Politics?Originally Posted by Loki
Nah, just kidding. Everyone knows there's no such thing as a good politician.
Politics?
Nah, just kidding. Everyone knows there's no such thing as a good politician.
Largely because its so overburderned to perform a task its not intended to perform. Blaming schools for not picking up the slack because they are placed in environments that don't encourage the behavior you want... something is off with that idea.
Is this a segue into the previous remarks about respect? or pay? or you going to go off on another off topic rant about unions?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
No, just wanted to point out how you support the very characteristics of a system that lead it to being so dysfunctional.
Hope is the denial of reality
I've spoken against the causes of teacher burn out several times. No idea what you're reading into, but its way off the mark.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Is it funny because its created by a web designer who apparently can't link to their own website properly (change the https to http)? Or embed fonts?
Besides that, I don't think you understand that this comic isn't representing your viewpoint, as its written by two self-proclaimed libertarians, so its more of a critique of what they view is wrong with The Government, and people who support it, not just Barack Obama.
Apparently...go to Dread's original link in the OP. Right click the page and choose your browser's version of "View Source"
. . .
Because in the Things I Agree With™ Venn Diagram, there is no overlapping between libertarian viewpoints and those of anyone else?
I'm addressing Dreadnaught, not anyone else. I'm also addressing the entirety of his viewpoint (hence the lack of pluralization of it), not the individual parts of it (otherwise I would have said 'viewpoints'). If this had been Dread posting a comic that details two guys ripping on all ice creams, and Dreadnaught viewed it as supporting his belief that strawberry ice cream was terrible, and chocolate ice cream was better, and I came along and pointed out to him that they are not in fact supporting chocolate ice cream, and bashing just strawberry ice cream, but decrying all flavors of ice cream, including his own favorite possibly, would you have been so quick to make a comment about me pointing this out? No? Okay then...
Edit: Oh I've got an even better one! So because both the KKK and Dreadnaught both don't want Obama re-elected in 2012, the KKK's reasons for not wanting Obama re-elected would be representative of Dreadnaught's viewpoint? Would you say it was representative of his viewpoint even if there was some overlap?
Or even more bluntly: Dreadnaught is not a libertarian, therefore a libertarian's political viewpoint is not going to be representative of Dreadnaught's political viewpoint.
Last edited by Illusions; 05-09-2012 at 08:35 PM.
. . .
Why don't you let Dread speak as to what his opinion is, instead of trying to tell him what it should be. That's the most basic of common courtesies.
Put most bluntly, that's a ridiculously infantile comparison. To say that only libertarians can agree with what was represented in the comic, (the majority of which are hardly positions unique to libertarianism) is to paint such a starkly black and white picture that it would make even Lewk blush.Or even more bluntly: Dreadnaught is not a libertarian, therefore a libertarian's political viewpoint is not going to be representative of Dreadnaught's political viewpoint.
To use your own example, it's saying that the only reason the KKK, or members of the KKK could oppose Obama is because he is black. True, he might be black, but that is likely not the only reason they object to him being in office. It could be a mixture of his race, and his foreign and fiscal policy, etc... If the KKK puts out a pamphlet bashing Obama on his fiscal policy, but ignoring his race, you are in essence saying anyone who does agree with their position on fiscal discipline must also have a white hood in their closet and gasoline soaked cross in their garage.
It honestly seems more like you are using this as an easy way of dismissing something you don't agree with, while making a vain attempt to troll Dreadnaught, not that you have any truly valid point to make. It's not even a cheap shot, it's a non sequitur.
A - The letter to the left of this sentence is representative of a Blue Capital A. True or False?
a - The letter to the left of this sentence is representative of a Blue Capital A. True or False?
B - The letter to the left of this sentence is representative of a Blue Capital A. True or False?
. . .
I'm sure there's a brilliant point in here punctuated by damning bon mot, but I'm not really feeling a compelling need to play ball. You might try by actually making a relevant point.
I'm trying to gauge your logic in the usage of "representative" because obviously its not the same as my own.
. . .
Why do the views have to be completely representative in their entirety in order to be more perfectly representative in part? Do the views you hold correlate exactly with any single group, organization, or political party? Should you never be able to post an article you find interesting or might agree with, simply because it was put out by the Reason Fondation, a self-proclaimed libertarian organization that in no way is representative of your views in their entirety? Is this really a position that you find compelling?
For that matter, I'm not sure how you've drawn any conclusion at all from a link and a smiley face.
Speaking of campaign trolling: http://news.yahoo.com/romney-donor-f...--finance.html
Hope is the denial of reality
That WSJ article has over a thousand comments, including this link about Vandersloot: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/bill...ics/singleton/
Sounds to me like this Idaho dude has been campaign trolling for several years, long before "team Obama". Check out the anti-homosexual billboard he sponsored, and the law suits he's been using as threats to silence journalists.
