Sound like i'm just beneath Ouroboros....in my dreams
FIXED!
Sound like i'm just beneath Ouroboros....in my dreams
ouroboros wrote:MC move that square 4 over or so to the left and I just may marry you
Kidding!!!!
Dorset Girl wrote:ouroboros wrote:MC move that square 4 over or so to the left and I just may marry you
Kidding!!!!
You're going to have to fight for him with Cat, who has also said she could marry him sometimes, and that really little person in the photo, who's his fiancée!
welshben23 wrote:Moon Crane wroteSound like i'm just beneath Ouroboros....in my dreams
FIXED!
ouroboros wrote:Dorset Girl wrote:ouroboros wrote:MC move that square 4 over or so to the left and I just may marry you
Kidding!!!!
You're going to have to fight for him with Cat, who has also said she could marry him sometimes, and that really little person in the photo, who's his fiancée!
Nah who can beat tinkerbell
Dorset Girl wrote:Dorset Girl wrote:As an aside, I have never tried to categorise myself as left-wing, right-wing or anything else. I wouldn't know how to go about it. As I am arguing against you at present, no doubt you would say I was 'left-wing' - but we are only looking at particular issues here, so this doesn't necessarily fully represent my overall views on the world as a whole! How can I find out which 'category' I fit into? I need some kind of 'quiz' or something!
Apologies that this is my fifth post in a row on this thread... but I found a quiz which seemed quite comprehensive - here.
I answered the questions honestly, and here are my results, which don't mean a lot to me, but still...
Moon-Crane wrote:Maybe JT could validate his corner by referencing all the 'proper', 'valid', areas of research that he's learned from. The 'correct' view of analysing these events of the past? Unfortunately, we obviously have no way of getting first hand accounts from anyone involved. Thus, JT is implying there is a wealth of data, from another source outside of 'normal' circles, to access, if the regular stuff is all wrong. JT must have learned from somewhere to 'feel confident' in his own views of arguing the case.
Moon-Crane wrote:To say all research, education, history is based on some mystical, magical, mythical left-wing, liberalist, yadda yadda, point of view, is as mystifying to me than any extreme conspiracy theorist's views of any affairs that i ever take time out to read. You can take into account your belief of the perspective that an author/academic is coming from when digesting the information, but to simply dismiss it, or accept it, simply for being published by somebody who is perceived as a 'left' or 'right' thinking person, is a bit restrictive, in my eyes.
Moon-Crane wrote:As an aside - not specifically here - all i seem to find, in arguments against any particular way of life, or rules and regulations that certain elements of the media don't agree with, is that it's all part of a 'lefty-liberal-namby-pamby-politically-correct' agenda against the people. What the fuck does that mean in real life? - i'm sure it makes for a lovely soundbite for riling up the 'average disgruntled person', but it is a total nothingness of a sentence. Why does any argument become a valid rebuttal by reeling out that turn of phrase?
Moon-Crane wrote:I think, in reality, that issues are too complex to label anybody as simple as left or right, conservative or liberal, etc. It's another lazy tool for people to beat each other up over, in my eyes.
Dorset Girl wrote:ouroboros wrote:That was a very interesting quiz DG ta, the fact I needed a thesaurus for some of it is no never mind
Can't get blasted tiny pic to work to show my graph, so to the left two sqauares over and towards the libertarian bottom four sqaures down [spoiler][/spoiler]
So you, me and MC are all in about the same location - interesting!
Dorset Girl wrote:So how, then, am I supposed to find out what really happened? Do modern American citizens just 'know' these things? If that's the case, why aren't academics producing papers on it? My reading included recent articles from academic journals such as The Journal of American Studies, Development Studies, etc. I am lucky enough to have access to these as I work for a University. The articles within them are written by highly respected Professors and Doctors, and PhD students.
Dorset Girl wrote:Are you telling me that a) The average PhD holder would be naive enough to think that if he/she overlooked the 'truth', they wouldn't be faulted by other academics? The articles in those journals are analysed in even more detail than us lot on FO analyse 'Frasier'!
Dorset Girl wrote:and b) That some Academic, somewhere, wouldn't have seen the money-making opportunity for research which contradicts that which has already been done?
Dorset Girl wrote:I've been in a University environment for ten years, and from what I've seen of Academics, I can't for one moment believe that is the case. They are always looking for niches / gaps in the research, and opportunities to contradict one another. If there was something worthy of study from the angle you're talking about, it would have been done.
Dorset Girl wrote:Would you have preferred that I didn't bother trying to find anything out, and therefore the debate stopped? If this is the case, then perhaps we should both stop posting on this thread. At least I haven't tried to present ideas from a point of total ignorance.
Dorset Girl wrote:No, I'm not suggesting that they had a choice in being germ carriers, which is why I said in my post that "I don't know whether or not that was the case", rather than jumping on the 'germ warfare' bandwagon.
