in today's culture. What do you think, too much of the Texas miracle being passed around.

0 Replies

You didn't salley forth into this thread with too much tolerance.

...or can we just put it on and take it off per convenience...

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

... The issue is the following statement made by yourself.

Ican wrote:
Horowitz was describing and not advocating the lousey tactics of contemporary radicals.

Show me ONE SENTENCE which deals with that in the single excerpt from Horowitz you pointed us to. Go ahead-one sentence. You can't do it. Because it is not there.
Correct! That single sentence you asked me to produce is not in the Amazon provided three page excerpt. Nor is the sentence that says: "Horowitz was advocating and not merely describing the lousey tactics of contemporary radicals.

Remember it was Blatham (and perhaps you) who accused Horowitz of advocating that the Republicans take up lousey political tactics. This is not France where a person is guilty as charged until and unless he prove his innocence. In the USA it's the other way around. A person is innocent of the charge until and unless he is proven guilty.

I simply claim that the Amazon material that I referenced makes that charge seem unfounded. But if I'm wrong, surely his accusers can provide valid evidence I'm wrong. Quoting a description of lousey political tactics from Horowitz's book simply doesn't provide that evidence. What needs to be provided is evidence that Horowitz advocates in his book that the Republicans take up these lousey political tactics. The burden of providing that proof is on Horowitz's accusers. The burden of proving Horowitz did not advocate those lousey tactics is not on his defenders.

Oh, and don't try that stupid dodge that Amazon won't let you quote the excerpt. Amazon's excerpt is three pages long-you can quote a sentence or two without violating Amazon's rights. Fair use doctrine.
You are right! Even so, I choose to continue not to bother until his accusers provide evidence that their accusations were true.

Folks, the fact is that Blatham asked Ican to produce evidence from Horowitz that Horowitz was describing, not advocating, lousy tactics and Ican does two things:

A) Points to an excerpt from Horowitz' book that does NOT deal with the issue at all, plus

B) Quotes a lot of blurbs which claim that Horowitz did this, but which were not written by Horowitz himself. And are therefore useless.
I agree they are useless as valid evidence to show your accusation of Horowitz is either true or false.

That is why Ican keeps claiming that he has given Blatham "excerpts" from Horowitz-when in fact he has produced only ONE excerpt, (singular) from Horowitz and several from book reviews written, naturally, by people other than Horowitz. The book blurbs tend to support Ican's contention-but the excerpt from Horowitz himself does not.
Nor does the Amazon provided Horowitz excerpt refute my contention.

Of course, IF Ican actually has this book at his fingertips, he can easily quote a sentence or two and give us the page number-but he won't do that. His excuse? We wouldn't trust his transcription. False. If he prints the sentence and page number, he would put pressure on his opponentw to prove it is false.
The pressure is already on Horowitz's accusers to provide valid evidence their accusation is true. It is not on me to be a transcriber except to rebut evidence his accusers have not yet provided. When they are able to do that, then I will consider doing that if I can.

The fact is, at this point we have to question if Ican really has read this book. Because he is not acting like someone who has bought this book. Someone who actually bought the book would simply be quoting short paragraphs and giving out page numbers to support his contentions.
Perhaps such person would do that; perhaps not.

I don't presently have access to Horowitz's book.

Surely his accusers are the one's who are obligated to quote the book. His defenders are not so obligated. So get on with it. Quote that in the book which makes it plain that Horowitz is advocating those lousey political tactics. Then and only then will I be adequately motivated to go to my neighbor and ask to borrow Horowitz's book to verify your quotes.

0 Replies

I don't see what I wrote as being "intolerant". I think you are just having a bad day and don't like what I had to say about how shallow our culture has become. Perhaps it was too close to the bone. Nevertheless, if you think I am attacking you I apologize, all I wanted to do was express an opinion. I do agree that it's hard for some folks to accept diverse opinion, but there is not much I can do about that. I will assure you that if I wanted to insult you, there would have been no mistaking my message. I hope you can accept the idea that others may have opinions that have nothing to do with you or have no intent in ruffling your feathers. I don't know you, and I have nothing to gain (ego or otherwise) by offending you. Frankly, my first thought was that your shorts were too tight and I figure you will be in a better mood later. Life is too short pal, not everything is about you.

