Forget Red vs. Blue -- It's the Educated vs. People Easily Fooled by Propaganda

MobBoss · Feb 22, 2011

Formaldehyde said:
You still haven't mentioned how many books you read each year. Do you ever read non-fiction books which are not religious?

Some military history ones. The number I read a year? Never really thought about it. Probably around 20 to 40 maybe. Some of my favorites I re-read roughly yearly as well.

Then why do you even think it is an issue in colleges? Do you really think you are that much better "educated", or otherwise different, than the average college student?

Only in comparison with those with liberal arts degrees.

And she still thought Africa was a country.

And Obama said we had 56 states. Your point?

Are you trying to claim that politicians really don't have to read newspapers or magazines to keep up with current events to "provide a needed service"? That it is typically a good idea for the person one heart attack away from the presidency not be so grossly undereducated, despite somehow getting a journalism degree while playing basketball on scholarship?

How many times has our current vice president put his foot in his mouth?

Do you consider him a scholar? From Bidens wiki:

Biden attended the University of Delaware in Newark, where he was more interested in sports and socializing than in studying

He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts with a double major in history and political science in 1965,[1] ranked 506th of 688 in his class

During his first year there, he was accused of having plagiarized 5 of 15 pages of a law review article. Biden said it was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and he was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was subsequently dropped from his record.

Heh, yeah. :goodjob:

Are you really trying to blithely dismiss her obvious ignorance and total unsuitability for a high political position as a "faux pax"?

I think your're referring to petty issues as a point of contention.

Japanrocks12 · Feb 22, 2011

Formaldehyde said:
So you are going to take this one statement out of context with all my others where I basically said exactly the same thing?

Well no, because this is one statement that I can address in isolation.

The genius of Shakespeare, and any other good writer for that matter, is that he could write to a multitude of different audiences.

No, the genius of a competent writer is that they can write to more than one audience. The genius of a good writer is that they can address themes that transcend differences in audiences. The genius of Shakespeare is that he could dissect the motivations and natures of any audience that he personally ever had, any audience that there has been since his death, and any audience that might crop up in the future.

Formaldehyde · Feb 22, 2011

MobBoss said:
And Obama said we had 56 states. Your point?

And you are comparing an obvious "faux pax" to the willful ignorance of Sarah Palin? :lol:

MobBoss said:
SoI think your're referring to petty issues as a point of contention.

I think you are trying to dismiss obvious gross incompetence as a "point of contention".

Did you watch the Fox News comments above? Even they think she's an idiot who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the presidency.

Japanrocks12 said:
The genius of Shakespeare is that he could dissect the motivations and natures of any audience that he personally ever had, any audience that there has been since his death, and any audience that might crop up in the future.

You mean "genius" is taking my remarks completely out of context and then pretending they are even relevant to what you just stated, while insinuating I couldn't possibly think the same? I don't think so.

Rashiminos · Feb 22, 2011

Formaldehyde said:
I'm certain that was it instead of Shakespeare writing to his audience, as successful writers continue to do today.

The sarcasm would be more spiffy if this statement had contradicted mine. As it is, we could be saying that Shakespeare knew how to turn on the applause sign:

Japanrocks12 · Feb 22, 2011

Formaldehyde said:
You mean "genius" is taking my remarks about a completely different topic and pretending they are even relevant to what you just stated? I don't think so.

When did I ever say that I was a genius :confused:

I used your statement to transition to a new topic that's less frequently discussed and makes for a better discussion anyway.

MobBoss · Feb 22, 2011

Formaldehyde said:
And you are comparing an obvious "faux pax" to the willful ignorance of Sarah Palin?

No, I just think I am far more fair in understanding Obama's gaffe than you are in regards to Palins.

Both are simple gaffes....not 'willful ignorance'. Any other claim other than that is just mean spirited rhetoric.

Rashiminos · Feb 22, 2011

Formaldehyde said:
I think I've had enough of what you apparently think are clever deliberate mischaracterizations of my obvious views.

If there were non-fiction books of religious variety, there would be no problem reading them then, would there. I'm asking questions because I want to know what the correct characterization is. I'm not you (at least I don't think so), so let's not pretend it's obvious for me, or someone else for that matter.

Japanrocks12 said:
No, the genius of a competent writer is that they can write to more than one audience. The genius of a good writer is that they can address themes that transcend differences in audiences. The genius of Shakespeare is that he could dissect the motivations and natures of any audience that he personally ever had, any audience that there has been since his death, and any audience that might crop up in the future.

Now there's something to laugh about. :lol:

Formaldehyde · Feb 22, 2011

MobBoss said:
No, I just think I am far more fair in understanding Obama's gaffe than you are in regards to Palins.

Oh I'm sure you think you are.

You also obviously think there is nothing wrong with Sarah Palin being the president of the United States. :lol:

Japanrocks12 said:
When did I ever say that I was a genius I used your statement to transition to a new topic that's less frequently discussed and makes for a better discussion anyway.

Right. That's why Rashiminos thought it was "something to laugh about". You may not have intended it that way, but it was certainly viewed that way by people who clearly have no desire to actually discuss the issues.

