|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 6, 2019 4:46:16 GMT
Not making any argument yourself means you get to be mean to people and believe it isn't your fault, that you are not the mean one. It isn't you that found the harsh criticism, is it? You are less mean than the others though. With you it's more condescension. Of course you don't recognize how condescending it is because none of it was ever your own work. Making my own arguments makes me the mean one. You think I've offended the social order by thinking on my own. Your idea of a better plan is for me to copy something off the internet as mindlessly as the "nice" people in the world. When I was in high school I met a lot of people because I was active on the debate team, got to go to interscholastic speech competitions, regularly attended religious services, and worked part time at fast food restaurants. I was thoroughly immersed in society with a rather large circle of contacts. I also enjoyed music very much and attended concerts. What I know about life is from my own interaction with real people. At the same time I did keep my grades up and thoroughly understand how proofs are made or in your case not made. I understood long ago that you will never accept my findings until some authority you recognize does. "Where is the authority you mindlessly copied like I do, Arlon? Aha! Thought so. It is your own work! What a shame!" Only I don't think it's a shame. Ahah! That's your problem! ( apart from a terminal case of Dunning Kruger effect) 'Free' thinkers are to be valued in society however, the core knowledge of an effective 'free thinker' has to be grounded in fact, reality, science and a deep understanding of many subject, upon which to base any valid argument, IMHO this is your problem. Your knowledge base is antique, outdated and pardon the pun for a creationist, anti-diluvium, your grasp of science is minimal at best, misguided at worst, and you have an inflated opinion of your own 'special nature'. A true Dunning Kruger effect exponent. Is that supposed to mean that people who smoke marijuana can process large quantities of text? What large quantities of text have you processed? I do not mean merely copy and paste processing. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2019 7:15:04 GMT
Ahah! That's your problem! ( apart from a terminal case of Dunning Kruger effect) 'Free' thinkers are to be valued in society however, the core knowledge of an effective 'free thinker' has to be grounded in fact, reality, science and a deep understanding of many subject, upon which to base any valid argument, IMHO this is your problem. Your knowledge base is antique, outdated and pardon the pun for a creationist, anti-diluvium, your grasp of science is minimal at best, misguided at worst, and you have an inflated opinion of your own 'special nature'. A true Dunning Kruger effect exponent. Is that supposed to mean that people who smoke marijuana can process large quantities of text? What large quantities of text have you processed? I do not mean merely copy and paste processing. You are so stupid and an antiquated dick! I have smoked half a marijuana cigarette ( so I could be informed) 30 years ago in my life and found it underwhelming. Your'e an idiot and out of touch in your own PlanetArlon world. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 6, 2019 7:17:04 GMT
Having been written by Orwell with the Soviet Union and Stalin in mind over 70 years ago it is not possible to make a current comparison that fits all of the content and characters. Trump may not be a dictator yet, but neither is Napoleon at the start of the book. He just has latent tendencies. Trump has not been forced from control like Mr. Jones. Sorry, I still disagree. Trump doesn't have dictatorial tendencies in my opinion. Otherwise, would the congress women wearing white yesterday still be alive today? Trump did not get to power by force. Neither did Mr.Jones. Maybe Trump will be forced to resign. A valid (in my opinion) comparison between Trump and Napoleon is that Trump has his own Squealers, in form of Breitbart, InfoWars, or other fake news factories. But in choosing Trump as Napoleon it makes it possible to find a counterpart figure(s) for Snowball. With my selection that becomes possible, and that was the question posed, so I still think my choice holds up better than what you are coming up with. Snowball and Napoleon were allies at first (like Stalin and Trotzki). If we insist on comparing Trump with Napoleon, we should look in the ranks of (former) allies to find him a "Snowball". I'm not familiar enough with American politics to know some Republicans who might be rivals for Trump. But anyway: Snowball wasn't really the good guy either. He too wanted special privileges for the pigs (like apples). And how do we know if the Cold War could have been averted if it had been Trotzki in power instead of Stalin? Maybe Benjamin should have run Animal Farm. With help from Mr.Pilkington, Mr.Whymper, and Clover or Muriel. Would it have worked? We'll never know. Putin is not Benjamin. But anyway: In hindsight, I believe that one of the smartest characters from Animal Farm was Mollie. Hedonistic and looking out for her interests and well-being. As Ebner-Eschenbach said: The biggest enemies of freedom are happy slaves. Doesn't make them stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 6, 2019 10:28:00 GMT
Ahah! That's your problem! ( apart from a terminal case of Dunning Kruger effect) 'Free' thinkers are to be valued in society however, the core knowledge of an effective 'free thinker' has to be grounded in fact, reality, science and a deep understanding of many subject, upon which to base any valid argument, IMHO this is your problem. Your knowledge base is antique, outdated and pardon the pun for a creationist, anti-diluvium, your grasp of science is minimal at best, misguided at worst, and you have an inflated opinion of your own 'special nature'. A true Dunning Kruger effect exponent. Is that supposed to mean that people who smoke marijuana can process large quantities of text? What large quantities of text have you processed? I do not mean merely copy and paste processing. I'd say Arlon, whatever quantities of text you have processed, hasn't made you any wiser or understanding of the world and people. The self-absorbed world you appear to inhabit, is only one that you could possibly understand and it also has you lost and not knowing where else to go. Like Krypton, your planet is self-destructing.
