Analyze This!

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, seems like your a bit slow on the uptake, let me lay it out. Life experiences are "certain" in the sense that not everyone experiences the same things in life. So therefor "common sense" in terms of "certain" life experiences is bullshit. Because not everyone experiences the same things. See above post or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense wiki article on "common sense".

hey! don't insult me ryan. just explain to me what it is you mean. and try to keep the condescension to a minimum.
all i meant by my post was that civil engineers will have knowledge specific to their field of expertise as will an auto mechanic. i don't consider something a mechanic knows that pertains to his field exclusively, as common sense, even though to him/her it may be perceived as such.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Oh, now that the subject is no longer your contradiction, you are looking to debate me?

There was no contradiction.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

hey! don't insult me ryan. just explain to me what it is you mean. and try to keep the condescension to a minimum.
all i meant by my post was that civil engineers will have knowledge specific to their field of expertise as will an auto mechanic. i don't consider something a mechanic knows that pertains to his field exclusively, as common sense, even though to him/her it may be perceived as such.

Well, let me apologize. Some of the posters can get me riled up and I responded at a bad time. I try to avoid getting riled up, as I stated before. But this board does it to me sometimes. Just ignorance that I hear. Sorry to have just called you ignorant as well, but hey you know, it just means lack of knowledge.

The problem with "common sense" is that any "sense" or previous understanding is rooted in knowledge. I used the example of specific professions to simplify the explanation, but I guess that was too oversimplified. Basically, if I had never had an interaction with a woman, then my "common sense" about relationships or the opposite sex could be null. Just as if I had not faired well in social interactions historically, then I would lack "common sense" in that too. Experience can translate to knowledge, which when commonly shared by two or more people can become "common sense" by definition. The flaw is in the social definition, which expects that 100% of all people within the entire world have "common sense", which possibly they do, but then, that would be very limited and basic, it wouldn't include issues of morality. So then "common sense" is defined by the sample size. What is "common sense" within a single church regarding their beliefs is not holistically shared with a different church and certainly not with Buddhism. "Common sense" becomes invalid at that point. Given that we know people experiences things differently, experience is subjective and typical feelings are rooted in past experiences. The variety of "sense" towards morality is on a large scale and virtually no "common" sense exists.

I hope that clarifies it, I found the wikipedia article to be quite good at explaining it.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, let me apologize. Some of the posters can get me riled up and I responded at a bad time. I try to avoid getting riled up, as I stated before. But this board does it to me sometimes. Just ignorance that I hear. Sorry to have just called you ignorant as well, but hey you know, it just means lack of knowledge.

The problem with "common sense" is that any "sense" or previous understanding is rooted in knowledge. I used the example of specific professions to simplify the explanation, but I guess that was too oversimplified. Basically, if I had never had an interaction with a woman, then my "common sense" about relationships or the opposite sex could be null. Just as if I had not faired well in social interactions historically, then I would lack "common sense" in that too. Experience can translate to knowledge, which when commonly shared by two or more people can become "common sense" by definition. The flaw is in the social definition, which expects that 100% of all people within the entire world have "common sense", which possibly they do, but then, that would be very limited and basic, it wouldn't include issues of morality. So then "common sense" is defined by the sample size. What is "common sense" within a single church regarding their beliefs is not holistically shared with a different church and certainly not with Buddhism. "Common sense" becomes invalid at that point. Given that we know people experiences things differently, experience is subjective and typical feelings are rooted in past experiences. The variety of "sense" towards morality is on a large scale and virtually no "common" sense exists.

I hope that clarifies it, I found the wikipedia article to be quite good at explaining it.

so you think i'm ignorant because we have a difference of opinion?

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

so you think i'm ignorant because we have a difference of opinion?

Well, I don't think it's a matter of opinion. I think when you clearly see the concept of common sense. You can appreciate the truth about it. Until that time, I guess it's just opinion.

Common sense is sometimes regarded as an impediment to abstract and even logical thinking. This is especially the case in mathematics and physics, where human intuition often conflicts with provably correct or experimentally verified results. A definition attributed to Albert Einstein states: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Common sense is sometimes appealed to in political debates, particularly when other arguments have been exhausted. Civil rights for African Americans, women's suffrage, and homosexuality—to name just a few—have all been attacked as being contrary to common sense. Similarly, common sense has been invoked in opposition to many scientific and technological advancements. Such misuse of the notion of common sense is fallacious, being a form of the argumentum ad populum (appeal to the masses) fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

sponger

Ahnimus:

Anne Coulter's power comes from her readers. All she's doing is articulating and echoing what Americans want to hear. If wasn't her doing the articuling and echoing, then it would be someone else.