But I agree wholeheartedly with what you stated. That was indeed Shakespeare's true genius which so clearly separated him from most other authors and playwrights. It's just too bad so many Americans are too ignorant to even know why they should still study him.

Japanrocks12 · Feb 22, 2011

Formaldehyde said:
Right. That's why Rashiminos thought it was "something to laugh about".

I would rather be laughing than hitting the same brick wall head first in my discussions over and over again, wouldn't you?

Rashiminos · Feb 22, 2011

Formaldehyde said:
Right. That's why Rashiminos thought it was "something to laugh about".

I thought the statement was amusing, t'is all. I'd have to time travel to verify it.

MobBoss · Feb 22, 2011

Formaldehyde said:
Oh I'm sure you think you are.

I know I am.

You also obviously think there is nothing wrong with Sarah Palin being the president of the United States.

I personally wouldnt vote for her, but if she were legally and duly elected, then what would be wrong with that?

I bet you if she were elected President the world wouldnt end, armageddon wouldnt occur and the nation would still pretty much plug away as it always has.

I mean, come on...we're going to survive Obama arent we? How bad could Palin be? :lol:

Formaldehyde · Feb 22, 2011

Rashiminos said:
I thought the statement was amusing, t'is all. I'd have to time travel to verify it.

You apparently didn't study Shakespeare in high school or college. That's what most people do instead.

MobBoss said:
I know I am.

You wouldn't be you if you didn't think your personal opinions must be "facts".

MobBoss said:
I personally wouldnt vote for her, but if she were legally and duly elected, then what would be wrong with that?

You mean how much could it hurt if another obviously unqualified idiot became president? Like Reagan and GWB?

MobBoss said:
I bet you if she were elected President the world wouldnt end, armageddon wouldnt occur and the nation would still pretty much plug away as it always has.

It certainly wouldn't be due to her if it did.

You claim to be able to see propaganda, which is highly debatable given your posts in this forum. But you apparently have no idea how harmful it actually is.

Rashiminos · Feb 22, 2011

MobBoss said:
How bad could Palin be?

I'm not sure we've put the requisite thought into that. If we go by her view of the world and give her some rope, 4 years can be an awfully long time. How sure is your assessment of her?

cubsfan6506 · Feb 22, 2011

Formaldehyde is so unintentionally ironic it's hilarious.

Formaldehyde · Feb 22, 2011

Did you read the part where Shakespeare is still worth studying even if the average American, who doesn't read but plays XBox games instead due to a short attention span, thinks he is "boring"? Is that "ironic" as well?

Rashiminos · Feb 22, 2011

Formaldehyde said:
Did you read the part where Shakespeare is still worth studying even if the average American, who doesn't read but plays XBox games instead due to a short attention span, thinks he is "boring"? Is that "ironic" as well?

Could be.

Yeekim · Feb 22, 2011

On Shakespeare: even most fascinating and entertaining works can be turned into most boring stuff, once centuries of "literature critics/professors" have had their way with them looking for (inventing) "hidden meanings" and "allusions".

I occasionally read "commented" editions of classics, but I can see how this can be considered "interesting" rather than "entertaining".

Also, there definitely is a sort of "reverse Tom Sawyer effect" at work. I mean, who has ever been advised to read Shakespeare because of its entertainment value? People are forced to read him and then write analyses.

Dachs · Feb 22, 2011

Yeekim said:
Also, there definitely is a sort of "reverse Tom Sawyer effect" at work. I mean, who has ever been advised to read Shakespeare because of its entertainment value? People are forced to read him and then write analyses.

I advise you read Henry IV, Part I based on entertainment value, 'cause Falstaff is great

this is a standing injunction for anybody who pays attention to me

Japanrocks12 · Feb 22, 2011

also read Othello because Iago is a slimy little bastard

aimeeandbeatles · Feb 22, 2011

Yeekim said:
On Shakespeare: even most fascinating and entertaining works can be turned into most boring stuff, once centuries of "literature critics/professors" have had their way with them looking for (inventing) "hidden meanings" and "allusions".

I occasionally read "commented" editions of classics, but I can see how this can be considered "interesting" rather than "entertaining".

Also, there definitely is a sort of "reverse Tom Sawyer effect" at work. I mean, who has ever been advised to read Shakespeare because of its entertainment value? People are forced to read him and then write analyses.

Sometimes reading abridged (like kids' versions) versions of classics is more entertaining as youre not trying to dig up allusions or wotnot in them.

Forget Red vs. Blue -- It's the Educated vs. People Easily Fooled by Propaganda

Off-Topic Overlord

tired of being a man

Both Fair And Balanced

Fool Prophet

tired of being a man

Off-Topic Overlord

Fool Prophet

Both Fair And Balanced

tired of being a man

Fool Prophet

Off-Topic Overlord

Both Fair And Balanced

Fool Prophet

Got u

Both Fair And Balanced

Fool Prophet

Deity

Hero of the Soviet Union

tired of being a man

watermelon

Similar threads