What is America’s “Achilles heel”

[scrappy]

What is America’s “Achilles heel”? I'd say it’s our polarizing hypocrisy.

 

Americans are an ambiguous species—a population of hypocrites. We tolerate homosexuals but we oppose gay marriage. We embrace the principle of free choice in our democracy but we oppose a woman’s right to reproductive choices. We punish athletes for artificial performance enhancement but we reward beauty queens for artificially enhancing their boobs. We legalize guns, alcohol, gambling, drag racing, and sometimes even prostitution, but we outlaw an innocuous weed that was once used to make rope.

 

America’s ambiguity may be fatal. Indeed our economy is the worst hypocrisy of all. We uphold the free-market principle of Darwinian economics and claim to want to make a better future for our children, and yet our government tries to resuscitate industrial dinosaurs at great cost to future generations.

 

I’ll say one thing for those Islamic nuts who send their women off to blow up themselves along with a bunch of other people: they don’t have much ambiguity, and their occasions of hypocrisy are much less than ours.

 

Question: Will America’s ambiguity and hypocrisy finally do us in? And when will real men have their penises tattooed an augmented with performance-enhancing plastic implants?

[Sisyphus]

IMO, America's greatest strength is the same as its greatest weakness, and that's our irrational overconfidence. A runner up is an enormous sense of entitlement.

[iNow]

The overwhelming predisposition towards religious and pseudoscientific hooey. Case in point: Rejection of evolution.

[Sisyphus]

The overwhelming predisposition towards religious and pseudoscientific hooey. Case in point: Rejection of evolution.

 

I would consider that one manifestation of irrational overconfidence. What could those "experts" know that I don't? My way of thinking must be right. After all, it's mine.

[Moontanman]

Question: Will America’s ambiguity and hypocrisy finally do us in? And when will real men have their penises tattooed an augmented with performance-enhancing plastic implants?

 

You mean every man in the USA doesn't have "Shorty's Esso Service Station Chattanooga Tennessee" tattooed on his penis?

[Mr Skeptic]

IMO, America's greatest strength is the same as its greatest weakness, and that's our irrational overconfidence. A runner up is an enormous sense of entitlement.

 

I'd go with arrogance. Our arrogance in international affairs is going to come back to bite us hard one day.

[padren]

First, you are largely confusing diversity with hypocrisy... and to a lesser degree using your own judgments as a defacto standard to "draw lines" that others place elsewhere:

 

Americans are an ambiguous species—a population of hypocrites. We tolerate homosexuals but we oppose gay marriage.

Largely different groups: Some accept homosexuality as well as gay marriage, others tolerate homosexuals (unless you are in Utah) reluctantly, and oppose gay marriage. A small percentage hold views of both genuine acceptance of gays and opposition to gay marriage - and do so based on views that (while arguably flawed) seem consistent and not hypocritical to the owner.

 

We embrace the principle of free choice in our democracy but we oppose a woman’s right to reproductive choices.

False dichotomy: We have free choice in our democracy but we cannot freely choose to murder, which is how those that oppose abortion feel about the issue. Just because I think they are wrong, doesn't make them hypocrites.

We punish athletes for artificial performance enhancement but we reward beauty queens for artificially enhancing their boobs.

Those competitions measure different things. I do believe the continuing damage to the body done by performance enhancing drugs generally is considered far worse than one-time breast augmentation. If beauty pageants were called 'natural pageants' then it would be hypocritical but they only measure how a woman looks - not how she came to look that way. Your own bias against implants doesn't change the nature of their competition.

 

We legalize guns, alcohol, gambling, drag racing, and sometimes even prostitution, but we outlaw an innocuous weed that was once used to make rope.

Another complex issue. We legalize guns for many reasons (questionable and arguable ones) dating back to the drafting of the Constitution and the second amendment. While it may be based on bad information - marijuana is illegal because it's viewed as far more dangerous than the other items cited, and often argued to "hurt" society at large far more than the others. I personally feel it should be legal, but I'm not 100% sure it's all hypocrisy.

