I've read a few of your posts. Ignoring everything else, you need some help. No, this is not sarcasm. No, I'm not kidding. Get some help. It's clear as day that someone played a ruinous role in your development, and you're living with the outcome. Your hostility towards victims marks you as a hidden victim.
You didn't go into the MBA program. Rather, looking at your site, you decided to go into the small businessman route. Kudos, it's more work than I ever want to do. You have taken the ONLY real route to getting loaded while under 30, and its obvious that luck, hard work, and others have made your success possible. You're a rarity, an exception that demonstrates the rule. MBA's get paid shit if they work for someone else.
Hummer H2: Just when you thought a normal SUV was proof enough that people have way too much money to waste on things they don't need or use, along comes this beauty(well, ugly block of metal.)
Confess. Don't you feel a little stupid defending people who buy these things? Could I afford one? Sure. Do I want to? Do I need to? Hell no, on both counts.
Don't you feel like you are overstating the case, even slightly? There is a definite push towards diversity and self-reflection on NPR. While this is a good thing in most circumstances, and I enjoy listening to it due to the long-form reporting the post beneath this refers to, the programming sometimes goes too far, to the point of sectarian dogma pushing a sense of shame on self-loathing liberals. It becomes grinding, and more than a little preachy. Please note that I said this only happens sometimes.
Let me see if I have this straight. You don't know enough to make the claim against all religions, but then you have the gall to give out dogma regarding all religions? Following this, you PRESUME your evidence regarding the presence or absence of scientific data which supports the ambiguously defined "supernatural"? Yes, you are definitely the hard-liner I was referring to in other posts. You are obviously dogmatic, and you don't even have the honesty to acknowledge this.
As to calibre, your definition is going to land you in a world of hurt. There is NO single overriding characteristic that will tell you who the good and bad people are. You are in for a lifetime of false positives and negatives. If I had to assign calibre, I would give the well-meaning but respectful cube Christian or Buddhist a hell of a lot more leeway than some preachy atheist asshole.
I've known people like you. Notice that I like to keep that past tense. You don't know nearly as much as you "presume", and you are in many ways more dogmatic than those you have judged to be lesser mortals than yourself.
You must be young then. Your sample is obviously tiny, and I doubt the good and bad people will continue to line up so nicely in the future. Enjoy the "clarity" you have right now. You might miss it, if you can't get over the fact that you can't prejudge someone's entire "calibre" with a single overriding characteristic.
Frankly, from my angle, you strike me as a dogmatic asshole who is prone to making snap decisions. Don't worry. Sooner or later, one of those good people will show you how flimsy your method truly is, and you will grow up.
1. I don't know of all religions in all of humanity. Do you claim to?
2. Exactly which religions have been debunked? Can you provide this debunking?
See my above posts. You are clearly at least as dogmatic as anyone I know from personal experience. As for determining calibre, I would love to know how exactly you set standards on this. Really, aren't you just saying that people that agree with you must be higher calibre, and those that don't must be ethically and socially inept beings? Do you have any idea have any idea how this is coming across? Maybe you don't care, but you are doing those who would agree with you a disservice by speaking.
Here's the real quandry. One such unstated caveat is that given what I hold to be self-evident, or to be supported by what I hold to be self-evident I acknowledge not only the validity of the argument, but the soundness of the premises. Scientific methodologies don't flee this concept. The incompleteness of the evidence is in the eye of the beholder, as all evidence is in the end incomplete. Really, it boils down to what level of ambiguity you are willing to accept in combination with your basic precepts.
If you're a hard-liner, it doesn't matter what your precepts are, you're still close-minded and dogmatic. If you're open to ambiguity in what you know, you can allow for changes to even your basic precepts without your world collapsing around you ears.
They have both decided that all things must be proven. The unstated caveat is that all things must be proven, given a base set of axioms with which to prove things. Their base sets are different. They use the same method.
Your FAITH in the Scientific Method is fine, but it stops at the end of your nose. You don't know anything you can't base on a few precepts-including your Scientific Method.
You're right. I don't play that many games, and I don't have a monitor that does better than my TV with games. Granted, my monitor has higher capability, but it's no 27" TV.