You place way too much emphasis on her views, and not the views of the common American. This disproportionate focus on the problem is derived from a lack of ability to relate to people. You are always trying to place yourself above others. This is a bad habit in spite of how righteous you think your own personal views are in comparison to others.

If you take a moment to realize that she is a person like you and me, then you will soon realize that all she's doing is selling books, and that those books are being sold because Americans want to believe what she is saying.

And, again, here is where you try to place yourself above her while at the same time blaming her for the hatred that she preaches:

I'm saying she is ill because she is blatantly wrong and when told so she ignores it or acknowledges it, then promptly forgets.

Do you really think you are any different? And what does it matter if she is like that? It's not her personality that matters. It's the consensus of americans that matters. It's not hard to see through her fallacies of reasoning. But, Americans don't want to see through it. So, no matter what is proven about her, things will not change unless Americans want things to change.

Ahnimus

sponger wrote:

Ahnimus:

Anne Coulter's power comes from her readers. All she's doing is articulating and echoing what Americans want to hear. If wasn't her doing the articuling and echoing, then it would be someone else.

You place way too much emphasis on her views, and not the views of the common American. This disproportionate focus on the problem is derived from a lack of ability to relate to people. You are always trying to place yourself above others. This is a bad habit in spite of how righteous you think your own personal views are in comparison to others.

If you take a moment to realize that she is a person like you and me, then you will soon realize that all she's doing is selling books, and that those books are being sold because Americans want to believe what she is saying.

I agree with you about Coulter. Excepting the fact that she is not only a victim of society, she is also an agent within it. While I don't expect her to take the responsibility solely upon herself. Society in general should limit the content available in the media. Because we are all agents within society, we all affect it and it affects all of us. That is just, kind of, how it works.

Last Exodus

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, let's see, they are stuck on a path, won't listen to anyone else, they don't even have anything supporting their opinion, even their own parties disown them. I mean there ideas are just so fucking wack that they must either be insane or on drugs. I think their behavior is quite evident.

Sounds like they belong here...

Ahnimus

sponger wrote:

Ahnimus:

Anne Coulter's power comes from her readers. All she's doing is articulating and echoing what Americans want to hear. If wasn't her doing the articuling and echoing, then it would be someone else.

You place way too much emphasis on her views, and not the views of the common American. This disproportionate focus on the problem is derived from a lack of ability to relate to people. You are always trying to place yourself above others. This is a bad habit in spite of how righteous you think your own personal views are in comparison to others.

If you take a moment to realize that she is a person like you and me, then you will soon realize that all she's doing is selling books, and that those books are being sold because Americans want to believe what she is saying.

And, again, here is where you try to place yourself above her while at the same time blaming her for the hatred that she preaches:

Do you really think you are any different? And what does it matter if she is like that? It's not her personality that matters. It's the consensus of americans that matters. It's not hard to see through her fallacies of reasoning. But, Americans don't want to see through it. So, no matter what is proven about her, things will not change unless Americans want things to change.

Ok, dude, don't edit your posts like that! I already responded!

I'm not placing myself above her. I'm recognizing a kind of anxiety disorder I am familiar with.

Ahnimus

Last Exodus wrote:

Sounds like they belong here...

I don't know what for.

I don't think anyone here hates Canada, Homosexuals or Liberals. Excepting maybe yourself and a few others. I don't hate republicans. I think they are tragically misguided, but I don't hate them. Dude, I love fags, not going to hear me dissin' them. I don't agree with their "beliefs" on their condition though. Anyway, your not going to get it either. Stuff is pretty black and white with you.

sponger

Ahnimus wrote:

Society in general should limit the content available in the media.

Now you're talking about censorship. That I don't agree with.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, I don't think it's a matter of opinion. I think when you clearly see the concept of common sense. You can appreciate the truth about it. Until that time, I guess it's just opinion.

