Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Nonsensical Complaint #1: A grievance, from or on behalf of some designated-oppressed-group, and something passive-voice. Women are “seen” in such-and-such a way, gay people are “seen” like this or black people are “seen” like that. Or, men and women are expected to be such-and-such a way by “society.”
Question that cannot be answered: If this complaint were restated in active-voice, what would be the subject? Who’s doing the seeing? Who’s doing this expecting?
Why we don’t get an answer: Because then the mission of reform would become finite rather than infinite. The subject would become an object. The mission of reform would also become testable, because the reform would have to do with changing the state of an object, and it would have to do with actually fixing a problem, like catching the shark in Jaws. And, it would be practical to ask bothersome questions like “Do you, or do you not, have it done?”
That’s a non-starter. These are people who are into wearing nice suits and giving impressive speeches; not meeting any actual responsibilities, particularly involving measurable achievements. Objective assessments against predefined goals are for riff-raff, they’re for peons.
Nonsensical Complaint #2: Material wealth inequality. “Haves” versus “Have-nots.” Particularly complaints about how, once people get rich, they get to make the rules. Or, their expenses are reduced as they accumulate greater wealth. “The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.”
Question that cannot be answered: What is it, specifically, about these rich people that makes them rich? What puts them on the road to a destiny so remarkably different from everybody else?
Why we don’t get an answer: It would reveal that all these people, the rich and the not-rich, chose their own fates in some way. That the differential came about not because of birth station, race gender or class, but because of priorities, actions and inactions.
Nonsensical Complaint #3: That their political opposition won’t do what’s necessary to “grow the economy” — raising taxes. Or, that the economy is being hurt, because the taxes are being cut.
Question that cannot be answered: If I “tax” you while you are running up a hill, that would be something like grabbing onto your pants so you can’t move, or maybe weighing you down so that you make less progress after investing more effort. A “tax cut” would be the partial removal of such a burden. Does an economy not work exactly the same way? Isn’t that why we use the word “tax” (as a verb)?
Why we don’t get an answer: It would show that our friends, the liberals, are once again living in “Opposite Land.” There is only one reason to go through the exercise of pretending that “taxing” something is the first step to growing it or making it stronger: To disguise, as a process of creation, what is really a process of destruction.
Nonsensical Complaint #4: Womens’ swimsuits are too skimpy! We need to make them cover up so the men stop acting like louts! Or: I don’t want my fifteen-year-old son to see that, I want him to grow up to be a gentleman!
Question that cannot be answered: What does female swimming attire have to do with men minding their manners? Isn’t it a lasting tenet of modern liberalism that women should be free to wear whatever they want, and this has no bearing at all on how men are expected to behave? How to reconcile this glaring contradiction?
And how is it that anybody thinks this can possibly work? “Omigosh, it’s been three years since I’ve seen tits. I’m going to use my napkin, offer my bus seat to an old woman, and tip the waiter!” Like that?
Why we don’t get an answer: It’s really just like all the others, it would show liberals aren’t into actual problem-solving. Declaring war on skimpy bikinis holds the appeal of “Hit the men where they live,” just like tax increases hold the appeal of “Hit the rich people where they live.” So they’re into identifying target classes, and then hitting ’em where they live. This doesn’t make anything better anywhere. The rest of us aren’t allowed to notice that.
Nonsensical Complaint #5: We desperately need to “shore up” the middle class!
Question that cannot be answered: “Shore up,” whether by design or not, is unworkably vague. What is it about the middle class, exactly, that we need to change?
Why we don’t get an answer: Think through this one, there are three possibilities. 1) People in the middle class should make more money. 2) People in the middle class should be allowed to keep more of their money after paying taxes. 3) The middle class has to include more people. The first doesn’t work because it’s a contradiction; if you make above a certain amount of money, you’re no longer in the middle class. The second makes more sense, but it would be a confession that liberals will never stop short of complete control over everybody, by way punishing some classes and rewarding others, through the tax system. (For the economically literate, it would also reveal that their economic policies are absolutely unsustainable.) And the third, which also makes a lot of sense, would be a confession that liberals really don’t help anyone at all — they require an expansion of the dependency class, not necessarily the “middle” class, in order to win elections. Need more poor people. In sum, it would be a confession of what everybody knows already if they spend any time thinking about this: Liberals won’t do anything at all with what we call the “American Dream,” except hinder it, because if too many people successfully pursue it then the liberals aren’t going to win elections.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In the case of “attractive girls in bikinis,” at least, I think there actually is an attempt at solving a problem — specifically, the problem that no man with a functioning sack wants anything to do with leftist females. For them, there are only three options:
1) Quit being fugly, overweight, shrieking psycho hose beasts
2) Keep being that, and be happy with the omega dregs who will have you
3) Turn every other woman in America into that
Obviously 1) and 2) are off the table — leftist females are still females (as are the males; see 2). That leaves only 3. Hence the burka-by-proxy campaign.
