Regarding the perceived "dumbing down"
Your way or my way who cares, whatever works. There is no single answer because there are so many different attacks on our environment, our plants, tree and animals.

Sometime people come up with amazing brilliant yet simple ideas. Rhinos will soon be extinct because their horns are so valuable to the idiot Asians for their magical mystical bullshit medicines.

So someone figured out that they can inject poison in to the rhinos horn that won't hurt the rhino but will hurt who ever eats the horn.
Reply
(05-13-2013, 09:41 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(05-13-2013, 07:59 PM)PonderThis Wrote: What does that mean?

It's a RAZ! That's what this Razz thing means. If he didn't proclaim himself as an intellect far above most of us mere mortals, I wouldn't raz him at all.

And Leonard, I prefer you post your own content so I apologize for the raz and hope you continue doing so.

To be an intellectual only takes a willingness to be objective, something that is available to everyone interested in truth over justifying opinions and beliefs.

Intellect; The faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, esp. with regard to abstract or academic matters.

Objective; Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Reply
(05-13-2013, 10:30 PM)Leonard Wrote: Objective; Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

And there's the real rub because, whether consciously or subconsciously, almost everyone is influenced by their personal feelings or opinions. It is simple human nature.

The problem arises when one, again, consciously or not, exudes an attitude that their bias is superior to another person's bias.
Reply
(05-14-2013, 06:51 AM)gapper Wrote:
(05-13-2013, 10:30 PM)Leonard Wrote: Objective; Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

And there's the real rub because, whether consciously or subconsciously, almost everyone is influenced by their personal feelings or opinions. It is simple human nature.

The problem arises when one, again, consciously or not, exudes an attitude that their bias is superior to another person's bias.

That is the object of intellectualism, to put aside personal feelings and opinions and seek the truth, something that is not all that difficult if one is really serious about it.

Call it intellectual empathy; ''a virtue that helps us move from disagreement to understanding''.
Reply
(05-14-2013, 07:40 AM)Leonard Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 06:51 AM)gapper Wrote:
(05-13-2013, 10:30 PM)Leonard Wrote: Objective; Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

And there's the real rub because, whether consciously or subconsciously, almost everyone is influenced by their personal feelings or opinions. It is simple human nature.

The problem arises when one, again, consciously or not, exudes an attitude that their bias is superior to another person's bias.

That is the object of intellectualism, to put aside personal feelings and opinions and seek the truth, something that is not all that difficult if one is really serious about it.

Call it intellectual empathy; ''a virtue that helps us move from disagreement to understanding''.

But some aren't as good at it as others, and some aren't as good at it as they may think they are. Believing oneself is good at it while believing others aren't, is that bias thing raising it's ugly head.
Reply
(05-14-2013, 07:40 AM)Leonard Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 06:51 AM)gapper Wrote:
(05-13-2013, 10:30 PM)Leonard Wrote: Objective; Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

And there's the real rub because, whether consciously or subconsciously, almost everyone is influenced by their personal feelings or opinions. It is simple human nature.

The problem arises when one, again, consciously or not, exudes an attitude that their bias is superior to another person's bias.

That is the object of intellectualism, to put aside personal feelings and opinions and seek the truth, something that is not all that difficult if one is really serious about it.

Call it intellectual empathy; ''a virtue that helps us move from disagreement to understanding''.

The "truth" YOU speak of is certainly not mine and some of what you believe is certainly far from what the majority believes.
Is the theory 9-11 was an inside job the "truth". And that truth is "not all that difficult" to believe?
IMO simply seeking the truth is not what makes a person an intellectual. It's how a person arrives at these truths. It's how they use logic, how they process information WITHOUT any bias.
Reply
(05-14-2013, 07:51 AM)gapper Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 07:40 AM)Leonard Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 06:51 AM)gapper Wrote:
(05-13-2013, 10:30 PM)Leonard Wrote: Objective; Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

And there's the real rub because, whether consciously or subconsciously, almost everyone is influenced by their personal feelings or opinions. It is simple human nature.

The problem arises when one, again, consciously or not, exudes an attitude that their bias is superior to another person's bias.

That is the object of intellectualism, to put aside personal feelings and opinions and seek the truth, something that is not all that difficult if one is really serious about it.

Call it intellectual empathy; ''a virtue that helps us move from disagreement to understanding''.

But some aren't as good at it as others, and some aren't as good at it as they may think they are. Believing oneself is good at it while believing others aren't, is that bias thing raising it's ugly head.

Unfortunately mankind spends a lot of time acquiring intelligence at the expense of developing intellect. There are probably degrees of intelligence but there are no degrees to intellectualism, you either use the capacities to be objective or you don't.


''Intelligence is built by gaining information, knowledge from external agencies, from schools and universities, teachers and textbooks. The intellect is developed through your individual effort by exercising the faculty of questioning, thinking and reasoning. Not accepting anything that does not admit logic or reason. Know the difference between the two. And that any amount of intelligence gained cannot per se build your intellect.