Dorset Girl wrote:As for the scalping, dismembering, massacring that you mention - I have discussed this in the last part of my post, when attempting to answer your questions. The emphasis in my post reflects the emphasis I found when reading. I know less about this, because there is less written about it. Is this because of the scale of it? How many Native Americans died, in comparison to European settlers? I honestly don't know the answer to this, I am assuming that their casualty number were much higher. If this is not the case, then perhaps I need to revise my answer.
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Moon-Crane wrote:Maybe JT could validate his corner by referencing all the 'proper', 'valid', areas of research that he's learned from. The 'correct' view of analysing these events of the past? Unfortunately, we obviously have no way of getting first hand accounts from anyone involved. Thus, JT is implying there is a wealth of data, from another source outside of 'normal' circles, to access, if the regular stuff is all wrong. JT must have learned from somewhere to 'feel confident' in his own views of arguing the case.
I was responding to Dorset Girl specifically. I don't need to delve into her original sources - simply reading her interpretation suffices for our purposes. But it is not surprising or mysterious where those interpretations are coming from. It is no secret that the social sciences have for a long time been dominated by academics with overwhelmingly liberal world views. Even indisputable facts are contextualized based upon ones ideological world view, and the cumulative effect of such overwhelming ideological bias on prevailing academic research is disturbing. No MC, there is not a 'wealth of data' to access to support my arguments. And thats the point. I feel confident because its so obvious. Maybe it takes someone of a differing mindset (ideologically speaking) than the bulk of social science academics to recognize the problem. Similar to when an outsider walks into a room and smells something bad and everyone else in the room says "what smell?"
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Moon-Crane wrote:To say all research, education, history is based on some mystical, magical, mythical left-wing, liberalist, yadda yadda, point of view, is as mystifying to me than any extreme conspiracy theorist's views of any affairs that i ever take time out to read. You can take into account your belief of the perspective that an author/academic is coming from when digesting the information, but to simply dismiss it, or accept it, simply for being published by somebody who is perceived as a 'left' or 'right' thinking person, is a bit restrictive, in my eyes.
Total strawman. I never said nor implied that all research, education, history is based on some "mystical, magical, mythical left-wing, liberalist, yadda yadda, point of view". If I did, then it would indeed be quite easy for you to attack it - which you did - thus it being a strawman argument. Its not mystical or magical. And I don't simply dismiss it because of the source. I consider the arguments - but it doesn't take long to recognize the bias. You know what is really restrictive in my eyes? Having the bulk of academics (particularly the social sciences) being overwhelmingly ideologically homogeneous. That, rather than my marked suspicion of academia, is really restrictive. And not recognizing or acknowledging the bias is myopic.
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Moon-Crane wrote:As an aside - not specifically here - all i seem to find, in arguments against any particular way of life, or rules and regulations that certain elements of the media don't agree with, is that it's all part of a 'lefty-liberal-namby-pamby-politically-correct' agenda against the people. What the fuck does that mean in real life? - i'm sure it makes for a lovely soundbite for riling up the 'average disgruntled person', but it is a total nothingness of a sentence. Why does any argument become a valid rebuttal by reeling out that turn of phrase?
Everyday conversation, including talk radio, is full of sound bites and verbal bumper stickers. But that does not invalidate the truth behind much (or some) of it. Sometimes such superficial language can be used to obfuscate an issue or as rhetorical BS - even Right wingers. And it sure is not precise enough for serious debate. And it is lazy (but can be fun if you agree with it!). So if thats your point, I can agree.
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Moon-Crane wrote:I think, in reality, that issues are too complex to label anybody as simple as left or right, conservative or liberal, etc. It's another lazy tool for people to beat each other up over, in my eyes.
Depends on how much granularity you want. Some people, yes- especially liberals, seem deathly afraid of labels. Overly so, imo. But there are indisputable and significant differences that can be usefully illustrated with labels. There is a such thing as a Liberal, and there is a such thing as a Conservative. Are these labels abused? Sometimes. Maybe a lot. But rejection of their use can also be problematic.
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Dorset Girl wrote:ouroboros wrote:That was a very interesting quiz DG ta, the fact I needed a thesaurus for some of it is no never mind
Can't get blasted tiny pic to work to show my graph, so to the left two sqauares over and towards the libertarian bottom four sqaures down [spoiler][/spoiler]
So you, me and MC are all in about the same location - interesting!
You know, I think this is the problem with these threads! In order to get a real good dialectic going, you have to be presented with opposing viewpoints. In other words, you all (and i mean ALL) really need me! Without me, you all would represent a microcosm of US academia. See my point?
Well, for one thing I would hope that a serious academic wouldn't be out looking for a money-making opportunity in research. That could lead to academic corruption - in addition to the ideological corruption that already exists.
It is no secret that the social sciences have for a long time been dominated by academics with overwhelmingly liberal world views. Even indisputable facts are contextualized based upon ones ideological world view, and the cumulative effect of such overwhelming ideological bias on prevailing academic research is disturbing.
Do you not think that it sounds arrogant to say that European culture is / was superior? It is only superior if you accept that the Western models of development are the best, and perhaps the only, way that countries should progress.
