# Hypocritical



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I find it very hypocritical. Many members complained about the certain topics being discussed in GC. They still participate in those topics when they are started in GC. They even start them there themselves.


Many of you don’t understand what is allowed in the dark forums that causes many of us to prefer to be able to discuss these topics in other forums. Calling individuals or political groups idiots and other such things is allowed all the time. I would like to be able to discuss a political topic with out being called a libertard or religious people being called stupid in the thread tiltle.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

After seeing a lot of the comments in some recent threads, I understand your views completely. HT is like a microcosm of the USA right now, wherein people who have a stated creed of behavior or belief just throw it away, willy-nilly, in order to fight tooth and nail over their favorite politician, who, by the way, doesn't care at all about them. 

I completely understand your position. However, just review, in your mind, the last few days of overcharged threads. The equanimity you seek will not be found here. Period.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

This is not the only forum on the world wide web ..


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I agree Clem. I believe though that a few are working hard to get any civil conversation moved because either they can't control themselves and want things to degrade.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

M5farm said:


> This is not the only forum on the world wide web ..


No it is not. However I know and enjoy for the most part, the members here. I have interacted with them for years and want that to continue.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I agree Clem. I believe though that a few are working hard to get any civil conversation moved because either they can't control themselves and want things to degrade or they are doing it out of spite.


It ain't one sided as you know.
I'd like to be able to discuss topics without being told to educate myself, being accused of hating children or mocked for my opinion.
Maybe we can all do better?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife, I enjoy your comments. I prefer to avoid hot topics here yet if we hold values and beliefs, sometimes comments merit a response. After all, it is what we hold to be true that is valued. Sometimes motives are questionable. I have no desire to bait or enflame and I prefer to discuss topics. Once the name calling and snip starts a mod should get on top of things, but they aren't omniscient and shouldn't have to be. If GC is going to dominate HT, then change the name, don't keep telling folks to ignore what is becoming the post making monster here.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> It ain't one sided as you know.
> I'd like to be able to discuss topics without being told to educate myself, being accused of hating children or mocked for my opinion.
> Maybe we can all do better?


I agree we can all do better.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I agree we can all do better.


We agree.
Who'da thunk it?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I find it very liberating to accept the fact that none of us can change how others act or what they do. We can only change ourselves and control how we react to others' actions. Perhaps you could try that?
Rationalization is a powerful human emotion. Perhaps the most powerful human emotion. It allows some to throw out evil barbs at others, while complaining about the evil barbs of others.
Take a look at the platform of Liberals and the platform of conservatives. If you want to promote one of those topics or be critical of those topics, you should understand that it is both polarizing and political.
What I have observed in GC is topics presented that depict an extreme viewpoint with an expectation that opposing viewpoints will not attempt to derail that viewpoint.
What you see as non-political might be seen as political by others. The opposite is true, too.
If you wanted, for example, to blame NRA for murder, a reply of " NRA or Planned Parenthood. Which one sells arms?" might be viewed as politically charged. While others see the point as logical.
If you want to add to General Chat, remind yourself of the second word, chat. If you wouldn't raise the topic while standing in line at the grocery store or with a stranger seated nearby at a local coffee shop, then it isn't chat, IMHO.
If you go to GC as a place you can insult half of the nation, without fear that those offended will show restraint, you are using GC rules as your shield.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> painterswife, I enjoy your comments. I prefer to avoid hot topics here yet if we hold values and beliefs, sometimes comments merit a response. After all, it is what we hold to be true that is valued. Sometimes motives are questionable. I have no desire to bait or enflame and I prefer to discuss topics. Once the name calling and snip starts a mod should get on top of things, but they aren't omniscient and shouldn't have to be. If GC is going to dominate HT, then change the name, don't keep telling folks to ignore what is becoming the post making monster here.


I ignore the posts I don't want to participate in. GC has been an important part of HT for many years. Many of the old timers are very interested in politic and other hot topic things. Keeping them here with a well rounded forum means they are visiting often enough so that they can answer the homesteading topics as well. Singletree does the same thing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

haypoint said:


> I find it very liberating to accept the fact that none of us can change how others act or what they do. We can only change ourselves and control how we react to others' actions. Perhaps you could try that?
> Rationalization is a powerful human emotion. Perhaps the most powerful human emotion. It allows some to throw out evil barbs at others, while complaining about the evil barbs of others.
> Take a look at the platform of Liberals and the platform of conservatives. If you want to promote one of those topics or be critical of those topics, you should understand that it is both polarizing and political.
> What I have observed in GC is topics presented that depict an extreme viewpoint with an expectation that opposing viewpoints will not attempt to derail that viewpoint.
> ...


