.... and Auto-Stimulation.

Oh, yeah. Yes. Yes. YES!

You're all feeling really good about yourselves.

Well, duh! Just look around.

This SciForum demographic is so philosophically homogenous, so situationally polarized, that it can't possibly reflect the true nature of a cosmos comprised of opposites.

So, what's your personal motivation for presuming that your community-invested, absolutist, world-view is all there is to reality that opposing thinkers are not welcome here?

Not welcome here, you say?

Take a poll, and look about.

A little intellectual honesty would be so refreshing, right about now.

I'm not holding my breath.

I'm a skeptic, too.

This demographic is not broad spectrum. It's auto-limited.

How intellectually honest is that sort of circumstance?

This demographic is not broad spectrum. It's auto-limited.

How intellectually honest is that sort of circumstance?As a general note, only as honest as the intellects comprising the spectrum.A little intellectual honesty would be so refreshing, right about now.As a personal note, because of our prior disputes and the nature of them, I can only wonder why you're wishing for what you won't give even yourself. that it can't possibly reflect the true nature of a cosmos comprised of oppositesStrangely, I'm left to wonder about shades of gray. After all, the Universe is not merely black and white. Most of our "opposites" only exist in the human mind.

Perhaps you could fill us in on those opposites? It would be helpful for those trying to give your remarks honest consideration. Otherwise, we kind of have to fill in the blanks, which leads back to the general note above and the consideration it responded to. And observably, that's not the best of ideas, as a glance around Sciforums will indicate.

Maybe I'm just too egalitarian. There was a time when people found fault not only with the length of my posts, but the number of them. My general response has been, as you have seen, Mr. G, to accommodate people's intellectual dishonesty to a certain degree. But in the end, certain degrees are all we have. People don't seem to want intellectual honesty around here, as it's too much an effort.

Subjective honesty would be enough for me; someone really believing that what they were writing is true; most people, demonstrably through the history of Sciforums, do not wish to be held responsible for the larger considerations of a narrowly-applied idea. Beyond that, however, there is a difference between ideas that qualify as "intellectually dishonest".

I recently wrote, amid a bitch topic, I think, about a moment that occurs when people debate opposing sides of an issue. One side may reject the other's source, and the other pretends to not understand why. Most days, I think that the other knows exactly why the one rejects the source, but would rather hope that the rest of the crowd is too stupid to pick it up unless the objecting poster explains in ridiculous detail, and so plays innocent. Some people think the CDC is a liberal conspiracy and the NRA is intellectually honest. Doesn't mean there's any easy and satisfying solution.

I find that kind of intellectual dishonesty--calculated--rather repugnant. But there is an acquired intellectual dishonesty that springs from people's own limitations, and they're not always aware of them. Most people hide their struggles against their own limitations, as the intellectually dishonest like to pretend that one person is horrible for being human, and another apparently isn't human because they have no human foibles. You know, kind of like Congress hounding Clinton about adultery? Stones, glass houses, that sort of thing. But people want to shelter themselves from that kind of storm, so people who expect that honest struggle to be readily apparent should expect to be disappointed. You do, in fact, have to get up and look around for it like a lost set of keys. And no, you can't get a Clapper® keychain-finder whistle for intellectual honesty. (Believe me, I tried.)

You will, however, despite all that, come across a kind of intellectual dishonesty which is an acquired pattern; the individual is unaware of it, and argues sincerely within the reality seen. For instance, I know a megalomaniac whose failures include a subtle misogyny. He's the kind of person that thinks that since we realized all humans are equal before the law, that should solve everything. In the end, he's the sort that points to increasing crime numbers among women as evidence of some odd and inherent feminine detriment to humanity while overlooking that those numbers have a long way to go before they reach the numbers achieved by the planet's gender-minority, men. If women would just accept the role of barefoot and pregnant, the world would be a step closer to being right.