I would argue that I'm in the vast majority here, and the distinction can still be made for most people who play video games: computer games usually mean one person to a monitor, while console games equal multiple people to a TV.
Maybe I'm an idiot, but the biggest difference between a game console experience and a PC experience is that I don't need four PC's to play a game with three of my friends...I can just use my console which either has four plugs available, or I buy a component for less than fifty bucks to make it happen. Just saying...some of us have friends who DON'T want to spend half an hour to an hour getting everything set up so we can play a game.
I'll concede one point right off the bat-I could have been more polite, even given the ideas I was trying to get across. Regardless, I'm going to continue.
I live in the U.S. I understand to a painful degree the warts of my society. I understand the numbing shallowness of most days here. I don't pretend to know anything about the societies outside mine based on their media coverage. Why? Because I can see how the media coverage in my country is skewed from reality. Why would I naively presume that the media in other countries is more objective and, more importantly, complete? Believe it or not, most everyone I live around and with laugh at the reality shows. We know they are crap. We know that most movies that come out are crap. We know that this is a byproduct of our society. On a daily level, me, the hundreds(maybe thousands...not doing a count right now) of people I know, and the thousands of people that we've dealt with indirectly but sufficiently rule out Hollywood as having any idea of what life is like outside of a very, very small bubble.
Bush sounded like a television show because he was using hyperbole. Bin Laden seems to have some(mind you only some) idea of how to manipulate the media. Those dorks you see on the NBC Today Show with their "Hi Mom!" signs are for the most part just having fun. They know they're behaving like dorks, aping it up for the camera. The problem with your sample data is that it is sourced in the media. You don't having anything outside of the media, so OF COURSE its going to seem like "The American public - not to mention the entire world - is reared on the memetic teat of Hollywood." The media and hollywood(barely separable, I know) are narcissistic. The only reason it seems the U.S. public is voyeuristic is the people who pretend to show you what it is like here primarily focus on themselves. Ever notice how many movies are made about directors, actors, producers, and news people? Ever notice how well they are received in the reviews? Don't even get me started on the circle-jerk award ceremonies, or the TV shows about TV stars. Most people here do not care, have never cared, and will never care about what some dipshit in Hollywood does with his spare time. If you watch a lot of U.S. news broadcasts...have you ever noticed how much news is about the news? I hardly ever watch the news anymore. It's five minutes of news wrapped up in 25 minutes of commercials, highlights of what's to come next in the news, flashing images of the people who deign to bring us said news, and flashy graphics about the news we're about to be provided. That's on a local level! On a national level, the "news" is almost always a day or two behind the net. If I want to know about something, I cull it from google news articles, bbc, cnn, reuters, and...well, slashdot. Every so often, I do hear about something here first. Sometimes, its wrapped into a post marked off-topic, or sometimes its linked in someone's sig.
You'll have to explain what you meant by "And you can go tell the Marines too." In case you're wondering, the people who pull the BEST job on guiding the media is our government. Hands down. Play dumb, trump up a red herring, slip nasty procedure/law/decision through on page 20 of the Wall Street Journal, where it will quietly go unread.
Oh...btw. I realized you mistook my comment about your insightfulness out of context. I was jabbing at you for your presumption of knowledge about the U.S. I've posted things marked insightful. Granted, I've been having fun burning some karma...but hey.
Next time, I think I'll just skip on the sarcasm and cut right to it.
We shouldn't generalize our responses to an individual based on what country in which they live.
Anyone who thinks we should, is a moronic bigot and is only attempting to cover their ignorance with guesses.
On the one hand, your entire post has been insulting, rude and arrogant not only to myself, but to an entire country. On the other hand, your last five sentences indicate that at the very least, you can parrot common sense. You may want to check your medication levels.
No medications here. Just some poorly executed sarcasm.
You're so full of shit, it's hard to know where to begin. Let's start off easy. The media reports what sells. You bought it. That doesn't mean it's what's real. When someone blames something complex like Columbine on a simplistic cause like media, they are displaying their own sophomoric tendency to accept a simple answer where there is none. This is their mistake.