Perhaps you need newer and broader horizons to enhance your landscape. Yours needs a jolly good whipper snip and a perhaps even excavating. You might be surprised at what you find underneath all the brambles and thorns. |
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Feb 6, 2019 13:47:35 GMT
What?!? You're demonstrating the short attention span that you're accusing people of in your post with the post itself. It's basically: Try to string together a coherent thought and then perhaps (just "perhaps") we won't think you're a moron. It's like almost every other topic on this board except that it uses a classic, widely read book as a conversation piece. As is often the case you are upset because it is outside the extremely limited scope of your experience and understanding. You're turning into Ada. You don't care how negative the attention you get is as long as you're getting attention. It's pathetic and I'm done with it. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 6, 2019 14:15:48 GMT
Having been written by Orwell with the Soviet Union and Stalin in mind over 70 years ago it is not possible to make a current comparison that fits all of the content and characters. Trump may not be a dictator yet, but neither is Napoleon at the start of the book. He just has latent tendencies. Trump has not been forced from control like Mr. Jones. Sorry, I still disagree. Trump doesn't have dictatorial tendencies in my opinion. Otherwise, would the congress women wearing white yesterday still be alive today? Trump did not get to power by force. Neither did Mr.Jones. Maybe Trump will be forced to resign. A valid (in my opinion) comparison between Trump and Napoleon is that Trump has his own Squealers, in form of Breitbart, InfoWars, or other fake news factories. But in choosing Trump as Napoleon it makes it possible to find a counterpart figure(s) for Snowball. With my selection that becomes possible, and that was the question posed, so I still think my choice holds up better than what you are coming up with. Snowball and Napoleon were allies at first (like Stalin and Trotzki). If we insist on comparing Trump with Napoleon, we should look in the ranks of (former) allies to find him a "Snowball". I'm not familiar enough with American politics to know some Republicans who might be rivals for Trump. But anyway: Snowball wasn't really the good guy either. He too wanted special privileges for the pigs (like apples). And how do we know if the Cold War could have been averted if it had been Trotzki in power instead of Stalin? Maybe Benjamin should have run Animal Farm. With help from Mr.Pilkington, Mr.Whymper, and Clover or Muriel. Would it have worked? We'll never know. Putin is not Benjamin. But anyway: In hindsight, I believe that one of the smartest characters from Animal Farm was Mollie. Hedonistic and looking out for her interests and well-being. As Ebner-Eschenbach said: The biggest enemies of freedom are happy slaves. Doesn't make them stupid. Dictators don't always kill anybody that opposes them, even after grasping absolute authority. But to assume Trump has no dictatorial tendencies because congresswomen wearing white yesterday are still living hits me as rather ridiculous. But as I said any comparison will be a force fit so a choice will be subjective. I have chosen one pick that fits some aspects and not others. The same will be true for any choice you make. But here is a production that went the direction I did: Animal Farm staging link |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 6, 2019 14:18:21 GMT
Trump did not get to power by force. Neither did Stalin exactly. He did not lead the February or October revolutions (though he took part) - these revolutions would have happened even if Stalin hadn't been involved. Then he did not become leader until some time after the October revolution - this he did not by force, but by a mixture of playing the different factions off each other following Lenin's death and gathering the support of the emerging bureaucratic class. Trotsky's plan was to encourage and support socialist revolutions in all the major developed countries. IMO, it's a tactic that would have resulted either in global socialism or the destruction of the Soviet Union. Stalin's "socialism in one country" policy on the other hand gave both the west and east breathing space resulting in the long cold war. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 6, 2019 19:01:57 GMT
Trump did not get to power by force. Neither did Stalin exactly. Not to mention another famous WW2 bad boy. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 6, 2019 20:49:41 GMT
Not making any argument yourself means you get to be mean to people and believe it isn't your fault, that you are not the mean one. This may well be the case but, as I am sure you will remember it is not that you do not make arguments or express opinions - in fact quite the opposite - but that everything you assert is unsubstantiated. You are of course fully entitled to say anything you want. But it is hard to take anything you say seriously when the track record of corroboration is so poor. I am not sure to what this refers. But I don't post here not to expect criticism, harsh or otherwise. I find this hard to reconcile with someone who is constantly telling people on this board they don't understand things; how superior their understanding is in relation to notions of science, religion etc; directing the ignorant to personal web pages for illumination of great issues, or how striking their progress through life has been, by way of self-recommendation - (as we saw in your last reply) lol Don't tell me what I think. No, my idea of a better plan would be for you to always try and buttress outlandish claims with external evidence. Original thought need not preclude corroboration for those fresh views. Whatever, it is reasonable to assert that proofs are made most commonly through evidence and substantiation. See my previous comments on your lack of same. Asking for substantiation is a quite reasonable thing to do when one is faced by startling claims. Also the above quote, rhetorical it may be, is not mine and so is something of straw man. Perhaps you wish me to argue against you, Heeeyyy and some others here using the technique common to you all of just posting outlandish and controversial opinions and then abandoning a thread when confronted with substantiated rebuttals? And answer came there ... none. As predicted. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 8, 2019 12:52:24 GMT
Did anybody else read "Animal Ranch: The Great American Fable" by Jack Newfield?
|
|
