Should I be tactful, or should I just call this guy (via) a moron?
"Cooksey first heard from the state board just a few days after he attended a diabetic nutritional seminar at a local church. During the question-and-answer session, he expressed his disagreement with the view of the speaker—the director of diabetic services at a nearby hospital—that diabetics can eat anything they want, but should focus on whole-grain carbs and avoid fat. Someone from the seminar filed a complaint with the state board, charging that Cooksey was acting as an unlicensed dietician."Heh, 'somebody.' I'm going to have to think real hard to come up with who.
Insulted a noble.
How do you get through public school without realizing that the anointed are legally immune to criticism? Sure they talk a fine line, but never, ever mean it. There's any number of posts on this blog that would bring 'the process' down on my head, if they're waved in front of the wrong person's nose. None of them are formally illegal, but Cooksey is a moron for acting like that matters.
Of course I'm also a moron.
"That last link, by the way, is exceptionally data-rich, and well worth bookmarking for reference—if you are among the 0.0000001 percent of us who care about data." (Via. I bookmarked, as suggested.)There's a lot of commentary regarding proggies and facts. Or logical consistency. Unprincipled exceptions. Hypocrisy.
Only, it is perfectly normal for human being to ignore facts. Conservatives do it all the time, at any rate. Alt-right version. (Via.) For example, the fact that haranguing proggies about facts has never accomplished anything.
Almost everyone claiming to care about facts or science is trying to pull a fast one on you, and the correct response is laughter and ridicule. (Including scientists; "For no reason I know, works of philosophy are compromised by even a typo in the introduction, but in science you can open with a golden shower anecdote and no one notices." Naturally scientists can't keep up with a philosopher's standards. Most philosophers can't either.)
Similarly, I've earned a lot of ridicule for not testing this assumption earlier. Reality's really had to beat me over the head with this one; looking back, I've had many, many previous opportunities to put this together.
"The facts are clear. This cruel austerity experiment has failed."I'm sorry sir, but I'm not going to take your word as proof that you care about the facts, and I was a fool for ever having done so.
(Link is an utterly predictable propaganda piece. You could write the whole thing yourself given a few disjointed words: SWPL, austerity, Guardian, Greece, facts. But, is it any wonder proggies want to reform Man? That this kind of propaganda is effective certainly makes me want to resign in shame from being human.)
While on the subject of morons, they make gulls (earlier) destructive even without liars.
The ignorant, ignorant of their own deficiency, spout nonsense of various kinds. Gulls believe them. Gulls then vote. The gull's depleted resources are then refilled by skimming the coffers of the responsible and capable. Then we vote again.
You can attack the ignorant for being ignorant, but on average they won't hear about it. However, attack the gullible for being taken in, and they'll likely buy it.
Talking about gulls, how do I know I'm personally gullible? Because I bought the idea that the Enlightenment changed things. Haha, nope. It changed who the nobles were, and changed almost nothing about the lot of the peasants.
Come to think, our rich peasants are credited to science, which is attributed to the Enlightenment. That's probably propaganda. Do I have any evidence it isn't propaganda?
No, instead I have several reasons to believe it is. First, the exponential wealth growth line goes back to at least the Black Death. Second, science clearly worked just fine under monarchy and Christianity. Third, attributing it to the Enlightenment is flattering to the current ruler class.
I agree that science is a prerequisite for more wealth, but the Enlightenment philosophy is not clearly better for science in overall effect. At least, to wring something useful out of it, I had to do serious editing.
I seriously can't think of any anti-propaganda evidence. Weird. I recall forgetting something important here, though.