Osama bin Laden Killed In Pakistan

Why?

 

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And by your logic in the post i'm quoting, because words can be used to change opinions and influence people, and society will look down you because you're illiterate, language is biased? </div></div>

Yes, language is biased.

Languages are not equals, English being dominant, and even within the English language itself there is a bias. academics use academic language to exclude those who dont know the jargon. literary tradition holds its canons of what good English is.

Language in its concreteness is never neutral, because dialogue takes place among people who are never on the same plane. when you go for a job interview, you are not just using language neutrally, you have to conform to the language requirements for the job. those who dont know the specific terms of the discourse, they could be great minds but they would not get the position.

 

oh.
my.
god.
stop.

 

SEAL Team VI



here to take out this thread.

 

Smug Asshole Magician Makes Shit Up

Also, my thoughts on religion are one thing and I don't exactly know what those thoughts are. What I was referring to, maybe unclearly, was the misuse of religion and other identity issues to disguise material exploitation.

Elites get working-class white black people to distrust each other and prevent common cause. Or the Wall Street/Pentagon nexus gets us to believe that we are in the Mideast because the Muslims hate our freedom and our Jesus, while in fact we are subjecting Muslim peoples to brutal rule by puppet dictators who provide us with oil on good terms.

Anyway, you can agree or not with all that or not... But I don't really have a lot to say about religion except that Mormons are weird.

 

dude. did you read that article? I don't get the Jillette hate.

 

What the fuck are you attacking him for when he just asked why and nothing else?

Am I missing something?

 

All of the things you listed about Ron Paul are true and would be good things to do. You leave out that RP is rube who has nutty libertarian views on things like social security, the minimum wage, financial regulation, government food and safety inspections.

I am not even saying that it wouldn't be better to have him in charge, but his libertarian views are only a few degrees removed from the views of the neoliberal global imperialists he opposes. The main difference is that the imperialists are smart enough to recognize that it takes a military apparatus to makes populations live under capitalist domination.

 

1) Marly when I choose to be succinct I use mathematics

2) Feyerabend, Barazun, Rollins, Aronwitz, and Alan Watts
are like 2 dimensional beings criticizing a 3 dimensional
concept (you are in that category)

Sadly your brand of philosophy is both recursive and inductive and doesn't move man in any direction. You don't have any new questions or new answers just the same -ole- round the mulberry bush. Say what you want about the scientific method at least it has a vector

sorry signia F=m/a (was a typo)

 

1) I didn't say I would try to be succinct with someone ho doubts the neutrality of science

2) And if my recent memory serves me correctly, non of the
philosophers, past or present, non of thinkers, past
or present, non of the epistemologists (not that there different from philosophers) past or present that I've read
are or were succinct in anything they wrote

brevity and succinctness don't seem to be properties of those that ponder the serious questions of life, religion, and science.

My assertion was that when I choose to be succinct I use mathematics. A typical example is when I submit papers to journals or conferences. The papers are typically 6 to 15 pages depending on the journal and conference, and to present
my research in the most unambiguous and efficient fashion I tend to use mathematics most of the time.


Speaking of scientific method being in question, do you do any science at all? or are you just a spectator? I participate in the scientific method daily or almost daily. So I'm always curious when someone calls it into question

And it is reasonable without stretching too much to bring up science and post modernistic philosophical thought in a discussion about Osama bin Laden's assassination because its precisely his world view and the world view of his fanatic radical fundamentalists that have significant segments of humanity at war right now.

It is entirely possible, that world without ISLAM, JUDAISM, and CHRISTIANITY or related derivatives would be a world without war. Who knows maybe the death of Osama bin Laden, might mark the turning point. Maybe with some of the other socio-economic upheavals in the middle east and Africa we might be slowly creeping towards a new dawn.

 

Examples? Where is this significant segment of humanity that is at war b/c of bin laden's worldview?

 

^
Best Post so far. I wonder were you can get these kind of pictures (unless you made them yourself).

 

It came from Reddit.com. It's an amazing site for anyone that doesn't already frequent it.

The okay face just cracks me up every time.

 

There is a Fox News logo in lower-left corner. I do not even feel like watching it. The amount of research I'd want to do afterwards is a deterrent.

I recently saw an article where Canada won't even allow the station to broadcast on their airwaves. To paraphrase: Fox presents opinion as fact.