scherado

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

You should broaden your reading patterns, in that case. This wikipedia page has

I don't acknowledge anything from wiki-pee-D-uh as legitimate. A friend who teaches high school does NOT allow it to be a primary source, but does allow it as secondary. I told him he should reconsider.

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

Anyway,  my questions remain. You already have the answers, apparently. I'm here ready to read them, when you are ready to post them.

I decided to post a few of the answers.
----------------

0. What I've been "studying": 1991-present, American politics, political philosophy  & "the Press"; 2001-present, Radical Islamic Terrorism; Referent Analysis (critical analysis)

0b. "of the type that occurred at the baseball practice for Republican members of Congress, June 2017

1. Mainstream Media (MSM) narrative: This refers to the prejudicial, biased interpretations peddled repeatedly, predictably, comprehensively by MSM--the resultant narrative has a theme and it pervades the content sold (broadcast) by the outlet: ABC, NBC, CBS and cable CNN, MSNBC and, since mid-2016, FOX. On my cable provider, BBC is offered and that would be included in my list if I were to broaden my answer to international media outlets. For this news event, the Las Vegas massacre, if S.Paddock had been a "neo-nazi"/civil-war-statue preserver/white supremacist type (Conservative) killer then his name, address, family-member names, biographical history, entire internet content, favorite "right-wing radio" personalities/books, and so on would have been revealed 60 minutes after the name of the shooter was established. Except, in the USA, conservatives don't do this kind of thing; no they do not. The narrative of MSM is shaped by the the goal to protect Leftists, Democrats (unless pedophiles) and destroy, denigrate, demean Conservatives and Republicans. Conservatives and Republicans are two distinct groups, though some Republicans are conservative; they can be counted on two hands. There is a type called Constitutional Conservative, to which I will answer.

...

3. I have spent several decades around--living, working, playing--around Leftists. I spent 8 years in central Massachusetts, in the heart of the "Five College Area"; a few years in Santa Fe, New Mexico; many decades in the one-party state of New York (Democrats)

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

Background Reminder: I don't know what you were studying since 1991,

Please see the above.

1 hour ago, Roamer said:

Area54 said:
"People are animals. Most of them never get over it. Perhaps you should."

What should one do with this? What I mean is what should I do with the information that people, being mammals in many ways similar to other mammals, eat, sleep, reproduce like other "animals?"

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

Regarding the topic I assume you mean Michael E Mann who became the focal point of attacks that ultimately proved to be baseless?

Yes, the man from Penn State, where a relative attends as I type. She still doesn't know who he is, which I can't explain.

I don't recall reading anything about his actual falsification of data being "proved to be baseless." Would you care to share that "proof"?--of course, I mean persuasive evidence, as proofs are the domain of mathematics.

I repeat, would you care to share that persuasive evidence that he didn't falsify data?

Let's be clear: I was being kind when I used the word "legerdemain".

Are you aware that Mr. Mann has failed to present any evidence in the 5-year-long legal case being adjudicated in, I think, several courts between him and Mark Steyn?

On 7/30/2017 at 4:08 AM, dordle-loddle said:

If everything had a source, (like a mother and a child, or the sun and plants) then where did gravity come from?

With respect to cause-effect, in the "mother-child" scenario, I humbly suggest you add "father"; and I suggest your re-think the "sun-plants" example.

Is your question one of origins (of the Universe) or exactly how gravitation is related to matter?

Please advise.

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

Someone who has been studying the issue for a week may have a position and supporting data that outargues both of us.

I agree that length of time does NOT determine accuracy. That should be considered obvious. The facts of the Las Vegas case are scant. In leiu of receiving the facts-in-waiting (being held close to the vest by authorities), we, all of us, must rely on our experience and knowledge.

Do you dispute any of this?

What is the point of something that "outrages" someone no matter what length of time? I am outraged by fatuity and inanity. Do you follow?

I'll consider revealing what I wrote based upon your replies.

9 hours ago, rangerx said:

Who died and made you the arbiter of what can or cannot be discussed, no less in the same breath punctuated with a bigoted statement?

9 hours ago, scherado said:

What's very obvious and not a matter of debate is that the Left in the US has become deranged and unhinged. Personally, I've been studying this subject since 1991--the Presidential race between Bush, The President and candidate Clinton.