- Severian | 04/21/2015 @ 07:02Yeah…while I agree with most of the points, I think you threw in number four just so you could add a picture of a hot girl in a bikini. Honestly, I think far more conservatives than liberals make the number four complaint. No trying to fudge your way up to 19th place, you made it to 20 on honest, hard work 😛
- P_Ang | 04/21/2015 @ 07:23[…] blog of the day is House Of Eratosthenes, with a post on 5 answer liberals never give […]
- If All You See… » Pirate's Cove | 04/21/2015 @ 10:00Honestly, I think far more conservatives than liberals make the number four complaint.
Well, you do have a point. But then, there are briars & brambles down that pathway as well; one has only to watch today’s militant feminists a few minutes nowadays, staking out their positions and staging their confrontations, to realize we have “Western Taliban” on The Angry Left as well. The puritanical reactionary zeal against visible female skin, constitutes one of the most successful recruitment drives engaged by the left, drawing in slightly ignorant centrist-to-right-leaning types, in the modern era. This is worth a post unto itself. It’s a sad thing.
It’s sad because when the left and right agree that nice looking ladies should wear more clothes, they don’t actually agree on the fundamentals. The right-leanings are concerned with propriety: She shouldn’t wear cut-offs in church, and so forth. The left on the other hand, and true to form, is all about control, control, control. Men should think of women as — they’re not sure what. They’re only sure of what-not: Female. They call themselves “feminists” but they want to force a new version of the female, that is first and foremost, not-feminine. Women and girls should wear pants, and all the time, because everyone should think of them as nothing more or less than morally-superior, clean-shaven (usually), somewhat more lightweight versions of men.
So it isn’t really the same issue. If a pretty woman swaps out the bra top and the hot pants for something sensible, like this…
…the prudes on the right are going to say, alright, good-to-go. But on the left, the hissy-fit will only just be getting started.
- mkfreeberg | 04/21/2015 @ 17:01mkfreeberg: Question that cannot be answered: If this complaint were restated in active-voice, what would be the subject? Who’s doing the seeing? Who’s doing this expecting?
If you had a computer connected to the Internet, you could probably find scientific studies that show racial and gender bias among the general population.
mkfreeberg: Question that cannot be answered: What is it, specifically, about these rich people that makes them rich? What puts them on the road to a destiny so remarkably different from everybody else?
If you had a computer, you could probably find a study which shows that the wealth of the parents is a strong predictor of the wealth of the children at similar points in their careers.
mkfreeberg: If I “tax” you while you are running up a hill, that would be something like grabbing onto your pants so you can’t move, or maybe weighing you down so that you make less progress after investing more effort.
If you had a computer, you could probably determine that most economists, liberal or otherwise, accept the basic principles of Keynesian economics. Tax cuts generally stimulate economic activity.
mkfreeberg: Question that cannot be answered: “Shore up,” whether by design or not, is unworkably vague. What is it about the middle class, exactly, that we need to change?
If you had a computer, you could probably find out that there has a been a general hollowing out of the middle economic brackets, and that the middle class has less financial security than in the previous generation.
If you had a computer, that is.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2015 @ 14:59http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWH31pUkMF8&t=1m14s
If you had a computer connected to the Internet, you could probably find scientific studies that show racial and gender bias among the general population.
The lesson seems to be, whether one has a computer or not, phony science leads to phony progress. “Racial and gender bias among the population” is phraseology straight out of the 1990’s, 1980’s, 1970’s. If y’all had the ability to read things on a computer, y’all might have seen that was exactly the point I was making. About the shark. Once identified, it’s either caught or not-caught.