Common sense is sometimes regarded as an impediment to abstract and even logical thinking. This is especially the case in mathematics and physics, where human intuition often conflicts with provably correct or experimentally verified results. A definition attributed to Albert Einstein states: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Common sense is sometimes appealed to in political debates, particularly when other arguments have been exhausted. Civil rights for African Americans, women's suffrage, and homosexuality—to name just a few—have all been attacked as being contrary to common sense. Similarly, common sense has been invoked in opposition to many scientific and technological advancements. Such misuse of the notion of common sense is fallacious, being a form of the argumentum ad populum (appeal to the masses) fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

perhaps just a matter of a difference of perception then?

Ahnimus

sponger wrote:

Now you're talking about censorship. That I don't agree with.

Nah, I'm talking about controlling the way information is delivered. I'm not talking about censoring the content, just the delivery. It's like lying about a contest or something. Only worse they are lying about real events and real people. Lies should not be tolerated and with our so-called tolerance, people tend to hate an awful lot. I can't go on TV and say "I think all Christians should be physically coerced" which is even nicer language. That's a hate crime is it not? Certainly would be if I were referring to Jews. Why is it brushed off as "opinion" when someone like Coulter says it?

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

perhaps just a matter of a difference of perception then?

Basically yeah. I don't know how else I can help your perception with it though. I mean, the phrase is so subjective and it can't be dissected in a social environment. If I say "that's just common sense" I'm referring to what I consider to be "common sense" which obviously isn't common to the lack of "common sense" I am referring when saying it. So it's not really common then, is it?

I can honestly say that by the standard use of "common sense" it's common sense to me that the bar is a bad scene and television is a bad habit. Because within my circle those beliefs are common. Here is some common sense for you; 80% of the world is stupid to 100% of the world. The person driving faster or slower than you on the highway, is lacking that "common sense" you have about proper highway pace, and that's about 80% of the people on the road. And that applies to just about everything. Roughly speaking, maybe "common sense" only applies to 20% of a specific sample culture and is defined by the agent who claims that "common sense".

So what weight does it carry? And how else can you define "common sense" to validate it as a political or moral argument?

sponger

Ahnimus wrote:

Nah, I'm talking about controlling the way information is delivered. I'm not talking about censoring the content, just the delivery. It's like lying about a contest or something. Only worse they are lying about real events and real people. Lies should not be tolerated and with our so-called tolerance, people tend to hate an awful lot. I can't go on TV and say "I think all Christians should be physically coerced" which is even nicer language. That's a hate crime is it not? Certainly would be if I were referring to Jews. Why is it brushed off as "opinion" when someone like Coulter says it?

The media has no obligation to broadcast the truth. Didn't Orson Welles prove that point in 1938? Isn't that proven through the existence of tabloids?

I've never heard Coulter calling for the physical coercion of liberals, but if she has, then I'd have to agree that such a statement is in fact hate propaganda and should be censored.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

Basically yeah. I don't know how else I can help your perception with it though. I mean, the phrase is so subjective and it can't be dissected in a social environment. If I say "that's just common sense" I'm referring to what I consider to be "common sense" which obviously isn't common to the lack of "common sense" I am referring when saying it. So it's not really common then, is it?

I can honestly say that by the standard use of "common sense" it's common sense to me that the bar is a bad scene and television is a bad habit. Because within my circle those beliefs are common. Here is some common sense for you; 80% of the world is stupid to 100% of the world. The person driving faster or slower than you on the highway, is lacking that "common sense" you have about proper highway pace, and that's about 80% of the people on the road. And that applies to just about everything. Roughly speaking, maybe "common sense" only applies to 20% of a specific sample culture and is defined by the agent who claims that "common sense".

So what weight does it carry? And how else can you define "common sense" to validate it as a political or moral argument?

oh ryan there is no common sense in politics. you know that.

your example of the person driving faster or slower than you on the highway lacking commonsense is flawed. you may be driving over the speed limit in the first place so anyone driving slower than you may be in fact using their common sense in keeping to the posted legal speed limit. therefore it is YOU that is lacking the common sense needed to maintain a safe highway pace.

Ahnimus

sponger wrote:

The media has no obligation to broadcast the truth. Didn't Orson Welles prove that point in 1938? Isn't that proven through the existence of tabloids?

