Debates
01 Jan 05
01 Jan 05
Originally posted by WulebgrState a SINGLE opinion then.
Come on SVW, I've pointed you towards a reasoned defense of your assertions regarding the dangers posed by stateless gangs, although the article lacks the rhetorical flourish of your oxymoron: stateless fascists.
But you prefer to question the lessons I learned from informed Republicans, my parents.
I just can't help but notice that all you have done is quote.
01 Jan 05
Originally posted by Paul DiracSo.
And what's with the tattoo phenomenon?
Adding a drawing to Pam Anderson's body can ONLY move it in a less pretty direction--I don't care if it's barbed wire or a rose or what have you--it is just plain wrong.
You value the illusion?
Or did I miss something? If I did then I apologize.
01 Jan 05
'thinking' and 'feeling' are, in fact 2 different ways of relating to what you might call reality. If you would take some time to read Carl Jung, you would find that the thinking/feeling dichotomy is expolred in depth in his work and is the basis for his personaltiy test.
I might suggest gettingsome old reruns together of a TVshow called northern exposure. it was based on the thinking/feeling model of Jungian psychology; the characters inthe show modeled different personality tyes as Jung defined them.
01 Jan 05
2 edits
Originally posted by aboutHell. I memorized Karl.
'thinking' and 'feeling' are, in fact 2 different ways of relating to what you might call reality. If you would take some time to read Carl Jung, you would find that the thinking/feeling dichotomy is expolred in depth in his work and is ...[text shortened]... the show modeled different personality tyes as Jung defined them.
But. You are young also.
We are now into the 21st century. Sorry Karl.
We now know that "feeling" is to do with the five senses. Period.
And that "thinking"... is still a mystery.
Any real thoughts? Other than a nastalgic visit to old Copenhagen?
Jeez! I just want to shoot the little buggers! They see no truth between the most tortured of all philosophers and a silly tv show!
You figure it out! He was a guest two times. On "northern Exposure". You know. The show you are such a smart assed expert on?
01 Jan 05
Originally posted by aboutSVW's point was not that feeling isn't a way of relating to reality, but that claims about the way one feels are often asserted as though they do not stand in need of justification. If I claim that 'I think P is the case" you may ask me why I think this, what reasons I have for thinking this, whether this claim of mine is true, etc. Often, however, when people claim "I feel that P is the case" they resent being asked to give their reasons, as though feeling something is just a brute fact about which nothing much can be said. Folk overlook the fact that some feelings are unreasonable, and that one may "feel that P is the case" when P is actually not the case. SVW is not making claims about the distinction between cognitive and connative states, but about the extent to which young folk are unprepared or unwilling to attempt to justify their opinions.
'thinking' and 'feeling' are, in fact 2 different ways of relating to what you might call reality. If you would take some time to read Carl Jung, you would find that the thinking/feeling dichotomy is expolred in depth in his work and is the basis for his personaltiy test.
I might suggest gettingsome old reruns together of a TVshow called northern expos ...[text shortened]... psychology; the characters inthe show modeled different personality tyes as Jung defined them.
01 Jan 05
Originally posted by bbarrGod! Bennet. Should I ever have your ability... I will just quit.
SVW's point was not that feeling isn't a way of relating to reality, but that claims about the way one feels are often asserted as though they do not stand in need of justification. If I claim that 'I think P is the case" you may ask me why I think this, what reasons I have for thinking this, whether this claim of mine is true, etc. Often, however, when ...[text shortened]... the extent to which young folk are unprepared or unwilling to attempt to justify their opinions.
Ain't it amazing? Me with word? You with thought?
I wonder what will await the world should we ever engage each others talents?
01 Jan 05
Stupidity is not isolated in the young. Also not all young people are stupid. I can form an argument and support it with evidence. I read widely enough to not have a skewed world view. How about you stop lumping together a large group of people as stupid and uninformed based on a small sample?
01 Jan 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyApologies for this aside but I've been wondering this for a while. If the american word for a full stop is 'period' then why write it? Just type one. Full stop.
Their inability to find reasonable points in reality and state them. Then to support them with reason.
Typically I always see that "Bush just spouts the typical Cowbow BS about how he don't need the UN."
And nobody backs up this brash declaration.
Why should this conflict of generations even exist?
Who is right... and who is wrong?
I a ...[text shortened]... ced "Think".
Period.
When did this happen? And why did it? Does it have any importance?