Contrasted with this effort to reform this “general population,” which is endless, unsurprisingly so, and by design. Just like “scientific research” doesn’t actually teach anybody anything, if they knew what the conclusion of the research was supposed to be before they started collecting any data.
Please do proceed to show us more examples of “seldom correct, never in doubt.” It never gets old. At least, it won’t until I get a computer.
- mkfreeberg | 04/22/2015 @ 16:58Ok, see…that totally HOT gif of a girl on a treadmill just proves…nevermind, I was only partially joking with my original comment. I completely agree with the second portion of NC#4. I only hope that the “y’all” in your reply to Zachriel does not somehow implicate myself in the process. I for one am a firm believer in the new “phony science leads to phony progress,” the unstated red-headed stepchild in the gigantic storage warehouse of lost liberal arks.
- P_Ang | 04/22/2015 @ 17:08No, “y’all” is a pronoun for them. S/He/It/Them. They, perhaps imagining themselves to be the ultimate in passive-voice thinking, perhaps hailing from a passive-voice universe, refuse to divulge any details that would justify a more specific qualifier.
So we seem to have a pretty firm cosmos-wide split here: Active-voice speaking, goes with active-voice thinking, goes with science that actually waits for the evidence before reaching a conclusion, goes with real, linear-trajectory progress, which is measurable, testable, has something to do with an object changing states. The shark is out there uncaught today; next day, the shark is caught, and it is caught because those guys caught it.
Passive-voice thinking, passive-voice expressing, phony science that is “settled” and knows what conclusion it wants before it collects any data, leads to circular progress. The same boring bromides uttered by don’t-know-who, exactly, decade after decade.
The collective has proven it once again. They seem to think they’ve proven something else.
- mkfreeberg | 04/22/2015 @ 17:42mkfreeberg: The lesson seems to be, whether one has a computer or not, phony science leads to phony progress.
You’re denying that there is racial and gender bias in the general population? Even if common experience didn’t inform you, there’s a variety of tests that confirm bias. Here’s a typical study: Payne, B. K. (2001). Prejudice and perception: the role of automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a weapon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
If you think the study is “phony”, please point to the methodological error.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2015 @ 04:56You’re denying that there is racial and gender bias in the general population?
That’s not what I said. In fact, I even put up a picture of someone inside a spinning wheel, who might be of the opinion she’s making some “progress,” when she’s not.
See, the connection is rather obvious. You can’t solve problems if you don’t learn anything, and you can’t learn anything if you never admit there’s anything to learn. If there’s a problem and you want to fix it, obviously something will have to be changed, and you can’t change anything with any deliberate intent or achievement, if you don’t identify what that thing is. “There is racial and gender bias” is not a statement that provides any functionality toward these ends. Therefore, proving it is not useful in the achievement of the stated goal. Doesn’t catch the shark.
mkfreeberg: That’s not what I said.
This is what you said:
In other words, you only obliquely responded to our point, leaving us to guess at your actual meaning.
mkfreeberg: “There is racial and gender bias” is not a statement that provides any functionality toward these ends.
It’s a statement of fact. Determining facts is an important first step in any goal-oriented process.
mkfreeberg: Therefore, proving it is not useful in the achievement of the stated goal.
If you had a computer …
Step #1: Identify the problem.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2015 @ 05:38This is what you said:
There is no confusion on what I said, it’s all in writing, one barely has to do any scrolling to go back & get it. What y’all conjectured out of it, reflects not what I said, but where y’all wanted the discussion to go, as anybody can see.
We’ve been here, before, a few times.
Morgan,
remember, you’ve got Zachriel on record admitting he’s learned nothing from your blog. Not from your posts, not from the hundreds of comments he’s made, not from the thousands of replies made to him.
QED.
- Severian | 04/23/2015 @ 08:08Predictable as the sunrise in the East, along comes our favorite passive-voice cuttlers to entirely miss the point. “A study proves” is basically worthless when those who write the study start with conclusions and craft the evidence to fit. All that does is repeat the passive-voice statement, using “studies show” instead of a subject-verb-object statement than can be tested and replied to. It’s not scientific, it isn’t proof – it’s essentially Mad Libs, and makes as much sense.
