Comment Re:Make it so. (Score 1) 867
"Good guys always win. Bad guys always lose." It's fundamental.
Unfortunately, you don't find out which side you were on until after it's all over.
"Good guys always win. Bad guys always lose." It's fundamental.
Unfortunately, you don't find out which side you were on until after it's all over.
Engineering student here. Put most engineers in a room and you'll hear us slamming each other's education and ideas all the time. Heck, hang out long enough and you'll hear us admit our own stupidity equally often. The difference is that we have to be able to accept a valid counterposition without taking it personally. We deal with the physical world. If we're wrong, the bridge falls down, the building collapses, or some poor schmuck gets electrocuted. We understand that not everyone has either the inclination or the ability to grind through a rigorous STEM curriculum. Our disdain is reserved for those who refuse to admit they are wrong, refuse to learn from mistakes, and who are absurdly proud of their cultivated ignorance. What would I think about someone who considered me a dumbfuck? Happens all the time.....I'll listen to their position, define my own position, test their reasoning (this is what most laymen consider arrogance), and if their logic holds up, will say "Yep, you're right, I"m a dumbfuck". Of course, having admitted this and learned from the experience, I will no longer be a dumbfuck. Unfortunately too many people would rather feel good than say "I am wrong." I sincerely hope I never have to drive across a bridge designed by someone who can't admit to and correct a flaw because it makes them feel inferior.
Food for thought: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Isaac Asimov
Yours is a very interesting post, and while I completely agree with the sentiment (and your logic), this being slashdot I've decided to throw in my own two cents.
If I summarize your chain of reasoning correctly, you argue that IF ("anybody who dismisses another's ideas and/or beliefs, regardless of their rationale for doing so, is guilty of succumbing to their own biases" is PRESUMED TRUE), THEN ("it's all relative, there is no such thing as truth").
However, you neglected to define "truth". Both you, and the OP can be "correct" if "TRUTH" is a variable indicating the frame of reference of the person. You obviously intend this reference point to be the physical, quantifiable system with which we interact via the senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. It is possible, however, for the contrary position to define "TRUTH" to be an arbitrary (even imaginary) spriritual reference, in which case your chain of logic does not necessarily refute the OP. I believe this is the core argument of many theologists (the "temporal" world is temporary and dependent upon the theologically-accepted definition of "TRUTH". In this case, all viewpoints are both equally valid and invalid as all viewpoints are completely arbitrary (defining Validity as a function of "TRUTH").
The underlying premise of your refutation, is therefore NOT that the OP defined relative bias incorrectly, but rather that he used a reference point that you did not recognize. Instead, you should argue that the only value of "TRUTH" that is universally understood (i.e. "proven" - a value exists for:)d is that of the physical senses in the temporal world. Other values of "TRUTH" may or may not exist, and as such cannot be used to derive Validity without first having 'proven' their existence.
But the Civil War musket was rifled, which made an enormous difference. It was still a muzzle-loader, but it had much more accuracy and a far longer range than the old smoothbore
Taken from ahref=http://www.civilwarhome.com/civilwarweapons.htmrel=url2html-3234http://www.civilwarhome.com/civilwarweapons.htm>. I'd dig up more references but it's late and I'm lazy. You are correct that (especially in the south) weapon issue was uncommon, but most "home" weapons were rifled - even if muzzle loading (muskets are useless for hunting which is what many of these home weapons were used for in peacetime). Rifled barrel == rifle with all the accuracy increases that warranted the aforementioned change in tactics.
You are correct sir, in that the concepts I attribute to Aristotle are not specifically stated in such concise form in Politics. However I ask that you reread your linked text with an eye toward the bigger picture. With a great deal more complexity (as befits a thinker of his reputation), he discusses the realities of each genre of government: rule by a man, rule by a group, rule by all. As he considers the complexities of each genre, he begins to blur their boundaries. One of the most literal transitions can be seen in the transition between sections 13 and 14 where he discusses the ostracism of Heracles (an iconic aristocrat - "better" person). Discussing the decisions of the mob (e.g. the crew of the Argos - the 'democracy' currently in power), Aristotle asks
when used against some one who is pre-eminent in virtue- what is to be done with him?
With that, begins the discussion of Royalty/Monarchy. Other such transitions are evident in his analysis, however I leave it to you to find them. I am hardly the first reader of Politics to see this cycle within his arguments although I do applaud your familiarity with the text. While not literal, the discussion of the political cycle is a common interpretation of this work, enough so to be introduced as such in many Political Science courses.
Wherever you go...There you are. - Buckaroo Banzai