 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with such cod philosophical tracts (and the nebulous codswallop about lobsters, heroes, and the bible) is that, because of the deliberately arcane and obfuscatory language being used, readers are all too free to interpret it in any way they choose, and with a phantom licence. Frankly, I think that's quite dangerous when you're dealing with potentially vulnerable people - their thoughts going in all directions at the best of times. It's all very well for 1950s Left Bank French philosophers to throw themselves under buses in a fit of existential ennui, but now untrained minds are exposed to the obscure fancies of any unblinking youtube Jeremiah who comes along.
The guy has no sense of humour or irony thus he can appear to his fans as being "clever" without seeming to look down on them (and with the fragile egos involved here, that's a BIG deal). At that point, he's got them by the balls and can feed any vague tenets he likes at them - in fact the vaguer it is, the more the punters buy into it. The true meaning of the old cliche "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" begins to make itself felt.
Personality cults bother me. I even started to feel a bit queasy about Hitchens when I discovered that he'd amassed a big cult following of youngish, slightly naive blokes dazzled by the guy's eloquence and masculine elan. With him gone, they were low hanging fruit for the likes of Peterson and Harris (actually the least worst of the Hitchens pretenders). Maybe some of the smarter ones decamped to Slavoj Zizek.
Oh I don't know. The whole culture is a huge, fascinating mess right now. It's fascinating, yes, but there's a chance that it could all spiral chaotically into something very dark. Strange days indeed... like 1930s strange days.
I quit again. 
Heath, the stuff recently about the Katie Newman interview is not this man's whole story. The PRESS are building him up for a fall.
This is getting to be a defence of the 'spiritual' against the Hitchens mentality. Hitchens never got that stuff, nor does his brother Peter, who claims to defend it! Their take on that stuff is based on their own past. Did you know both of them speak wistfully of Anglican Evensong, as does Dicky Dawkins? They don't get it.
You have to realise that when ANY guy tries passionately to get his insights across it'll look like he's bucking for prophet status. But that's with the territory. Should he just shut up? He IS manic, that's for sure. But it needn't go ad hominem. I still don't see anyone contesting one single point he's made here. The IDEAS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 24, 2018 - 12:31 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jim Phelps
(Member)
|
You think everybody's pretentious who strays into territory you don't want to go to. Your self-fantasy is that you're 'down-to-earth', the good ol' boy who hits the rye and knocks the pretentious. Good for you. Chuck Jaeger is still flying, you're at the bar.
You're channeling Piers Morgan now?
It's Chuck Yeager. There, you asked to be corrected, so there you are.
Funny how quickly you get riled. Heath did it through trolling and dismissing Peterson. I've apparently done so just by being an American. I suggest getting yourself some better ideas. You know, ones that don't fold under questioning and that you are so afraid to reveal because you know they won't bear scrutiny.
You repeatedly attack the foundations on which my arguments rest, but you have been evasive throughout this entire thread, ducking and weaving whenever you are confronted with a straight-ahead question, so you never reveal your own personally-held positions, except your disdain for Americans.
I'm going to show you an ad I received unsolicited in the emails today: this is from bona-fide medically trained doctors in the US. It's a disgrace. In other parts of the world including the UK, those folk would be struck off the register for false claims. But of course they have their freedom of speech
Not going to bother. You've ignored my replies to your other pretentious outpourings, so I am disregarding your link.
Of course on other threads people could see I defend free speech, as I defended Peterson. But this thread ... arr yousure this isn't about the good ol' boys sittin' on the porch and spittin' at the fancy foreigners.
You haven't defended the free speech of the convicted YouTuber, William. Do you ever defend the free speech of people with whom you disagree? You also haven't written anything regarding the Metropolitan Police quotes that I've put up twice, so you're obviously in agreement with their hideous policy.
"Good ol' boy"? Really? Your hatred of Americans comes through with this crap, William. It was foolish to expect better from you. Your ideas, such as they are, simply don't hold up under scrutiny, because if they did you would have put your actual beliefs out there.
Go on being mysterious and superior, though. It may fool others, but this "good ol' boy"  sees right through you.
Over and out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're full of it, Mr. Phelps nd I'm calling you out.
You accused me of 'disdain for Americans' and use every cheap cliche to polarise the argument. You set this whole thing up. You now try to make me look like some Americophobe because you CAN, because you straw-man my position. You call me pretentious, and try to caricature me as some cat-stroking, snobbish Bond villain Brit. That's the debating society way. Never mind if it's true, what effect it has, just so you sway the result. How's your weather? Tell us how much better it is than ours.
You haven't contested any of Peterson's arguments by the way. A sort of avoidance you accuse me of.
Here's the bottom line. In the UK we do not have a Bill of Rights. We debate whether we should have one. Nobody agrees what should be in it. Nobody agrees on whether it adds to the protections we already have. It's an open debate. The Bill of Rights in the US is a good solution, but it's not the only one. Each country finds the legislation to protect its citizens' rights. It does not follow that no Bill of Rights means no freedoms.
As regards the court case, I, and you, have no idea what happened in there. The joke was cheap. We need more data, we need the info that the court had. Something led the judge to think it was antisemitic. It could well have been.
As regards UK humour, they led the world in edgy jokes and humour. As you well know. And Monty Python wasn't the edgiest, or anywhere near.
Yes, I get heartily sick of the 'I'm down to earth and I'll bring everybody down with me' thing that pervades the internet. It's a narcissistic argument to throttle anything that goes a little deeper. Being down to earth actually takes a lot of work, you can't just adopt it as a stance. You have to dig.
The other posters here can make up their own minds if I'm anti-US. Time will tell what pro or anti-US really is anyhow. The students marching in DC today are the real pro-US types, but of course ... your freedoms are being threatened.
