"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 9/19/13 7:46 PM, jps wrote:

I should have realized this metaphor was too big a leap for the
simpletons in rec.boats.


There is a full handful of righty posters in this newsgroup who cannot
drool unaided.

--------------------------------

The liberal "Intellectuals" chime in and high five each other.

The “Intellectuals�:

The “Intellectuals� are an interesting group of people. They’re
typically your academics, people who have very strong academic
accomplishments, or believe that they do (these can be interchanged).
They often think of themselves as smart people, and associate with
like-minded “smart people.� They’re especially found in Ivy League
colleges, though this phenomenon easily exists in non-Ivy League
schools as well. It extends beyond just the college and university
scene, however; other education institutions have similar groups, and
the media is full of such people.

These people are usually fairly responsible, fairly intelligent, and
are going in a good direction in life- at least academically. However,
all of them fall victim to one trap: they believe that everyone else
is just as responsible and intelligent as them. Thus, they fall into
an ideological world view, which believes that everything can be
perfect, and that cases of “human nature� such as greed simply do not
exist. (This explains why far left liberals supported communism- they
thought people would be happy with “to each according to their
need�…clearly, that did not work)

These people believe that things like abortion should be legal,
because people will be responsible with it, and not take advantage of
it. These people believe that drugs should be legalized, for the same
reasons. These people believe that children should be exposed to sex
and violence (including things that can be seen as the promotion of
them), because children would be responsible with such matters. These
people do not think things on television and mass media should be
regulated, thinking that all people are responsible enough to handle
indecent material. They believe all criminals can be “rehabilitated�
and become responsible like them, and thus they oppose things like the
death penalty. The list goes on and on, but the key thing you must
know about these people: they’re frequently not in touch with reality
itself- they’re like bookworms. They don’t realize the problems in the
world for what they really are, but think they do.

Therefore, they fall victim to an ideological world view which simply
does not work in reality: liberalism.

Everything these intellectuals do now has been done before, in
essence: Karl Marx once presented an ideological leftist world view.
It didn’t work, but it sure sounded great when he presented his
ideology. What looks good on paper may not look good in reality, and
that is one thing the “intellectual left� does not understand.

These people also fundamentally believe they are right, and will
refuse to argue with anyone who they think is of “less merit� than
them; they’re very elitist to a sense, and therefore blindly hold to
their ideology despite any arguments thrown at them. It is Ivy League
arrogance, journalistic elitism, and whatever else you can name, at
its finest.

In article , "Mr.
Luddite" says...

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 9/19/13 7:46 PM, jps wrote:

I should have realized this metaphor was too big a leap for the
simpletons in rec.boats.


There is a full handful of righty posters in this newsgroup who cannot
drool unaided.

--------------------------------

The liberal "Intellectuals" chime in and high five each other.

The ?Intellectuals?:


Oh, please. That "Liberal" piece was just a screed written by a
"Conservative" who fancies himself an "intellectual."
Do you seriously think the two sides don't use the same arguing tactics?
The big difference is that "liberals" will cite people like Voltaire,
Lincoln, and Dostoevsky to "prove" their intellectualism.
"Conservatives" will cite Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.
Both think they are ****ing "intellectuals" and the others are stupid.
jps used a simple metaphor, but it didn't fit and it was a dodge too.
He could have just come out and said "A gun can be very useful."
Then argue the downsides.
But he tied it all up with hammers and nails.
Dishonest argument, IMO.
Best to be honest.

"Boating All Out" wrote in message
...

In article , "Mr.
Luddite" says...

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 9/19/13 7:46 PM, jps wrote:

I should have realized this metaphor was too big a leap for the
simpletons in rec.boats.


There is a full handful of righty posters in this newsgroup who
cannot
drool unaided.

--------------------------------

The liberal "Intellectuals" chime in and high five each other.

The ?Intellectuals?:


Oh, please. That "Liberal" piece was just a screed written by a
"Conservative" who fancies himself an "intellectual."
Do you seriously think the two sides don't use the same arguing
tactics?
The big difference is that "liberals" will cite people like Voltaire,
Lincoln, and Dostoevsky to "prove" their intellectualism.
"Conservatives" will cite Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.
Both think they are ****ing "intellectuals" and the others are stupid.
jps used a simple metaphor, but it didn't fit and it was a dodge too.
He could have just come out and said "A gun can be very useful."
Then argue the downsides.
But he tied it all up with hammers and nails.
Dishonest argument, IMO.
Best to be honest.

-----------------------------

I don't care who wrote it. I think it's funny and an apt descriptor
of at least two liberals in this newsgroup who mock ad nauseam
everyone who do not share their ideology.

That's honest.

In article , "Mr.
Luddite" says...


I don't care who wrote it. I think it's funny and an apt descriptor
of at least two liberals in this newsgroup who mock ad nauseam
everyone who do not share their ideology.

That's honest.

Fair enough. It works if you ever associated those 2 with
"intellectuals."
Guess that thought never entered my mind.
Always saw jps as sincere but naive.
And Krause as an asshole.
No reason to get all complicated about it.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:43:39 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article , "Mr.
Luddite" says...

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 9/19/13 7:46 PM, jps wrote:

I should have realized this metaphor was too big a leap for the
simpletons in rec.boats.


There is a full handful of righty posters in this newsgroup who cannot
drool unaided.

--------------------------------

The liberal "Intellectuals" chime in and high five each other.

The ?Intellectuals?:


Oh, please. That "Liberal" piece was just a screed written by a
"Conservative" who fancies himself an "intellectual."
Do you seriously think the two sides don't use the same arguing tactics?
The big difference is that "liberals" will cite people like Voltaire,
Lincoln, and Dostoevsky to "prove" their intellectualism.
"Conservatives" will cite Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.
Both think they are ****ing "intellectuals" and the others are stupid.
jps used a simple metaphor, but it didn't fit and it was a dodge too.
He could have just come out and said "A gun can be very useful."
Then argue the downsides.
But he tied it all up with hammers and nails.
Dishonest argument, IMO.
Best to be honest.

I've never seen one conservative here site any of the characters to which you refer. Very few of the
conservatives here resort to the name-calling so many of the liberals here fall back on to 'win'
their argument.

With which part of the intellectual liberal definitions do you disagree? We've been told ad nauseam
of the benefits and glories associated with a liberal arts degree from Yale, et al.
--

John H.

Hope you're having a great day!