Crosswalk? I've got no use for the damned crosswalk. I use even more common sense and cross the street when I don't see cars coming, crosswalk or no crosswalk. As a Californio, I'd expect you to have enough common sense not to expect an oncoming car to stop just because there is a crosswalk painted on the street. In my experience, only Washingtonians do that.
Skeptics and cynics don't want common sense. They want to get down and dirty immediately.
patiodog wrote:What does that mean?
That was not directed at you. It was a general comment. :-)
PPD, whenever something which Intrepid has just posted makes no sense to you, just think: "Kirk out."
PPD, whenever something which Setanta has just posted makes no sense to you, just think: "It was set."
I didnae think it was directed at me. I want to know what it meant.
patiodog wrote:I didnae think it was directed at me. I want to know what it meant.
Sorry for the confusion.
What I meant was that there are skeptics and cynics who are not interested in a common sense approach. They just want to get into the frey and do battle with anybody that is handy.
Ahhhh, so it's that nasty old "critical thinking" that's got you down. Damn and blast.
(So what am I, then, kynic os sceptic?)
" . . . intelligence . . . is in plentiful supply
. . . the scarce commodity is systematic training
in critical thinking." --Carl Sagan
patiodog wrote:(So what am I, then, kynic os sceptic?)
It is not for me to put you in a box. I don't necessarily put everyone in one or both of those categories. :-)
You can put me in any box of your choosing.Or category for that matter.It makes no odds to me.That's common sense.
You're late for a flight, which if you miss, you'll lose your job.
You can either take the old taxi or the emission free bus. The taxi will get you there with time to spare. The bus might get you there in time.
Which do you choose?
Common sense suggests the if undecided do nothing approach.
...
cjhsa wrote:You're late for a flight, which if you miss, you'll lose your job.
You can either take the old taxi or the emission free bus. The taxi will get you there with time to spare. The bus might get you there in time.
Which do you choose?
You're confusing common sense with subjective ethics.
Subjective ethics can never be common sense.Otherwise an aborignal tribe would have different common sense than us and the difference could only be explained ethically and that would be bound to be subjective.
Is that right?
From reading your posts cj, I don't think we tend to look at many things from the same angle, and I hate your big guns (but hey, it's a free country), but I get what you're saying here cj. Sometimes it just seems to go up, down over and around and everywhere but straight to the point. And by the time it seems to get all figured out (at least in some folks' minds) my question has become "uhm...so what was the point?"
*But I admit, I'm not a philosopher or debater - I'm more of a discusser.
spendius wrote:Subjective ethics can never be common sense.Otherwise an aborignal tribe would have different common sense than us and the difference could only be explained ethically and that would be bound to be subjective.
Is that right?
No sweeping generalizations from me. In his question about getting to work on time, chjsa was confusing common sense with ethics.
Are you an environmentalist who doesn't need a job, or a desperate person who needs his job?