And as predictable as the sunset in the West, none of Morgan’s questions get answered, and the goalposts move immediately to “But you haven’t answered our question!” For someone so fond of answers, you are nearly incapable of giving them, so how do you know it when you hear one in reply? It requires that same process of “subject-verb-object,” testing and response.
This seems to be another example of “words at odds with behavior.”
Studies are made. Public policies are proposed based on those studies, but they don’t accomplish a goal – often because no goal is overtly stated beyond a general “We want more of this nice thing and less of that bad thing.” How much more or less? Affecting how many people? For how long? The old reporter’s checklist: who, what, where, when, why, how? Never happens. Basic questions with clear answers like that would be exactly what you need if you want to know if you’ve met your goal, or made progress, or gotten worse. Why avoid them? (In parallel, the reporters seem to have abandoned that checklist themselves, to judge from the shoddy state of journalism lately.)
Vague passive-voice gassery, on the other hand, yields no such information. It has to be conjured into being by another panel of experts to make another study, with more procedures to enforce, under the same non-testable conditions. Nothing gets fixed, but we sure have to fret about all this nothing-getting-fixed that’s happening, as no doubt a further study would show. We should get on that, and make everyone else pay for it.
The only specific thing about the process is what will be done to punish those who disobey it.
The only concrete result – the observable behavior – is draining the public purse and hindering the private person. So it’s reasonable to conclude that this was the goal all along, or at least that enough people have subverted the process to make this the goal, the way a virus hijacks a person’s own systems to duplicate itself at the expense of the regular and healthy function for which the system is meant.
- nightfly | 04/23/2015 @ 08:18mkfreeberg: There is no confusion on what I said, it’s all in writing
Your reply was oblique.
We pointed out that there is scientific evidence of bias. You replied about phony science. This implies that the studies were flawed, but you provided no substantiation for this claim. Next, you clarified your position, that science isn’t answering the question you consider relevant, but that doesn’t make the science phony.
You then ignored our reply, which was that the standard methodology for problem solving starts with Step #1: Identify the problem.
nightfly: A study proves” is basically worthless when those who write the study start with conclusions and craft the evidence to fit.
So you also claim the science is worthless, even though you didn’t show how the cited study was flawed.
nightfly: And as predictable as the sunset in the West, none of Morgan’s questions get answered
We directly responded to each of the questions in the original post. Try rereading our original comment.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2015 @ 17:32Your reply was oblique.
To whom? Others have seemingly found clarity where y’all have found this confusion; perhaps if more of y’all’s background was generally known by those assembled, or heck, if even the nose-count of y’all’s collective could be understood by the rest of us, we could determine why y’all maintain ignorance where others manage to derive accurate, precise and unambiguous meaning.
We’ve been here before, a few times.
We pointed out that there is scientific evidence of bias.
In so doing, showing y’all missed the point. We’ve been here before, a few times.
Try rereading our original comment.
I’ll respond for nightfly on this point: Why? He’s not the one who is confused. How come it is that when y’all pull the “We win the argument because we have no idea what’s going on” card, it’s up to those who understand to do the listening, and it’s up to you, who fail to understand, to do the explaining? It makes no sense.
But, we’ve been here before, a few times.
mkfreeberg: To whom?
It was objectively oblique and we provided the reasons above.
mkfreeberg: In so doing, showing y’all missed the point.
Yes, even though you wrongly implied the studies were “phony”, your point was that determining the fact of bias doesn’t suggest a remedy. Meanwhile, you ignored our point. We’ll try again.
Finding evidence of a problem doesn’t necessarily suggest a remedy; however, step one of problem-solving is nearly always to identify the problem.
- Zachriel | 04/24/2015 @ 05:15Finding evidence of a problem doesn’t necessarily suggest a remedy; however, step one of problem-solving is nearly always to identify the problem.
Just because step one of problem-solving is to identify the problem, it does not follow that all problem-identification results, or could possibly result, in problem-solving. Again, active-voice versus passive-voice. Y’all don’t seem to be picking up on this, even though by now there are others besides me trying to explain it to y’all. Maybe the problem is: When y’all don’t understand something and other people do understand it, y’all see fit to lecture the people who do understand it, as if they have something to learn from y’all, who don’t understand it.