You need a powerful intellect to put the knowledge, intelligence gained, to practical use in life. That explains why among millions of doctors graduating from medical schools only a few have discovered life-saving drugs and surgeries, finding cures and remedies. So too, millions of engineers have passed out of engineering schools but only few design something unusual like the Panama Canal or Eurotunnel. It is their intellect that renders their performance outstanding. Besides hindering success and progress, intelligence without intellect could destroy peace and happiness in the world.'' -- Swami Parthasarathy --
Reply
(05-14-2013, 08:38 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 07:40 AM)Leonard Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 06:51 AM)gapper Wrote:
(05-13-2013, 10:30 PM)Leonard Wrote: Objective; Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

And there's the real rub because, whether consciously or subconsciously, almost everyone is influenced by their personal feelings or opinions. It is simple human nature.

The problem arises when one, again, consciously or not, exudes an attitude that their bias is superior to another person's bias.

That is the object of intellectualism, to put aside personal feelings and opinions and seek the truth, something that is not all that difficult if one is really serious about it.

Call it intellectual empathy; ''a virtue that helps us move from disagreement to understanding''.

The "truth" YOU speak of is certainly not mine and some of what you believe is certainly far from what the majority believes.
Is the theory 9-11 was an inside job the "truth". And that truth is "not all that difficult" to believe?
IMO simply seeking the truth is not what makes a person an intellectual. It's how a person arrives at these truths. It's how they use logic, how they process information WITHOUT any bias.

The truth is the truth no matter what, or whose Ox is gored.

As for 911, an intellectual would say that there are many unanswered questions and look into as many theories as possible, while wondering why the government obviously doesn't want the pubic to know all the facts.

An intellectual also looks at the relationship between and the public's willingness, after 911 to trade freedoms for perceived security with the totalitarian Patriot Act and Homeland Security and why the government would want such an arrangement against the better judgement of the founding fathers.

Intellectuals also questioned the rational for going to war with Iraq but understood that Cheney's secretive meetings, developing National Energy Policy included control of the middle east oil and pipelines through destabilization of non-compliant countries*.

An intellectual still wonders where the missing $2.5 Trillion that Rumsfeld admitted to and talked about on 9/10**.

An intellectual asks why Obama didn't prosecute Bush/Cheney for lying to the nation and the resulting war crimes and comes up with; Obama is doing the same thing.

*In July 2003, after two years of legal action through the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch was finally able to obtain some documents from the task force. Those documents include maps of Iraqi and other mideast oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, two charts detailing various Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a March 2001 list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts."

In January 2003, The Wall Street Journal reported that representatives from Halliburton, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron-Texaco Corp. and Conoco-Phillips, among others, had met with Vice President Cheney's staff to plan the post-war revival of Iraq's oil industry. However, both Cheney and the companies deny the meeting took place.............. http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/energytf.html

** ''On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for.

Rumsfeld stated: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." According to a report by the Inspector General, the Pentagon cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

An intellectual would think such a disclosure would normally lead to a huge scandal, but 911 happened the next day and Congress then add billions more in appropriations to fight the "War on Terror and the $2.3 trillion was quickly forgotten, even today.

Obviously intellectuals wonder how much more has been absconded with since 2/10/2001.
Reply
Intellectuals may wonder and use some critical thinking to try and know things, but they don't draw conclusions that are not supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. Theories, especially of the kind that require speculation and conjecture are not same thing as the truth. The truth relies on facts, real facts.
Reply
(05-14-2013, 11:31 AM)cletus1 Wrote: Intellectuals may wonder and use some critical thinking to try and know things, but they don't draw conclusions that are not supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. Theories, especially of the kind that require speculation and conjecture are not same thing as the truth. The truth relies on facts, real facts.

You are correct. And if you are referring to the previous post using 911 as an example, I don't think any conclusions were drawn; only that an objective person might look at some of what has been presented a little more abstractly than those more subjective in nature while weaving in and out between fact and fantasy to a conclusion; something that can't be drawn on this subject as of yet.

And truthfully, don't you think most everyone, after the overwhelming amount of historical evidence through the ages would come to this conclusion; governments don't always tell the truth.

As that lecherous old reprobate Ben Franklin once said something like this;
''how can you tell if a politician is telling the truth? If his lips are not moving.''
Reply
(05-14-2013, 01:16 PM)Leonard Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 11:31 AM)cletus1 Wrote: Intellectuals may wonder and use some critical thinking to try and know things, but they don't draw conclusions that are not supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. Theories, especially of the kind that require speculation and conjecture are not same thing as the truth. The truth relies on facts, real facts.

You are correct. And if you are referring to the previous post using 911 as an example, I don't think any conclusions were drawn; are not moving.''

Quote: Leonard.. an intellectual would say that there are many unanswered questions and look into as many theories as possible, while wondering why the government obviously doesn't want the pubic to know all the facts.

You obviously came to conclusions, One there are many unanswered questions

Two the government obviously doesn't want the pubic to know all the facts

Three.. Cheney's secretive meetings, developing National Energy Policy included control of the middle east oil and pipelines through destabilization of non-compliant countries*.

Four...An intellectual asks why Obama didn't prosecute Bush/Cheney for lying to the nation and the resulting war crimes and comes up with; Obama is doing the same thing.