0 Replies

I'll illustrate:

glitterbag wrote:

Please forgive me, I was only able to digest the first page of this silly thread so my comments may be slightly uninformed. Instead of worrying about how many liberals or conservatives are involved in discussions, why don't we take a minute and examine what is going on in the rest of the world.

(That's done on other threads. Are you saying we don't have the right to discuss this?)
I know it's hard, tearing yourself away from the television (desperate housewives, jerry springer, all the reality shows

Excuse me? Who the hell are you to assume what other people watch on TV, or if they watch TV at all? WTF?

but take a look at some of the rest of the worlds views on the US. I'm not saying they have it straight, but at least they follow what is going on here.
Do you have any idea who you are talking to--and what reams of news from various sources they may consume? This is why I copied your apropo signature. This required judgment of you on us--and it was WAY OFF.

If we keep worrying about abortion, gay marriage, Bill Clinton's BJ's as if it is the only thing that defines us as Americans
Who the hell said any such thing?
......give a thought to what it would be like to live under Chinese/Pakistan/Middle East/ former USSR rule.
We HAVE discussed that. If you don't mind, we'll choose what we discuss and where.
At least some of you can still bellyache over the fact that universities are a hot-bed of learning. I think you should get on your knees and thank God for the opportunity to live in a country that allows diverse opinion
The Muslims, agnostics, Atheists, Buddhists et al, too? Is this forced prayer? To whose god? Yours? Who's closed minded?

0 Replies

Sorry Lash, didn't realize how touchy you are. You ask who the hell am I to make such assumptions????? I'm the one reading the posts on the thread. What would you have me do, would you like me to get your permission before typing on a forum that really doesn't require ingraved invitations to contribute. By the way, exactly who do you think the atheists pray to, I'm just curious. And if you are seriously asking me who I think is closed minded....... you have to know the answer to that. In all fairness you probably are not all that ridgid, you just didn't like what I said. Big deal, I'm not in the business of mentoring dullards. I don't want to really hear anymore personal attacks, like I said, I don't know you or anything about you. Likewise, you don't know me or what I have been involved in so don't start spinning some silly lifestyle and placing it on me. And just in case someone out there still doesn't get it, I do know that many topics including this one have been discussed over and over and over. One other nitpicky point, the word you were trying to use is et al. the "too" is superfluous, but I suppose you were to irritated and just made a typo. I do it all the time, make typo's that is, not get irritated. Particularly over what a bunch of people I don't know think.

0 Replies

I think you'll have to practice.

I'm afraid in this setting, you won't be able to get away with making assumptions about others' lives--and then tell people they don't know you so they can't spin silly lifestyles and pin them on you...

Do as you say, eh, not as you do?

You will have to ask an atheist who they pray to. You will only get an answer if they don't mind mentoring dullards, though.

You come in making blistering personal attacks against people you don't know, and when they respond, you say you're tired of hearing personal attacks...? LOL! Rule #1--If you dish it out, get used to it.

One more nitpicky point--when you have the low character to check someone's grammar, you should MAKE SURE YOU DIDN'T MAKE A STUPID SPELLING MISTAKE WHILE YOU WERE TELLING THEM.

I suppose you were 'to' irritated, though.

Please study.

0 Replies

...and, if I'm the dullard, we'll have to come up for a word for you--the one needing an education from a dullard:

et al means "and others".

I intended the sentence as it was.

Damn. LOL!!!

I'd think about it before attempting that again if I were you.