I'm not sure if you're a troll, but hey, I'll bite. Quit repeating yourself. If you have trouble distinguishing "reality" shows from reality, you need some fucking help. Believe it or not, what happens on TV is NOT REAL. Sorry. BTW...no such thing as Santa Claus either, even if CNN is tracking the sleigh as it makes its path.
Observers can note all they want about what sounds like what. A metaphor is not a proof, and the media is a sponge. You don't live in the U.S. This is a good thing, because it gives you an out for your inane comments-you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Don't worry. I won't tell you to step out of your delusions regarding the output of Hollywood. Frankly, I don't believe it would do a whole lot of good, since you've made up your mind based on the manufactured experience given to you by a medium aimed at the dummies of the world.
I bet you even think you're insightful. To me, you sound like an average joe pothead who never picked up a book, watched way too much fucking television, and decided the world was too easy for a mind like your's. Then again, I have to alter this...maybe in your country, you ARE bright. What's that? I shouldn't generalize based on what country you came from? I shouldn't be a moronic bigot? I shouldn't take my ignorance and cover it up with guesses? Well, I guess you might have a point. I bet if we try hard enough, we could all learn something.
No. Wrong. Television is entertainment. Real life is not entertaining. Life does not imitate showbiz. Showbiz does not imitate life, as it wouldn't sell. You are watching logic puzzles and idiotic comedy.
You are not watching the amazingly dry process of law grind its way through people's lives. I'm not sure what your point was, and thus, my only point was a corrective measure. Please, don't confuse the output of Hollywood with reality in the U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
Xerithane is the product of an abusive household. You are arguing with an abuse victim. Keep that in mind.
I've read a few of your posts. Ignoring everything else, you need some help. No, this is not sarcasm. No, I'm not kidding. Get some help. It's clear as day that someone played a ruinous role in your development, and you're living with the outcome. Your hostility towards victims marks you as a hidden victim.
Get some help.
You didn't go into the MBA program. Rather, looking at your site, you decided to go into the small businessman route. Kudos, it's more work than I ever want to do. You have taken the ONLY real route to getting loaded while under 30, and its obvious that luck, hard work, and others have made your success possible. You're a rarity, an exception that demonstrates the rule. MBA's get paid shit if they work for someone else.
Hummer H2: Just when you thought a normal SUV was proof enough that people have way too much money to waste on things they don't need or use, along comes this beauty(well, ugly block of metal.)
Confess. Don't you feel a little stupid defending people who buy these things? Could I afford one? Sure. Do I want to? Do I need to? Hell no, on both counts.
I was blown away by the movies that were chosen in its place. Spiderman? Eh. Not completely convincing, but okay. SW:E2? Shocking. Just pathetic.
Take the plug out of your ass long enough to listen to something very simple.
It's a movie. The effects were not gadgety(masturbatory, in your lingo) and the acting helped tell the story.
Go back to watching your eurotrash art flicks from the sixties and spare the rest of us your opinion.
Half a year before? You fucking crackhead. The popping of the bubble occurred in 2000, NOT 2001. Get it straight, dummy.
What the hell is wrong with you? Get some therapy, sociopath.
Don't you feel like you are overstating the case, even slightly? There is a definite push towards diversity and self-reflection on NPR. While this is a good thing in most circumstances, and I enjoy listening to it due to the long-form reporting the post beneath this refers to, the programming sometimes goes too far, to the point of sectarian dogma pushing a sense of shame on self-loathing liberals. It becomes grinding, and more than a little preachy. Please note that I said this only happens sometimes.
What security precautions are you going to use to prevent bad people from hacking into your company's systems?
How about a 1 written over a 1 versus a 1 written over a 0? Are they different?
Read my other posts within this discussion thread. I welcome responses to them.
Let me see if I have this straight. You don't know enough to make the claim against all religions, but then you have the gall to give out dogma regarding all religions? Following this, you PRESUME your evidence regarding the presence or absence of scientific data which supports the ambiguously defined "supernatural"? Yes, you are definitely the hard-liner I was referring to in other posts. You are obviously dogmatic, and you don't even have the honesty to acknowledge this.