I suppose you are right. And I suppose it's ok to say anything you want. If Ann Coulter can say what she says. Then I can say that she only has a bestseller and media coverage is because she is sexy, and crazy. Her ideas are just too insane. I mean, at least conspiracy theorists usually try to make sense. But this is the culture. People want to believe in good vs. evil, they want security blankets to feel warm and fuzzy. They want to live in a fantasy realm. Yup, according to Ann, homos, muslims, atheists and liberals are evil. It's in my opinion that she has a pathological disorder that is expressed through her media persona. On a personal scale I think she is probably a very warm person. This may lead to her breaking down, an unfortunate outcome of the disorder. Might be followed by depression. I think the media is just exploiting it. To think that americans think like her is wrong. People buy her books to see what crazy crap she says. If they do think like her, we are in a world of trouble. Everyone grab a page from revelations and take a part.

I've never heard Coulter calling for the physical coercion of liberals, but if she has, then I'd have to agree that such a statement is in fact hate propaganda and should be censored.

Ok, well I haven't been able to locate a source for that statement since I found it. However, I located a very good interview with Donny Deutsch on The Big Idea. On part 4 at approx 5:00, Ann says "because we carpet bombed german cities. We killed so many civilians in world war 2, so there were few insurgents, now we can't do that anymore." Ann honestly believes it's justified to kill everyone to secure America from evil. "that is because, you'd just go with my plan of just investing in nukes?"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=z16IQ0oZ8FY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CSG7BqK-JIY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lm25Df_Hx_4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7jtpZnQIJNs

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

oh ryan there is no common sense in politics. you know that.

your example of the person driving faster or slower than you on the highway lacking commonsense is flawed. you may be driving over the speed limit in the first place so anyone driving slower than you may be in fact using their common sense in keeping to the posted legal speed limit. therefore it is YOU that is lacking the common sense needed to maintain a safe highway pace.

Ok, so I will give you that the analogy is flawed in that light. Imagine pace setting under poor weather conditions. Like if you were driving through snow squalls on the 400 or 401. They can be bad this time of year. Or imagine you are driving on Das Autobahn in Germany that has no speed limit.

See, the thing about speed limits that is flawed as well. Well that's a whole new debate. But the problem isn't really with the speed of the vehicles. It's the speed of the drivers. If you are cruising down a quiet neighbourhood doing half the speed limit, but talking on your cell phone. You are at serious risk of causing an accident. It may not always seem like it, but as luck will have it, your reaction time is even slower. I think if you are finely tuned into driving and driving safely, with your focus on it, you can be doing 160 kph easily on the 400. But if your on a cell phone or something, you might as well be doing 2000 kph. Speed limits are a shabby attempt at compensating for slow human reaction times. I can link you a video of a woman who ran over her own daughter with her SUV while backing out of her driveway. She says she was paying attention. Imagine if she was on her cellphone or digging through her purse. It doesn't even take a space cadet to do something like that. It's just how flawed we are. Everyone needs to realize that they suck and I suck. Be on the level.

I'll admit I'm kind of harsh on Ann, I guess she's just too offensive, but no one really stops her. Around here you get banned for being offensive. It's normally considered distasteful I guess and most people don't like it. It doesn't particularly bother me. Except she plagiarizes others work, lies and obviously has major biases. Her ideas are insane, and she's being exploited by Fox to push their slant and achieve ratings. But it's poisonous and worrying to know that it works.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

I'll admit I'm kind of harsh on Ann, I guess she's just too offensive, but no one really stops her. Around here you get banned for being offensive. It's normally considered distasteful I guess and most people don't like it. It doesn't particularly bother me. Except she plagiarizes others work, lies and obviously has major biases. Her ideas are insane, and she's being exploited by Fox to push their slant and achieve ratings. But it's poisonous and worrying to know that it works.

don't sweat it ryan. ann coulter wouldn't give a shit what you said anyway. well maybe she would, but only enough to berate you for being a homosexual liberal atheist terrorist.
i find her a hateful, irrational person.

bubbamackdaddy69

angelica wrote:

What. You're only willing to discuss this with those with whom the conversation will "unfold" in a way that you'd like it to? aka, those who agree with you?

It's interesting to note that I'm a fairly left-leaning person, too. There is a reason lay-persons are unequipped to diagnose illness or mental health issues.

I'm thinking Ahnimus is just saying that she is just very ignorant. For example is she says 4+4 is 9 but gets corrected and told that 4+4 is 8 she doesn't want to believe or aknowledge that and still thinks it's 9..? does this make any sense?? LOL