0 Replies

Lash, I am grateful for the input. I know exactly what I will do with it. I will try never to appear as someone with low character and will never point out a grammer error. I did say that I often make typo's, but maybe you missed that part of the remark. I still don't see how what I said could be characterized as "blistering", I could try to explain the intent of my remarks but I think you are not in the mood to listen. If you want to be irritated, have at it, I'm done. You just tell yourself that I can't take the heat and pat yourself on the back for being the hypocrisy detector on the forum. I will say that you are much more of an optimist than I am when it comes to assuming that the average American consumes tons of material to remain informed. Unfortunately, that notion is just amusing to me. I do believe that folks have deep seated beliefs, I don't think that they are brave enough to examine issues that might test those beliefs. Let's just say "WMD" for example. You can be angry if you want, but I don't think even you believe that Americans are as interested in what is happening around the world as the rest of the world is interested in us. But it was cheery to hear that possibly no one on the forum owns a TV. I would be happy to discuss the troublesome problem of too many liberals in education if anyone still wants to talk about that. But if the conversation is only going to be about how intolerant or blistering or judgemental I am........I don't know if I want to play. Also give yourself a break, you were not hard on me, you just didn't understant what I was saying. I will sign off, I guess for the rest of the night. There is a real live human being husband downstairs and I think I would rather spend time with him. All the best to everyone.

0 Replies

Oh crap, is this going to still go on???? It is not et al it is et al. (with a period) indicating others, thats why the remaining word was redundant. Think hard, skippy, I can't wait to hear what you think of next.

0 Replies

Adv. 1. et al. - used as an abbreviation of `et alii' (masculine plural) or `et aliae' (feminine plural) or `et alia' (neutral plural) when referring to a number of people
and others, et al
2. et al. - used as an abbreviation of `et alibi' when referring to other occurrences in a text
and elsewhere, et al

---------

Please find a word for the dullard who Skippy constantly trounces.

You really should ix-nay on the grammar and elling sp-ay pointers. Really.

0 Replies

KW writes

Quote:

Foxfyre:

I have not read the book, nor have I claimed to. Nor do I plan to.

Ican appears to be one passing himself off as one who has read the book.

No he has not passed off any such claim. He found the information on the book at Amazon.com and posted it. You may have inferred that he said he read the book, but there is nothing in any of his quotes to support that inference. The excerpt itself was instruction on Horowitz's style and emphasis even if it did not directly address the questions you asked. I think your inference is wrong.

Quote:

However, the issue that developed was one of alleged dirty tricks and deceit as a matter of normal policy by the left, according to Horowitz.

Blatham quoted a couple of sentences by Horowitz in other works where Horowitz seems to advocate lying and deceit by the right.

Ican says that Horowitz was describing a process of deceit by the left, not advocating the right undertake such a process.

When asked by Blatham to produce a sentence or two to back up his contention, (that Horowitz was describing deceit by the left, not advocating it for the right), all that Ican could produce was:

A) A three page excerpt from Amazon which basically says that Clinton survived impeachment by forcing the Democratic party to accept certain popular policies Horowitz labels as Republican in nature-nothing whatsoever to do with campaign of deceit,

B) A series of reviews which say Horwitz outlines a policy of deceit by Democrats in his book-but which were written by other people.

Ican further repeatedly referred to the "excerpts", (plural) he gave Blatham and the board, when in fact he produced but a single irrelevant excerpt from Horowitz. In short, Ican is trying mightlily to deceive us into lumping words by Publisher's Weekly about what Horwitz said, and what Horowitz wrote himself.

If one does not have access to the book itself, one has to rely on what information is available to post from the internet. Ican did that, and nothing he posted disputes his conclusions whether or not they support his conclusions to your (or Blatham's) satisfaction. Blatham has not read Horowitz's book either and admitted he did not read the piece that I posted in Horowitz's own words, but seems to be willing to condemn Horowitz on what others say about him. When I requested that Blatham put the Horowitz quotes he quoted into context, he would not or could not do so.

Conclusion: If you are going to let Blatham off the hook in using the opinion of what others say about Horowitz to support Blatham's conclusions, wouldn't it be reasonable to give Ican the same benefit of the doubt? I accepted that Blatham could not defend his opinions re Horowitz from any first hand knowledge. If Ican can't support his opinions re first hand knowledge, how is he somehow more at fault than Blatham?

