Duality of thoughts - geek or right wing thing?
-
(K)arls thread below at least poses an interesting question. What's no more surprising, but still startling, is the typical "no" response: we can't allow that becasue the only alternative is to surrender. IMO live is not binary, it is not yes/no. There is always a third way. But instead of using this as a starting point to think about other, more effective, long-term stable, less costly ways to fight terrorism, we get the age-old "if we stop to nuke the russian bear will eat your children" posters. But the question is: is it because we are geeks, and trained in binary logic? (it seems not so, since the left wingers, though bound to "down this road is doom", seem to have a intrinsic assumption of a multitude of ways, but only very fuzzily so) Or is it because the right wing lives in a black-white world? I am not trying to diss or flame - but this is a pattern I'm wondering about a long time. Can we discuss it without "black white bad, color good"?
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygenIn contrast to Mr. Losinger's post*: sometimes it seems that the knee-jerk left wing response to any question about terrorism is an automatic "we're to blame. be nice to them and they'll go away!" but, after a little digging you can usually get a better response - if you're willing to put in the effort. * Sorry Chris but this duality goes both ways. As usual the real answers are probably nearer the center rather than at either side. I think there is a certain amount of duality but I don't think it has anything to do with geeks thinking in binary. I think you'll find it in all walks of life. People are just "wired" differently. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
(K)arls thread below at least poses an interesting question. What's no more surprising, but still startling, is the typical "no" response: we can't allow that becasue the only alternative is to surrender. IMO live is not binary, it is not yes/no. There is always a third way. But instead of using this as a starting point to think about other, more effective, long-term stable, less costly ways to fight terrorism, we get the age-old "if we stop to nuke the russian bear will eat your children" posters. But the question is: is it because we are geeks, and trained in binary logic? (it seems not so, since the left wingers, though bound to "down this road is doom", seem to have a intrinsic assumption of a multitude of ways, but only very fuzzily so) Or is it because the right wing lives in a black-white world? I am not trying to diss or flame - but this is a pattern I'm wondering about a long time. Can we discuss it without "black white bad, color good"?
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen:omg::omg::omg::omg: Oh no you didn't do what I think you did.. through in a .5 or a 2 into the mix of 1s and 0s now everything will collaspe :laugh: -Steven Hicks
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
Actual Linux Penguins were harmed in the creation of this message.
More tutorials: Ltpb.8m.com: Tutorials |404Browser.com (Download Link)
-
In contrast to Mr. Losinger's post*: sometimes it seems that the knee-jerk left wing response to any question about terrorism is an automatic "we're to blame. be nice to them and they'll go away!" but, after a little digging you can usually get a better response - if you're willing to put in the effort. * Sorry Chris but this duality goes both ways. As usual the real answers are probably nearer the center rather than at either side. I think there is a certain amount of duality but I don't think it has anything to do with geeks thinking in binary. I think you'll find it in all walks of life. People are just "wired" differently. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i see someone woke up with a case of humorlessness today. Say something funny. I'm sure he'll get it then. He said this was like painstakingly assembling the first layer of a house of cards, then boasting that the next 15,000 layers were a mere formality.--The Code Book, pp. 331 Toasty0.com The Recipe Project
-
(K)arls thread below at least poses an interesting question. What's no more surprising, but still startling, is the typical "no" response: we can't allow that becasue the only alternative is to surrender. IMO live is not binary, it is not yes/no. There is always a third way. But instead of using this as a starting point to think about other, more effective, long-term stable, less costly ways to fight terrorism, we get the age-old "if we stop to nuke the russian bear will eat your children" posters. But the question is: is it because we are geeks, and trained in binary logic? (it seems not so, since the left wingers, though bound to "down this road is doom", seem to have a intrinsic assumption of a multitude of ways, but only very fuzzily so) Or is it because the right wing lives in a black-white world? I am not trying to diss or flame - but this is a pattern I'm wondering about a long time. Can we discuss it without "black white bad, color good"?
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygenpeterchen wrote: Or is it because the right wing lives in a black-white world? I think that is at least partially true in my case - but only because I generally believe in keeping things no more complex than they need to be. The issue of terrorism, for example, can be easily over-intellectualized to the point of absurdity (such as applying evolutionary theory to it, for example). To me the entire issue is an extremely simple, black and white one: Islamic terrorists are waging an international campaign of mass murder to achieve their own goals and objectives. They use the chaos and archaic social structure of the middle east as a kind of camoflague for their activities. We can either fight them, or surrender to them. If we choose to fight, that means inflicting a great deal of distruction on the people and the intrastructure of that region. There is absolutely no reason to make things any more subtle or nuanced than that.
-
peterchen wrote: Or is it because the right wing lives in a black-white world? I think that is at least partially true in my case - but only because I generally believe in keeping things no more complex than they need to be. The issue of terrorism, for example, can be easily over-intellectualized to the point of absurdity (such as applying evolutionary theory to it, for example). To me the entire issue is an extremely simple, black and white one: Islamic terrorists are waging an international campaign of mass murder to achieve their own goals and objectives. They use the chaos and archaic social structure of the middle east as a kind of camoflague for their activities. We can either fight them, or surrender to them. If we choose to fight, that means inflicting a great deal of distruction on the people and the intrastructure of that region. There is absolutely no reason to make things any more subtle or nuanced than that.
Stan Shannon wrote: but only because I generally believe in keeping things no more complex than they need to be. That's called generalizing. ;P -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben. I blog too now[^]
-
Stan Shannon wrote: but only because I generally believe in keeping things no more complex than they need to be. That's called generalizing. ;P -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben. I blog too now[^]
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: That's called generalizing In most cases, a general solution to a problem is preferable to a specific one. Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: That's called generalizing In most cases, a general solution to a problem is preferable to a specific one. Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
Rob Graham wrote: In most cases, a general solution to a problem is preferable to a specific one. To whom? The generalized or the generalizee? Not all problems can be solved with algorithms and nifty UML diagrams you know. ;P -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben. I blog too now[^]
-
Stan Shannon wrote: but only because I generally believe in keeping things no more complex than they need to be. That's called generalizing. ;P -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben. I blog too now[^]
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Stan Shannon wrote: but only because I generally believe in keeping things no more complex than they need to be. That's called generalizing :laugh::laugh::laugh: He said this was like painstakingly assembling the first layer of a house of cards, then boasting that the next 15,000 layers were a mere formality.--The Code Book, pp. 331 Toasty0.com The Recipe Project