OK, Z, let's have some fun

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Toward the end of my thread about stereotyping, I state: "Even if I were posting on EZboard instead of here, nobody would be entitled to assume anything about my views unless I had stated them.."

You disagreed. Which makes me think that you do not sufficiently respect people's individuality.

Let's do a thought experiment. I'm going to give you a statement which is absolutely true:

I despise President Clinton. He lies all the time. He's close to being the worst President we have ever had.

Now what do you think you can say, with any degree of certainty, from what I have just said, about my views on any issue whatsoever. You pick the issue(s).

You can say that it's likely, in your mind, that I believe certain things. Nothing wrong with that. But to come to anything like a firm conclusion, that's what I have a problem with.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 29, 2000


Don't waste the effort Peter, Z is convinced that everything is exactly the same as he learned from his 40 year old college textbooks. We live in a static reality, people don't change, the world does not change, nothing changes, because if it did he would have to relearn everything that he is convinced he already knows.

You despise Clinton so you are automatically a radical left-wing liberal, you fit perfectly into the mold and you support all the same things that all liberals support.

-- (you're@wasting.time), October 29, 2000.

Howdy Peter; and good to see that Hawk has been here:

Actually your evaluation is the opposite of what I said. Since you have chosen not to post on Ez board, I have no preconceived notion of what you will say on any subject. But let us analyze. Consider this from the introduction of John DeweyBs 1929 lectures at the University of Edinburgh. "The Quest for Certainty"

Man who lives in a world of hazards is compelled to seek for security. He has sought to attain it in two ways. One of them began with an attempt to propitiate the powers which environ him and determine his destiny. It expressed itself in supplication, sacrifice, ceremonial rite and magical cult. In time these crude methods were largely displaced. The sacrifice of a contrite heart was esteemed more pleasing than that of bulls and oxen; the inner attitude of reverence and devotion more desirable than external ceremonies. If man could not conquer destiny, he could willing, ally himself with it; putting his will even in sore affliction, on the side of the powers which dispense fortune, he could escape defeat and might triumph in the midst of destruction.

The other course is to invent arts and by their means turn the powers of nature to account; man constructs a fortress out of the very conditions and forces which threaten him. He builds shelters, weaves garments, makes flame his friend instead of his enemy, and grows into the complicated arts of associated living. This is the method of changing the world through action, as the other is the method of changing the self in emotion and idea.

There we have two approaches. One emotional and one factual. It was my impression that most of the folks who were very wrong about Y2K used an emotional approach in the quest for certainty. Those who were correct the factual road. One would never attempt to predict the actions of such emotionally based people.

You, I donBt know. You say that you despise Clinton. That suggests to me that there is no factual basis to your argument. It is emotional and will continue to lead you astray. This is unlike Flint who is a rationally based person. Sorry, I donBt have time to play. I am leaving to a place where computer access is limited.

Best wishes,,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 29, 2000.

To "you're wasting time": I don't know whether to take your last paragraph seriously, it's so off the wall. Rest assured, I am not a left-wing radical.

To Z: You bet I despise Clinton. I despise lying and I despise cowardice, and Clinton is both a liar and a coward. And I have a mountain of objective facts to back up both claims.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 29, 2000.


You made my point for me and put a smile on John Dewey's face.

Now personally, I consider Reagan to the worst of the most recent presidents. Clinton is probably the best. I base it on results, not emotion. I don't hate Reagan. His policies were just destructive [if he was actually responsible for any of them]. The biggest problem was policies that widened the income gap across society. This is the one thing that I fault the Clinton administration for. They didn't reverse that trend. Nothing is more dangerous to the stability of society than the giant wealth redistribution of the sort that has occured in the last 20 y. Just my opinion.

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 29, 2000.

Well, well, what an interesting response from Z. I say that Clinton is a liar and a coward and that I can prove it and he says that I have made his point for him and brought a smile to John Dewey's face. That is because he considers Clinton a really good President.

Z, do try to stay in touch. And fasten your seatbelt, it will be a bumpy flight ahead.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 29, 2000.


Thanks for the thought. I have just as much evidence to prove that Reagan was a coward and a liar. There are now serious questions about Bush, Sr. war record. I say, balderdash. What did they accomplish during their administration. See you in a while.

Best wishes,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 29, 2000.

"Let's do a thought experiment. I'm going to give you a statement which is absolutely true:

I despise President Clinton. He lies all the time. He's close to being the worst President we have ever had."

What can I say with any degree of certainty regarding the above?

1. You tend to exaggerate. 2. You tend to state opinions as though they were facts. 3. Your emotions control your thinking more than logic.

Broken down:

"I despise President Clinton." - pure emotion, and toward someone you've NEVER met or loved.

"He lies all the time." - exaggeration. I'm sure he's sincere when he tells his daughter that he loves her.

"He's close to being the worst President we have ever had." - opinion stated as fact. I know many who believe Clinton to be the BEST president we ever had.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 29, 2000.

"I despise President Clinton." - Opinion

"He lies all the time." - exaggeration........An exaggeration probably,"alot" would be a better descriptor,but still opinion.

"He's close to being the worst President we have ever had." - Again, opinion.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 29, 2000.

I only post so that a thread with the subject "OK Z, let's have some fun" is no longer located immediately below a thread with the subject "man accused of having sex with sheep" on the RECENT ANSWERS page.

Z, I know you would do as much for me.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 01, 2000.

Lars, you just did me a favor. I thought I had responded to Z and Anita on this thread, and just lost track of the thread.

Anita states that I "tend to exaggerate", and tend to state opinions as though they were facts. OK, I will give you the factual basis for my strong opinions. I do not think that I tend to exaggerate.

Anita then goes on to assert (without having the slightest idea of why I said what I did) that "Your emotions control your thinking more than logic."

It is true that it often happens that strong emotions can run away with a person's wits. But in other cases the strong emotions are just a decent human reaction, to a situation seen clearly.

Z, I'm not going to bother to respond to your dragging Reagan and Bush Senior into this discussion.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), November 01, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