Okay. I understand where you are coming from. Let's take the thread you started today in GC on tariffs. That is political. No matter how nice the discussion is it is still political and should be moved if we are following the rules. Why did you start it in GC?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I ignore the posts I don't want to participate in. GC has been an important part of HT for many years. Many of the old timers are very interested in politic and other hot topic things. Keeping them here with a well rounded forum means they are visiting often enough so that they can answer the homesteading topics as well. Singletree does the same thing.


I agree. Why can't we get back to a General Chat forum where everyone has good advise and agrees with me all the time? Is that what you seek? Sounds great to me, too.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

I thought the rules against name calling were being enforced so that those types of name calling were stopped? All anyone had to do was report the incidents.

And I see threads are also just disappearing again. Some moved, some just gone.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Okay. I understand where you are coming from. Let's take the thread you started today in GC on tariffs. That is political. No matter how nice the discussion is it is still political and should be moved if we are following the rules. Why did you start it in GC?


Because I see it as an economical issue. But if someone takes it from economic to " That awful, hateful President Trump is ruining the country" or " Finally, we have a president willing to restore America after Clinton and Obama cut awful trade deals" then I becomes political.
My point on the tariffs was that it isn't going to be costly to US citizens and why. Just as Stock Market comments aren't political, by themselves.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

haypoint said:


> I agree. Why can't we get back to a General Chat forum where everyone has good advise and agrees with me all the time? Is that what you seek? Sounds great to me, too.


Good advice does not mean you have to agree. In fact often it comes from someone that does not agree.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

The reason there was a dark room in the 1st place was because of complaints by people who didn't even post in Politics. When someone displayed new posts, they saw comments made in Politics, as well as other forums, and some people complained about the language, subject, etc. I guess the only way to hide Politics from being viewed in New Posts was to move it to a forum that required a person join to access the posts.

I quit going to the dark room years ago because some viewed it as a place where it was OK to attack and insult other members. The same thing is happening now in Chat. I would love to have serious discussions on serious topics, but it sure looks like it isn't going to happen.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> The reason there was a dark room in the 1st place was because of complaints by people who didn't even post in Politics. When someone displayed new posts, they saw comments made in Politics, as well as other forums, and some people complained about the language, subject, etc. I guess the only way to hide Politics from being viewed in New Posts was to move it to a forum that required a person join to access the posts.
> 
> I quit going to the dark room years ago because some viewed it as a place where it was OK to attack and insult other members. The same thing is happening now in Chat. I would love to have serious discussions on serious topics, but it sure looks like it isn't going to happen.


I want the same thing. The dark room is off the deep end and I prefer posts where entire political parties or religious groups are not belittled or insulted.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I want the same thing. The dark room is off the deep end and I prefer posts where entire political parties or religious groups are not belittled or insulted.


Wouldn't that be something?


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Why is there such a struggle with rules, what exactly is and isn't allowed to be posted on which forums And who
can post. Who mods each forum, who deleted what thread and why, exact definitions of terms.

I just don't see so much power struggle I other forums. It's kind of wierd to me.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Subjective. That word says it all.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> Wouldn't that be something?


Be the change you want to see...lol


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Because you're talking to a bunch of people who are probably high school dropouts.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Because you're talking to a bunch of people who are probably high school dropouts.


Exactly the kind of post that does nothing to elevate the conversation. Feel free to delete it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> Because you're talking to a bunch of people who are probably high school dropouts.


Thanks for helping. 

I guess I’d like to see some of the “transparent” moderation. Posts disappear without comment. Threads are moved or closed and deleted with no one publicly being told why. It’s hard to figure out the standards for behavior when those standards aren’t publicly enforced.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I knew a whole lot of people who were extremely intelligent and well-read, yet had to quit school in order to get a job and help feed the family. Everybody don't sleep on a bed of gilded lilies


Heritagefarm said:


> Because you're talking to a bunch of people who are probably high school dropouts.