Now, the thing is that this is just the confines of his Universe. I can document it for you generally: eighteen years in a strict Christian household, several years studying to conduct a symphony, a sudden LSD crash over two years, a switch to cold rationalism, and then finally the development of a pseudo-religion. That switch to cold rationalism, though: there never was any purge of irrationality. The rational is still subject to the irrational. Now, he's human, and he's bright. He ought to figure it out right around the time his current lover becomes exasperated enough to ditch him, but compared to the calculated intellectual dishonesty, he is presently incapable (unprepared) to undertake the more dynamic aspects of examining the history from which he draws his allegedly rational conclusion.

Whatever. Just a couple of examples of intellectual dishonesty. I generally aim to be kinder to the "ignorant bliss" intellectual dishonesty than the calculated version.So, what's your personal motivation for presuming that your community-invested, absolutist, world-view is all there is to reality that opposing thinkers are not welcome here?What an interesting question. I'm wondering if you have two cents to offer in response to it.

However, as tempting as it is to attempt to exscind myself totally from the group petitioned, I'm also aware that such an automatic classification most definitely qualifies as absolutist.

But most won't admit to the "all there is to reality" part. And I only see that in a certain number of people around here. In the end, it's probably not that they're that stupid, but rather that they are intellectually dishonest insofar as they are calculating to achieve an effect that suggests they believe their reality is all there is to reality.

I mean, look at the way you loaded the question?

Myself, I have no problem with opposing viewpoints, per se. What I have a problem with is an opposing viewpoint that can't ground itself in reality. Some people are contrarian just to be annoying; they are problematic insofar as their opposition has no rational foundation and concentrates on their personal fixation with a poster and not the issues at hand. Some people who disagree are just downright insulting with their simplicity. "Because I say so," doesn't quite work for most arguments that go on around here. And, of course, some people who disagree are downright rude.

There are, in fact, a few posters around these days that I would have severely fewer problems with if they weren't so goddamned rude and so obsessed with picking fights with people. Aside from that, if they were capable of arguing their points sincerely, they would undergo a graceful transition from a caclulated dishonesty to a subjective dishonesty.

Let's take our disagreements, for example, Mr. G. The only reason I'm so forceful in dealing with you is that I consider your approach to be calculated and dishonest and intended to provoke controversy. I have no idea how strong your subjective dishonesty is (for we all have some degree within us) simply because you don't write enough of those posts.

Or perhaps my disagreement with Stokes Pennwalt: In the present round, I'm not joking when I say that I have no idea what argument he thinks he's involved in. This might be a result of some sujective dishonesty limiting the scope of discussion, but that aspect is scarce compared to the amount of calculation that goes into intellectual dishonesty that comes across in the form of mutated arguments, errors and omissions, and downright malice.

Wesmorris and I experienced a head-on collision of subjective dishonesties. That was unpleasant for everybody but Spookz, I think .... ;)

Watching the clash between the pro-Amerikans and the Islamic contingent is extremely interesting. Partially because the rules change on the grounds that certain strains of Islamic thought and practice examine very closely the subjective dishonesties that come with cultural and acquired limitations of perspective. (While many pundits in the War on Terror have mocked Moussaoui, bin Laden, and others for "westernizing" their arguments, the problem is that they're accommodating the West when they do so. Most Westerners wouldn't understand the raw, unfiltered explanation. I guarantee you that if bin Laden got the chance to go absolutely spiritual on Americans and tried to sincerely explain what the problem is, Americans by and large simply and by nature of our cultural tendencies would be incapable of understanding. This is a result of clashing subjective dishonesties sublimated by a spectacular salvo of calculated dishonesties. And yes, it works both ways; I doubt many of the rank-and-file jihadists are capable of understanding what's so damn good about the U.S.) Heck, Ghassan had to knock at my door (figuratively) a couple of times before I would drop an illustrative point that I insisted on until he pointed out not only the dead end I was aware of, but that it came up much sooner than I had anticipated. This error on my part was a subjective dishonesty. Where to watch for my calculated dishonesty? When I'm spinning Emma Goldman or pushing hard against Capitalism; so far calculated dishonesty is the nearest thing to effective I've found for some issues.

And perhaps some people feel that way about other things.

What about you, G?