 

America’s ambiguity may be fatal. Indeed our economy is the worst hypocrisy of all. We uphold the free-market principle of Darwinian economics and claim to want to make a better future for our children, and yet our government tries to resuscitate industrial dinosaurs at great cost to future generations.

Again, it's due to diversity that we differ on opinions: Do you really think that the administration's goal is to "resuscitate industrial dinosaurs at great cost to future generations" or that they believe they are trying to protect future generations? Please understand there is a difference between how you feel about an issue, and how those acting view their actions.

 

We also don't uphold "the free-market principle of Darwinian economics" but have always found a middle ground that involves regulation, even when some advocate a far more unfettered economic model.

 

I’ll say one thing for those Islamic nuts who send their women off to blow up themselves along with a bunch of other people: they don’t have much ambiguity, and their occasions of hypocrisy are much less than ours.

All they have is a far more visually homogeneous society - which is probably far more homogeneous internally but also remember minority views are afraid to be shown publicly in those cultures.

Question: Will America’s ambiguity and hypocrisy finally do us in? And when will real men have their penises tattooed an augmented with performance-enhancing plastic implants?

 

What you call ambiguity I call diversity, and yes - it does have a cost. We do spend a lot of energy trying to get "our views" to out-battle "their views" leaving a lot less left over to get anything done when someone wins. But that is far from a weakness - it's a strength in my opinion. While we still get crazy now and then we do have a culture where debate is constant. What we need is for more people to engage in the debate and to become more interested and educated in the issues - not more homogeneous in our views. If we can step up the caliber of our arguments, we'll have the best peer reviewed policies ever conceived. We are not there right now, but it is not hypocrisy that is the issue.

 

 

 

I do have to echo other thoughts here: Arrogance, entitlement, and the concept of a Amero-centric universe are our biggest threats. That, and a strange proclivity to frame issues in black and white when far more nuance is called for.

[GutZ]

False dichotomy: We have free choice in our democracy but we cannot freely choose to murder, which is how those that oppose abortion feel about the issue. Just because I think they are wrong, doesn't make them hypocrites.

 

I disagree, I think it's intellectually dishonest to turn a blind idea of what we know versus a belief. The only argument that there is say god gave species a soul...or is that just humans? regardless...If religion is wrong yes a "child" is dead, BUT there is no evidence to it,,,,NONE. They are willing to take away someone elses rights, in leu if what?

 

Have a good argument like, the argument against murder. There is a fundamental reason behind having laws against murder. What is the fundamental reason behind thinking that composition of biological matter is a soul, alive, and sacred with all the evidence we have discovered? revelant enough to effectively force someone to do something against their will?

[padren]

I disagree, I think it's intellectually dishonest to turn a blind idea of what we know versus a belief. The only argument that there is say god gave species a soul...or is that just humans? regardless...If religion is wrong yes a "child" is dead, BUT there is no evidence to it,,,,NONE. They are willing to take away someone elses rights, in leu if what?

 

Have a good argument like, the argument against murder. There is a fundamental reason behind having laws against murder. What is the fundamental reason behind thinking that composition of biological matter is a soul, alive, and sacred with all the evidence we have discovered? revelant enough to effectively force someone to do something against their will?

 

I never said their argument was sound, just that it was not a matter of hypocrisy. I absolutely agree the basis of their argument is weak and dangerous to base any legal argument on. If they said "It's not like a fetus is a person - but we just don't like the idea of someone having that right" then it would be hypocritical. Instead, they are making an argument that is simply flawed. That said I am sure there are people who do view abortion as something that should be illegal and would definitely take issue with their stance being trivialized as nothing more than "fundy antics" but I think we've covered that debate in the past many times over.

[scrappy]

First, you are largely confusing diversity with hypocrisy... and to a lesser degree using your own judgments as a defacto standard to "draw lines" that others place elsewhere:

 

...

