Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Bah, what a whinge fest that article is. Just for starters Australia is a multicultural country that, in the main, runs fairly smoothly. So I don't know what the point of that is. Is the author trying to say multiculturalism doesn't work? Well he'd be wrong about that. As for the part about 'no objective truth' that is a fairly well established and rigorous academic position to take. If you were to go back a thousand years ago slavery, for example, was part and parcel of every society. So to look at something like that from our perspective and apply today's morals to it is not correct. From our point of view, yes it was bad and immoral but for anyone else living in that day and age it was society as they knew it. A historian cannot apply today's moral standards to a society that existed 500, 1000, 2000 years ago. You can if you want but that's a subjective judgement and not an objective one. That is of course if you agree that morals change over time. (Which they do.) As for this: Postmodernism: In the past, academics were trained to seek truth. Today, academics deny that there is such a thing as objective Truth. Instead, they argue that no one can be objective, that everyone is inevitably subjective, and consequently everyone has their own truth. The correct point of view, they urge, is relativism. This means not only that truth is relative to the subjectivity of each individual, but also that ethics and morality are relative to the individual and the culture, so there is no such thing as Good and Evil, or even Right and Wrong. So too with the ways of knowing; your children will learn that there is no objective basis for preferring chemistry over alchemy, astronomy over astrology, or medical doctors over witch doctors. They will learn that facts do not exist; only interpretations do.
What a load of shit. I'm sure all the mathematics, engineering and science departments around the campuses don't apply this idiocy as a matter of course. I mean you could go on and on but this article screams 'poor bugger me' I'm an oppressed, vilified white male. Boo fucking hoo. The author needs to get over himself. If you had to choose, from scratch, who to be and which offered, almost, an advantage over every other type of person on the planet you'd choose to be a white male. Hands down without argument. These man-babies around the place need to grow the fuck up.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xBah, what a whinge fest that article is. Just for starters Australia is a multicultural country that, in the main, runs fairly smoothly. So I don't know what the point of that is. Is the author trying to say multiculturalism doesn't work? Well he'd be wrong about that. As for the part about 'no objective truth' that is a fairly well established and rigorous academic position to take. If you were to go back a thousand years ago slavery, for example, was part and parcel of every society. So to look at something like that from our perspective and apply today's morals to it is not correct. From our point of view, yes it was bad and immoral but for anyone else living in that day and age it was society as they knew it. A historian cannot apply today's moral standards to a society that existed 500, 1000, 2000 years ago. You can if you want but that's a subjective judgement and not an objective one. That is of course if you agree that morals change over time. (Which they do.) As for this: Postmodernism: In the past, academics were trained to seek truth. Today, academics deny that there is such a thing as objective Truth. Instead, they argue that no one can be objective, that everyone is inevitably subjective, and consequently everyone has their own truth. The correct point of view, they urge, is relativism. This means not only that truth is relative to the subjectivity of each individual, but also that ethics and morality are relative to the individual and the culture, so there is no such thing as Good and Evil, or even Right and Wrong. So too with the ways of knowing; your children will learn that there is no objective basis for preferring chemistry over alchemy, astronomy over astrology, or medical doctors over witch doctors. They will learn that facts do not exist; only interpretations do.
What a load of shit. I'm sure all the mathematics, engineering and science departments around the campuses don't apply this idiocy as a matter of course. I mean you could go on and on but this article screams 'poor bugger me' I'm an oppressed, vilified white male. Boo fucking hoo. The author needs to get over himself. If you had to choose, from scratch, who to be and which offered, almost, an advantage over every other type of person on the planet you'd choose to be a white male. Hands down without argument.These man-babies around the place need to grow the fuck up. If this is true, then why do people who are even half black, even a quarter black, choose to identify as such? Wouldn't it make more sense to ignore that part of their heritage, identify as white and enjoy all the amazing privileges and freebies life automatically gives you? ...Or maybe there's actually far more power (and scope for attention) in claiming victimhood wherever you can?
There are only two intellectually honest debate tactics: (a) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts, or (b) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic. All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest - John T. Reed
The Most Popular Presidential Candidate Of All Time (TM) cant go to a sports stadium in the country he presides over. Figure that one out...