Problem identification: “People who swim at our beach are subject to shark attack.” This would be similar to the identification of prejudice and bias the way the liberals do it: “It’s out there.” Can’t solve a problem that way. (Indeed, in the classic film itself, there is a scene right after the death of Alex Kintner in which the townspeople think they’ve solved the problem by catching a shark, but not the shark.)
Problem identification: “That shark is eating people who swim on our beach.” Now, we can go hunting and hopefully solve the problem.
So, no. “Step one of problem-solving is…to identify the problem” doesn’t enter into it, because before liberals have completed that first step in any useful way, they’re distracted. There is no “that guy did something wrong,” it’s just “society is doing something wrong,” and then they don’t solve problems, they just give endless stump-speeches, and busy themselves with getting democrats elected. They don’t even finish that first step.
Just decade after decade after decade of “Come a long way, we’re not there yet“…
The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. — Ludwig von Mises, some seven decades ago.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2015 @ 05:40mkfreeberg: Just because step one of problem-solving is to identify the problem, it does not follow that all problem-identification results, or could possibly result, in problem-solving.
Sure. That takes additional steps. However, your first stance was to call it “phony science”. Your second stance was to note that identifying the problem was not sufficient to solve a problem; however, identifying the problem is generally necessary to solving a problem.
mkfreeberg: Problem identification: “People who swim at our beach are subject to shark attack.”
mkfreeberg: Problem identification: “That shark is eating people who swim on our beach.”
The second statement may be too specific. For instance, there may be a reason sharks are attracted to the specific location, so killing “that shark” will not solve the problem. Certainly we may consider both statements, but only by investigating further can be determine the best course of action.
Handwaving as you have engaged in thus far doesn’t resolve any issue.
- Zachriel | 04/24/2015 @ 14:34However, your first stance was to call it “phony science”.
I see. So in y’all’s world, “phony science” has to come to conclusions that are incorrect. The reverse-conclusion of this is that if the science comes to a conclusion that happens to be correct, it must be good science.
It might be a good “lab exercise” in a Science 101 class, for the students to explain what is wrong with that viewpoint, and what sort of damage it can do.
Your second stance was to note that identifying the problem was not sufficient to solve a problem; however, identifying the problem is generally necessary to solving a problem.
Uh huh. In other words, I noted what’s wrong with the observation y’all made, how it falls short of addressing the real issue…and, there y’all are, repeating it again.
Thus far, y’all have done an admirable job — many, repeated, admirable jobs — of showing how knowledge and science do not progress. It might even be a valuable revelation, if the original post didn’t already cover all this in the first couple of paragraphs.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2015 @ 16:59mkfreeberg: So in y’all’s world, “phony science” has to come to conclusions that are incorrect.
phony, fake or fraud.
- Zachriel | 04/24/2015 @ 19:10phony, fake or fraud.
Right, y’all haven’t got a counterpoint for the point as stated, so y’all want to change the point into something else. We’ve been here before, a few times.
Here is what I said when I summarized the observations made:
Active-voice speaking, goes with active-voice thinking, goes with science that actually waits for the evidence before reaching a conclusion, goes with real, linear-trajectory progress, which is measurable, testable, has something to do with an object changing states…Passive-voice thinking, passive-voice expressing, phony science that is “settled” and knows what conclusion it wants before it collects any data, leads to circular progress.
So now y’all want to debate the conclusion. This sidesteps the real issue, since it is possible to reach a correct conclusion as a result of executing bad science.
Is it raining outside? Let us pretend our teevee set is a window, and oh look, it happens to have the climactic rooftop scene from Blade Runner on at this moment. Conclusion: It’s raining. Reality: It is indeed raining. The science: Bad. Phony, fake, fraud.
- mkfreeberg | 04/25/2015 @ 02:13mkfreeberg: Right, y’all haven’t got a counterpoint for the point as stated, so y’all want to change the point into something else.
You’re the one who brought up “phony science”.
You then clarified your point that merely pointing out a problem doesn’t necessarily lead to a solution, to which we agreed. While identifying a problem may not not be sufficient for solving a problem; identifying the problem is generally necessary to solving a problem.
- Zachriel | 04/25/2015 @ 06:20You’re the one who brought up “phony science”.
Didn’t say I wasn’t. The issue is, the non-correlation between real-versus-phony characteristics of the conclusion reached, and real-versus-phony characteristics of the methods used.