They don't, but they do if I want to relate something to a viewpoint in its entirety.
If I were to post an article by the Reason Foundation, I would make the effort to highlight the specifics of it that I liked so that no one would confuse my liking part of the article with liking all of the article. This could even include mentioning the fact that I am not in support of whatever group I'm quoting. Which is what I was trying to point out to Dread. He might like part of the comic, but I find it doubtful that he supports all of it.Do the views you hold correlate exactly with any single group, organization, or political party? Should you never be able to post an article you find interesting or might agree with, simply because it was put out by the Reason Fondation, a self-proclaimed libertarian organization that in no way is representative of your views in their entirety? Is this really a position that you find compelling?
A conclusion that can be drawn is that Dread likes the comic, however from previous posts of Dread's I find it doubtful that he supports all of the motives of the people who made it.For that matter, I'm not sure how you've drawn any conclusion at all from a link and a smiley face.
. . .
Which is valuable for the purposes of this conversation... how again?
So, the next time someone posts an article by Krugman, or a video clip from John Stuart, can we expect you to demand that they fully appreciate, understand, and agree with their positions - on everything - in their entirety? In fact, if they don't concede those facts, is it then a tacit admission on their part that whatever Krugman or Stuart has, or will write, will heretofore be identical to their positions?If I were to post an article by the Reason Foundation, I would make the effort to highlight the specifics of it that I liked so that no one would confuse my liking part of the article with liking all of the article. This could even include mentioning the fact that I am not in support of whatever group I'm quoting. Which is what I was trying to point out to Dread. He might like part of the comic, but I find it doubtful that he supports all of it.
That seems reasonable.
My God! Someone may or may not agree entirely with the motives or positions of someone else? Here? On the internet? Say it's not so!A conclusion that can be drawn is that Dread likes the comic, however from previous posts of Dread's I find it doubtful that he supports all of the motives of the people who made it.
And to think, there was once a time when people who authored political satire would walk in lockstep with the audience that consumed them, and the sanctity of their political speech could only be appreciated by those that grasped their ideology in its entirety.
I don't know what conversation you are referring to since what I said was a statement to Dreadnaught alone, and you decided to jump down my throat because it had the word libertarian in it.
Would you like to state that posting/exclaiming "I agree." or some equivalent in response to statements someone else made is poor communication when you do not in fact agree with all of the statements?So, the next time someone posts an article by Krugman, or a video clip from John Stuart, can we expect you to demand that they fully appreciate, understand, and agree with their positions - on everything - in their entirety? In fact, if they don't concede those facts, is it then a tacit admission on their part that whatever Krugman or Stuart has, or will write, will heretofore be identical to their positions?
That seems reasonable.
Why do you keep bringing other people into this? I'm addressing Dreadnaught. The statement was about Dreadnaught. Last I've checked Dreadnaught is not a political satirist. You've even stated yourself that "I'm not sure how you've drawn any conclusion at all from a link and a smiley face." Oh, excuse me, I'm so sorry I mentioned libertarians. Crime of crimes! I never even said anything bad about them, just that Dread doesn't agree with them (in their entirety). Is this a factually wrong statement? Please, go back and quote me and list what is incorrect with what I said, that started all of this. Go ahead. Because this becoming annoying and ridiculous.My God! Someone may or may not agree entirely with the motives or positions of someone else? Here? On the internet? Say it's not so!
And to think, there was once a time when people who authored political satire would walk in lockstep with the audience that consumed them, and the sanctity of their political speech could only be appreciated by those that grasped their ideology in its entirety.
. . .
I'm referring to the conversation we were having about something you said. I'm sure you realize that on a public forum, statements you make can be seen and commented on by others, right?I don't know what conversation you are referring to since what I said was a statement to Dreadnaught alone, and you decided to jump down my throat because it had the word libertarian in it.
I think that is fairly typical behavior, both here and in the real world, and yet you don't seem bat an eye then. Whether or not it's because this had to do with libertarianism, or Dreadnaught's personal views, I'm not sure.Would you like to state that posting/exclaiming "I agree." or some equivalent in response to statements someone else made is poor communication when you do not in fact agree with all of the statements?
The political perspective doesn't matter, (though I suspect you'd be singing a different tune if Lewkowski had posted an article by someone with a liberal bias) Illusions, and the satirist was the creator of the website. You seem to be under the impression that agreeing with a political view in part means you must agree with a completely separate plank, and indeed the entirety of a given platform. This is both sloppy and myopic thinking.Why do you keep bringing other people into this? I'm addressing Dreadnaught. The statement was about Dreadnaught. Last I've checked Dreadnaught is not a political satirist. You've even stated yourself that "I'm not sure how you've drawn any conclusion at all from a link and a smiley face." Oh, excuse me, I'm so sorry I mentioned libertarians. Crime of crimes! I never even said anything bad about them, just that Dread doesn't agree with them (in their entirety). Is this a factually wrong statement? Please, go back and quote me and list what is incorrect with what I said, that started all of this. Go ahead. Because this becoming annoying and ridiculous.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 05-15-2012 at 04:12 PM.