 

I do have to echo other thoughts here: Arrogance, entitlement, and the concept of a Amero-centric universe are our biggest threats. That, and a strange proclivity to frame issues in black and white when far more nuance is called for.

padren, I like your replies to all my points, and I don't wish to dispute them. Moreover, I tend to agree that " Arrogance, entitlement, and the concept of a Amero-centric universe are our biggest threats." However, these are not unrelated to America's hypocrisy and ambiguity, just not as well argued as your points.

 

Whatever our "Achilles heel" is, our "Iliad" seems to be in its final chapter. Our Constitution is suffering from ambiguity and hypocrisy, or at least that's true of our interpretation of it. And even when it's been interpreted unambiguously, such as with Roe v. Wade, there are still institutions that reject the SCOTUS interpretation of that matter, which seems a little un-American to me. Case in point: watch Obama's speech today at Notre Dame and tell me that we Americans are merely "diverse" on this issue of abortion.

[bascule]

America is politically fractious and polarized. The religious right commands a great deal of power in this country, certainly much more so than almost anywhere in Europe. On the flipside you have states like California, which may elect a Republican (in name) but clearly have a more progressive agenda than other areas in the country.

 

America is a chunky stew of vastly different political orientations and because of it we come off as being somewhat politically bipolar.

[padren]

padren, I like your replies to all my points, and I don't wish to dispute them. Moreover, I tend to agree that " Arrogance, entitlement, and the concept of a Amero-centric universe are our biggest threats." However, these are not unrelated to America's hypocrisy and ambiguity, just not as well argued as your points.

First, I just want to say I think everyone has the right to be somewhat hypocritical, just that they should admit they are and understand why others may not be persuaded by hypocritical arguments. The reason I feel that way is that we don't always understand why we feel how we feel. Sometimes we feel a certain way and all the logic we have at our disposal doesn't help - in those cases, it's important to continue to try and reconcile our thoughts and feelings, but it does not unilaterally invalidate our feelings on a topic.

 

What we often see as hypocrisy is actually the result of not understanding the shades of gray that honestly differentiate two issues. To claim for instance, that being "pro death penalty" and "anti abortion" is hypocritical grossly oversimplifies both issues. Even if someone does not have the clarity of mind at the moment to express why they can hold both positions, it does not mean they objectively irreconcilable. It does mean that individual would probably loose a social debate on that topic, but it does not invalidate their own personal feelings on the topic.

 

And just to be clear: I do not think that unreconciled emotional feelings should have much weight in legislation - social policies should be the result of well reasoned logically consistent positions. I only mean to say that it is not inherently wrong to be hypocritical in one's views.

Whatever our "Achilles heel" is, our "Iliad" seems to be in its final chapter. Our Constitution is suffering from ambiguity and hypocrisy, or at least that's true of our interpretation of it. And even when it's been interpreted unambiguously, such as with Roe v. Wade, there are still institutions that reject the SCOTUS interpretation of that matter, which seems a little un-American to me. Case in point: watch Obama's speech today at Notre Dame and tell me that we Americans are merely "diverse" on this issue of abortion.

 

I am unconvinced - every generation has faced a national death by decadence, apathy, and a refusal to adjust to a changing world. Final chapter's do come - as the decline of Rome and the beginning of the Dark Ages attest to, but I don't think it is entirely possible to see it coming when it does, because every generation sees this coming.

 

I am sure doomsayers were decrying the fall of America immediately after the Revolutionary War, up to and after the Civil War, seeing the apocalypse of the "failed experiment" in every boom and bust cycle, pointing to the civil rights unrest and citing the drug crazed youth of the sixties and the threat of the Soviet Empire as evidence that we have since hit our peak - it's all nothing new.

 

Maybe we are there now, and I for one do no see how we can possibly reconcile the issues that currently divide us, but that's part of being in the present in any given moment in history - only when looking back are things obvious.

 

 

 

Lastly - it's come up in other threads, where you state the equivalent of "And even when it's been interpreted unambiguously, such as with Roe v. Wade, there are still institutions that reject the SCOTUS interpretation of that matter, which seems a little un-American to me."