.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

I'm a hypocrite, I do things I don't want my kids or grandkids to do. So what, I still like me


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

oneraddad said:


> I'm a hypocrite, I do things I don't want my kids or grandkids to do. So what, I still like me


Hey, I know you and still like you. Does that mean I'm like a hippycrit-in-law or something?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yes, I can also be a hypocrite. Definitely not perfect. Just a bit irritated with all those who railed non stop about having no politics in GC and kept reporting threads but can't seem to stop them selves from participating in those threads in GC.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

coolrunnin said:


> Be the change you want to see...lol


Good advice for all


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Good advice does not mean you have to agree. In fact often it comes from someone that does not agree.


Exactly! That was my point. A discussion where everyone agrees dies early. A discussion where hot button topics are the topic escalate rapidly.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Exactly! That was my point. A discussion where everyone agrees dies early. A discussion where hot button topics are the topic escalate rapidly.


We can be passionate about a subject but not get derogatory.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> We can be passionate about a subject but not get derogatory.


Was it you who referred to someone as a dolt or something along those lines?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Yes, I can also be a hypocrite. Definitely not perfect. Just a bit irritated with all those who railed non stop about having no politics in GC and kept reporting threads but can't seem to stop them selves from participating in those threads in GC.


Today, you seem focused on Politics in GC. But there were just as many problems with other hot button topics in GC. A couple folks would start a highly charged topic on GC and then when there was opposition expressed, start in with the name calling. Then the discussion would spin out of control. The thread would go to Dark Room to die.
I start a discussion about the NEWS reports of economic disaster due to tariffs. But you jump on it for being about politics. I believe if someone that you generally agree with had started that thread expressing how the tariffs were about to send us into a Great Depression, you'd be just fine with it. Sort of like folks that want to be the spelling police or grammar cops, some critique the posts of others to belittle them. Picking on people becomes more important than the topic at hand.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Was it you who referred to someone as a dolt or something along those lines?


Feel free to prove that statement.


----------



## Bret (Oct 3, 2003)

oneraddad said:


> I'm a hypocrite, I do things I don't want my kids or grandkids to do. So what, I still like me


Good work. Me too.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> We can be passionate about a subject but not get derogatory.


Darn right. We just need all those high school dropouts from saying stupid stuff.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Today, you seem focused on Politics in GC. But there were just as many problems with other hot button topics in GC. A couple folks would start a highly charged topic on GC and then when there was opposition expressed, start in with the name calling. Then the discussion would spin out of control. The thread would go to Dark Room to die.
> I start a discussion about the NEWS reports of economic disaster due to tariffs. But you jump on it for being about politics. I believe if someone that you generally agree with had started that thread expressing how the tariffs were about to send us into a Great Depression, you'd be just fine with it. Sort of like folks that want to be the spelling police or grammar cops, some critique the posts of others to belittle them. Picking on people becomes more important than the topic at hand.


I think that post should have stayed there but it was political and against the rules. I want the rules to change. I don't expect that to happen but I am voicing my opinion.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

haypoint said:


> *A discussion where everyone agrees dies early.* A discussion where hot button topics are the topic escalate rapidly.


Not always true... I enjoy several other places on the internet where incredibly huge threads of all kinds (hot topics included) are created from dozens of like-minded contributors. It is fascinating to watch the thread evolve over many days from a single topic to related topics that branch off into other threads that also grow from like-minded and unlike-minded ones. All without a single snarky word, or veiled insults. Amazing! (Big secret: those who habitually persist in that kind of antisocial behavior are given the boot after a few warnings.)



.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I think that post should have stayed there but it was political and against the rules. I want the rules to change. I don't expect that to happen but I am voicing my opinion.


See, we can't even agree on what is economic and what is political and you want to take the time to argue about it without adding anything to either thread.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

haypoint said:


> See, we can't even agree on what is economic and what is political and you want to take the time to argue about it without adding anything to either thread.


Did I argue? Or did I state my opinion? It can be both economic and political.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Feel free to prove that statement.


Wasn’t a statement, it was a question. But asking to prove it rather than saying no says it all right there. That thread was moved or deleted. Have a great day.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Wasn’t a statement, it was a question. But asking to prove it rather than saying no says it all right there. That thread was moved or deleted. Have a great day.


No you accused me of something. You should prove it.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Was it you who referred to someone as a dolt or something along those lines?


