molson_golden2002 Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 Because your tactics are alienating anyone who might agree with you, So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 So? So, if your point is to make an argument, and your way of making an argument is, "you should agree with me, idiots! See, I was right!" -- that's not going to convince anyone. It stifles dialogue. You wonder why there's gridlock and no one gets anything done in Washington -- it's because the discourse swings between this stuff and the patronizing pretense of one side caring about the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 So, if your point is to make an argument, and your way of making an argument is, "you should agree with me, idiots! See, I was right!" -- that's not going to convince anyone. It stifles dialogue. You wonder why there's gridlock and no one gets anything done in Washington -- it's because the discourse swings between this stuff and the patronizing pretense of one side caring about the other. You do realize that, in his eyes, this post makes you a Republican, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 You do realize that, in his eyes, this post makes you a Republican, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 So, if your point is to make an argument, and your way of making an argument is, "you should agree with me, idiots! See, I was right!" -- that's not going to convince anyone. It stifles dialogue. You wonder why there's gridlock and no one gets anything done in Washington -- it's because the discourse swings between this stuff and the patronizing pretense of one side caring about the other. Ok, fine, I'm as nice as apple pie from now on. No name calling, I'll show patience and understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 You do realize that, in his eyes, this post makes you a Republican, right? I think that's rather unfair of you to assume what I am thinking. Is that a fair criticism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I think that's rather unfair of you to assume what I am thinking. Is that a fair criticism? You're right. I shouldn't assume you're thinking. I'm sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 You're right. I shouldn't assume you're thinking. I'm sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I think he reads them, comprehension appears to be the issue. People in general are more aware of other people's faults than they are of their own. Molson isn't the idiot Tom's described, but his way of presenting himself makes it seem like he only considers one side of the issue. Molson would probably argue that there are times when there is a right or wrong answer. And in his defense, if improving America's security was the question, the Iraq War was clearly the wrong answer. To call his opposition to Bush "unthinking" would be unfair. Most of Bush's policies have been formulated without any apparent regard for what's best for America or for the world. Given that fact, I can see why those who oppose Bush most strongly have apparently gained the highest level of credibility in Molson's eyes. I agree with Molson's fundamental assertion that the Bush presidency has done far more harm than good. What I'd like to see him do is spend time talking about the ways in which politicians have failed beyond just their failure to oppose Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Yeah, I'm spreading the propaganda that variance causes regression toward the mean. No, you're spreading anti-Darwinistic, intellectually shallow propaganda in a pitiful attempt to discredit the concept of a eugenics program. Your 50+ pages of blather about regression toward the mean was (originally) intended to reinforce one of the objections you'd attempted to raise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I think that's rather unfair of you to assume what I am thinking. Is that a fair criticism? What?! Bungee Jumper/DC Tom made an unfair and inaccurate assumption about what someone else was thinking? That's like Mike Williams sneaking another cookie out of the cookie jar when no one's looking. Totally unheard-of, I say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 No, you're spreading anti-Darwinistic, intellectually shallow propaganda in a pitiful attempt to discredit the concept of a eugenics program. He can be really sneaky that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 He can be really sneaky that way. A single critical insight forms the foundation upon which Darwinism rests. Whenever a trait gives organisms a reproductive or survival advantage, that trait will become increasingly widespread in subsequent generations. Stupid people are having more children than smart people; and have been for some time. We are selectively breeding ourselves for stupidity. The solution is a eugenics program. Unfortunately, people have been trained to think politically/emotionally about this (Nazi Germany, gas chambers, etc.) rather than scientifically (selective breeding, Darwinism, the needs of a technologically advanced society). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Molson isn't the idiot Tom's described Priceless. I'd say that you and molson would make a great pair in a movie, but they already made "The Ringer". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 No, you're spreading anti-Darwinistic, intellectually shallow propaganda in a pitiful attempt to discredit the concept of a eugenics program. Your 50+ pages of blather about regression toward the mean was (originally) intended to reinforce one of the objections you'd attempted to raise. Fact check here. You're the one who called Darwinism bull sh--. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Fact check here. You're the one who called Darwinism bull sh--. I suggest you take a remedial-level class in reading. I wrote that if what Bungee Jumper had been saying was actually true, it would undermine the basis for Darwinism. Given that Bungee Jumper's assertions were a bunch of horse manure, I was quite comfortable in my conclusion that the basis for Darwinism had not, in fact, been undermined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I suggest you take a remedial-level class in reading. I wrote that if what Bungee Jumper had been saying was actually true, it would undermine the basis for Darwinism. Given that Bungee Jumper's assertions were a bunch of horse manure, I was quite comfortable in my conclusion that the basis for Darwinism had not, in fact, been undermined. Because just about all traits are subject to regression toward the mean, that line of thinking constitutes a rejection of Darwinism. you are a proponent of your retarded version of incorrect die and regression to the mean, thereby you reject darwinism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 you are a proponent of your retarded version of incorrect die and regression to the mean, thereby you reject darwinism. This topic - Holcolmbian evolution and math (as opposed to actual evolution and math the rest of the world understands) - is like a fungus. It's sporulated, and now whever the spores land, provided there's a nice, solid base of errant crap to land on, it just grows out of control... And I'm sure somehow this is my fault, for spreading my mathematical propaganda and deluding the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Ok, fine, I'm as nice as apple pie from now on. No name calling, I'll show patience and understanding. Gentility is not a remedy for stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Gentility is not a remedy for stupidity. Verbosity is not a remedy for ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts