Professor Rush "We gotta redefine smart"

[mjs]

Management is the reason we have enough "fruit" to enjoy life rather than merely surviving it. If you want to participate in an economy that works on pure labor, build a time machine and go back to the middle ages. If a Union believes they can run a company better, why don't they simply buy controlling share of a company and then move their union reps into the management positions? They don't put their money where their mouth is because they know management can do their jobs, but they could never do management's jobs. I'll take the team with brains over the team with muscles any day.

"Man can not survive except by gaining knowledge and reason is his only means to gain it."- Ayn Rand

[Lorax]

Management is the reason we have enough "fruit" to enjoy life rather than merely surviving it. If you want to participate in an economy that works on pure labor, build a time machine and go back to the middle ages. If a Union believes they can run a company better, why don't they simply buy controlling share of a company and then move their union reps into the management positions? They don't put their money where their mouth is because they know management can do their jobs, but they could never do management's jobs. I'll take the team with brains over the team with muscles any day.

"Man can not survive except by gaining knowledge and reason is his only means to gain it."- Aynn Rand

Actually it's Ayn Rand.

But nonetheless, your choosing the wrong side. The "brains" or so they're called destroyed the economy, it wasn't labor. Labor is under constant attack by the Republican Reich, and has been since Reagan.

These so called "capitalists" were completely unregulated under the Bush Regime, and when greed takes over, we get the economic collapse we know find ourselves in.

I'll go for the brawn anyday over the smarmy, conceited [[[[[[ bags on Wall Street who's only love is money.

[ccbatson]

Lorax....just imagine a world without creator producers, or look at history prior to the industrial revolution. Socialism is regressive to that state of being, capitalism is the vehicle of prosperity.

[Lorax]

Lorax....just imagine a world without creator producers, or look at history prior to the industrial revolution. Socialism is regressive to that state of being, capitalism is the vehicle of prosperity.

I have nothing against creators or producers, I'm one myself.

Why is everything "either/or" with you?

I can see the good in most everything, a typical liberal socialist view.

You assume I am referring to all creating and inventing, investing, etc. I'm not. There is a responsible way, and an irresponsible way.

I'm sure you can agree with that. If not, then you are truly lost.

[rb336]

I have nothing against creators or producers, I'm one myself.

Why is everything "either/or" with you?

I can see the good in most everything, a typical liberal socialist view.

You assume I am referring to all creating and inventing, investing, etc. I'm not. There is a responsible way, and an irresponsible way.

I'm sure you can agree with that. If not, then you are truly lost.

lorax, Bats has an incredibly skewed view of what it means to create or produce, and yes, everything is either/or with him

anyone here getting the idea that mjs is just an aka for bats?

[ccbatson]

Primal values, like good and evil, are absolutes. Philosophically, this must be the basis for evaluating reality...metaphysics and epistomology being, at the root, rational and logical thought. Liberalism is the opposite of this, and therefore arbitrary.

[Detroitej72]

Primal values, like good and evil, are absolutes.

Because of the primal values instilled in me by my religion, Its a moral obligation to help the disadvantaged. That is why I am in favor of health care for all people, even if it costs me a few bucks.

[Lorax]

lorax, Bats has an incredibly skewed view of what it means to create or produce, and yes, everything is either/or with him

anyone here getting the idea that mjs is just an aka for bats?

Wow, that would make alot of sense. Shape-shifting Rethugnicans- it is their MO, when things are getting tough, to morph into something, or someone else, to divert attention away from, or, in this case, to have an imaginary friend.

[Lorax]

Primal values, like good and evil, are absolutes. Philosophically, this must be the basis for evaluating reality...metaphysics and epistomology being, at the root, rational and logical thought. Liberalism is the opposite of this, and therefore arbitrary.

Arbitrary would describe your posts. Irrelevant would decribe your ideology.

[jams]

Primal values, like good and evil, are absolutes. Philosophically, this must be the basis for evaluating reality...metaphysics and epistomology being, at the root, rational and logical thought. Liberalism is the opposite of this, and therefore arbitrary.

Here is one view, albeit more qualified than your statement:

It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change.” It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, and for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion. Secondly, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems [[or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things; the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.
This entry examines a large selection of the problems that have been classified as metaphysical. It does not examine them “for their own sake,” however, but as illustrations of metaphysical problems. [[The discussions of these problems in this entry, therefore, are not meant to be in competition with the entries specifically devoted to them.) It considers—and finds no satisfactory answer to—the question, “In virtue of what common feature are these problems classified as metaphysical problems?” It also considers various attempts to show that metaphysics—however defined—is an impossible enterprise.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

Please show us how metaphysics is based on logic and rationale.