Here is what I said. I asked if it was you, I didn’t say it was you. It was a simple question, your defensiveness of the QUESTION is answer enough.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Here is what I said. I asked if it was you, I didn’t say it was you. It was a simple question, your defensiveness of the QUESTION is answer enough.


I have nothing to defend. It was your implication. Nice to know that you were wrong.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> I have nothing to defend. It was your implication. Nice to know that you were wrong.


Didn’t imply anything, I asked if it was you. If I was wrong you could have simply said it wasn’t me but instead you say prove it and say I accused you of it. No worries.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Did I argue? Or did I state my opinion? It can be both economic and political.



When you stated your opinion to BFF about buying guns from out of state, I think after the second or third reply you were just arguing.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

painterswife said:


> No you accused me of something. You should prove it.



This is about to turn into an argument


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

What a bunch of hypocrites


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> When you stated your opinion to BFF about buying guns from out of state, I think after the second or third reply you were just arguing.


I don't think we were discussing that when I asked the question about arguing. Nor have I denied that I have argued in other threads.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

So, I'm discussing it, you don't have to respond back. Well, unless you wanna argue


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> So, I'm discussing it, you don't have to respond back. Well, unless you wanna argue


Curious what your definition of arguing is.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Anything after 3-4 times you've stated your opinion is just arguing. I hate it when someone keeps repeating themself as if I didn't them the first time.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

painterswife said:


> I agree Clem. I believe though that a few are working hard to get any civil conversation moved because either they can't control themselves and want things to degrade.


Try to see it from their point. 
They like being able to trash talk everything and everyone their desire to do that is what removed those topics from general chat. 
When they see an interesting topic in general chat they are immediately outraged that they cannot be out rages so they push it to the edge so it is sent to the dark room where they can be out rages. 
They don’t want to miss out on anything and they can’t seem to control themselves in polite company.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Like us now, there's really no point to what we're discussing, we're just arguing


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> Like us now, there's really no point to what we're discussing, we're just arguing


Why are you posting if you believe there is no point in this?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Because I don't think you know what you're doing so I'm pointing it out. 

If your young kids were doing this in the backseat you'd tell them to stop arguing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> Because I don't think you know what you're doing so I'm pointing it out.
> 
> If your young kids were doing this in the backseat you'd tell them to stop arguing.


So there is a point to this discussion. Your point.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

oneraddad said:


> Because I don't think you know what you're doing so I'm pointing it out.
> 
> If your young kids were doing this in the backseat you'd tell them to stop arguing.


I’m pulling this car over right 
now!


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

She started it !!!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Exactly the kind of post that does nothing to elevate the conversation. Feel free to delete it.


I don't see why? Its well known that high school dropouts are generally much lower in intellect than those who go on to pursue degrees. Those without degrees will be quick to defend their stance, and sometimes it's a valid point, as I could see myself making a tidy income off various activities unrelated to my degree. 

However we need to be having a national conversation about our educational dysfunction that results in masses of people who are willing to vote for womanizing, genital grabbing conmen, and why we have the 13 or 27th worst education system in the developed world, why 26 states don't have sex education, and why there's no national curriculum, for critical thinking, etc. All this should be discussed so we don't wind up with debate-quelling tactics such as suggesting people delete comments that make them uncomfortable, instead of being rational adults capable of dealing with disagreements in an ethical manner.



Clem said:


> I knew a whole lot of people who were extremely intelligent and well-read, yet had to quit school in order to get a job and help feed the family. Everybody don't sleep on a bed of gilded lilies
> 
> 
> .


It's not so much gilt and cushioning, such as with income level, but the richness of the mind that results in ethical, well-rounded people who can coordinate with each other in a democratically responsible manner.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

You should expect some controversy if you post a controversial topic.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I'm sure that in your age group, nobody has to quit school to pull tobacco. And good on ya, and your peers. However, it was a whole lot different in the 50's and 60's, and to my knowledge there were no student loan and Pell grant programs around that you could get free money from to pay for daddy's funeral. 

It's OK to feel fortunate, but so very few do. And it's despicable to feel arrogant, yet so very many do.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> You should expect some controversy if you post a controversial topic.


I am all for controversy. I love finding out what and why people believe certain things. Controversy does not have to devolve to name calling and generalization of certain groups.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I am all for controversy. I love finding out what and why people believe certain things. Controversy does not have to devolve to name calling and generalization of certain groups.


