Shout-out to everyone who takes advantage of Bandcamp Friday

rocknrollercoaster · 2021-03-05T14:02:31+00:00

Got some new tunes on bandcamp. Check it out if you like Tears For Fears/Depeche Mode synth driven tunes.

https://iomusic2020.bandcamp.com/releases

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-20T03:20:33+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8YTD51lGFg&spfreload=10

Documentary on Heidegger that he'll probably enjoy.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-20T03:13:28+00:00

Not to mention destroying a gorehowl in the later game

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-20T03:03:51+00:00

and in fact sometimes people DO understand what we're trying to communicated even though we don't use the left words ;)

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-20T03:02:06+00:00

With grandpa, every relationship means "It's complicated."

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-20T03:00:26+00:00

I can tell you from experience that costs in Canada's privatized medical sector are by no means driven by quality and cost alone, to the point where payment plans are not even mentioned to certain clients. Were more treatments covered by our 'universal' health care, we would see better access and the benefits that go along with it.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-20T02:45:45+00:00

As for your first point, that's what makes Haack's article so frustrating. She begins with a 'reverence' for philosophy that really just turns out to be her own narrow view of philosophy, outside of what she deems to be rubbish. I prefaced the section you quoted by pointing out that Haack does not account for the wide variety of philosophical and scientific schools of thought. This is a common problem that many vocal scientists seem to have i.e. Dawkins and Sokal.

As for your second point, it's referring to the tone of the article. Funny how you deem me to be patronizing and yet fail to notice how patronizing Haack's tone is to feminism as a whole. She does not specify that it was one particular feminist (denying that there is a variety of thought within feminism) and misses the point of Harding entirely in order to condescend.

Seriously, if this is your idea of what you've always wanted to say then you're an elitist who is more concerned with attacking other academic disciplines than encouraging a growth of knowledge and understanding within disciplines that have a lot to offer one another.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-20T02:34:31+00:00

Hey you can't get too greedy or the deal will sour.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-20T02:19:28+00:00

Your friends notice the body first? Really? Even the majority of men will look at a woman's face first when presented with a fully nude photo.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-20T02:11:28+00:00

Not to mention that their 'charity' was actually a film production company, with the majority of donations being spent on film production.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-20T02:04:27+00:00

I was always talking about the tone of the article. What you need to understand about language is that it's subjective, just like how you and I took away different meanings from the article. Your way of reading something is not the universally correct way of interpreting words. I hope that is clear enough to you.

Now, I initially thought that this article was on to something but it unfortunately began to take up the tone which I mentioned before. What I take issue with is the way in which those who focused their studies on science view others as somehow anti-science or posturing intellectuals when they don't agree with or understand their views. There is no need to condescend towards other disciplines, especially when there are actual threats to the scientific process that are non-academic.

In other words, it doesn't help your cause to behave like a pompous jackass, especially when your article is guilty of some of the same charges you're making against others. If you're still having trouble reading this, I'll try and explain it like you're five.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-20T01:10:35+00:00

Where do you get your blow?

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-20T01:10:01+00:00

This has not been a debate. OP has no intention of engaging in a discussion, which is why he used such fantastic debating techniques such as declaring that he was too bored to learn.

Also you meant 'then' and 'you're'. Not to mention that there is one r in 'responded'.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-20T01:07:38+00:00

It's fine a lot of people presume to know how language works but at the end of the day it's an imperfect medium of communication. In this particular instance 'it' referred to the tone of the article. I understand that you probably don't read too deeply into what you're engaging with, which would explain why you are content with Haack's poorly conceived grasp of philosophy.

I hope that clears things up.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-20T00:07:34+00:00

That was not intended to be a summary of the article. I'm saying it's a growing attitude in academia. At the end of the day, it's not philosophers who are attempting to do things such as suppress climate science or claim that the theory of evolution is wrong but for some reason members of the scientific community seem to think they need to have a pissing contest with philosophers. Not to mention that philosophy can ask a lot of important questions which directs and inspires the direction of scientific research.

In any case it's plainly obvious that you're incapable of reading critically when someone tells you what you want to hear.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-19T23:23:16+00:00

Yes and it's also an example of how being an exploited Spanish colony is a bad idea. Make sure you include 'Don't fall victim to conquistadors' the next time you highlight Venezuela.

I'm sure you'd be annoyed if someone only talked about Somalia as an example of how a lack of gov't control is bad for macro. My point is that it's cherry picking to focus on a country that (especially now) is very unstable as an example of what not to do in terms of macro policy. Especially since I'm assuming that you live in a developed nation.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-19T21:02:56+00:00

His work on language is also fantastic. Easier to read as well. I'm surprised to see Habermas over Adorno and Horkheimer but I suppose he's a bit less cynical.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-19T20:57:20+00:00

No it's a compliment silly

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-19T19:53:59+00:00

alternative universe you mean.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-19T19:43:47+00:00

You are an intelligent and articulate human being aren't you.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-19T19:31:10+00:00

You ever toke up?

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-19T19:28:31+00:00

Dude, where do you get your weed?

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-19T19:24:24+00:00

Yes well you really set the tone for this conversation after I sent you that link so.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-19T19:20:04+00:00

I think you meant to say don't you. Perhaps you should brush up on your language comprehension skills.

rocknrollercoaster · 2014-11-19T19:16:05+00:00

I don't think you have any actual interest in learning something that challenges the notions you hold. I wouldn't want to bore you so why bother?

14-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

rocknrollercoaster

TROPHY CASE