A note on the title: What can I say, Mr. G? You're asking a very important question insofar as anything anyone writes around here is important. And in a general application I think many people could stand to give their lives a shakedown. But I'm just curious what it is you expect. I choose to take the questions seriously not because of a coin flip, but because I haven't anything to lose and much to gain. But not everyone will feel that way about it. What kind of responses are you expecting? We can look back to your two-plus decades in the classroom. Did this method work well with your students? And I say that rather quite sincerely, as your post almost sounds legitimately exasperated, but peaks on bitter provocation. I mean, it didn't take me a career in the classroom to figure out that people really didn't appreciate such strongly-phrased inquiries. Also, since I agree with the presuppositions to a certain degre, I won't harp on those.

G you seem to be a bit defensive. if you dont like the homogenous nature of it all you can go elsewhere. if you htink this website displays groupthink then you clearly need to reread the book. none of the characteristics are evident. did you ever think that there may be some significant correlation between the more holistic, tolerant world view that is often themed and the willingness to discuss?

Mr G.:

In what ways do you think the demographic here is homogeneous?

It seems to me that we have Muslims and Christians, liberals and conservatives, scientists and pseudosientists - the list goes on.

Please explain.

This SciForum demographic is so philosophically homogenous, so situationally polarized, that it can't possibly reflect the true nature of a cosmos comprised of opposites.
But then again, try and find somewhere that does.
So, what's your personal motivation for presuming that your community-invested, absolutist, world-view is all there is to reality
Excuse me?
I presume nothing and I'm willing to be educated.
That's what brought me here.
Why are you here G?
opposing thinkers are not welcome here?
I'd like to think this isn't true. It does seem a little quiet here lately but then I guess the right will always return:D
A little intellectual honesty would be so refreshing, right about now.
Yup it would.
Their are all sorts on the boards here you just need to look.
Dee Cee

I must admit to an unfortunate instance of unintended imprecision when I wrote:

This SciForum demographic is so philosophically homogenous, so situationally polarized, that it can't possibly reflect the true nature of a cosmos comprised of opposites.

What I was intending to write was "This Sciforum 'World Events & Politics' forum demographic....".

My apologies for the error.

>>>> As I'm not targeting the whole of SciFourms & its membership with such a topic (the thought never crossed my mind), I should like to ask that the thread be returned to W.E. & P. where ensuing discussion will have its proper context.

Thanks.

And with infficient time at the moment to fully engage those who have already posted, permit me to paraphrase some of my observations and talking points for you until I can return later in the day:

* A survey of thread topics and replying posts provides ample evidence that The World Events & Politics forum demographic is heavily weighted toward the polical "Left".

* A political "Right" component seems largely absent from the W.E. & P. demographic. Why? What does this imply about the demographic's desires and abilities to engage opposing political views/positions in a productive, community-advancing way?

* A heavily political "Right"-weighted demographic exists on other sites that are similarly devoid of a significant political "Left" component. What does that imply about social mechanisms that produce comfortable but narrowly focused grouping/communities.

* W. E. & P. posters of thread topics and replying analysis tend toward the melodramatic.

* W. E. & P. posters include many with considerable analytical skills. Can posters' analytical skills be shown to result from extensive practice operating on a narrow range of ideas by inviting/challenging them to be applied introspectively where they may be predictably less analytically astute -- perhaps even somewhat disengenuous?

* Can a person who can't rigidly identify with the political Left demographic here, nor with the political Right demographics elsewhere, be easily confused with one or the other 'camp' depending on the venue he visits? What does that say about the polarization of communities against outsiders -- e.g.: whom they may need in elections where the Community may need them not to vote with the 'other camp'?

* I won't see this conversation as being terribly relevent to my own personal circumstances if it's mostly made to be about me instead of being mostly a conversation between yourselves about yourselves.

I'll be back.

If you have problem with the amount of "leftist" at sciforums, then why dont you become the WEP mouthpiece for the right and stop bitching?.

Plus its of no coinsidence that you would find more left leaning individuals in a science forum. It is the right that tries to push for creationism and all other sorts of myth into the schools, courts etc. Or how about Bush's promise of 2 billion dollars to help push hydrogen technology?, nowhere to be seen, Heard of the EPA cover-ups?, drilling in Alaska?.