As to calibre, your definition is going to land you in a world of hurt. There is NO single overriding characteristic that will tell you who the good and bad people are. You are in for a lifetime of false positives and negatives. If I had to assign calibre, I would give the well-meaning but respectful cube Christian or Buddhist a hell of a lot more leeway than some preachy atheist asshole.
I've known people like you. Notice that I like to keep that past tense. You don't know nearly as much as you "presume", and you are in many ways more dogmatic than those you have judged to be lesser mortals than yourself.
You must be young then. Your sample is obviously tiny, and I doubt the good and bad people will continue to line up so nicely in the future. Enjoy the "clarity" you have right now. You might miss it, if you can't get over the fact that you can't prejudge someone's entire "calibre" with a single overriding characteristic.
Frankly, from my angle, you strike me as a dogmatic asshole who is prone to making snap decisions. Don't worry. Sooner or later, one of those good people will show you how flimsy your method truly is, and you will grow up.
To quote a Catholic priest I knew in college(no, I'm not Catholic...but some of my friends are!):
Beware a theologian bearing answers.
Wow.
1. I don't know of all religions in all of humanity. Do you claim to?
2. Exactly which religions have been debunked? Can you provide this debunking?
See my above posts. You are clearly at least as dogmatic as anyone I know from personal experience. As for determining calibre, I would love to know how exactly you set standards on this. Really, aren't you just saying that people that agree with you must be higher calibre, and those that don't must be ethically and socially inept beings? Do you have any idea have any idea how this is coming across? Maybe you don't care, but you are doing those who would agree with you a disservice by speaking.
I'll bite. How?
Here's the real quandry. One such unstated caveat is that given what I hold to be self-evident, or to be supported by what I hold to be self-evident I acknowledge not only the validity of the argument, but the soundness of the premises. Scientific methodologies don't flee this concept. The incompleteness of the evidence is in the eye of the beholder, as all evidence is in the end incomplete. Really, it boils down to what level of ambiguity you are willing to accept in combination with your basic precepts.
If you're a hard-liner, it doesn't matter what your precepts are, you're still close-minded and dogmatic. If you're open to ambiguity in what you know, you can allow for changes to even your basic precepts without your world collapsing around you ears.
Sorry, but you are wrong.
They have both decided that all things must be proven. The unstated caveat is that all things must be proven, given a base set of axioms with which to prove things. Their base sets are different. They use the same method.
Your FAITH in the Scientific Method is fine, but it stops at the end of your nose. You don't know anything you can't base on a few precepts-including your Scientific Method.
You're right. I don't play that many games, and I don't have a monitor that does better than my TV with games. Granted, my monitor has higher capability, but it's no 27" TV.
I would argue that I'm in the vast majority here, and the distinction can still be made for most people who play video games: computer games usually mean one person to a monitor, while console games equal multiple people to a TV.
Maybe I'm an idiot, but the biggest difference between a game console experience and a PC experience is that I don't need four PC's to play a game with three of my friends...I can just use my console which either has four plugs available, or I buy a component for less than fifty bucks to make it happen. Just saying...some of us have friends who DON'T want to spend half an hour to an hour getting everything set up so we can play a game.
I live in the U.S. I understand to a painful degree the warts of my society. I understand the numbing shallowness of most days here. I don't pretend to know anything about the societies outside mine based on their media coverage. Why? Because I can see how the media coverage in my country is skewed from reality. Why would I naively presume that the media in other countries is more objective and, more importantly, complete? Believe it or not, most everyone I live around and with laugh at the reality shows. We know they are crap. We know that most movies that come out are crap. We know that this is a byproduct of our society. On a daily level, me, the hundreds(maybe thousands...not doing a count right now) of people I know, and the thousands of people that we've dealt with indirectly but sufficiently rule out Hollywood as having any idea of what life is like outside of a very, very small bubble.