The same thing goes with comments made in real life in public, but apparently in real life people have a better ability to discern whether or not a comment is directed at them, and whether or not they should involve themselves.
You know me in real life? We should get together some time then...I think that is fairly typical behavior, both here and in the real world, and yet you don't seem bat an eye then. Whether or not it's because this had to do with libertarianism, or Dreadnaught's personal views, I'm not sure.
I've detailed this numerous times already and its aggravating me quite a bit to have to continue pointing this out, but I'll make it even blunter than I have previously: Dreadnaught's laughing smiley face could be construed as support for the linked comic's viewpoint, and not just amusement at part of it, in addition to my being uncertain if Dreadnaught knows what the comic's viewpoint is. Done. Thats it.You seem to be under the impression that agreeing with a political view in part means you must agree with a completely separate plank, and indeed the entirety of a given platform. This is both sloppy and myopic thinking.
. . .
I feel your pain, Illusions.Innuendo and sarcasm don't translate well here. Neither do comments made to one specific person, using the quote function, when it turns into a free-for-all with others piling in, taking things out of context.
It's much easier to take an offensive position, intended to drive others toward defensive positions. *Or into silence, and eventually absence.* That doesn't make for very civil discourse, or truly understanding others' viewpoints. After all these years, I still don't understand why a contentious style of posting is so commonplace. Especially since our "numbers" have dwindled.
Read what I was responding to, and what I wrote again. Then read your response. People in the real world often agree superficially with a news story, article, or perspective without fully appreciating who is saying it, their motives for doing so, or the other views they may also have. I have yet to see you take the same tack for other posters.
Great, I never thought otherwise. What I'm not sure of is why why you think Dreadnaught is incapable of agreeing with* a viewpoint that is contrary to the one you believe he has. Do you hold views that run contrary to the people you vote into office? What about the people you look to for news, or opinions? I'm not understanding this seeming insistence that someone hold monolithic views with the creators of the media that they consume, and that they can not stray from the viewpoint you believe them to have. A compelling and well thought out argument from a liberal is no less compelling by virtue of being put forth by a liberal, even if they hold views which are contrary to my own. The same is true of conservative and libertarian thought. If there is a flaw in the argument, or the logical foundation then that should be the issue, not the mouthpiece from which it is heard.I've detailed this numerous times already and its aggravating me quite a bit to have to continue pointing this out, but I'll make it even blunter than I have previously: Dreadnaught's laughing smiley face could be construed as support for the linked comic's viewpoint, and not just amusement at part of it, in addition to my being uncertain if Dreadnaught knows what the comic's viewpoint is. Done. Thats it.
*Recognizing that this is all based off a smiley face and a link.
What I was referring to was the fact that you do not interact with me in real life, so stating how I act in real life based on your observations of other people does not make logical sense. Regardless of this, it also does not logically follow that my lack of responding to a post means that I have read it and feel okay with what was posted. I could just have easily not read a post, not cared enough to respond, not had the time to respond appropriately, or lost interest. The only reason I responded this time was that I was already involved in a discussion with Dreadnaught.
There are probably many reasons for why I have done this, but since I don't know what posts you're referring to, as well as posters, I'm just going to field a guess that you might be able to get some insight or draw a conclusion from the posters I actually respond to on this forum, and why I am responding to them.People in the real world often agree superficially with a news story, article, or perspective without fully appreciating who is saying it, their motives for doing so, or the other views they may also have. I have yet to see you take the same tack for other posters.
I don't believe he is incapable, I just don't find it likely, given his background and attitudes. I could be wrong, but you could be as well...we have yet to have any outside input from Dreadnaught. Likewise, if Lewk had posted a laughing smiley and linked to a comic depicting the ideas of Democrats, I would find it more likely that he was laughing at the comic, not agreeing with it. If he was in fact laughing in agreement, would you fault me for the mistake I made, given Lewk's track record of bashing Democrats?Great, I never thought otherwise. What I'm not sure of is why why you think Dreadnaught is incapable of agreeing with* a viewpoint that is contrary to the one you believe he has.
Of course on this one. I don't really have an option of supporting someone who represents my views entirely, and not supporting someone who represents my views better than their opponent can have the undesired outcome of being saddled with their opponent as my representative in government. However this isn't voting someone into office, its a comment on a comic they had the option of reading. The worst outcome possible for non-participation in this instance is that they lack the experience of having read it.Do you hold views that run contrary to the people you vote into office?