DHP wrote:I think there are arguments to be made that other civilisations were far more impressive, and in spite of huge treasure hoarding, had a far better distribution of wealth (probably due to smaller populations than we have today to be fair). I'm not a fan of the legal system at times in the western world that lets people serve very short sentences for crimes that in other times would have demanded much more powerful deterrents, such as rape or even murder. I think certain civilisations in history at certain times can show us many things that we can learn from.
Dorset Girl wrote:
Can I ask again - how have you arrived at your conclusions if there is no literature to support your views? You said you 'feel confident because it is so obvious' - but it's not obvious to me. Please can you point out why it is obvious? Please don't give me the 'liberalism' argument again, because to me that is just a category that people are slotted into, and I feel it can be quite restrictive to impose that mindset on someone.
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Commentator Michael Medved smells the stench in the room as I do:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Mich ... ans?page=1
As Mr. Medved writes: "The notion that unique viciousness to Native Americans represents our "original sin" fails to put European contact with these struggling Stone Age societies in any context whatever, and only serves the purposes of those who want to foster inappropriate guilt, uncertainty and shame in young Americans."
Context. I'm not the only one who sees these things, just in case you were thinking i'm some right-wing delusional nut job sitting in front of my Confederate flag eating fried chicken while cleaning my shotgun.
CatNamedRudy wrote:JT just so you are aware, the majority of those of us who consider ourselves "liberal" think Ward Churchill is a freaking whack job to the enth degree.
You cannot use Ward Churchill as an example of how everyone in education is a leftist loony tune! It's not fair and it's completely inaccurate! His type of thinking IS rare in our institutions. When is the last time you took a class at one of our Universities?
CatNamedRudy wrote:I consider myself fairly liberal in a great many aspects. However, I am NOT anti-fur, I'm not an animal rights activist, I am not a gun control nut, I don't think 9/11 was a Government conspiracy, I don't agree with Affirmative Action and I absolutely don't agree with any type of reparations.
CatNamedRudy wrote:A true "liberal" is one who believes in less government control! Yes, that is true! It's not someone who wants the government involved in everything.
Moon-Crane wrote:I would, as i mentioned in an above post, tend to agree with that sentiment - but i still wonder why it is that you have to be classed as a 'Liberal wacko' if you 'blame' settlers for any/all woes and feel like eternal apologists?
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Moon-Crane wrote:I would, as i mentioned in an above post, tend to agree with that sentiment - but i still wonder why it is that you have to be classed as a 'Liberal wacko' if you 'blame' settlers for any/all woes and feel like eternal apologists?
Because in my opinion blaming settlers for any woes and eternally apologizing for it and for characterizing our behavior as 'genocide' and using all this to further fuel modern anti-Americanism is wacky. And it IS liberal. I'm not saying ALL predominantly liberal people think this way - but it IS liberal thinking. I do recognize shades of gray and gradations of people's thinking. I like to say facetiously that I am right of Attila the Hun, but even I believe in a social welfare safety net, a progressive tax system, and could even come to terms with a socio-economically based affirmative action system that targets disadvantaged kids only. (that is once they become adults, they are on their own to compete and win or lose). I could even understand a better-constructed and implemented short-term racial affirmative action program in the '60's designed to boost American black's culture achievement to improve competitiveness. But my point is that these wacky ideas (White man bad, US are imperialist pigs, perpetual affirmative action, etc. etc. ad nauseum) are the prevailing paradigm now (even though moderate liberals don't go that far they do enable it - look at the tenure of Ward Churchill), and only aggressive anti-liberalism such as I practice (even though I have come out almost dead center (x and y) on a similar ideology graph as is being displayed here) can hope to stop this runaway train and get it turned around.
JT the Rightwing American wrote:A modern liberal thinks that government should get involved in providing a 'fix' to perceived social injustices and redistribution of wealth to meet some preconceived ideal of equality. Liberals are very suspicious of private endeavor and see government as the savior against private greed. Liberals do want less government control only when it comes to the primary function of our government - defense. Then they decry the efforts of government as fascistic, war-mongering, and intrusive of civil rights by Rightwing extremists. True Conservatives, however, do believe in less government control - except in national defense (some social conservatives,admittedly, overreach on governmental 'fixes' for 'vice'). Especially the Libertarians. True conservatives are much more comfortable with the supremacy of the private sector. As a matter of fact, supremacy of the individual and private institutions is fundamental to modern (and traditional) conservative ideology.
Beer Necessity wrote:As I suspected JT, your view is based on reading an extreme right-winger's opinion and happening to agree with it. How disappointing, I thought there may have been a treasure trove of academic research out there supporting your views, as opposed to the dozens of sources DG uncovered. But they all have liberal bias, obviously. It does make me wonder how a Republican has ever been elected in the US, it seems everyone sees the world through a liberalist prism (or prison, as you might say... )
Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests
© Site contents are copyright Stuart Lee 1999 - 2024. This is a Frasier fan site and is not affiliated in any way with the program, Grub St Productions, Paramount or NBC. |