rigorousintuition.ca

American Dream wrote:On a different but related note, I would love to hear from those who take a negative view of Satire whether this cartoon represents the sort of unacceptable discourse to which you were referring and if so, why...

Hammer of Los wrote:

American Dream wrote:On a different but related note, I would love to hear from those who take a negative view of Satire whether this cartoon represents the sort of unacceptable discourse to which you were referring and if so, why...

I don't have a negative view of satire, but I feel that cartoon would be funny only if Icke himself believed that he was a lizard.

This is my placeholder. I really must contribute something more substantial to this thread. If only I had time!

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that satire can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that satire is bad, in and of itself?

AS A PROFESSIONAL critic of life and letters, my principal business in the world is that of manufacturing platitudes for tomorrow, which is to say, ideas so novel that they will be instantly rejected as insane and outrageous by all right-thinking men, and so apposite and sound that they will eventually conquer that instinctive opposition, and force themselves into the traditional wisdom of the race. I hope I need not confess that a large part of my stock in trade consists of platitudes rescued from the cobwebbed shelves of yesterday, with new labels stuck rakishly upon them. This borrowing and refurbishing of shop-worn goods, as a matter of fact, is the invariable habit of traders in ideas, at all times and everywhere. It is not, however, that all the conceivable human notions have been thought out; it is simply, to be quite honest, that the sort of men who volunteer to think out new ones seldom, if ever, have wind enough for a full day's work. The most they can ever accomplish in the way of genuine originality is an occasional brilliant spurt, and half a dozen such spurts, particularly if they come close together and show a certain co-ordination, are enough to make a practitioner celebrated, and even immortal. Nature, indeed, conspires against all such genuine originality, and I have no doubt that God is against it on His heavenly throne, as His vicars and partisans unquestionably are on this earth. The dead hand pushes all of us into intellectual cages; there is in all of us a strange tendency to yield and have done. Thus the impertinent colleague of Aristotle is doubly beset, first by a public opinion that regards his enterprise as subversive and in bad taste, and secondly by an inner weakness that limits his capacity for it, and especially his capacity to throw off the prejudices and superstitions of his race, culture and time. The cell, said Haeckel, does not act, it reacts--and what is the instrument of reflection and speculation save a congeries of cells? At the moment of the contemporary metaphysician's loftiest flight, when he is most gratefully warmed by the feeling that he is far above all the ordinary air lanes and has an absolutely novel concept by the tail, he is suddenly pulled up by the discovery that what is entertaining him is simply the ghost of some ancient idea that his school-master forced into him in 1887, or the mouldering corpse of a doctrine that was made official in his country during the late war, or a sort of fermentation-product, to mix the figure, of a banal heresy launched upon him recently by his wife. This is the penalty that the man of intellectual curiosity and vanity pays for his violation of the divine edict that what has been revealed from Sinai shall suffice for him, and for his resistance to the natural process which seeks to reduce him to the respectable level of a patriot and taxpayer.

I was, of course, privy to this difficulty when I planned the present work, and entered upon it with no expectation that I should be able to embellish it with, at most, more than a very small number of hitherto unutilized notions. Moreover, I faced the additional handicap of having an audience of extraordinary antipathy to ideas before me, for I wrote it in war-time, with all foreign markets cut off, and so my only possible customers were Americans. Of their unprecedented dislike for novelty in the domain of the intellect I have often discoursed in the past, and so there is no need to go into the matter again. All I need do here is to recall the fact that, in the United States, alone among the great nations of history, there is a right way to think and a wrong way to think in everything--not only in theology, or politics, or economics, but in the most trivial matters of everyday life.

Canadian_watcher wrote:

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that satire can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that satire is bad, in and of itself?

When pointing out and mocking those more powerful than we are, no.
It's fair game.
When doing it to a peer or an underling.. I have another word for it.

If there are a significant number who don't see it as satire.. if the only people laughing are joining in the fun and escalating it to the point of insult and 'don't be a dick' level juvenile arsholery, then I think it is bad.

American Dream wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that satire can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that satire is bad, in and of itself?

When pointing out and mocking those more powerful than we are, no.
It's fair game.
When doing it to a peer or an underling.. I have another word for it.

If there are a significant number who don't see it as satire.. if the only people laughing are joining in the fun and escalating it to the point of insult and 'don't be a dick' level juvenile arsholery, then I think it is bad.

You are failing to distinguish between satirizing ideas and satirizing people...