When that sentiment has come up previously, I think it was pretty much universal that you are alone in that position - which is fine, that is your right, but it will probably be universally critiqued, since most people (here at least) will say that is one of our strengths, and that we've always combined a respect for the laws that have been past with decent and focused effort to change those laws that we disagree with - even when decided by the SCOTUS. The fact that we believe that even the highest court in the land can get things wrong allows us to question and improve upon those rulings.

 

While I consider any move to overturn roe vs wade to be a step backward, we have to allow that possibility for us to have the possibility to step forward, such as fundamental changes in our society as impacting as recognizing the right of women to vote. Without descent, one ruling would forever block the potential of future change - as it would suddenly be "un-American" to suggest the court was wrong. This way, any ruling can be questioned, but must be done through vigorous debate. As long as we demand quality debate then future changes should move us forward more often than it moves us backwards, but the flexibility is required for any movement to be possible.

Edited May 18, 2009 by padren

[Mokele]

What is America’s “Achilles heel”?

 

Poor and infrequent use of cremation.

 

All this blather about laws and ethical systems will cease to matter when the dead rise from their graves and eat our brains.

[Pangloss]

Poor and infrequent use of cremation.

 

All this blather about laws and ethical systems will cease to matter when the dead rise from their graves and eat our brains.

 

Actually maybe not so funny when you consider that groundwater runoff is now the leading cause of water pollution, according to a recent episode of Frontline.

[scrappy]

...

Lastly - it's come up in other threads, where you state the equivalent of "And even when it's been interpreted unambiguously, such as with Roe v. Wade, there are still institutions that reject the SCOTUS interpretation of that matter, which seems a little un-American to me."

When that sentiment has come up previously, I think it was pretty much universal that you are alone in that position - which is fine, that is your right, but it will probably be universally critiqued, since most people (here at least) will say that is one of our strengths, and that we've always combined a respect for the laws that have been past with decent and focused effort to change those laws that we disagree with - even when decided by the SCOTUS. The fact that we believe that even the highest court in the land can get things wrong allows us to question and improve upon those rulings.

 

While I consider any move to overturn roe vs wade to be a step backward, we have to allow that possibility for us to have the possibility to step forward, such as fundamental changes in our society as impacting as recognizing the right of women to vote. Without descent, one ruling would forever block the potential of future change - as it would suddenly be "un-American" to suggest the court was wrong. This way, any ruling can be questioned, but must be done through vigorous debate. As long as we demand quality debate then future changes should move us forward more often than it moves us backwards, but the flexibility is required for any movement to be possible.

Hold on there. When a political entity claims that something is or is not constitutional, and when that entity has its day in court, especially the SCOTUS, then that entity has agreed in principle and in fact that a SCOTUS opinion is the definitive judgment on what is or is not constitutional. If said political entity cannot live with that then said political entity does not understand how America’s constitutional republic works.

[iNow]

Hold on there. When a political entity claims that something is or is not constitutional, and when that entity has its day in court, especially the SCOTUS, then that entity has agreed in principle and in fact that a SCOTUS opinion is the definitive judgment on what is or is not constitutional. If said political entity cannot live with that then said political entity does not understand how America’s constitutional republic works.

 

Apparently, it is YOU who does not understand how America's constitutional republic works, as SCOTUS precedent has been overturned repeatedly in our nations relatively short history. SCOTUS rulings are NOT chiseled in stone as you continue to suggest, but they are instead subject to future courts and circumstances, and their previous rulings can be and have been reversed.

 

Perhaps you would like to see what's behind door #2, instead? It's a basic civics lesson brought to you by the members of SFN who find your posts lacking and often based on false premises/faulty logic.

[jackson33]

Scrappy; Not exactly; Briefly the SC or any court for that matter (short of acquittal), judges a case or makes it's decision on Laws, as the case is (important>) presented. While a jury can judge emotionally, those cases can be appealed (if the Judge is not authorized to over rule), often are and decisions reversed. The SC as well can reverse a decision...if something new is argued or that members change or a revised argument turns an opinion.