P.S. Do you really wish to be judged so harshly if you make a singular word plural during a lengthy discussion? Would it not be charitable to give just about anybody benefit of the doubt on something like that?

Quote:

Now, if I had the Horowitz book that Ican claims to have, and anyone challenged me to produce these sentences, I would just quote a couple of relevant passages-or even sentences-and give the page numbers. That's what I would do. Wouldn't you?

Instead, we seem to run into a mighty effort by Ican to get us to confuse reviews of what Horwitz said with Horowitz' actual words. Because the single excerpt from Horowitz doesn't have a single thing to do with any supposed campaigns of deceit by the left or anyone else.

I know you to be honorable, usually fair, and usually reasonable KW and I count you as a friend. But I'll have to ask for a specific quote or inference from Ican, in context, that he has the book or has read it, because I haven't seen it and I did not draw that same conclusion from what he did say.

Quote:

The thought presents itself that perhaps the reason Ican keeps trying to substitute reviews of what Horowitz said instead of producing actual quotes of Horowitz saying what Ican claims he did, is that Ican simply does not have those passages available-in other words, he does not have the book.

That's what I would assume. That is precisely why I have relied on quotes and information that I could find on the internet because I don't have the book either, and I have not read it. Nor do I believe Ican suggested he did. Ican is as human as the rest of us and as capable of a misstatement or gaffe especially in a heated debate. We all type stuff that reads differently than we intended it. I have not found Ican given to making up information, however, or lying about what he knows or does not know.

Quote:

Now, I don't know Ican, I have never been to his house, so I cannot say that he does not have this book. But I can point out that he certainly is acting in this thread like he does not have this book, that the only Horowitz passages he can point to do not mention the topic in question and that he is mightlily trying to camouflage that fact by throwing in a bunch of blurbs which claim Horowitz showed this-which is not the same as producing qutoes from Horowitz himself.

And if Ican is doing this, in a discussion of alleged deceit by the left, would you not agree this would be a deceiver alleging deceit by others?

I'll agree to that if you will agree that everybody else who has blasted, criticized, defamed, disputed, or excoriated Horowitz on this thread, and who have not read his books, are deceivers alleging deceit by others. Of course since I haven't read any of Horowitz's books either, I would also be culpable. I find Horowitz's propositions provocative however, and I frankly don't care who he is (though I have ordered one of the books.) I accept a good idea as a good idea no matter who has it. And I think a bad idea is a bad idea no matter who suggests it. Horowitz has a good idea restoring tolerance and diversity of thought on college campuses. He has a bad idea thinking that can be legislated. But the concept I thought was worthy of discussion.

Quote:

Watch, now Ican will go out and actually buy the book. Of course, he will still have to explain why he didn't give us the quotes days ago, when asked. Not trusting the transcription won't work as an excuse-with you yourself buying the book, Foxfyre, you would be in perfect position to back Ican up eventually.

You see it is a character defect that Ican would be sufficiently interested in the subject to buy the book? Do you see my buying the book as a character defect? If Ican buys the book, he'll have additional ammunition to use if he should choose to do so. Why is that so sinister. Unless you do think he has been deceitful. And I think a careful re-reading of his posts will convince you that you've misread him. At the very least, the honorable thing is to give him an opportunity for a defense before condemning him.

0 Replies

Lash, I guess all those years of Latin are not going to waste. Mine, not yours. Apparently you agree with me, you just don't understand why. And for Fox, I don't think we have reached the point of bookburning yet........I know it happens sometimes in parts of the country....but you can still count yourself as a patriot, regardless of what you read. Sometimes it's good to know what others think, even if you don't agree with their conclusions.

0 Replies

foxfyre

You are unbelievable!

Quote:

[blatham] seems to be willing to condemn Horowitz on what others say about him.