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xBah, what a whinge fest that article is. Just for starters Australia is a multicultural country that, in the main, runs fairly smoothly. So I don't know what the point of that is. Is the author trying to say multiculturalism doesn't work? Well he'd be wrong about that. As for the part about 'no objective truth' that is a fairly well established and rigorous academic position to take. If you were to go back a thousand years ago slavery, for example, was part and parcel of every society. So to look at something like that from our perspective and apply today's morals to it is not correct. From our point of view, yes it was bad and immoral but for anyone else living in that day and age it was society as they knew it. A historian cannot apply today's moral standards to a society that existed 500, 1000, 2000 years ago. You can if you want but that's a subjective judgement and not an objective one. That is of course if you agree that morals change over time. (Which they do.) As for this: Postmodernism: In the past, academics were trained to seek truth. Today, academics deny that there is such a thing as objective Truth. Instead, they argue that no one can be objective, that everyone is inevitably subjective, and consequently everyone has their own truth. The correct point of view, they urge, is relativism. This means not only that truth is relative to the subjectivity of each individual, but also that ethics and morality are relative to the individual and the culture, so there is no such thing as Good and Evil, or even Right and Wrong. So too with the ways of knowing; your children will learn that there is no objective basis for preferring chemistry over alchemy, astronomy over astrology, or medical doctors over witch doctors. They will learn that facts do not exist; only interpretations do.
What a load of shit. I'm sure all the mathematics, engineering and science departments around the campuses don't apply this idiocy as a matter of course. I mean you could go on and on but this article screams 'poor bugger me' I'm an oppressed, vilified white male. Boo fucking hoo. The author needs to get over himself. If you had to choose, from scratch, who to be and which offered, almost, an advantage over every other type of person on the planet you'd choose to be a white male. Hands down without argument.These man-babies around the place need to grow the fuck up. If this is true, then why do people who are even half black, even a quarter black, choose to identify as such? Wouldn't it make more sense to ignore that part of their heritage, identify as white and enjoy all the amazing privileges and freebies life automatically gives you? ...Or maybe there's actually far more power (and scope for attention) in claiming victimhood wherever you can? Why don't you ask 'them'?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xBah, what a whinge fest that article is. Just for starters Australia is a multicultural country that, in the main, runs fairly smoothly. So I don't know what the point of that is. Is the author trying to say multiculturalism doesn't work? Well he'd be wrong about that. As for the part about 'no objective truth' that is a fairly well established and rigorous academic position to take. If you were to go back a thousand years ago slavery, for example, was part and parcel of every society. So to look at something like that from our perspective and apply today's morals to it is not correct. From our point of view, yes it was bad and immoral but for anyone else living in that day and age it was society as they knew it. A historian cannot apply today's moral standards to a society that existed 500, 1000, 2000 years ago. You can if you want but that's a subjective judgement and not an objective one. That is of course if you agree that morals change over time. (Which they do.) As for this: Postmodernism: In the past, academics were trained to seek truth. Today, academics deny that there is such a thing as objective Truth. Instead, they argue that no one can be objective, that everyone is inevitably subjective, and consequently everyone has their own truth. The correct point of view, they urge, is relativism. This means not only that truth is relative to the subjectivity of each individual, but also that ethics and morality are relative to the individual and the culture, so there is no such thing as Good and Evil, or even Right and Wrong. So too with the ways of knowing; your children will learn that there is no objective basis for preferring chemistry over alchemy, astronomy over astrology, or medical doctors over witch doctors. They will learn that facts do not exist; only interpretations do.