I meant I not we or thee, won't debate what I know to be facts based upon considerable observation of the population in question, a.k.a. American Leftists. I will discuss in the sense that I may post a comment on the subject. I most certainly don't have the time to post links and data in support of the psychic transition from hinged to unhinged; and I most certainly don't mean all of the Left is unhinged. If that were true, then I wouldn't have time to type such things and would be fighting in the streets or some such thing. Hiding perhaps. As I've made quite clear, I don't own guns.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Here in the States numerous steps are put into place to restrict who votes.

Is that the purpose of "numerous steps?" Are you sure of that?

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

Actually here Nietzsche is not referring to cognitive function. This is one of the many stabs at Kant's morality. With the latter being the key point Nietzsche is trying to make. Kant discusses moral worth using the example of a grocer. I.e. the good-willed grocer who measures accurately out of duty is praiseworthy, whereas the one who is doing it out of self-interest (i.e. not wanting to lose customers) is not. In Kant's morality right and wrong are defined by the fulfillment of duty or obligation. Hence, when caught, it is expected that the grocer would blush, as they are caught in violating their duty.

Now Nietzsche changes and extends this imagery and now uses the scales as a metaphor for assessing moral weight of action (i.e. scales of morality). Those with crude scales thus won't even blush when called out. Here, he is criticizing the universal morality offered by Kant. Of course, the whole passage is not about that alone. Rather he builds an argument for the need of a more rational approach to morality.

Due to his prose and the fact that he often utilizes various characters to build an argument as a whole rather than have a character speak his specific thoughts, he is one of the philosophers that are almost impossible to interpret on excerpts and quotes alone. In a in interesting way, but for other reasons, the same could be said for Kant.

Nope, I've read all Nietzsche's works that were published while he lived, not in German. He wrote extensively about morality, yes, but in the passage I posted, the intellectual conscience is NOT the moral conscience obviously. I read the entire Joyful Wisdom/Gay Science, that is, entirely and more than once.

19 hours ago, tar said:

To have an intellectual conscience, given to you by a political party, is NOT being critical, or using critical thinking. 

This is very simple: The intellectual conscience is a faculty possessed by a person, not given to a person, and it is either weak or strong, used or little used. Similarly, the expression, "Opinions are like a**holes, everyone's got one", refers to unexamined opinions

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

I'll conclude with an observation. I've been studying American poliltics on and off for fifty years. I don't think that's relevant to the discussion and equally don't think your period of study of about half that is relevant either.

I composed a lengthy response to your bulleted questions. Then I read again, carefully, what I quoted here and then decided to flush my response down the toilet--specifically what's in red. I just wasted a whole lot of time. Where do I send the bill?

12 hours ago, geordief said:

 

On 10/4/2017 at 8:50 AM, hypervalent_iodine said:

!

Moderator Note

Sorry, I wasn't necessarily referring to the posts directly prior to the last note. I am satisfied that those posts are on topic. I was more hinting at the posts about rapes and  the breakdown of U.K.  society. Scherado, whether you authored this thread or not, we have standards and rules that you agreed to obey upon signing up. We expect that the topic of a thread is what is outlined in the title and OP. Anything more is considered off topic, for the purposes of keeping discussion focussed. If you wish to discuss other things, please start other threads. 

 

 

 

Exactly what in the box is directed toward me other than the sentence that begins with my name?

9 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Did you listen to the interview?  I would like to know if he was a big fan of Obama.  In the interview I got a far leftist impression of the Paddock family.  What did you get?

Many of us here--in the USA, not trapped in the Mainstream Media narrative and squirrel cage--think the scent of this massacre is of the type that occurred at the baseball practice for Republican members of Congress, June 2017, except this guy Paddock, the smell of this tells us he had helpers; and the brother's show in front of the gaggle of reporters told me that the brother is what we call a Lefty. What's very obvious and not a matter of debate is that the Left in the US has become deranged and unhinged. Personally, I've been studying this subject since 1991--the Presidential race between Bush, The President and candidate Clinton.

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

Don't worry about it scherado. Just ignore him.

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

Damn you sir. You've stolen my thunder. I'll just have to accuse you of infantile obviousness.