The right and science do not quite get along.

"* A political "Right" component seems largely absent from the W.E. & P. demographic. Why? What does this imply about the demographic's desires and abilities to engage opposing political views/positions in a productive, community-advancing way?

* A heavily political "Right"-weighted demographic exists on other sites that are similarly devoid of a significant political "Left" component. What does that imply about social mechanisms that produce comfortable but narrowly focused grouping/communities."
----------------------

You are near enough with your tagline. In case you havnt noticed, people like to run in packs of broadly similar outlook. Me and a few friends from real life did the political compass website, and found that most of us were libertarian lefties, depsite our political position not really being what had brought us together.
Now, what you might want to imply about these social mechanisms, I'll leave to you to say. the usefulness for concerted aciton and improved wellbeing in a group with similarly oriented viewpoints is obvious, one need only compare the Democrats infighting with the republicans stronger strucutre, or in the UK, labour with the conservatives. However, when it comes to forums, they proved a more bloodless place to debate, and as such people from all over the political spectrum can come together to discuss vairous topics. If you'd been hanging about for most of the past 6 months like I have ( yes I do have a job.) you would have seen many people posting occaisionally on certain topics of specific interest to themselves. Maybe that is what you want to see more of, the problem is that we dont all have the knowledge of tiem to get it all together. PLus of course, many posters only appear when things are very hot, like with early discussion about Iraq etc a few months ago.

Anyway, social mechanisms of homogeneity- can also be bad, becasue with a similar outlook, you all end up marching in the same direction over a cliff. But on the other hand, you cant get that much done unless you do actually march together in the same direction. So the trouble is in listening to dissenting voices, or not, as the case maybe. This problem is apparent and wlel known in gvt and companys.

As for engaging opposition viewpoints in a productive etc way, I dont think this is the actual forum for that. Or rather, the very format has limitation on it. I tend to think just now, that attempts at community enhancing approaches are better off focussed on the specific communities, where you can all sit down and agree about the problems and what is needed eetc. here, we cant really, things have to stay quite abstract because theres people from all over the world, and they dont necessarily know or care about those potholes in your local road. So that doesnt help. Which is not to say that some genuine usefulness can come out of all this, i have found some, but for genuine life enhancing stuff, I would go elsewhere.

Mr.G:

I am not sure I agree with your contention, but let's leave that aside for a minute and assume you are correct.

I would suggest that if this forum seems to have a left bias to it, that is probably because, in general, it reflects the left-bias of the majority of US citizens. With the current domination of the right wing in American politics and media, it is not surprising that the majority see forums such as this as an alternative way to express their views.

Also, as other people have said, it is the nature of people to seek out friends who have similar views to their own. Therefore, wherever you go you will tend to find groupings of people who share a similar political outlook. You will find that conservatives hang out with conservatives more than liberals. You will also find that scientists hang out with scientists more often than non-scientists, religious people with the religious more often than with atheists, people who like hang-gliding with other hang-gliders more often than non-hang-gliders etc.

Of course, you have seen further. You should see this as a great opportunity to see how the other half thinks. Whilst the lefties remain in their little boxes, you can see the whole political landscape. Who knows, maybe you can even shake them out of their complacency!

Well done, Mr.G. You're a crusader for the right. Be proud!

It is perhaps a little uncharitable of me, but this thread also smacks of "Where have all the good times gone?". Answer- we're all argued out. People here have been arguing with each other for ages. Theres little left go argue about, since we all know each others views and preferences.
Ive seen this happen before in other boards, once the initial scrapping has ended, everyone knows where everyone else stands on issues, and there is less left to fight about, since we have all fought it out before.

Where have all the good times gone?

Guthrie's quite correct.
We need to become more attractive to the right.
I promise to be nice to the next one I meet.;)

What will you do?
Dee Cee

Entry behavior.

Begin every learning opportunity with a sampling of pre-affected, indigenous behavior.

Establish measureable, goal-oriented milestones against which progress can be quantified.

I'd like to thank you all for your participation. Really.

I'll be presenting my conclusions elsewhere.

Afterall, if I'm of the Right, all of you have to be so far Left that nothing further Left can possibly exist.