That’s been explained to y’all already. And here y’all are, again, playing the “We win the argument because we don’t understand” card. In so doing, ironically, providing an example of the problem.
“Science” does not advance this way. It may look like it does, to some, and for a little while…but it doesn’t.
mkfreeberg: The issue is, the non-correlation between real-versus-phony characteristics of the conclusion reached, and real-versus-phony characteristics of the methods used.
Be specific, then. What is the real-versus-phony characteristics of the conclusion reached? What is the real-versus-phony characteristics of the methods used?
Does your answer to these questions also answer the point concerning the first step in problem-solving?
- Zachriel | 04/25/2015 @ 07:06Be specific, then. What is the real-versus-phony characteristics of the conclusion reached? What is the real-versus-phony characteristics of the methods used?
Ah, again y’all have fabricated elements of the point, so y’all can use the counterpoint y’all have rehearsed ahead of time, as opposed to a counterpoint that would actually fit. My criticism is of the methods used, it entirely ignores the verity of the conclusion reached.
And, I elaborated on that already. But y’all are back to using the “We win the argument, because we don’t understand and can’t follow” card…
mkfreeberg: Ah, again y’all have fabricated elements of the point …
You’re funny. You said “The issue is …”. When asked to be specific, you punt.
- Zachriel | 04/25/2015 @ 07:32When asked to be specific, you punt.
A reasonable move since the question y’all asked has already been answered, many times, and not just by me.
It seems when y’all “discuss” things, much of y’all’s goals are invested in not discussing much of anything at all, rather in trying to produce in your opposition a sort of “OMG, one of these days I really need to pull my head out of my ass” moment. Much like these “revolutionaries” who have been running on treadmills, producing one “come a long way, we’re not there yet” speech after another, for decades and decades.
It doesn’t work, obviously, even at the one thing it’s supposed to do because in the world of adults, where people identify problems fully before applying precious resources to work on solutions, and accept real responsibilities along with the measurement methods for figuring out later if they’re fulfilling them or not — we have between five and ten “Aha, need to pull my head out of my ass” moments before the kids in y’all’s world even get out of bed. It’s called humility.
So even if y’all could produce that coveted “gotcha,” it would not produce the shock value y’all desire. I’m afraid all y’all have proven in this thread is that formal education often falls short of real education, and the “learning” one does in such an environment falls far, far short of what’s needed to make life better for anyone. But that was one of the points of the original post. So we knew that already.
- mkfreeberg | 04/26/2015 @ 07:13mkfreeberg: It doesn’t work, obviously, even at the one thing it’s supposed to do because in the world of adults, where people identify problems fully before applying precious resources to work on solutions
Ideally, but one doesn’t always have complete information. In any case, this was your question: If this complaint were restated in active-voice, what would be the subject? Who’s doing the seeing? Who’s doing this expecting? We answered the question by showing that bias is widespread among people generally.
On the other hand, you forgot to answer the question we raised about your “issue”. What is the real-versus-phony characteristics of the conclusion reached? What is the real-versus-phony characteristics of the methods used?
- Zachriel | 04/27/2015 @ 05:31M: It doesn’t work, obviously, even at the one thing it’s supposed to do because in the world of adults, where people identify problems fully before applying precious resources to work on solutions
Z: Ideally, but one doesn’t always have complete information.
On the other hand, resources are always limited. And so grown-ups endeavor toward identifying the problem as fully and as functionally as possible, before spending these resources.
Liberals, on the other hand, feeling quite at home in the mode of destroying things while pretending to build things — and their followers, who are essentially just grown-up children — insist on unopposed, dictatorial control over the resources, while doing nothing whatsoever to anticipate how they should be spent, toward the objective of fulfilling the stated mission before they’re exhausted.
This is easily proven since they so seldom get around to actually stating the mission. “Our swimmers are being eaten,” passive-voice, versus active-voice, “That shark is easting our swimmers.”
- mkfreeberg | 04/27/2015 @ 06:15[…] else could build something. Their silly arguments are built for monologue, not dialogue, and they can’t give us answers to even the most obvious questions about them, nor can they answer to the fundamental questions all diligently thinking adults must […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 10/31/2018 @ 02:28