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that sentences can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that a sentence is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that poetry can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that poetry is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that cars can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that a car is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that bras can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that a bra is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that rubber suits can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that a rubber suit is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that swimming pools can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that a swimming pool is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that thinking can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that thinking is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that pipelines can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that a pipeline is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that language can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that language is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that books can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that a book is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that the internet can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that the internet is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that food can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that food is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that the sea can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that the sea is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that london buses can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that a london bus is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that keyholes can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that a keyhole is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that soup can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that soup is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that art galleries can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that an art gallery is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that sandals can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that a pair of sandals is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that ice cream containers can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that an ice cream container is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:C_w, your post above to be suggests that musicals can be a vehicle for problematic content- something of which I have no doubt.

What about the overall form: Do you think that a musical is bad, in and of itself?

American Dream wrote:So the point that there is a difference between satirizing ideas and satirizing people apparently cannot be discussed...

Searcher08 wrote: Ridiculing something is an act of power , power over whether it is women, gays, Irish, animals or ideas.

I would suggest that ridiculing is very poor thinking, because it is actually a somewhat arrogant response based on a partial assessment that doesnt include humane respect for the person having it.

Ridiculing an idea is a weak aspect of critical thinking.
Why? Because thinking stops at this point. It denies an entire aspect of thinking which is that of Movement - where does this idea lead TO.

I have seen creative problem solving sessions totally stymied by a (self-styled) critical thinker 'assessing' every idea as it came up.

A wise man once said
"PROOF is often... nothing more than a lack of Imagination"

American Dream wrote:

Searcher08 wrote:

American Dream wrote:

Searcher08 wrote:
I guess I wanted to say I was curious to ask why you 'wanted to know the truth regarding you and Reptilian Theory'?

Firstly, I wanted to point out that you still haven't responded to my quote- as given by you just above- and stated whether this was an example of trying to squeeze you into some kind of binary box regarding Icke, as you complained about before.

Secondly, as to why I wanted to know your thoughts on Reptilian Theory- well we've been through this for a couple of years now and it always seemed lie you were pretty positive towards Mr. Icke. I have long felt that his Anunnaki/Reptilian Theory is a great proving ground for critical thinking and epistemology issues, so where could be a more appropriate place to discuss the issue than here on this thread?

Firstly, I would like to point add that you were quote mining. You left out that
the context that you had asked me that question several times and my answer was always NO. Yet you kept asking the question. And still do not believe me, to which Im left shrugging. Others here have experienced the same 'treatment'. Im not making a big deal, I am hopefully in a friendly way pointing it out though, for your consideration.

Secondly, I dont understand what you mean at all.
This topic wasnt set up to debate ID or the Annunaki (My knowledge of ID is very very limited; I would be delighted to take part in a thread about exopolitics, which I consider very important but that is not relevant here AFAIK)

As far as me asking "binary" questions e.g. "Do you believe in David Icke's Reptilian Theory?", you yourself complained upthread that you can not answer such a question given in such a form.


Yet you still asked the same question when I said NO



And yes, your unclear answers,

Like NO!! ??????????

combined with vague statements of support for Icke, did leave me wondering what you really think about this.

Meaning what? If you are criticizing people for vagueness, please start with yourself!

So I formed a different kind of response for you, as quoted previously:

"Now, to begin the process for me, I am going to state that I have a hunch- an intuition if you will, that you do to some degree support David Icke's Reptilian Theory. My further hunch is that I could never in a million years guess the subtleties of which parts you believe, which parts you don't and everything in between.

Given that you have demonstrated you know much more about Ickes 'Reptilian Theory' than me, yet are still badgering me the point is moot.



What is the truth regarding you, AD and Reptilian Theory?

My main point is that you AD still didn't give that clear of an answer.

BUT PLEASE ANSWER THIS IN ANOTHER THREAD!!!

Secondly, clearly from what we have seen in this thread, Intelligent Design Theory is a great testing ground for critical thinking and epistemology issues.

Really? Then please illustrate with ONE example for critical thinking and one example for epistemology. Just ONE

By the same token, Theory based in the premise that consensus social reality is fundamentally flawed and that a race of blood-drinking reptilians- fourth dimensional shapeshifters from Planet X has really been running things for the last 450,000 years, would seem to be a great proving ground for critical thinking and epistemology, amongst other things.

What is a 'proving ground' for critical thinking?
How do you have a proving ground for epistemology?


In fact, I would love to hear how those who do support the work of David Icke to explain how their "faith", critical thinking and epistemological foundations can allow positive regard for Mr. Icke's work to co-exist with such Reptilian Theory.

Searcher08 wrote:

In fact, I would love to hear how those who do support the work of David Icke to explain how their "faith", critical thinking and epistemological foundations can allow positive regard for Mr. Icke's work to co-exist with such Reptilian Theory.

Then start a thread on it as this thread is about critical thinking, reductionism and epistemology

You are steaming into troll territory AD with this - if you want to discuss the Annunaki, start a thread.

Please get back on topic