Self titled album.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> I am all for controversy. I love finding out what and why people believe certain things. Controversy does not have to devolve to name calling and generalization of certain groups.


But then call them idiots when you don’t agree? You seem real interested.....


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

Education is a state determined entity, only where Fed funds are involved does the Fed gov have any say. Check back to Constitution if you need to refresh your knowledge.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

oneraddad said:


> She started it !!!


And I’m ending it!


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

When I was a boy into early adulthood, I would go to the country store and listen to the farmers on ad weather days as they discussed various things. Most of them finished 8th grade. Some finished high school. A few attended college. I was amazed at what I learned by sitting quietly in the background and listening.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

It sure was nice after the temper tantrum and swan song 2.0. But it just didn't last long enough. Maybe 3.0 won't be to far off!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

nchobbyfarm said:


> It sure was nice after the temper tantrum and swan song 2.0. But it just didn't last long enough. Maybe 3.0 won't be to far off!


What are you talking about?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

HDRider said:


> What are you talking about?


The quiet being over.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> Because you're talking to a bunch of people who are probably high school dropouts.



Careful there. My father was a high school drop out and I would put him up against anyone that thinks they have a higher IQ.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> It's not so much gilt and cushioning, such as with income level, but the richness of the mind that results in ethical, well-rounded people who can coordinate with each other in a democratically responsible manner.


Just remember.....you said it. Not me.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Clem said:


> I'm sure that in your age group, nobody has to quit school to pull tobacco. And good on ya, and your peers. However, it was a whole lot different in the 50's and 60's, and to my knowledge there were no student loan and Pell grant programs around that you could get free money from to pay for daddy's funeral.
> 
> It's OK to feel fortunate, but so very few do. And it's despicable to feel arrogant, yet so very many do.


Thats what happened to my father. It wasnt tobacco but it was oilfield.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> *I find it very hypocritical*. Many members complained about the certain topics being discussed in GC. They still participate in those topics when they are started in GC. They even start them there themselves.


I find this thread ironic.

Report them if you don't like them.

You're big on reporting and "following the rules", so just practice what you preach and your problem is solved.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

What I see often here is some holding a grudge for long times. I think we should be able to have our arguments and then move on. To bring up something someone said last year that made you mad is counter productive.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I agree Clem. I believe though that a few are working hard to get any civil conversation moved because either they can't control themselves and want things to degrade.


Then just stop doing it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> The dark room is off the deep end and *I* *prefer posts where entire political parties or religious groups are not belittled *or insulted.


Does Disney Land have a forum?



Heritagefarm said:


> Because you're talking to a bunch of people who are probably high school dropouts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I have nothing to defend. It was your implication. Nice to know that you were wrong.


What happened to "We can all do better"?


----------



## ThistleMary (Mar 29, 2013)

I'm a relative novice here. What happened to the thread, "Autopsy on Marjorie Stoneham Douglas" thread?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ThistleMary said:


> I'm a relative novice here. What happened to the thread, "Autopsy on Marjorie Stoneham Douglas" thread?


It was moved to the dark forum.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

mreynolds said:


> Careful there. My father was a high school drop out and I would put him up against anyone that thinks they have a higher IQ.


Yes, but you should point out the fallacy of small sample size. Receiving a well rounded education that results in a sophisticated person capable of engaging responsibly and ethically in a society is the primary motivation behind public education. If you motivation behind your assertions are that anyone can be a high school dropout and that this is fine for a productive society, you would be quite wrong and engaging in a form of intellectual simplicity common with Americans. If on the other you are saying that occasionally, people unfortunately do not make it through high school but are still capable of becoming rational, ethical, and productive members of society, then that is a fair point. 

Again, I notice most people who defend the uneducated are themselves quite ignorant in many fashions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Again, I notice most people who defend the uneducated are themselves *quite ignorant* in many fashions.


I notice those who *think* they are "educated" are truly the most ignorant.



Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, but you should point out the *fallacy of small sample size*.


You're a sample of one aren't you?


----------



## hardrock (Jun 8, 2010)

* Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects? *
Hats off to Will Rogers.

Everybody knows 'nothing' about 'something' and that's as profound a statement as anyone ever made!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

hardrock said:


> * Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects? *
> Hats off to Will Rogers.
> 
> Everybody knows 'nothing' about 'something' and that's as profound a statement as anyone ever made!


