Quote:
this is funny.
what does it mean?
let's think about it for a few minutes, shall we?
|
I'm going to show why I'm superior to Ustwo
Quote:
|
when it suits a conservative purpose, some folk on the right are all about notions like "objectivity" and "responsibility" from which you would assume follows a commitment to accurate information and a willingness to admit mistakes and/or problems and/or even bigger dysfunctions---but then, when it suits a conservative purpose, you see these same folk defending absolute relativism, a kind of "my premises are my premises and because they are my premises they are mine and you can't falsify them."
|
Conservatives will demand the truth unless it doesn't suit their purposes.
Quote:
|
the maintenance tool is a kind of hydra that springs from the usage of the term "liberal biais" which operates as a mechanism that enables the dismissal of information you dont like. "the liberal" is a perverse being that follows the conservative around, negating whatever is said, just by standing it on its head. so a conservative will argue "x" and at the same instant, somewhere in space, "the liberal" will argue "-x"....the timing is amazing---it's like "the liberal" is everywhere and takes what conservatives say as his or her sole objects of attention. every conservative is a world-historical figure, so every conservative draws down the zeitgeist upon themselves, the positivities and their negation, all at once. it is, i imagine, a burden.
|
Liberal bias is just what conservatives claim when they don't like something, and you can see just how silly they are, I also used the word zeitgeist, its in vogue these days.
Quote:
|
and "the liberal" is assumed to flourish best in particular, controlled hives. one of these is named berkeley.
|
self evident
Quote:
|
so nonsensical was doomed from the beginning.
|
Ustwo was going to use the conservative tricks to dismiss nonsensical.
Quote:
|
anyway, you see this in the above--the claim here is that conservatives have their own special type of "truth and reason" when it is convenient to have such things, and the validity of this special type rests on the claim which precedes it in the sentence:
|
Conservatives are illogical.
Quote:
"I think what people like you fail to realize is that highly educated, self aware, independently thinking people like me.."
so what holds this together is the self-image of the believer.
when it is convenient, one's "independently thinking"-ness is demonstrated by simply refusing to acknowledge dissonance. in this way, such operators maintain consistency of worldview in the face of mountains of evidence that, if admitted, would trigger a movement like "self-awareness" (in the sense that checking for errors in a proof is not the same operation as you see deployed in the proof). this is a form of independence, i guess....but i think of it as independence in the sense that a balloon has it when you let float into space.
|
Ustwo just ignores all the great evidence against his point of view because he conflicts with his own version of the world.
Quote:
|
investment in this machinery is not uniform, though, even amongst folk who identify as conservative. because any coalition encompasses a range of people, there are necessarily a range of meanings attached to the characterization "highly educated, self aware, independently thinking people" and not all of them believe that there are at least two separate types of reason, one for conservatives and another for everyone else, that is, for "the liberal"....no, this is a particular understanding of how one goes about being conservative.
|
Not everyone thinks there are just two ways of looking at an issue, the last line is unclear and most likely condescending.
Quote:
it doesn't do justice to the tradition of conservative thinking.
but that is a topic for another post someday.
|
Ustwo is a doodyhead.
roachy - First a couple of things, if you want responses to your posts I'd really recommend finding that shift key, it makes your sentences easier to read. Secondly quite writing like you are posting on a socialist web site. I know the style of such places is to use the biggest words and most convoluted way to make your point, but franky it shouldn't be a chore to read your posts and they are. You spend a lot of time and effort writing them, it would be nice if they were read. I can't be held accountable for misinterpreting what you say when you don't say it clearly and I'm sure we have missed many opportunities for discourse where I felt I didn't have the desire to dissect your posts.
Now for what I assume was the meat of your post. You misinterpreted my statement but understandably from your perspective. When someone states that perhaps the most notoriously liberal mecca in the US is one way and its everyone else who is wrong, they have already shown they do not accept other view points as valid, this is reinforced by calling them 'sheeple'. Its a dismissal of their motivations and intelligence. I was simply reinforcing that people like me are not 'sheeple'.
Now for your second point. I am surprised that me as a hard science guy need to remind someone in humanities that there is more than one way to interpret data. Its not ignoring its taking what is observed and coming to a different conclusion. For example.
Haliburton gets a no-bid contract in Iraq :
Liberal - Its because of Dick Cheney helping his friends line their pockets with blood money.
Conservative - Its because Haliburton has a very long and proven track record doing such tasks.
See same data, different conclusions.
I do get annoyed as much as anyone when the facts are the source of contention, but its the interpretation where real discourse can take place.