Hmm. After a little thought, yes. Congratulations! You are the only one to be added to the list today!

You'll both be left to determine for yourselves which name made New Kid On The Block (list)®™

Now, that's a useful actual catchphrase.

4 hours ago, Silvestru said:

Well for me you are famous for putting people on your ignore list. I made a short compendium with different ignore list comments from you below:

[quotes with no hyperlink to threads]

I was going to compliment you, but I--and everyone--can't find the posts of origin. They may be accurate, the may not be accurate: nobody will do anything more than click a convenient link, if they desire. You DON'T provide that.

In each post, right-click the "Report Post <" link and choose "Copy Link Location" and place it after the "=" in the {url=}{/url} bbcode tags.

Thanks in advance.

5 hours ago, Silvestru said:

5 hours ago, scherado said:

Which catchphrase did I make famous? I'm only asking...

Well for me you are famous for putting people on your ignore list. I made a short compendium with different ignore list comments from you below:

Quote

Do you want to go onto my ignore list? Are you applying for a slot?

Quote

Are you serious? Read and comprehend the first sentence in the OP, then reconsider, please. My question requires one to know the nature of 'time'. Do you want to be the first person on my ignore list? Do you understand that question?

Quote

Let's see what happens when I type your name in the entry field on the ignore page....there we go. 

Quote

I am the arbiter of what points are relevant to ME; YOU are the arbiter of YOURS--I can't believe I had TO TYPE THAT SENTENCE. Unbleeping believable!!!! One more time and you go onto my ignore list for my health..

Quote

(I forgot about the one not permitted to be added to my ignore list--for some preposterous reason.)

Quote

If you have a dispute with my simple request, then I will respond. If you can't handle the simple, civil request, then I insist the you put me on your ignore list.

Quote

Do you want to reconsider the text I highlighted in red? I will inform you in advance--for your information and nothing more--that your reply to this question will determine whether you will be added to my ignore list.

Quote

I just read the entire post which I quoted. I decided to put you onto my ignore list when I read the last sentence. I will explain to anyone who is intereste

On second thought, that-this kind of thing is usually not permitted on a forum and I've been on many. Do you want me to list them? How is it that this is permitted here? I looked through the guidelines before I wrote this post.

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

One recently fun occurrence on the forum is how Sherado has threatened to put more people on his ignore list than I had bad days

"We teach people how to treat us." -Gary Nichols

Who is "Sherado?"

Which catchphrase did I make famous? I'm only asking...

1 hour ago, geordief said:

. Yes it is a lazy  description. So what is the cause or group of causes behind this attachment to  the existing gun laws in USA?

Some justifications are  defensible but  it is astonishing that the counter arguments can be dismissed in the face of such repellent outcomes.

I quote myself:

This thread is not about gun control. People are free to discuss that, but there is a thread, When is the time? dedicated to that ==>da thread.

44 minutes ago, Area54 said:

No. You are being evasive. An acceptable response would have been to provide references, links and well founded reasons to justify your opinions. Changing the subject may well fool fools, but I doubt it will slip past many here.

Changing the subject? I do believe that the title of this thread is the subject. Do you know what thread you are in?

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

Scherado, you have offered nothing except your opinions. Certainly not anything that even indicates the basis for that opinion. No references, no links, no reasons or reasoning. Not any qualifications that would show you are capable of doing a genuine critique of climate science.

Quite. All my opinions and judgements are based upon my critical analysis skills, which may include exquisite referent analysis and knowledge of Micheal Mann's legerdemain.

Do you know anything about Micheal Mann's legerdemain? I'm being kind here.

1 hour ago, Klaynos said:

Scherado, adding people to ignore doesn't make for a very good discussion.

It's my health that is top priority, if you get my drift.

The brother Paddock gave a...well, it's a press conference, of sorts. There is a woman giving running commentary and interpretation of body language and speculative truth.

One might conclude that this guy not only knew of the plot, but may have been expected to participate and decided it was a bad idea.

16 hours ago, waitforufo said:

On 10/4/2017 at 11:43 PM, scherado said:

What are you attempting to convey with the quality "white" in the third sentence? (The "old" descriptor indicates a prejudiced/bigoted maladjustment with respect to age; the "man" characteristic, a.k.a. genitalia, indicates a sexist prejudiced/bigoted maladjustment with respect to sex-type.)

