It is mildly painful for me to read this type of post. As a child, when my mother decided to verbally chastise me, she would make an incredibly mean and insulting remark. It would make me cry and erode my confidence. I finally asked her "Why are you so mean to me?" (I loved her dearly). Her reply? "I'm not mean. I'm just stating the truth." If I had allowed her truth to define me I would not have survived.
I do hope, if you are a parent, that you do not call your children names?
TH is not a child. Now go grab a box of tissues and stop crying on your computer.
Actually it started because you made a mistaken assumption. When I call for charity and you attack the notion (for whatever hidden, larger motive) I have no particular reason to assume you don't appear to mean what you say, while your idea of my limit on assistance couldn't be rationally said to spring from my position.
You supported a system that limits its assistance to giving a man a fish. You the proceeded to remain silent on your stance [that you now claim to have] that we should not stop there.
And you used verses to support an argument against me that were not even germane to the topic.
Following that you continued to argue for nothing more than giving a man a fish.
Not once did you even imply we should go beyond that.
You should care (by which I mean consider for your own benefit) what anyone with years of experience and a wider vista of understanding has to say about you and your offerings here, even if you ultimately reject the critique. That's the learning/growing process in a nutshell.
You're not worth considering.
This just keeps getting funnier. Commas and subtraction, eh? There's a commentary in there you know (optional breath mark omitted).
lain:
Then you must not possess one or undervalue it... An undergraduate degree at even a state college makes a statement that the person possessing it has been reasonably exposed to contrary opinion and a host of new ideas, evidences sufficient ability and determination to have matriculated the course, so to speak, and has earned a measure of respect in accord with a still rare enough accomplishment when measured against the history of man (cumulative and recent). An advanced degree, earned from a reputable school, is another animal. There, the best of that undergraduate class vies for a limited number of seats and the requirements for acceptance are elevated. Many a determined, bright and willing participant is refused admission.
I've met plenty of people with degrees who are dumb as a box of rocks.
For instance, my entrance into law school was the result of a sufficiently distinguished academic record to set me apart from other applicants and a top ten percentile score on the LSAT (designed to weed among the academically gifted applying, as you might or should surmise). And that's just the ticket for the right to then compete among a rather driven, capable pool. Half my L1 class perished on the vine. Those that survived were particularly noteworthy and thrived in the pressure cooker demands of advanced academics. Taking honors in that group was an honor within an honor.
And then, if you manage to gain entrance and then survive the process, there's the bar. A fellow from Yale law sat across from me for three days of mind numbing inquiry (we had to let the poor fellow sit somewhere
), the end of which saw a great number of those present no closer to the practice than they were before they entered the building. Many never make a second attempt.
So if all you gleaned was that I took classes, your consideration is grotesquely inadequate to the task...something of a habit with you.
You passed the test because of your parroting skills.
Re: your nature.
Again, I'm sorry to hear it, but you're old enough to recognize poor conduct and do something about it. People are born to and with worse to work with and manage nicely enough. Get on with it for your own sake.
You assume the conduct is poor.
Not particularly, though you've struggled with things (especially inference) that you shouldn't unless you're confusing it with memory, which is only part of the picture.
Translation: I, Town Heretic, don't want to admit I'm wrong so don't show me that I am.
Do you know the average reading level for an adult American? Aspire to more, if you're capable (which you certainly appear to be). But you aren't competing or discussing with the average American here. Writers tend to be readers and both tend to be toward the top end of that comprehension pool.
Why aspire to my current position? My reading level has been well above average for as long as I can remember. And it remains so. I was even tested as recently as a few months ago.
I'm not going to hold your hand through the error of your assertion or the logical necessity of my counter. Again, you haven't earned it. You had the more amiable, helpful me a bit earlier. Now you can work through it and counter or not as you can (or can't, depending).
Deuteronomy 15 shows that poverty can be reduced, greatly, if we help the poor as God commands. And His command is to give the poor what they need, not whatever they ask for.