It is a profound statement, unless it's used as an excuse for ignorance, in which case no, it's not profound.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Calling individuals or political groups idiots and other such things *is allowed* all the time. I would like to be able to discuss a political topic with out being called a libertard or religious people *being called stupid in the thread tiltle*.


It's not "allowed" by the rules.
It's done by individuals.
It's often not reported so nothing is done about it.

Doesn't your title call some "hypocrites"?
Is that better really different from or better than "stupid"?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "allowed" by the rules.
> It's done by individuals.
> It's often not reported so nothing is done about it.
> 
> ...


I believe the word used at one point was dolt.


----------



## hardrock (Jun 8, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> It is a profound statement, unless it's used as an excuse for ignorance, in which case no, it's not profound.


Or it's used as an excuse for intelligence, in which case no, it's not profound.
Some times, education exceed ones intellect.

My FIL has a doctorate in mathematics, brilliant, WW2 hero, medals too, school administrator for many years, raised a great family, an expert in early radar used in the war and civilian applications, and he always had a constant need to learn more.
Seems the more he knew, the more he realized he didn't know.
I don't have that much education or experiences and probably, neither do you.

When I met him, he didn't speak of how much he was educated. He found out from me, I was an amateur radio operator and I had the highest license available at the time.
It gave him another thing he could learn about, without telling me how stupid I was.
We had some great times I will remember always.

Sorry if I judge folks by those standards.


ETA, I'm sure that will be covered before you graduate.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

hardrock said:


> Or it's used as an excuse for intelligence, in which case no, it's not profound.
> Some times, education exceed ones intellect.
> 
> My FIL has a doctorate in mathematics, brilliant, WW2 hero, medals too, school administrator for many years, raised a great family, an expert in early radar used in the war and civilian applications, and he always had a constant need to learn more.
> ...


Yes, that sounds like an impressive person, and I aspire to be like those people. I've never modeled myself after the "famous" people, who often seem to be famous... because they're famous? Bleh.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't see why? Its well known that high school dropouts are generally much lower in intellect than those who go on to pursue degrees.


 Really ? Do you have any proof of this ?
I’ve always heard that stupid people needed degrees because they couldn’t make it on their own. 
It doesn’t seem to be a either/or question either since many dropouts eventually get a degree. 

A degree seems to be a pass to make huge mistakes.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I participated in political threads started by others and even started one of my own a couple of days ago so I’m guessing I’m the target here, or one of them.

Nope. I still think it’s a bad idea to have on GC.

However, if they are here and something catches my eye, I still might chime in. Temptation is a terrible thing. 

It’s up to admin and the mods to enforce.

If you think I’m a hypocrite....whatever.

As you say, you are clearly one too.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Really ? Do you have any proof of this ?
> I’ve always heard that stupid people needed degrees because they couldn’t make it on their own.
> It doesn’t seem to be a either/or question either since many dropouts eventually get a degree.
> 
> A degree seems to be a pass to make huge mistakes.


That's so much disinformation that I don't know where to start. Ultimately it proves my point, though.


----------



## hardrock (Jun 8, 2010)

Let's just all be a little nicer, K?
Not totally, just some.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

A thread calling people names complaining about calling people names.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> A thread calling people names complaining about calling people names.


Please point out where I called anyone a name. I did post about an action that was hypocritical.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Please point out where I called anyone a name. I did post about an action that was hypocritical.


The title is calling people names. It is amazing how this is lost on you.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> The title is calling people names. It is amazing how this is lost on you.


Sorry you can't tell the difference between an action and name calling.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Are you really sorry or just being mean, I can't tell ?


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I'm really sorry. At least, that's what most people say.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> Are you really sorry or just being mean, I can't tell ?


I would say maybe more disappointed that posters that I know are intelligent, equate calling someone a libertard or dolt with discussing something people did.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Sorry you can't tell the difference between an action and name calling.


If a person performs the act of being hypocritical, then would that not make them a hypocrite?

See,,, this is how all this stuff goes sideways. You either veil your insults, or simply deny they are insults, but they are nonetheless. Then you go tattle when someone replies in kind, claiming the moral high ground undeservingly. 

You do it over and over. Then cry about it when it gets done back at you.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

If you're not a hypocrite then you're a liar, pick your poison.


----------