Bush sounded like a television show because he was using hyperbole. Bin Laden seems to have some(mind you only some) idea of how to manipulate the media. Those dorks you see on the NBC Today Show with their "Hi Mom!" signs are for the most part just having fun. They know they're behaving like dorks, aping it up for the camera. The problem with your sample data is that it is sourced in the media. You don't having anything outside of the media, so OF COURSE its going to seem like "The American public - not to mention the entire world - is reared on the memetic teat of Hollywood." The media and hollywood(barely separable, I know) are narcissistic. The only reason it seems the U.S. public is voyeuristic is the people who pretend to show you what it is like here primarily focus on themselves. Ever notice how many movies are made about directors, actors, producers, and news people? Ever notice how well they are received in the reviews? Don't even get me started on the circle-jerk award ceremonies, or the TV shows about TV stars. Most people here do not care, have never cared, and will never care about what some dipshit in Hollywood does with his spare time. If you watch a lot of U.S. news broadcasts...have you ever noticed how much news is about the news? I hardly ever watch the news anymore. It's five minutes of news wrapped up in 25 minutes of commercials, highlights of what's to come next in the news, flashing images of the people who deign to bring us said news, and flashy graphics about the news we're about to be provided. That's on a local level! On a national level, the "news" is almost always a day or two behind the net. If I want to know about something, I cull it from google news articles, bbc, cnn, reuters, and...well, slashdot. Every so often, I do hear about something here first. Sometimes, its wrapped into a post marked off-topic, or sometimes its linked in someone's sig.
You'll have to explain what you meant by "And you can go tell the Marines too." In case you're wondering, the people who pull the BEST job on guiding the media is our government. Hands down. Play dumb, trump up a red herring, slip nasty procedure/law/decision through on page 20 of the Wall Street Journal, where it will quietly go unread.
Oh...btw. I realized you mistook my comment about your insightfulness out of context. I was jabbing at you for your presumption of knowledge about the U.S. I've posted things marked insightful. Granted, I've been having fun burning some karma...but hey.
Next time, I think I'll just skip on the sarcasm and cut right to it.
- We shouldn't generalize our responses to an individual based on what country in which they live.
- Anyone who thinks we should, is a moronic bigot and is only attempting to cover their ignorance with guesses.
On the one hand, your entire post has been insulting, rude and arrogant not only to myself, but to an entire country. On the other hand, your last five sentences indicate that at the very least, you can parrot common sense. You may want to check your medication levels.No medications here. Just some poorly executed sarcasm.
You're so full of shit, it's hard to know where to begin. Let's start off easy. The media reports what sells. You bought it. That doesn't mean it's what's real. When someone blames something complex like Columbine on a simplistic cause like media, they are displaying their own sophomoric tendency to accept a simple answer where there is none. This is their mistake.
I'm not sure if you're a troll, but hey, I'll bite. Quit repeating yourself. If you have trouble distinguishing "reality" shows from reality, you need some fucking help. Believe it or not, what happens on TV is NOT REAL. Sorry. BTW...no such thing as Santa Claus either, even if CNN is tracking the sleigh as it makes its path.
Observers can note all they want about what sounds like what. A metaphor is not a proof, and the media is a sponge. You don't live in the U.S. This is a good thing, because it gives you an out for your inane comments-you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Don't worry. I won't tell you to step out of your delusions regarding the output of Hollywood. Frankly, I don't believe it would do a whole lot of good, since you've made up your mind based on the manufactured experience given to you by a medium aimed at the dummies of the world.
I bet you even think you're insightful. To me, you sound like an average joe pothead who never picked up a book, watched way too much fucking television, and decided the world was too easy for a mind like your's. Then again, I have to alter this...maybe in your country, you ARE bright. What's that? I shouldn't generalize based on what country you came from? I shouldn't be a moronic bigot? I shouldn't take my ignorance and cover it up with guesses? Well, I guess you might have a point. I bet if we try hard enough, we could all learn something.
No. Wrong. Television is entertainment. Real life is not entertaining. Life does not imitate showbiz. Showbiz does not imitate life, as it wouldn't sell. You are watching logic puzzles and idiotic comedy.
You are not watching the amazingly dry process of law grind its way through people's lives. I'm not sure what your point was, and thus, my only point was a corrective measure. Please, don't confuse the output of Hollywood with reality in the U.S.
Wow. I didn't know that. Mark me educated a little bit today. Seriously.