[[Greek, epistēmē, knowledge) The theory of knowledge. Its central questions include the origin of knowledge; the place of experience in generating knowledge, and the place of reason in doing so; the relationship between knowledge and certainty, and between knowledge and the impossibility of error; the possibility of universal scepticism; and the changing forms of knowledge that arise from new conceptualizations of the world. All of these issues link with other central concerns of philosophy, such as the nature of truth and the nature of experience and meaning. It is possible to see epistemology as dominated by two rival metaphors. One is that of a building or pyramid, built on foundations. In this conception it is the job of the philosopher to describe especially secure foundations, and to identify secure modes of construction, so that the resulting edifice can be shown to be sound. This metaphor favours some idea of the ‘given’ as a basis of knowledge, and of a rationally defensible theory of confirmation and inference as a method of construction [[see also foundationalism, protocol statements). The other metaphor is that of a boat or fuselage, that has no foundations but owes its strength to the stability given by its interlocking parts. This rejects the idea of a basis in the ‘given’, favours ideas of coherence and holism, but finds it harder to ward off scepticism.

http://www.answers.com/topic/epistemology


Odd, I read those definitions and find that essential to both is the question, "Do Absolutes exist"?
Both have conflicting points of view.

Therefore, I must conclude Absolutes must not exist.

[vetalalumni]

Watch out Rush, Palin may soon be competing in your effectual domain.

[Lorax]

The reviled Ms. Sara will have to fight Rush over the powdered wigs and knee breeches. These dragqueens need to put that one on Payperview.

I hear Bernie Madoff's auction yielded one of Liberace's gilded candelabras, so Rush can illuminate his talking points with greater elegance.

I wonder which one will wear the lipstick?

[ccbatson]

Yes Jams, THOSE definitions are equivocal....look to Objectivism for the proper and irrefutable definitions if it is clarity that you seek.

[Lorax]

Yes Jams, THOSE definitions are equivocal....look to Objectivism for the proper and irrefutable definitions if it is clarity that you seek.

Thanks, Yoda.

[ccbatson]

You are welcome.

[Lorax]

You are welcome.

Welcome you are.

[rb336]

Yes Jams, THOSE definitions are equivocal....look to Objectivism for the proper and irrefutable definitions if it is clarity that you seek.

you mean for a purely subjective distortion of the definition that has absolutely no basis in reality?

[jams]

you mean for a purely subjective distortion of the definition that has absolutely no basis in reality?

rb,
I'm surprised you haven't already purchased your own copy of The Official, but unpublished, Glossary of Batsonia [[mine is on order), it explains all things in one sentence.

[Lorax]

rb,
I'm surprised you haven't already purchased your own copy of The Official, but unpublished, Glossary of Batsonia [[mine is on order), it explains all things in one sentence.

I understand they've held back the first printing of this lengthy screed, since they need enough orders to fire up the presses.

Still waiting......

[jams]

Yes Jams, THOSE definitions are equivocal....look to Objectivism for the proper and irrefutable definitions if it is clarity that you seek.

Main Entry:equiv·o·cal Pronunciation:\i-ˈkwi-və-kəl\ Function:adjective Etymology:Late Latin aequivocus, from aequi- equi- + voc-, vox voice — more at voiceDate:15991 a: subject to two or more interpretations and usually used to mislead or confuse <an equivocal statement> b: uncertain as an indication or sign <equivocal evidence>2 a: of uncertain nature or classification <equivocal shapes> b: of uncertain disposition toward a person or thing : undecided <an equivocal attitude> c: of doubtful advantage, genuineness, or moral rectitude <equivocal behavior>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivocal

So you are now making my point?

[Detroitej72]

I understand they've held back the first printing of this lengthy screed, since they need enough orders to fire up the presses.

I heard they are lacking capital, and are trying to secure a bailout.

[ccbatson]

Jams, my descriptions of those definitions as having been equivocal was not complimentary and I offered a source for a unequivocal definition.

[Lorax]

Jams, my descriptions of those definitions as having been equivocal was not complimentary and I offered a source for a unequivocal definition.

[ccbatson]

Gotcha Lorax...you surrender, but it was Jams with whom I was engaged there.

[Lorax]

Gotcha Lorax...you surrender, but it was Jams with whom I was engaged there.

LOL!!!

Surrender? NEVER!

Only asleep. It's a neutral position, kind of like Switzerland.