Not only have I read more of Horowitz than you, for longer than you, my 'condemnations' have addressed his own words, and his claims, and his reasoning, and his practices in detail, with care, and my reference to other peoples thoughts/research on the fellow consitute the smallest portion of what I've done here, though it is valid contribution in any case.

Quote:

I accepted that Blatham could not defend his opinions re Horowitz from any first hand knowledge.

What can this possibly mean? Lunch with the fellow? Defend your opinions re jesus or Clinton. I am exponentially more familiar and proximate with the the words and acts of Horowitz than you are with either three men.

Quote:

Horowitz has a good idea restoring tolerance and diversity of thought on college campuses.

And there it is. The idea you have fixed and the claim you continue to make. It's an idea you are NOT going to allow changed and a claim which you'll continue to make forever.

So, this is the way we'll play your game. I will consider you nothing other than a mouthpiece for this idea, for Horowitz, and for the ideology behind him and, apparently, you. Any and every time I happen to see you act in this capacity, I will attack your claims and arguments whenever they are false, unsupported or illogical. I will have zero interest in influencing you or talking with you, my interest will be solely related to demonstrating the fallacies and falsehoods you forward.

0 Replies

That is without doubt the best policy for you to pursue, Mr. Mountie, for no amount of reason will ever penetrate the dense, devoted and void cranium of which you speak.

0 Replies

Blatham writes

Quote:

So, this is the way we'll play your game. I will consider you nothing other than a mouthpiece for this idea, for Horowitz, and for the ideology behind him and, apparently, you. Any and every time I happen to see you act in this capacity, I will attack your claims and arguments whenever they are false, unsupported or illogical. I will have zero interest in influencing you or talking with you, my interest will be solely related to demonstrating the fallacies and falsehoods you forward.

And as long as you continue to take my words, or anybody's words, out of context and twist them into what wasn't said or intended, as I believe you have done with Horowitz, and as you frequently do with me, and as long as you refuse to use any context that would in any way qualify the 'excerpts' that you choose, you will continue to get it wrong and will continue to live in some angry, narrow minded, judgmental, tunnel visioned world. I guess the only way such a world can be justified is to call me impossible and unworthy.

Well, if in order to be possible or worthy, I have to think like you, see the world as you do, respond to things as you do, draw the same conclusions as you do, or form my arguments in the same way as you do, admit I'm wrong because you think I'm wrong, or drop off the face of the world because I don't fit your own very weird view of morality, I am just going to have to be impossible and unworthy.

You say you have read Horowitz extensively, yet nothing you have said supports that view. I asked you to take one specific thing that Horowitz has written and discuss what he said. You have refused to do that and instead prefer to use quotes taken out of context or whatever savage commentary you can find to post about him. You expect me to find that convincing? You were once asked, several times, to post or provide a link for one thing, any one thing, from Salon that supported any kind of conservative views. You didn't do that. Why didn't you refer us to Horowitz then? I think you have no credibility on this issue thus far. Nevertheless, you expect me to support any opinion I hold even though it is expressed as opinion? And you excoriate me for not knowing what a double standard is.

George referred to Horowitz as I believe a born trouble maker. No doubt he is. All people who think outside of the box and express their views generally are. Some are good, some are bad. Perhaps most get much wrong, and none get everything right. But all stretch the possibilities for humankind to consider.

The thesis of the thread is diversity of anything but thought. In order to have diversity of thought, it has to be allowed. The world doesn't revolve around you and you don't get to dictate to me or anybody else what they are supposed to think, how they are to express their ideas or thoughts, or what their place must be in it. Those who presume to do that are a shining example of the accuracy of the thesis of the thread.

I was able to enjoy this forum for many months by ignoring you, but, because I missed our former friendly banter, I decided to give you another chance. But, as you say your intent is to continue to presume to be qualified to judge me and mentor me and my words even though I am apparently not worthy to be considered as your equal or even as a member of A2K, I can go right back to ignoring you.

I had even intended to do that a day or two ago after you became absolutely insufferable. Now I wish I had.

0 Replies

Diversity of Everything but Thought

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know