'Your small biz doesn't accomodate my handicap, shut-u-down!' It's interesting that you consistently use the word 'handicap' here, when, in general, people with disabilities rejected this word as demeaning some time ago. I don't mean to suggest for a moment that you should be prevented by political correctness from using such terminology as you deem fit, but one can't help but make certain inferences on the basis of your choice of words. To use a p
Furry Canary
'He but has to cite history and facts.' Fair enough, but he hasn't done so. Instead, Gideon has offered personal anecdote and opinion. There is a big difference. I don't disagree with you that 'the proof is in the data', but Gideon has not supplied any.
'You have a nasty habit of assigning absolutes where none were stated or inferred.' No absolutes nor insults intended, Doc. Titanl9 suggests that parenthood went downhill in the 60s - 70s, and you concur. I was just making the point that the idea that the younger generation are somehow worse than 'we' were at their age is not a recent phenomenon - indeed, it has been a fixture for generation upon generation.
'I have to go along with most of what Titan said, however, while I am of age, I was never one of the Spock generation. But too many of ours are of that generation, and their children are young adults or teens now. And indicative of the rebellion you speak of.' I don't think Dr. Spock can be held solely responsible for what is perceived as teenage rebellion. The media have been reporting such generation gap issues for over 200 years!
This best version I ever heard of this song was by Rickie Lee Jones, on her mini-album 'Girl At Her Volcano'. It knocks all the others - including the original - into a cocked hat.
'so why on earth does science have such a problem accepting that we would have one to.' Because there is no trustworthy scientific evidence to date to suggest that we have such 'energy signatures', let alone that others can detect them. Science doesn't have a "problem" with this, it just requires evidence. That's how science works, ParaTed2k.
'No, it is not up to anyone, for the proof is in the data ... My challenge was for you to prove that capitalism does not work. You cannot, so it was just rhetorical.' You didn't 'challenge' me to prove it, Dr. Guy - you told me I couldn't. And I'm not particularly interested in disputing your claim, for many reasons - e.g. how do you define 'work'? - but primarily because that was never the point I was making. Go back to the thre
'I think it's stuck on this message, did anybody get a different one at all?' I suspect it's not so much 'stuck' on this message, as pumping it out every time so as to flatter us into thinking it is a pretty damned accurate test!
'part of it luck of Birth. A 5'4" man is not going to have it (usually). But a 6'2" man will.' That's neither aura nor charisma, Dr. Guy - it's height! But seriously, there are far too many short people with these qualities and far too many tall people without them for this to be true.
***The Movie Of Your Life Is An Indie Flick*** You do things your own way - and it's made for colorful times. Your life hasn't turned out how anyone expected, thank goodness! Your best movie matches: Clerks, Garden State, Napoleon Dynamite (... and I haven't seen any of them!)
'It is self-interest that benefits all! It is using the inherant nature of man for the benefit of mankind! No one is denying that, nor can you prove otherwise.' At least you agree with me that the essence of Capitalism is self-interest, and not benevolence. But it's not up to me to 'prove otherwise', Dr. Guy. It's up to Gideon - as the author of this thread - and you - as a supporter of this position - to back up your assertion by means other th
'Meh. Now you're just splitting hairs, furry. In this article I am deferring to the media labels because I am describing a general tendency among those who are visible within the media, who almost always describe themselves along left/right lines.' Hmm. As far as I can see Gideon, you either subscribe to such labels and use them, or you denounce them and don't. How can you justify having it both ways?
'Thanks for proving my point better than I could, furry.' But it DOESN’T prove your point. All I've done is point out that a culture of runaway expenditure begets even more expenditure. There's a huge leap between that and the poor being any better off as a result. The vast majority of the research I'm aware of suggests that, in the West (the undisputed bastion of rampant consumerism), the gap between rich and poor continues to wi
'I believe that this is what Furry Canary was trying to say, but I agree he was unceccesarily snotty about it.' Thanks LW. Yes, I was simply suggesting that someone's reasons for maintaining anonymity are not necessarily poor just because Andrew J. Brehm deems it so. He goes on to say 'It is however very doubtful that a full 90% of JoeUser posters have such reasons. I believe most are just not very personable.' I assume he has reliable sourc
'You see, retailer X has a labor cost built into the budget. The more goods he sells, the more he has to spend on salary. He can either provide more jobs or provide better wages for the workers already in his employ. It's as simple as that.' Or ... he can take the extra money you earmark to be spent on salaries and buy a bigger car, build a pool, take a cruise, buy a holiday home etc. So no, it's NOT as simple as that.
We all know you lean to the right, Lucas, but suggesting two separate 'Looniest Liberal' categories seems a bit extreme ...
'I realise that many regulars here believe they have very good reasons for not telling the world who they are. But I also think that many of these reasons are not very good, compared to the principle of standing up for one's own opinions and statements.' This kind of comment appears quite frequently. I would simply point out that nobody is breaking any JoeUser rules (in word or spirit) by refraining from revealing their names, contact details
'See, I recognize that SOME people fall towards the right or left of the spectrum. Just not MOST people.' Hmm, not convinced you have explained your way out of this one, Gideon. To quote your previous blog a bit more, 'Very few people that I have ever met have fallen CONSISTENTLY on either the left or the right side of the political spectrum', 'Left-right political labelling is demeaning, and, almost completely inaccurate', 'it suggests a la
'AH! The truth comes out! I love the sax! I guess that is why I like him!' I don't think that cuts it, Dr. Guy. I love the sax too, but the sax I love is that of John Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Wayne Shorter, Clarence Clemens, Sidney Bechet, Michael Brecker, Louis Jordan ... definitely NOT Kenny G. Put another way, Kenny G is to the saxophone what ... Richard Clayderman is to the piano LaToya Jackson is to the Jackson
'If I ask you nicely, will you correct my spelling again?' Only if you ask me nicely, Dr. Guy! And if we can mostly get along - even if it is usually by agreeing to disagree - then I for one think that a good thing. (Or maybe that's just the bourgeois diversionary season rubbing off on me! )
You are a Social Liberal (81% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (15% permissive) You are best described as a: Socialist Well, knock me down with a feather!
'Do no make the mistake of thinking that people who are facing hardship have been afflicted by outside forces and have no control over their lives.' Quite right. All those people who lost their homes, their livelihoods, their families, their lives in the tsunami a year ago, and in the New Orleans hurricane rather more recently ... well, they have nothing to pin the blame on but their own laziness.
From your previous blog: 'The reason this person continues to use such grossly inaccurate labelling is because he has been trained and conditioned to see politics as left or right ...' Yet, with 'right wingers tend to ...' and 'The left, however, are another story ...', you're doing exactly the same thing here.
'Let a Christian try it and see what happens.' They do. It used to be called 'Creationism', now it's called 'intelligent design'. Perhaps your own indoctrination prevents you from seeing this in perspective.
'Marriage: man and woman. Ordained by God. Recognized by the state.' I'm married and very happily too, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with my (or anybody else's) idea of God. There is no evidence that marriage is 'Ordained by God', any more than that same sex unions are not. Just a string of books written by human beings. 'I simply don't think we should upend the concept of marriage in order to soothe the vast minority of people who