If you had a choice of an equally compelling argument about hypothetical Topic X, one from a dictator, and one from a libertarian, and you could or only felt inclined to post one of them to share here on the forum, which person would you link to? Why would you link to that one person over the other?What about the people you look to for news, or opinions? I'm not understanding this seeming insistence that someone hold monolithic views with the creators of the media that they consume, and that they can not stray from the viewpoint you believe them to have. A compelling and well thought out argument from a liberal is no less compelling by virtue of being put forth by a liberal, even if they hold views which are contrary to my own. The same is true of conservative and libertarian thought. If there is a flaw in the argument, or the logical foundation then that should be the issue, not the mouthpiece from which it is heard.
Aside from this I do place intrinsic value or at least consider where information is coming from in determining its merit. Yes, 2 + 2 = 4 is a truthful, factual statement (in Base 10), however consider the value of the following ways this information came about:
1) From a person who has memorized that 2 + 2 = 4, and has no concept of math, or any way to derive further knowledge or ideas from the memorization. The answer to 1 + 3 would elude them until they learned basic math.
2) From a person who relates a subjective event where they wondered what 2 + 2 equaled, and the Sun God Ra answered them, and told them it was 4. They would have to wait on a response from their imaginary friend if they wanted to know what 1 + 3 equals.
3) From a person who understands that when you have two of something, and add it to two more things, you now have 4 in total. They quickly grasp that 1 + 3 = 4 as well due to this understanding.
Which would you be most likely to cite in a discussion also?
. . .
Uhhh...so no, I don't agree with the entirety of the mock-cartoon strip. But the underlying message that a life of ever-expanding government entitlements and regulations leads to unintended negative consequences is something I sympathise with.
[rant]
Except that is completely unrealistic, because unless you're "designing" websites for your government crony friends, no one will pay you more than $15 an hour just for "designing" websites. (which much different from programming complex websites) The Indians and Pakistanis charge $5.
Like that Big Oil ad with an apparently well-to-do FEMALE web-designer on one hand and an engineer on the other. Let's get real here.... web-designers are starving just like artists, and females are a tiny minority of web-designers, and an even tinier minority of web "programmers".
[/rant]
Bullshit, I know plenty of people who do or did webdesign for 25€/hour. Especially local companies are willing to pay a lot.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Uhuh. And those companies just don't know any better, because you can bet that much of that web-design is sub-contracted to Indian and Pakistani companies who charge $5-$10 an hour.
Regardless.. 25 euros in a salaried job (which has benefits, like health care, sometimes paid vacation, etc.) would be 12.5 euros in the US, and in Europe probably more like 10 euros. That's about $13 an hour, plus Euro-benefits, or about $16 plus US-benefits. Not very livable for Julia AND HER SON... unless the government picks up the rest of the tab?
Edit:
Follow the rabbit hole...
http://www.indizine.co.uk/ ...
http://www.elitebridalwear.co.uk/ ...
https://www.elance.com/samples/elite...5761/#posSlide
Last edited by agamemnus; 05-26-2012 at 02:07 PM.
?
25€/hour is more than twice the minimum wage. I'd call that livable, yeah.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
So, that is 25 euros an hour with benefits? In a local web design "company" that would charge even more to clients?... with steady & daily work...? Anyway, if they did get that hourly rate, chances are that they wouldn't be doing merely web-design, but also more sophisticated things like implementing databases for the sites in question.
But do you think they'd agree with your views on government?
Aga is partly right, not that its impossible to find web design work that pays decently, but that there are a lot of people and companies who want to pay very little for web design work, or want to pay nothing (internships or "It will look good in your portfolio"), and don't value it as much as similar programming and engineering tasks/jobs.
. . .
Would they agree with me? I don't know, I haven't asked them.
But on the Web design front, y'all just don't have the imagination to realize that with a boundary-less entitlement state, any profession or firm can still become dependent on the government. Not just teachers.
However, speaking specifically about Web design, you forget that the US government dropped an irony bomb a few years ago and spent $18 million to redesign www.recovery.gov (link).
Once Obama took office as a "web savvy" president, the bureaucracy took it as a sign to blow tons of money on Web design. After a year, Obama had to call for a moratorium on new websites. His admin did an audit and found there were two thousand top-level .gov domains, and 24,000 separately-created web properties. Most of those web properties was likely outsourced to a contractor who charged a ton of money/hours, because the government is very hard to design websites for.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...anywebsitesgov
http://www.govtech.com/e-government/...-Websites.html
http://www.govinfosecurity.com/omb-e...ebsites-a-3971
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