This has to be a conclusion otherwise you wouldn't ask. I Think you are amazingly arrogant to conclude that these are things one must believe to be an intellectual.

I think you have an "intellectual" confused with a Overly suspicious anti American copy and pasting, plagiarizing internet conspiracy theorist.
Reply
So what else is new.
Reply
Well, gapper, you started a shit storm.
I liked your post, and if nothing else give you A+ for brevity in expressing a complete thought.

Leonard, I think I agree with you. I might quarrel with the word "intellectual" as you use it, but I'd probably lose the argument. Otherwise, I feel you have laid out a pretty good case for what it takes to be involved in meaningful discussion that results in exchanging views, ideas, and sometimes, ideals.

TVg, you stick to the most basic uncomplicated and obvious conclusions, and there is (I feel, at least) a lot to be said for that. But...there is always a but, ain't there...I think you are trying to find an argument, a counterpoint, a "devils advocate" case that stretches the point.

Whatever: I like that it's taking place, and if we can keep from slinging feces around we might even get some place.

We shall see what we shall see. I want to weigh in here later if things stay civil.
Reply
(05-14-2013, 03:35 PM)PonderThis Wrote: So what else is new.

Well I did provide sites to back up some of the questions but there was never a conclusion stated as to the culpability of anyone in the government having anything to do with 911. That would take an independent, objective investigation with nothing off the table.

So to you I'll ask; if it is an obvious conclusion that governments* don't always tell the truth and it is also an obvious conclusion that they sometimes do, can we conclude that there is at least a 50-50 chance they are telling the truth leaving any belief in what they say is pretty much a crap shoot with the smart money on lying?

Actually the quote I bastardized was from Franklin P. Adams ... ''There is one sure way of telling when politicians aren't telling the truth - their lips move''.

* meaning all governments world wide
Reply
(05-14-2013, 04:48 PM)Wonky Wrote: Well, gapper, you started a shit storm.
I liked your post, and if nothing else give you A+ for brevity in expressing a complete thought.

Thank you!Smiling
Reply
(05-14-2013, 04:48 PM)Wonky Wrote: Well, gapper, you started a shit storm.
I liked your post, and if nothing else give you A+ for brevity in expressing a complete thought.

Leonard, I think I agree with you. I might quarrel with the word "intellectual" as you use it, but I'd probably lose the argument. Otherwise, I feel you have laid out a pretty good case for what it takes to be involved in meaningful discussion that results in exchanging views, ideas, and sometimes, ideals.

TVg, you stick to the most basic uncomplicated and obvious conclusions, and there is (I feel, at least) a lot to be said for that. But...there is always a but, ain't there...I think you are trying to find an argument, a counterpoint, a "devils advocate" case that stretches the point.

Whatever: I like that it's taking place, and if we can keep from slinging feces around we might even get some place.

We shall see what we shall see. I want to weigh in here later if things stay civil.

You have reached a conclusion it seems, one I hope is the result of intense study and serious contemplation, but you will have to take up the use and meaning of the word ''intellectual'' with the various international English dictionary's, for I am but a humble instrument of their definitions.
Reply
(05-14-2013, 04:48 PM)Wonky Wrote: TVg, you stick to the most basic uncomplicated and obvious conclusions, and there is (I feel, at least) a lot to be said for that. But...there is always a but, ain't there...I think you are trying to find an argument, a counterpoint, a "devils advocate" case that stretches the point.

Actually I was following along quite nicely and "striving". Until Leonard laid out the case for just what exactly an intellectual was.
And lo and behold his examples fit him perfectly as he laid out what he had concluded about the government right after he concluded that Cletus was right when Cletus said.....
Quote: Cletus...
Intellectuals may wonder and use some critical thinking to try and know things, but they don't draw conclusions that are not supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence

Just how could I leave that one alone?
Reply
(05-14-2013, 05:09 PM)gapper Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 04:48 PM)Wonky Wrote: Well, gapper, you started a shit storm.
I liked your post, and if nothing else give you A+ for brevity in expressing a complete thought.

Thank you!Smiling

Joe Walsh is a genius and I believe his guitar playing is better than it ever was.


". The virtual world is a new thing, and it doesn’t really exist, but people are in it a lot."



Here in this video Joe talks about what has happened to what used to be music.


http://obvious.typepad.com/obviouspop/20...ustry.html
Reply
He is a musical intellectual, and actually an intellectual in many other ways. And yes, since he became sober, I think he's improved.
For sure one of the legendary guitar players of our time.
Reply
(05-14-2013, 06:03 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 05:09 PM)gapper Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 04:48 PM)Wonky Wrote: Well, gapper, you started a shit storm.
I liked your post, and if nothing else give you A+ for brevity in expressing a complete thought.

Thank you!Smiling

Joe Walsh is a genius and I believe his guitar playing is better than it ever was.


". The virtual world is a new thing, and it doesn’t really exist, but people are in it a lot."



Here in this video Joe talks about what has happened to what used to be music.


http://obvious.typepad.com/obviouspop/20...ustry.html

Interesting, indeed. He has a good point, sad as it is.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)