01 Jan 05
Originally posted by Paul Diraci don't say i look like pam anderson, do you claim to?
And what's with the tattoo phenomenon?
Adding a drawing to Pam Anderson's body can ONLY move it in a less pretty direction--I don't care if it's barbed wire or a rose or what have you--it is just plain wrong.
01 Jan 05
Originally posted by flexmoreTo get to me from Pam Anderson, you'd have to add patches of hair over most of the body and... well, never mind.
i don't say i look like pam anderson, do you claim to?
I wonder if Pam looked down at her pre-tattoo body in the shower one day and thought, with her female mind: "ah, that's nothing special. I need to do something to spice it up." All I am saying is that from this male's point of view, adding a tattoo to her is like trying to gild a lilly or however that Shakespearian phrase goes.
01 Jan 05
Young people of today are more educated and intelligent then the baby boomer generation ever was, the standards are also much higher. Back in the boomer era, High School qualified you to become an engineer, teacher, businessman, etc. . ., nowadays, a more difficult High School with much more knowledgable teacher base, only qualifies a young person to a life of a homeless bum.
01 Jan 05
3 edits
Originally posted by mateuloseDo not confuse intelligence with education. Many educated folks reveal their limited intelligence all too readily. Many others who lack education, even completion of high school, have proven themselves of superior intelligence.
Young people of today are more educated and intelligent then the baby boomer generation ever was, the standards are also much higher. Back in the boomer era, High School qualified you to become an engineer, teacher, businessman, etc. . ., ...[text shortened]... r base, only qualifies a young person to a life of a homeless bum.
It is difficult to accurately assess the relative standards of today's schools with those of the past generation. The curriculum has changed dramatically.
Students today have access to subjects that did not exist for boomers, computers for one.
Recent curriculum trends have increased expectations that students study a second language, but this improvement over the boomer generation's curriculum remains far short of the expectations that prevailed two generations ago. On the other hand, finishing high school was less common in the days when Greek and Latin were required in high school. In those days, languages such as Spanish and Japanese almost never were offered.
Students today study less history, government, music, math, and science (excepting computer science) than the boomer generation. Nevertheless, many who went to Vietnam as US soldiers could not locate it on a map; this ignorance is also a factor among many of the soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq (even though they, on average, have completed more years of school).
The teachers who inhabited classrooms when the boomers were in school rarely lacked the fundamental literacy skills of grammar, knowledge of syntax, and spelling. Sadly, such is not true today. It has been a rare note home from today's teachers that conforms to the basic standards they should be teaching our children. They cannot teach what they do not understand, so in this area things are growing worse.
Engineering is a new discipline--new in the past century, that is; but at least by the time I was in junior high thirty years ago, a Master's degree was the norm for a substantial percentage of engineers.
Many of our colleges today started as post-secondary teacher training facilities in the nineteenth century. It has been a long time since a high school diploma qualified one for that career.
People in the business world range from drop-outs to those whose MBA is merely one in their array of advanced degrees. Education can sometimes compensate for a lack of talent, but generally talent and luck are the key elements. Of course, it depends on whether one is fundamentally the employer or the employed. The employed often are required to possess credentials that the employer may or may not have.
It seems plausible that a college education is needed in other areas, where once a high school education was sufficient, because college students now learn what was once taught in the eighth grade. However, as I noted above, these comparisons are not so simple. The number of years of schooling completed by the average American has been increasing steadily throughout our history; but the change in knowledge has been more an issue of kind than degree.
02 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrRay Kroc did not start the McDonalds franchise, but he bought it out pretty early in its history when there were just a handful of locations. He was not a great student, and if I remember he may not even have graduated from high school. I am not sure if it was more vision or luck that he did so well in ramping it up into a major chain.
... People in the business world range from drop-outs to those whose MBA is merely one in their array of advanced degrees. Education can sometimes compensate for a lack of talent, but generally talent and luck are the key elements. ...
I recently heard that his widow left something like a billion dollars to the Salvation Army when she died.
02 Jan 05
Originally posted by Paul DiracAnd such business stories will NEVER happen in year 2005, thus this is pretty much irrelevant.
Ray Kroc did not start the McDonalds franchise, but he bought it out pretty early in its history when there were just a handful of locations. He was not a great student, and if I remember he may not even have graduated from high school. I am not sure if it was more vision or luck that he did so well in ramping it up into a major chain.
I recently heard that his widow left something like a billion dollars to the Salvation Army when she died.