This is us, and it's everybody else too...

[Midnight Marauder]

Yowza. Now that's what I call a fascinating surgical parsing of the intent of the editorial.

The intent of the article was to excuse group-think.

I think it's rather telling that your contribution did not actually address the crux of the editorial

Because there was nothing to address, other than the sloppiness, laziness, and carelessness of the author. And the abject pablum he proposes.

The topic isn't about football, genius, nor is it about the author's writing talent.

The talent isn't what's in question. The sloppy thinking is. The idiot used a football quote, that was incorrect. Therefore, HE brought football into it, I did not.

It's about an inherent mental reaction

It's not inherent. The author merely tries to get us to believe it is. And he doesn't propose that it's mental, he says it's irrational emotion. But I do understand you cannot separate the two.

You continue to wallow in the mundane, the suspect, the pablum of group-think. This is likely because if you actually tried to think, the headaches would no doubt return.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

It is difficult to argue with someone who says, after you point out that Obama has welched on about every campaign promise he made, "well Bush did the same thing!"
How do you argue with a non-sequitur like that? Yet we see it here all the time.

You don't argue with it.

You merely point out that it's actually an argument against Obama, and is the "Appeal to Mom" fallacy. Which is in the "bandwagon" category of logical fallacies, and is among the most infantile arguments of all time. And one that's never worked.

Did it work when we were kids, got in trouble and said "But MOM, the other kid did it too!"

Hell no. It managed only to earn us a rap in the mouth. And most of us realized this early on, and dropped this nonsensical infantile blame-shifting bullshit.

BUT...

The Obamaphiles continue with it, because not only do they not learn -- they ARE infantile idiots to boot!

There was supposed to be change, and they're evoking Booooosh as a defense?

That makes me LOL out loud and stuff!

The only time I use "Bush" as a "defense" is when someone posts something and acts like it's the first time in history it's ever happened. Just trying to keep it honest...

The reason you might use the appeal to mom doesn't make it not the appeal to mom. Now you're blame shifting.

That said, why is it you folks can't take the criticism of Bush if, as most of you say, you didn't like his administration any more than Obama's? 'Tis a mystery to many (but not to me).

Who is "you folks?"

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Here's more on the subject. Excerpts from an editorial at the link.http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20091018

You are yet to link to ANY source for any of this babble. Not in the OP, and not here either. The link you have provided is not valid.

How about a link to the article you pasted in the OP?

 

[Si modo]

The intent of the article was to excuse group-think. ....

That sums it up nicely.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

And then of course you offer no examples of what the fuck drives your opinion of me.

It's quite clear. You are a sloppy, lazy, careless and basically mindless thinker. In fact, you don't actually think at all. I've been quite succinct on that point, and it is accurate.

My guess is you don't like the challenges I present in general

I actually don't "like" the fact that you never present ANY challenge. You merely regurgitate the spoon-fed pablum. Like a mindless puppet/parrot morph.

 

[MaggieMae]

This message is hidden because Midnight Marauder is on your ignore list.

Go find someone else to pedal your irrelevant bullshit on. I don't have time to waste on some idiot whose only goal is to find a hole in what I say, and when he can't he goes off on some wild tangent. You do it every time, Maurader. Very appropriate screen name, by the way. Buh bye!

 

[MaggieMae]

The intent of the article was to excuse group-think. ....

That sums it up nicely.

Since this whole thread has already been distorted, seems you're here 24/7, and have managed over 3,400 postings in less than a month. Must be nice to have all that spare time.

 

[MaggieMae]

Here's the link to The Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial which MM previously requested.

The Point: What screamers lack: The art of persuasion | Philadelphia Inquirer | 10/18/2009

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Here's the link to The Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial which MM previously requested.

The Point: What screamers lack: The art of persuasion | Philadelphia Inquirer | 10/18/2009

Where's the link to the article you pasted in the OP?

And clearly you cannot handle rational discussion, especially when you regurgitate a flawed, broad-brush premise and try to convince people it applies to more than just you.

YOU might wear that shoe, because obviously it fits. The rest of us? Not hardly.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

This message is hidden because Midnight Marauder is on your ignore list.

Go find someone else to pedal your irrelevant bullshit on. I don't have time to waste on some idiot whose only goal is to find a hole in what I say, and when he can't he goes off on some wild tangent. You do it every time, Maurader. Very appropriate screen name, by the way. Buh bye!