The constitution was written by white people, thus making it illegitimate.  Old because those white men lived a long time ago and are now all dead.  Man because women did not participate again making it illegitimate.  By using the slogans "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, "liberalism is white supremacy",  I believe this is what BLM is trying to communicate.

Are you aware the I was using your words when I asked the question? After reading a bit more carefully, I think you were mocking those who withhold legitimacy based upon "whiteness" (+male genitalia, ancient)

I made the mistake of thinking it obvious what BLM is communicating. I see your red-colored "likability" rating...and have a better understanding of your methods. (9.5 on Euphemism Meter)

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Instead, what we have here is a lazy troll dismissing the entire source instead of engaging with any of the content it actually presents. He's demonstrated repeatedly that he's not worth the time or effort.

Let's see what happens when I type your name in the entry field on the ignore page....there we go.

16 hours ago, rangerx said:

agree on this point and only somewhat on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is very good for referencing most common knowledge facts,

I began to boycott that site when I read ludicrous political content. I decided that I wouldn't waste any time attempting to determine what was true or false; zero.

21 hours ago, Area54 said:

Regarding your OP, for your second post seems unconnected with it, Nietsczhe appears to be saying "I deplore the fact that most people never bother to derive their ethics."

The second post is missing an explanation. My apologies; it has nothing to do directly with the OP.

The Use And Abuse Of History, translated by Adrianne Collins, is my favorite work of Nietsczhe's.

9 hours ago, tar said:

I am of the opinion that we need our history, to guide our decisions, and the judgement of others, in total is more important to our happiness and success, than listening to someone who has arrived at their ethics by themselves.  

When a friend told me he was going to participate in a rally earlier this year in Virginia to protest the removal of Civil War era statues, I sent him an html copy of the Collins translation, The Use and Abuse Of History. This rally preceded the one in Charlottesville where that guy rammed people with his car.

9 hours ago, tar said:

I think the intellectual conscience is somewhat overrated.   To come up with an ethics, by yourself, is contrary human nature and the desire to please an unseen other.

I never interpreted the phrase to be associated with ethics. There's no reason to do so. The word "conscience" is, when employed typically, related to moral considerations; ethics.

The "intellectual conscience" is related to the ability to distinguish right from wrong with respect to the truth-value of a subject. When Nietsczhe laments that "[n]obody even blushes when you intimate that their weights are underweight," he is referring to cognitive function.

On 8/22/2017 at 3:20 PM, Airbrush said:

Anything related to Trump is a "Trump Effect".  I was not aware this discussion is specifically about his policies, or lack of such.  I was looking for a discussion about Trump. 

I don't know the exact effect, to date, but I do know that President Trump giving CNN the middle finger, repeatedly, civilly, since he was inaugurated, is something I never thought I'd get to see.

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

  2 hours ago, MigL said:

Excellent post iNow.
But to be fair BLM has used these tactics before. Right here in Toronto, so RangerX should know about them.
For two years in a row they have shut down or threatened to shut down, the PRIDE parade, unless certain elements of society are excluded from the march. That this sort of divisive behavior would be allowed for an event that is all about inclusion, is an indication of where BLM is headed.

....

Does anyone know to which "certain elements of society?" BLM had objected "for two years in a row" in Toronto? I can't imagine what in a PRIDE parade can be so objectionable.

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

I'm sure that beecee will create a new account just to continue his fruitful conversation with you.

...

How can you be so sure? I'm not serious when I wish someone luck in that regard.

Just now, beecee said:

I'm mortified!!!!  

You've been added. Good luck with your new username, if you chose that option.

1 minute ago, beecee said:

In simpler language your claim of examining holds no water with me.

And you can type really, really slow and hope that helps.

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Again in simpler language, firstly  self praise is no recommendation, and of course whether terror related or not, is beside the point, ...

I am the arbiter of what points are relevant to ME; YOU are the arbiter of YOURS--I can't believe I had TO TYPE THAT SENTENCE. Unbleeping believable!!!!

One more time and you go onto my ignore list for my health..