 

Roe v Wade, was based on 'Women Rights' and if that particular issue was reversed in regards to abortion, then it could lead to further contest saying others rights were not legal under the Constitution. Remember Women/Blacks/Peasants had very few rights, under the original concept of American Law or Governance. This is primarily the reason I do not favor an Amendment, opposing that right of women or in fact what marriage is to recognition (Leaves too many doors open for law). Once an amendment, gone through the process for ratification courts are held to that standard and it's very difficult to change law.

 

Now if in time Abortion shifts to 'Rights of the unborn' or the acceptance that life itself begins from conception, the SC could limit abortion according to a new understanding (when egg fertilized, heart begins to beat or whatever) instead of the third trimester (current limits under R v W). Then a case on behalf of the unborn could reach the SC, a decision altering but not effecting the original intent of Womens Rights but entering the unborn right into the restrictions. All laws are basically restriction to some in the first place. Womens right to vote, for instance limited the power of men to determine elections.

 

IMO; With Birth Control Pills (cycles), Morning After or any number of the contraceptives available there should be no reason for unwanted pregnancies in the first place, certainly not the 1.2 million in the US each year. For women that fear pregnancy or for some reason could not handle pregnancy there are ways to prevent most chance for conception, either to themselves or their mate, even a hysterectomy in severe cases. Since humans do act on impulse, or some misunderstanding of the facts, the few cases will result in unwanted pregnancy and as anytime a persons actions results in unintended consequences that person or persons are and should be held accountable.

 

 

iNow; Please explain to me, under what authority you speak for ALL posters on this forum. "It's a basic civics lesson brought to you by the members of SFN who find your posts lacking and often based on false premises/faulty logic." If you have that authority, at least let us 'no nothings' know a few of the posters your referring to. It continues to confound me WHY your so fiercely opposed to Scrappy, when basically he/she believes in most of exactly what you do....Any faulty logic, I don't see a lot of it, are basic misunderstandings made by most people in the US, IMO including YOU. Every case heard by the SC, most any appeals court (Federal/Civil or Criminal) or through each State Judicial System has any number of qualified graduates in law, fighting the difference in both sides any argument. Are they all then operating on faulty logic, until the decisions are made.

 

Unfortunately you are correct on the SC (in this case)...but may be 1 in 10,000 understands, just what their purpose is in the first place...It's simply the last court of appeals (in any one Case) offered to the US/State Judicial System, but subject to the Congress of the US.

[iNow]

iNow;

<...>

Unfortunately you are correct

Yeah... That's an awful habit of mine, I know.

 

Also, go look up strawman. I never claimed to speak for all posters on this forum, so cheerio, mate.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Our Constitution is suffering from ambiguity and hypocrisy, or at least that's true of our interpretation of it. And even when it's been interpreted unambiguously, such as with Roe v. Wade, there are still institutions that reject the SCOTUS interpretation of that matter, which seems a little un-American to me. Case in point: watch Obama's speech today at Notre Dame and tell me that we Americans are merely "diverse" on this issue of abortion.

 

Scrappy, as per usual, your synopsis on this issue is astoundingly accurate, objective, and fair-minded.

 

Erm... wait a second... That's not what I meant. What's the opposite of accurate, objective, and fair-minded? That's what your synopsis is.

 

 

 

RwJPOfIQKwA

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/In-Praise-of-Fair-Minded-Words-at-Notre-Dame/

The question, then -- the question then is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonetizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

 

And of course, nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

 

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called "The Audacity of Hope." A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life -- but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.

 

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website -- an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose." The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words." Fair-minded words.

 

After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him. And I didn’t change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that -- when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

 

That’s when we begin to say, "Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions."

 

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let’s make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

 

Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

 

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

Edited May 19, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[padren]

Hold on there. When a political entity claims that something is or is not constitutional, and when that entity has its day in court, especially the SCOTUS, then that entity has agreed in principle and in fact that a SCOTUS opinion is the definitive judgment on what is or is not constitutional. If said political entity cannot live with that then said political entity does not understand how America’s constitutional republic works.

 

All that political entity has to do is be willing to abide by the ruling - but is never required to agree with it. For instance, if a case was about who was at fault and had to pay a victim - it would be hypocritical to demand payment upon winning, yet refuse to pay upon loosing.

