Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Good point. I don't agree with it (I think partisanship, in that it requires a stance on a given issue to be predetermined without any knowledge of said issue, is fundamentally stupid), but it is a good point.

 

The rest of your post...well, let me put it this way: if stupidity is determined by genetics, what's it's heritability? :D

 

:lol:

 

OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE!

 

We've arrived at the dreaded "Chicken and the Egg of Partisanship" Paradox Loop!!! EGG DAMN YOU EGG!!!!

 

:lol:

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
:lol:

 

OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE!

 

We've arrived at the dreaded "Chicken and the Egg of Partisanship" Paradox Loop!!! EGG DAMN YOU EGG!!!!

 

:lol:

 

Tyrannosauras Rex!

Posted
No, stupid is much more a priori-ish. As in the conditions for the possibility of stupidness manifesting are already kind of hardwired in your DNA. Not knowing when to quit can be a manifestation of stupidity but it doesn't define it. One can be "not stupid" and also not know when to quit, especially when motivated by an excess of righteous zeal that blinds rational sensors from modifying said behavior and examining an issue from multiple perspectives and viewpoints, which is the definition of a partisan. Because all partisans aren't necessarily stupid but all partisans don't know when to quit, imo.

Who, pray tell, is suppose to judge when a person is suppose to quit? Tom? :lol:

Posted
Who, pray tell, is suppose to judge when a person is suppose to quit? Tom? :lol:

 

Frankly, most people could do the job better than you.

Posted
Who, pray tell, is suppose to judge when a person is suppose to quit? Tom? :lol:

 

you are supposed to judge when you should quit. Each person has to be their own judge. This is what the rational thought process of a person is supposed to do before it gets bogged down in partisanship. There is a difference between articulating a viewpoint with passion and blindly arguing it with narrow-minded zeal. The former can be done with perspective, whereas the latter forsakes perspective in favor of ego and self-inflation.

Posted
you are supposed to judge when you should quit. Each person has to be their own judge. This is what the rational thought process of a person is supposed to do before it gets bogged down in partisanship. There is a difference between articulating a viewpoint with passion and blindly arguing it with narrow-minded zeal. The former can be done with perspective, whereas the latter forsakes perspective in favor of ego and self-inflation.

I agree 100%

Posted
I gotta do it...

Holcomb's Arm would throw you a lifesaver with 3.5 yards of rope on it, and tell you it's your fault because you're drowning in the wrong place.

 

You could do better than that. Especially after that classic 1st post.

Posted
You are probably right. I'm not the one who wants to simply lable people "partisans." I generally like to argue the issues instead.

 

Yeah you do a great job of that.

 

Bush is evil. Cheney is evil.

 

There, done.

Posted
You could do better than that. Especially after that classic 1st post.

 

After the "Beast-Man Cheney" LaRouche reference, I really had nowhere to go but down.

×
×
  • Create New...