Your whole proposition was blown out of the water not by just me, but by other posters in the thread as well. "This is us, and it's everybody else too..." clearly you're speaking only for yourself here, right?

Because it sure as hell doesn't apply to MOST people.

 

[Si modo]

The intent of the article was to excuse group-think. ....

That sums it up nicely.

Since this whole thread has already been distorted, seems you're here 24/7, and have managed over 3,400 postings in less than a month. Must be nice to have all that spare time.

This is the 'quality' I am used to from you. You are consistent, and still without a thought of your own.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

have managed over 3,400 postings in less than a month. Must be nice to have all that spare time.

Pot? Meet Kettle:

Si modo: Posts Per Day: 83.76
MaggieMae: Posts per day: 27.39
Midnight Marauder: Posts per day: 21.09

You're actually complaining about someone's post count and how fast it was racked up? This is all you have?

See? No substance.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

All I've been trying to say is LIGHTEN UP!!! Everybody is WRONG about SOMETHING. I'm just saying don't get so worked up about it.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

All I've been trying to say is LIGHTEN UP!!! Everybody is WRONG about SOMETHING. I'm just saying don't get so worked up about it.

Maggie is the only one who is "worked up."

Myself, I'd like to see you answer yea or nay, is this statement by Maggie accurate:

This is us, and it's everybody else too... <---- The idiotic thread title.

Yea or nay?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I guess I would answer EVERYBODY is SOMEBODY! LOL!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I guess I would answer EVERYBODY is SOMEBODY! LOL!

That's no answer. That's infantile.

Do you or do you not believe the broad-brush generalization presented in the OP?

 

[midcan5]

"There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?"" David Foster Wallace

I was watching Hugh Hewitt on Cspan's in-depth recently - as a liberal I try to understand the conservative's viewpoint - I found the man an obnoxious know it all who would not even listen to caller's comments before talking over them. It reminded me of many conservatives on USMB. I even started a op on HH which I may eventually post.

Hewitt could not even acknowledge those who disagreed with him and his praise of various politicians and writers was always about those on the republican side of the issue. The man, as David Foster writes below, was unable to get outside the template or default setting that framed his reality, even for a second. This is worth a read:

"...the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people's two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience. Because we prize tolerance and diversity of belief, nowhere in our liberal arts analysis do we want to claim that one guy's interpretation is true and the other guy's is false or bad. Which is fine, except we also never end up talking about just where these individual templates and beliefs come from. Meaning, where they come from INSIDE the two guys. As if a person's most basic orientation toward the world, and the meaning of his experience were somehow just hard-wired, like height or shoe-size; or automatically absorbed from the culture, like language. As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of personal, intentional choice. Plus, there's the whole matter of arrogance...

DAVID FOSTER WALLACE, IN HIS OWN WORDS | More Intelligent Life

 

[Si modo]

"There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?"" David Foster Wallace

I was watching Hugh Hewitt on Cspan's in-depth recently - as a liberal I try to understand the conservative's viewpoint - I found the man an obnoxious know it all who would not even listen to caller's comments before talking over them. It reminded me of many conservatives on USMB. I even started a op on HH which I may eventually post.

Hewitt could not even acknowledge those who disagreed with him and his praise of various politicians and writers was always about those on the republican side of the issue. The man, as David Foster writes below, was unable to get outside the template or default setting that framed his reality, even for a second. This is worth a read:

"...the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people's two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience. Because we prize tolerance and diversity of belief, nowhere in our liberal arts analysis do we want to claim that one guy's interpretation is true and the other guy's is false or bad. Which is fine, except we also never end up talking about just where these individual templates and beliefs come from. Meaning, where they come from INSIDE the two guys. As if a person's most basic orientation toward the world, and the meaning of his experience were somehow just hard-wired, like height or shoe-size; or automatically absorbed from the culture, like language. As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of personal, intentional choice. Plus, there's the whole matter of arrogance...

DAVID FOSTER WALLACE, IN HIS OWN WORDS | More Intelligent Life

Yet, the OP excuses groupthink.

As a person who thinks for herself, I see no reason to excuse and/or enable lack of individual and critical thought.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I guess I would answer EVERYBODY is SOMEBODY! LOL!

That's no answer. That's infantile.

Do you or do you not believe the broad-brush generalization presented in the OP?

Dude I was really going for FUNNY that's why I put the LOL at the end.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I do LOVE it when Hannity asks for "JUST" 3 hours a day........FUCK HIM I hardly get 3 hours a day with my family.