 

You can continue to bemoan the verdict of course - and honestly, if people didn't continue to challenge issues after SCOTUS rulings, how could we ever improve upon them?

[Pangloss]

Perhaps you would like to see what's behind door #2, instead? It's a basic civics lesson brought to you by the members of SFN who find your posts lacking and often based on false premises/faulty logic.

 

iNow; Please explain to me, under what authority you speak for ALL posters on this forum. "It's a basic civics lesson brought to you by the members of SFN who find your posts lacking and often based on false premises/faulty logic." If you have that authority, at least let us 'no nothings' know a few of the posters your referring to.

 

Also, go look up strawman. I never claimed to speak for all posters on this forum, so cheerio, mate.

 

Well I'm confused because that appears to be exactly what you're doing in that quote. Maybe you can clarify what you meant?

[iNow]

Perhaps you would like to see what's behind door #2, instead? It's a basic civics lesson brought to you by the members of SFN who find your posts lacking and often based on false premises/faulty logic.

iNow; Please explain to me, under what authority you speak for ALL posters on this forum. "It's a basic civics lesson brought to you by the members of SFN who find your posts lacking and often based on false premises/faulty logic." If you have that authority, at least let us 'no nothings' know a few of the posters your referring to.

Also, go look up strawman. I never claimed to speak for all posters on this forum, so cheerio, mate.

 

 

Well I'm confused because that appears to be exactly what you're doing in that quote. Maybe you can clarify what you meant?

Sure thing, mate. Scrappy has REPEATEDLY been corrected on issues of basic civics, and has had his points about our constitutional republic corrected NUMEROUS times in the various threads in which he participates at this site. When people who know better than him choose to correct his misrepresentations/misunderstandings, they do so because they find his posts "lacking and often based on false premises/faulty logic." Which was exactly my point...

 

At no time, and at no place did I presume to speak for the entire community, and so when Jackson33 mistakenly suggested that was my intention, I accurately described his point as a strawman of the position I was actually taking. Now, if you instead want to describe my response as a somewhat aggressive attack/flame/snipe on another members ridiculous point, then perhaps that would be more accurate, but as should be obvious to anyone who has reviewed the quotes above, that's not what Jackson33 said.

 

I sure do hope that clarifies things for everyone.

 

 

The problem with being right all of the time is people tend to think you're pretentious.

[Phi for All]

The problem with being right all of the time is people tend to think you're pretentious.

Yuck.

[scrappy]

Sure thing, mate. Scrappy has REPEATEDLY been corrected on issues of basic civics, and has had his points about our constitutional republic corrected NUMEROUS times in the various threads in which he participates at this site. When people who know better than him choose to correct his misrepresentations/misunderstandings, they do so because they find his posts "lacking and often based on false premises/faulty logic." Which was exactly my point...

…blunt as it my be. There is no substance here; it’s all hyperbolic fluff. It’s equivalent to saying “My bicycle is better than yours because it’s red and yours is blue.”

 

At no time, and at no place did I presume to speak for the entire community, and so when Jackson33 mistakenly suggested that was my intention, I accurately described his point as a strawman of the position I was actually taking. Now, if you instead want to describe my response as a somewhat aggressive attack/flame/snipe on another members ridiculous point, then perhaps that would be more accurate, but as should be obvious to anyone who has reviewed the quotes above, that's not what Jackson33 said.

 

I sure do hope that clarifies things for everyone.

Yeah, like a mud bath with a hippopotamus.

 

The problem with being right all of the time is people tend to think you're pretentious.

Now, how could I disagree with that?

[John Cuthber]

This thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40807

is about the potential requirement that cars achieve 42MPG.

And it contains people genuinely saying they think it's impossible, but being answered by (mainly) Europeans saying that you can just go to the shop and buy a car that does roughly twice that.

Is that an example of one of America's problems?

[Pangloss]

One or more infractions have been issued in this thread. iNow, those are not your determinations to make. Both of you (scrappy and iNow) move on from this now.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Pangloss