What a load of shit. I'm sure all the mathematics, engineering and science departments around the campuses don't apply this idiocy as a matter of course. I mean you could go on and on but this article screams 'poor bugger me' I'm an oppressed, vilified white male. Boo fucking hoo. The author needs to get over himself. If you had to choose, from scratch, who to be and which offered, almost, an advantage over every other type of person on the planet you'd choose to be a white male. Hands down without argument.These man-babies around the place need to grow the fuck up. If this is true, then why do people who are even half black, even a quarter black, choose to identify as such? Wouldn't it make more sense to ignore that part of their heritage, identify as white and enjoy all the amazing privileges and freebies life automatically gives you? ...Or maybe there's actually far more power (and scope for attention) in claiming victimhood wherever you can? Why don't you ask 'them'? Pretty funny that there's an assumption that there aren't a lot that hide their background (if they can). Then there's the sad realisation that he thinks it's somehow a good thing that people should be having to hide it.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xBah, what a whinge fest that article is. Just for starters Australia is a multicultural country that, in the main, runs fairly smoothly. So I don't know what the point of that is. Is the author trying to say multiculturalism doesn't work? Well he'd be wrong about that. As for the part about 'no objective truth' that is a fairly well established and rigorous academic position to take. If you were to go back a thousand years ago slavery, for example, was part and parcel of every society. So to look at something like that from our perspective and apply today's morals to it is not correct. From our point of view, yes it was bad and immoral but for anyone else living in that day and age it was society as they knew it. A historian cannot apply today's moral standards to a society that existed 500, 1000, 2000 years ago. You can if you want but that's a subjective judgement and not an objective one. That is of course if you agree that morals change over time. (Which they do.) As for this: Postmodernism: In the past, academics were trained to seek truth. Today, academics deny that there is such a thing as objective Truth. Instead, they argue that no one can be objective, that everyone is inevitably subjective, and consequently everyone has their own truth. The correct point of view, they urge, is relativism. This means not only that truth is relative to the subjectivity of each individual, but also that ethics and morality are relative to the individual and the culture, so there is no such thing as Good and Evil, or even Right and Wrong. So too with the ways of knowing; your children will learn that there is no objective basis for preferring chemistry over alchemy, astronomy over astrology, or medical doctors over witch doctors. They will learn that facts do not exist; only interpretations do.
What a load of shit. I'm sure all the mathematics, engineering and science departments around the campuses don't apply this idiocy as a matter of course. I mean you could go on and on but this article screams 'poor bugger me' I'm an oppressed, vilified white male. Boo fucking hoo. The author needs to get over himself. If you had to choose, from scratch, who to be and which offered, almost, an advantage over every other type of person on the planet you'd choose to be a white male. Hands down without argument.These man-babies around the place need to grow the fuck up. If this is true, then why do people who are even half black, even a quarter black, choose to identify as such? Wouldn't it make more sense to ignore that part of their heritage, identify as white and enjoy all the amazing privileges and freebies life automatically gives you? ...Or maybe there's actually far more power (and scope for attention) in claiming victimhood wherever you can? Why don't you ask 'them'? Pretty funny that there's an assumption that there aren't a lot that hide their background (if they can). Then there's the sad realisation that he thinks it's somehow a good thing that people should be having to hide it. You assume this is what I think- but you are wrong. In contemporary Australia, how exactly is it a disadvantage to honestly claim your heritage?
There are only two intellectually honest debate tactics: (a) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts, or (b) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic. All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest - John T. Reed
The Most Popular Presidential Candidate Of All Time (TM) cant go to a sports stadium in the country he presides over. Figure that one out...
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Anyway- I realise WFMB is meant for more light-hearted stuff. I'm happy to save the political discussion for another thread if somebody wishes to start one... Keeping in the original spirit of this thread- the comments section following this post is WFMB- *Edit* Apologies, don't know how to upload all the images in one post:  ">
There are only two intellectually honest debate tactics: (a) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts, or (b) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic. All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest - John T. Reed
The Most Popular Presidential Candidate Of All Time (TM) cant go to a sports stadium in the country he presides over. Figure that one out...
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
 ">  ">
There are only two intellectually honest debate tactics: (a) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts, or (b) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic. All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest - John T. Reed
The Most Popular Presidential Candidate Of All Time (TM) cant go to a sports stadium in the country he presides over. Figure that one out...
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
 ">
There are only two intellectually honest debate tactics: (a) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts, or (b) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic. All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest - John T. Reed
The Most Popular Presidential Candidate Of All Time (TM) cant go to a sports stadium in the country he presides over. Figure that one out...
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
 ">
There are only two intellectually honest debate tactics: (a) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts, or (b) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic. All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest - John T. Reed
The Most Popular Presidential Candidate Of All Time (TM) cant go to a sports stadium in the country he presides over. Figure that one out...