The verses in question were that narrowing I noted which is why I pointed you to Luke and a broader consideration, which you then were either too invested to attempt or incapable of seeing for God knows what reason.
And you failed in that too. You clearly lack any comprehension of the Bible.
It is exceedingly sad that you read the passage in Luke and think it refers to the poor.
You would have been better off quoting Matthew 26.
I know this is difficult for you, but I set out your quotes. A thing cannot be "more clever" absent the second leg of that construction. That's part of what I meant by reading comprehension and your pronounced need of further academic instruction. It's logic. You substitute declaration and epithet for it.
Let me reiterate: I was being sarcastic. I meant that your actual remark was not clever by sarcastically implying it was.:dunce::duh:
What you don't see isn't in question. What you should is another matter altogether.
:yawn:
No, this is you trying to rewrite to avoid looking foolish. Sarcasm isn't found in attempting to better a practice. That's condescension, which is in your case an air without support.
1 is more than zero, right?
So something that is clever is more clever than something that is not at all clever.
And where did you get the idea I was "attempting to better a practice"? If you've been paying attention you will notice I've been condescending quite a lot.
Oh, I intend to stick around and continue to instruct you until you learn a better practice or are driven to a more impressive reach by necessity. I can't force maturity or consideration upon you, but I can exact the consequence for their absence and hope it eventually motivates you.
You are no Tony Robbins.
See? That's part of what vocabulary and memory aren't indicative of that I alluded to prior. A grasp of nuance, inference and argument not set out like a child's toy is part of the package. Oh, all right. Wrapping your conduct in the honesty gambit is an attempt to raise immaturity to virtue. It can't be done. A racist might be honest about his bigotry, but it's still reprehensible thought that leads to lamentable action for anyone not crippled by it. I think you're capable of more. Aspire to it.
Apparently you are incapable of comprehension yourself.
My remark was rhetorical, as thought I were asking, "What's your point," when I already know your point and am conveying the message that your point is a failure, most likely from the outset. Or to say, you are correct to some degree and I am not bothered by it. I.e., I don't care.
And that's admirable, but insufficient if you understand the real point of education, which isn't the intellectual equivalent of a trade school. I have a good friend who is remarkably intelligent and who has never had a great deal of formal education. As a result he has an impressive grasp of the things that interest him and a want for much more. It hobbles him in larger argument and reflection because a great deal of what he either isn't interested in or hasn't been exposed to influences and relates to what he knows and/or thinks.
And yet I've taught myself things in which I had no interest.
Now why would I do that?
It's a serious limitation and no man of intellectual substance would wish it on another.
:blabla:
Edit: It was a funnier answer, though no more or less insulting.
To you maybe. Then again you don't know what a Republican is these days.
Good gravy, LH! What a mess you have made all because of one simple oversight on your part - that TH is not stupid, nor is he uneducated, nor stubborn.
Do you honestly think that is what this is about? And at what point did I say he was uneducated? My point is that his education lends itself to his problem.
There is no oversight here. Don't make stupid assumptions. You know me better than that.
Consider: since we know that our Heretic is no simpleton, we can assume that when he "fails to get" an implication, it isn't because he doesn't understand it, or that he misses it, but rather because he's not buying it. So instead of trying to lead him along with clues and whatnot, realize that you are going to have to make the argument rather than making an implication of an argument - vinegar? Really, LH, I've seen you lay out an argument quite well when you take the time to do so. Stop all the dancing about, quit smirking, lay out your arguments in good, plain English the way I know you can, and you will do well.
- I take it you don't get the vinegar insult
- If I laid out exactly what I truly wanted to say I wouldn't be posting on TOL for a few days.
One more thing: if you would get off your high horse ("Let's see if you're any good at math"
), you would be taken more seriously. I mean, what do you have against answering a question simply? Doesn't it give you indigestion to be so prickly?
Did you miss the part where my question, re: math, was turning his own comment about my math skills back onto him?
He, foolishly, assumed I was poor at math because he assumed I was younger than I am and did not consider that my question about his age being in the fifties meant that I was older than he assumed.