I'll be presenting that notion with a healthy dose of irony, because I can.

Cheers!

:cool: I like this thread

.... and Auto-Stimulation.
Naturally, what else did you expect?

You're all feeling really good about yourselves.
Quite frankly, yes.

Well, duh! Just look around.
I did; I am surrounded by megalomaniacs hell bent on proving an assertion regardless of whether they have been proved wrong.

This SciForum demographic is so philosophically homogenous, so situationally polarized, that it can't possibly reflect the true nature of a cosmos comprised of opposites.
Really? I could have sworn the cosmos was pretty much homogeneous, and it is merely through abstractions necessitated by a need to make meaning of them that produces opposites.

So, what's your personal motivation for presuming that your community-invested, absolutist, world-view is all there is to reality that opposing thinkers are not welcome here?
I will assume the very same motivation that prompts you to start this thread knowing full well that it is in ‘auto –simulation’. So far though, I must say that it is not functioning according to expectation. I am correct, no?

Not welcome here, you say?
I am unsure.


We have too many parading under multiple names and too many that will elaborately pervert or not answer. Good enough reason?

[quote]A little intellectual honesty would be so refreshing, right about now.
You have done quite well, how am I presently doing within the post?

I'm not holding my breath.
You should've; all the takes within the thread exude what you assume. Why else do you think there were any responses?

I'm a skeptic, too.
I welcome you with open arms.

This demographic is not broad spectrum. It's auto-limited.
I'm getting bored now.

How intellectually honest is that sort of circumstance?
LOL!! This is priceless. Using the intellectually dishonest premise you present, I am left with no other choice but to concur with your presumption, which in all probability, would be, not at all.



Good luck.

Originally posted by tiassa
Or perhaps my disagreement with Stokes Pennwalt: In the present round, I'm not joking when I say that I have no idea what argument he thinks he's involved in. This might be a result of some sujective dishonesty limiting the scope of discussion, but that aspect is scarce compared to the amount of calculation that goes into intellectual dishonesty that comes across in the form of mutated arguments, errors and omissions, and downright malice.I'm not all that surprised to see you sneakily spitballing others without inviting recourse. Unfortunately, you left that discussion without ever answering a very simple question, or buttressing any of the many facets of your argument. The only thing I can conclude, is that you enjoy seeing yourself type long posts of vapid rhetoric bereft of evidence, and have a congenital aversion to logical debate. Furthermore, you take the objective criticism of your argument as a personal affront - further indicating a general lack of forethought.

Slander belies cowardice.

To the thread starter: what the hell is this thread about anyway?

Mr. G:

<i>I'd like to thank you all for your participation. Really.

I'll be presenting my conclusions elsewhere.</i>

Where?

Slander belies cowardice.Yes it does.

Furthermore, it is libel (see - "libel" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=libel)) and not slander (see - "slander" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slander)) that you are attempting to accuse.

In addition, you might do well to check your position on this. I have repeatedly demonstrated, through examination of the content of your posts, your dishonesty.

You might do well to support your truculent libel, or else cease your libelous aggression.

In fact, in light of your petulance, I rather quite demand it.

Originally posted by tiassa
In fact, in light of your petulance, I rather quite demand it. Oh, you "quite rather" demand it. I think I might pee my pants. If anybody wants to use their own judgement, they are free to do so in your thread about the NRA's blacklist. I'm not going to stop them. Are you?

Protip: It's the second definition of slander. Libel implies legally binding documents. Thanks for playing.

James R:
Where?
In a private forum of limited membership representing Left, Right and Center politic world-views.

We all get along quite well, for the most part. We accept our differences but speak our minds.

Not like here where, if ye ain't far-Left, ye ain't Left enough.

It wouldn't be an issue with me if it weren't a glaring contrast between demographic realities.

In my experience, Sciforum's W. E. & P. isn't the edifice of laser-like reason it imagines itself to be.

And taking it's own cue, I'm no longer feelingly personally obligated to respect it for being more than an immutable, extremist group-fuck no different than its favorite windmills.

Nobody here seems to feel the need to change -- to evolve. Everyone has already arrived, so there's no place else to go.