No health insurance? I expect you to die, Mr. Bond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 24, 2018 - 3:36 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jim Phelps
(Member)
|
You're full of it, Mr. Phelps nd I'm calling you out.
You accused me of 'disdain for Americans' and use every cheap cliche to polarise the argument. You set this whole thing up. You now try to make me look like some Americophobe because you CAN, because you straw-man my position. You call me pretentious, and try to caricature me as some cat-stroking, snobbish Bond villain Brit. That's the debating society way. Never mind if it's true, what effect it has, just so you sway the result. How's your weather? Tell us how much better it is than ours.
You haven't contested any of Peterson's arguments by the way. A sort of avoidance you accuse me of.
Can't help but notice how pissy you become when you're losing. It's hilarious. Get out of the commercial voiceover studio and go shopping for a thicker skin. "Lose your cool, lose the argument" and all that. You dislike having to answer direct questions, so you attack the source of the argument. You won't stop, either. Makes you look deep and above it all, but you're just avoiding the debate.
You brought Peterson into this topic. It's what you and Heath were going back and forth about. I didn't know who he was until he wrecked Cathy Newman.
Here's the bottom line. In the UK we do not have a Bill of Rights.
Finally. What took you so long? Was that so hard? Sheesh.
As regards the court case, I, and you, have no idea what happened in there. The joke was cheap. We need more data, we need the info that the court had. Something led the judge to think it was antisemitic. It could well have been.
How much data does a cheap joke require? That's the problem with you pretentious intellectual types: no common sense.
As regards UK humour, they led the world in edgy jokes and humour. As you well know. And Monty Python wasn't the edgiest, or anywhere near.
I never denied that. You should know by now that I love UK humor.
Yes, I get heartily sick of the 'I'm down to earth and I'll bring everybody down with me' thing that pervades the internet. It's a narcissistic argument to throttle anything that goes a little deeper. Being down to earth actually takes a lot of work, you can't just adopt it as a stance. You have to dig.
Can't it be enough to "dig" and subsequently express yourself without having to choke on some voiceover fop's pseudo-intellectual kudzu? You're just in love with the sound of your own posts, which are products of an uncontrolled ego, constantly needing to lecture others on how bad the sources of their ideas are. The ideas themselves? No comment. You've done your postmodernist homework, I'll give you that. That's the school of debate you attended.
The other posters here can make up their own minds if I'm anti-US. Time will tell what pro or anti-US really is anyhow. The students marching in DC today are the real pro-US types, but of course ... your freedoms are being threatened.
You're anti U.S. Why deny it? It's the only country that gets dumped on at this forum, so your stance isn't unique.
No health insurance? I expect you to die, Mr. Bond.
I have great medical insurance, thank you. However, in the fine UK Metropolitan Police tradition, I'll still report your post as hate speech.
Okay, that's all from me. Say goodnight, Gracie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can call me anti-US all you like, Phelpsy.
You have such freedom of speech that no-one can prevent you calling anybody anything. Neither at Federal, State, or County level. Even a civil case is rarely successful.
You're getting Aaawwfully ad hominem theah boy. This li'l ol' voiceovah fop is likely to jest crumble away if we should evah meet. You bein' so tough 'n all. Ah'm wundrin'.
I'm glad you have good health insurance. It's nice to know the master race won't be affected when all them liberal softies 're weeded out by nat'ral selection.
We could have pistols at dawn to settle this. If I had a gun. I'm not allowed one. I have no freedoms. 'Tell you what though: Ulster and Scottish and Irish upbringing. I'll take my chances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good God, William.
Enough already.
Far too much if you ask me.
What about 'Good God Phelpsy. Enough already'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look everybody.
I realise this looks out of hand on our parts but it's not 'serious', at least not to me anyhow. It's a serious debate though.
I don't for a moment think Jim Phelps really thinks I'm a 'fop', nor that he thinks I 'hate the US'. Nor do I think he's some fascist, or some redneck. We're trading in cheap stereotypes. It's tit for tat escalation.
Phelpsy, if I genuinely offended you, I apologise. We both know how to goad. We have differences. He writes off as 'up in the air' some of what I respect. Other than that, we tend to be in the same ball park. Up until now we've gotten on quite well.
We both believe in freedom of speech. We draw the line differently at hate-speech. I think there need to be some legal boundaries, he isn't so sure.
I'm burying the hatchet if you are Mr. Phelps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 24, 2018 - 7:29 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jim Phelps
(Member)
|
Look everybody.
I realise this looks out of hand on our parts but it's not 'serious', at least not to me anyhow. It's a serious debate though.
I don't for a moment think Jim Phelps really thinks I'm a 'fop', nor that he thinks I 'hate the US'. Nor do I think he's some fascist, or some redneck. We're trading in cheap stereotypes. It's tit for tat escalation.
Phelpsy, if I genuinely offended you, I apologise. We both know how to goad. We have differences. He writes off as 'up in the air' some of what I respect. Other than that, we tend to be in the same ball park. Up until now we've gotten on quite well.
We both believe in freedom of speech. We draw the line differently at hate-speech. I think there need to be some legal boundaries, he isn't so sure.
I'm burying the hatchet if you are Mr. Phelps.
I haven't taken offense at any time during this thread, so there is no "hatchet to bury."  Like my friend OnyaBirri says, "We're just talking, right?"
For anything of the goading variety that I wrote which went beyond the vigorous nature of the debate, I apologize. These things tend to go on long after everyone's made their points.
As for your being a "fop", William, for that you would have to buy your shoes from the same Northern Ireland shop I do, Robinson's in Carrickfergus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim, now that I look at your actual profile pic, I think you look a little more like Paul Newman than Peter Graves.
Now Peter Graves is definitely more fop than Paul Newman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