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Hahah yeah saw that on Facebook, people going off their absolute rockers. -PB
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Haha I can't tell if its Andrew Bolt types playing the boot in for his hypocrisy or actually feminists being outraged. Either way no sympathy for those who decide to chastise others in the name of PC/progressiveness. You will always slip up eventually.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHaha I can't tell if its Andrew Bolt types playing the boot in for his hypocrisy or actually feminists being outraged. Either way no sympathy for those who decide to chastise others in the name of PC/progressiveness. You will always slip up eventually. It could be but then again it could just be people taking the piss. A few of those look like something I'd write if I wanted to wind up some clown.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Not going to post the links, but Betoota has put out some 'hump day' gold today- I suggest you check them out.
There are only two intellectually honest debate tactics: (a) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts, or (b) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic. All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest - John T. Reed
The Most Popular Presidential Candidate Of All Time (TM) cant go to a sports stadium in the country he presides over. Figure that one out...
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Wfmb : got to a job to pick up a vanity and bring it back to the factory for moddifaction. Get there and its had a stone bench top glued on. Now nothing wrong with that but the vanity hasn't been installed and the stone masons glued in on a uninstalled cabinet 😂😂😂 made my day
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Wfmb: correcting a post and then it disappearing because admin didn't want to look like a idiot 🤣🤣
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Wfmb: finding out there's a brasillian left back playing for vasco de gama professionally known as yago pikachu
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xNot going to post the links, but Betoota has put out some 'hump day' gold today- I suggest you check them out. It's pretty much the only reason I''m on BookFace now & I love the comments underneath the articles as well.
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Wfmb: the look of eddie mcguries face when the pies lost 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣.
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
WFMB- The look on Cam Smith and Billy Slater's faces after the Storm lost. And the fact that Billy's career ended to a chorus of booing. And the fact Cooper Cronk mentioned Slater and (also retiring) Ryan Hoffman in his post-match speech, but snubbed Cam Smith.
There are only two intellectually honest debate tactics: (a) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts, or (b) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic. All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest - John T. Reed
The Most Popular Presidential Candidate Of All Time (TM) cant go to a sports stadium in the country he presides over. Figure that one out...
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWFMB- The look on Cam Smith and Billy Slater's faces after the Storm lost. And the fact that Billy's career ended to a chorus of booing. And the fact Cooper Cronk mentioned Slater and (also retiring) Ryan Hoffman in his post-match speech, but snubbed Cam Smith. Yeah bulk drama there lol -PB
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Wfmb: logic's young sinatra IV album . Boom bap ish . And the only cat to get the entire living wu tang clan on one track plus the two late editions to the clan . Lil Waynes carter 5 got the love but this album is pure lyricism
|
|
|
scubaroo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWfmb: logic's young sinatra IV album . Boom bap ish . And the only cat to get the entire living wu tang clan on one track plus the two late editions to the clan . Lil Waynes carter 5 got the love but this album is pure lyricism I have no idea what this means.
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
WFMB: This video from FriendlyJordies. Following on from his hit piece on Triple J, where (at the risk of sounding like a Waleed Aly fanboi) he nailed it, this time he goes after "our" ABC:
There are only two intellectually honest debate tactics: (a) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts, or (b) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic. All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest - John T. Reed
The Most Popular Presidential Candidate Of All Time (TM) cant go to a sports stadium in the country he presides over. Figure that one out...
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xWfmb: logic's young sinatra IV album . Boom bap ish . And the only cat to get the entire living wu tang clan on one track plus the two late editions to the clan . Lil Waynes carter 5 got the love but this album is pure lyricism I have no idea what this means. 🤣🤣sorry dude
|
|
|
marconi101
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
WFMB: Finished my History Honours thesis, 58 pages, 18,000 words.
He was a man of specific quirks. He believed that all meals should be earned through physical effort. He also contended, zealously like a drunk with a political point, that the third dimension would not be possible if it werent for the existence of water.
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
PricklePear
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWFMB: Finished my History Honours thesis, 58 pages, 18,000 words. Half way through my engineering honours thesis right now. I want to die.
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Wfmb : dmx's version of rudolph the red nosed reindeer 😂😂😂😂😂 .
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
WFMB: Trump. " Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us." - Donald Trump
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
I've seen 10 year olds with a larger vocabulary. -PB
|
|
|