What's my motivation for prefering this place over the other place to which I offer this place as a living example of why I truly appreciate the existence of the other place for its sanity?

If you find it, let me know.

Sounds like you're feeling under-appreciated, Mr. G.

It's interesting that you think that this forum is ultra-leftist. I don't perceive it that way. Then again, you probably think I'm ultra-leftist (and I'm not).

<i>In my experience, Sciforum's W. E. & P. isn't the edifice of laser-like reason it imagines itself to be.</i>

You can't lump everybody into the same basket - that's way too simplistic. Some individuals imagine they have laser-like reason, and in fact they can't put two words together in a coherent fashion. Other people here are actually pretty astute. And what makes you so sure you have laser-like reason?

<i>Nobody here seems to feel the need to change -- to evolve. Everyone has already arrived, so there's no place else to go.</i>

It is rare for any adult individual to change their political leaning, ever. Have you done it? Know anybody who has? Any examples from your alternate forum?

Also, why no link? Are you afraid your cosy sanctuary will be invaded by the unruly sciforums mob of lefties?

Originally posted by Mr. G


Nobody here seems to feel the need to change -- to evolve.


But into what, in what direction, Mr G?
I might be evolving into a communist, or maybe I'll just sick as a liberal, who knows. But I dont need you to tell me what to evolve into.

Let us all pretend that we each are Isaac Newton's intellectual equal -- imagining ourselves to possess the logical powers of deduction that leads to the Calculus of certain, logically substantiated, Acme social modeling.

That's cool.

Then we all presume to apply the Calculus to the determination of all things real.

Oh, horror. Then comes Einstein.

Like Newton's Theory of Gravity, impressive sounding/looking logic doesn't necessarily describe reality. It's just as likely to merely paint a pretty picture.

Tiassa, you are definitely an artiste: logical Acrilics on black felt.

Never wrong, you can't possibly be as good as you imagine.

James R.,

I post no link here as I post no link there.

You behaving defensively aids me in making my point both places.

Actually, I see that as a sign of hope.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2003/11/10/tomo/story.jpg

Tiassa, you are definitely an artiste Now you're onto something. I was wondering how long it would take before someone figured that out.

I'm curious: what leads you to that statement? Careful consideration, or are you throwing exasperated darts again?logical Acrilics on black felt I resent that. Black velvet at the absolute minimum.Never wrong This is a very inaccurate assertion, Mr. G. I'm frequently incorrect and even ethically wrong. In general, though, repairing this has become an internal problem, as most people who wish to point out my wrongness aren't actually doing so, but rather inventing a wrongness and assigning it to me.you can't possibly be as good as you imagine Well then, that would suggest I'm a human being.

Mr. G:

<i>Like Newton's Theory of Gravity, impressive sounding/looking logic doesn't necessarily describe reality. It's just as likely to merely paint a pretty picture.</i>

Ok. And your point is...?

I assume you're saying that opinions expressed by "lefties" don't describe reality, whereas you own opinions do. How convenient for you. :)

<i>You behaving defensively aids me in making my point both places.</i>

Where have I been defensive? All I've done is disagreed with you. I'm not feeling like I'm under attack - so far, anyway. ;)

James R:
I assume you're saying that opinions expressed by "lefties" don't describe reality, whereas you own opinions do. How convenient for you.
Okay, do assume I'm saying my opinions are just as descriptive of reality as the opinions of "lefties -- ever so convenient for "them", and "righties" -- ever so convenient for "them", as a member of the equally relevent "rest of us".

What I'm saying is: Opinions expressed by "lefties" don't describe nearly all realities.

You're the Relativity expert in these parts. My pov shouldn't be so tough for you to imagine/visualize.

What I'm wondering is why W. E. & P. is anathema to "righties", and largely so to "the rest of us", but not to "lefties" -- if "leftiness" is supposed to be as intellectually honest, for the good of us all, as it portrays itself to itself?

I'm not editorializing so much about the opinions of "lefties" as I am about the behavior(s) of "lefties" that actively work to exclude persons of non-leftieness from their presence.

There are very few non-"lefties" opinions represented here @ W. E. & P..

What makes "lefties" so 'opposing opinion'-abhorent that y'all prefer to cluster within your circle of wagons instead of willingly, invitingly engaging those of contrary opinion?

Audit the current thread topics. Don't you imagine the choir would benefit from an expanded song list?

I know for a fact, from personal experience elsewhere, that broad (political) spectrum thinking and intercourse is more than just possible. I'm wondering why it doesn't seem possible in this bastion of "leftie" intellectual might.

Don't you imagine the choir would benefit from an expanded song list?

get proactive g. start some threads
bring yer conservative buds and lets rumble

for real mr.g

stop ranting and complaining. your self rightuous attitude is useless. either make an argument or stop complaining. if you believe your views are reasonable and logical then show them to us in a systematic, understandable argument. give us your premise and then supply some reasoning and evidence not this schizophrenic ranting that has become so expected of you.

yah
could the old mr g step forward please?

You have to want to change more than you have to make it about me.

The real Mr. G lost interest awhile back. The Mr. G harmonics are losing interest, too.

Inbred is all y'all need to be.

I'm cool with that.

I needn't care. That simplifies things and descreases my workload.

I'm cool with that, too.

Well, bye then. Have a nice life.

Hey G, don't leave, things are lookin' up!

Yo! look New posters in WEP!
We got Harsh
FACT: The American taxpayers have spent over $2.5 TRILLION trying to upgrade Blacks since the l960's.
and Boombox
Black people are always conplaining about being treated as less equal in America. I don't understand, shouldn't they thank Americans? If they had not have brought there grandfathers over from Africa then they would have been born into an uncouth, culturally backwards, AIDS ridden hellhole?
If this the sort of thing you prefer to talk about then you should be feeling much better now.

And they all lived happily ever after:)
Dee Cee

Oh the whining. G, if you dislike the way that we supposedly gang up or attack people or have the group mentality, then fight back. That is the reason most of us participate in these forums. I participate mainly to annoy people... but then that's just me.. hey it stops me from annoying the other half as much.. hehehe

Do I see myself as a member of the herd? God no. I am not a cow. I discuss and fight for things that I personally believe in. If that means that I am against or with everyone else, then so what. Just because a high majority of people take a different stance to you does not mean that they are out to get you. I personally couldn't give a flying rats arse if people agree with me or not. One should not come in here to be liked or to be popular. One should only come in here to express their views and fight for what they believe is right.. in a dignified and civilised way. Although the dignified and civilsed bit is yet to be seen:p... just kidding fellow herders.. Now let's all be sheep... baaa... baaaaa.. baaabaaaa



:eek:

Originally posted by Mr. G
What makes "lefties" so 'opposing opinion'-abhorent that y'all prefer to cluster within your circle of wagons instead of willingly, invitingly engaging those of contrary opinion?

WE&P seems to be all about engaging those of contrary opinion. I observe that righties don’t support their arguments as well as lefties. If WE&P is predominantly liberal compared to other sites, I’d say it’s because the greater intellect of liberals intimidates conservatives, discouraging them from posting. I’d like to find a conservative forum where people could make logical points and stay with an argument. If you find one, by all means suggest sciforums.

I suspect there are few, if any, true Free-Traders here -- as 'market forces' seems to be an under-appreciated concept in these parts.

Free Trade, as in: Give the people what they find personally relevent, not force-feed them what they should believe is personally relevent because that's what you believe and the rest of us should, too.

Funny, but this is such a protectionist community as to come off as being just as conservative as the "righties" y'all abhor.

This is just another niche market narrowly focused on itself.

And you're thinking y'all can divert hurricanes, too.

http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Left is as Right: A little too far out there to be real.

Riiight, so instead of standing on your soapbox preaching about our sins, why not try and lead us into the light? Or rather, get onto the true way forwards, the third way, or the do it your way, whatever you want to call your individual take on things.

Sorry, I can't undo any community's inbreeding.

Nor am I inclined to flap my arms in an attempt to land on Mars.

I'm more inclined to argue that the Martians already are amongst us -- and are breeding wholesale.

To do so seems to be the Community Standard.