Why people may not help you!

[SailingFan]

You also have to look at what he donates to. Consider his causes, and how they benefit his political and social engineering attempts, then come back and examine how it is generosity or actually purchasing the new world he wants to see...

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by SailingFan

You also have to look at what he donates to. Consider his causes, and how they benefit his political and social engineering attempts, then come back and examine how it is generosity or actually purchasing the new world he wants to see...

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

There is an interesting web site called Haverscope, which lists the income off of all the different black market enterprises in the world, also lists the current prices of AK 47s in different countries etc...

I couldn't find it until I did a search.
It's called havocscope.com

Interesting, to say the least !

[Capt Phil]

This thread reminds me of being awoken one morning around 6:00 am by someone tapping on my hull. Turns out it was a friend who was once moored next to me and who I had helped out daily either monkey wrenching his HC 43 or teaching him how to sail. His new neighbor had a very old Columbia 50 that wouldn't start. The owner was a very nice older gent who had offered to take his grand kids, their families and friends out for a day sail.
Because of my relationship I had with my old neighbor, he felt that I was a mechanical guru (not true, by the way). He asked me to 'have a look ' at the engine of his new neighbor.
So, I got dressed and, we wandered over, tool bag under my arm.
One look at the engine and it was clear it had not been run for probably a couple of years!
Why folks think they can leave mechanical machinery unattended for years and expect it to run like the time they were last out is beyond me!
After checking the usual suspects, fuel, wiring connections, battery level, etc., and finding the starter would not turn over, I asked for a ball pean hammer from my tool bag.
A couple of taps on top of the solenoid, and the motor kicked over and started much to my and everyone else's surprise! I suggested the older gent run the engine up to temp then shut it down and try a restart. If there were continuing problems call a mechanic!
My friend and old neighbor still thinks I can fix anything! If he only knew!
Anyway, walked back to my boat, got undressed and went back to bed...

[captain58sailin]

Yeah thanks, I haven't been to the web site in a long while.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by SailingFan

You also have to look at what he donates to. Consider his causes, and how they benefit his political and social engineering attempts, then come back and examine how it is generosity or actually purchasing the new world he wants to see...

Actually, I don't think we "have to look at" or even that it's anyone else's business, with the eventual exception of St Peter of course. The bottom line is that many, many people are no longer cold or hungry due to his generosity and when we stray into attempting to look into other people's heart/soul to judge their possible motivation for giving, that is an area where none of us are very well qualified. The best we can do is to notice the good they do and say thank-you.

[redhead]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Actually, I don't think we "have to look at" or even that it's anyone else's business, with the eventual exception of St Peter of course. The bottom line is that many, many people are no longer cold or hungry due to his generosity and when we stray into attempting to look into other people's heart/soul to judge their possible motivation for giving, that is an area where none of us are very well qualified. The best we can do is to notice the good they do and say thank-you.

Yes. I'm reminded of Pope Francis when asked about some group or other the Catholic Church didn't approve of. He said "Who am I to judge?" I'm not a Catholic but I think I'll follow this guy's example...

[Caribbeachbum]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Sorry, but I keep going back to actual research. Anecdotes are useful, but really only shows than in human behaviour, nothing is 100%.

You're tilting at windmills ...

Most of the people you're trying to reach probably can't do high-school algebra; they are people who cannot properly explain what an "artifact" is; they are people who cannot define "margin of error." These are people who actually believe their self-selected sample of "no one I ever met" is meaningful as science. They are people who believe that since their hometown had a record low-temperature freeze-over last week, it proves that global warming is bogus. They are people who have probably used the phrase "intellectual elite" as a pejorative in a political argument, as though being ignorant or stupid is somehow superior.

Even so, I for one do appreciate your attempts to educate and be polite and dignified at the same time. I have rarely been able to do either, and almost never both.

Please consider renaming your boat Rocinante, and keep up the good works!

-

[svHyLyte]

Originally Posted by Caribbeachbum

You're tilting at windmills ...

Most of the people you're trying to reach probably can't do high-school algebra; they are people who cannot properly explain what an "artifact" is; they are people who cannot define "margin of error." These are people who actually believe their self-selected sample of "no one I ever met" is meaningful as science. They are people who believe that since their hometown had a record low-temperature freeze-over last week, it proves that global warming is bogus. They are people who have probably used the phrase "intellectual elite" as a pejorative in a political argument, as though being ignorant or stupid is somehow superior.

Even so, I for one do appreciate your attempts to educate and be polite and dignified at the same time. I have rarely been able to do either, and almost never both.

Please consider renaming your boat Rocinante, and keep up the good works!

-

Firstly, dismissing those with whom one disagrees as ignorant what-have-you's doesn't do much to bolster one's argument (as HR Clinton discovered).

Moreover, when empirical evidence base upon a person's own experience/observations is in conflict with the reported results of "expert's" experimentation, most would tend to rely upon their own experience and question the validity of the experiments and/or experimental methods and the resulting outcomes/pronunciations.

If, every time someone steps out of a boat they sink to the bottom, it is hard to convince them that one might walk on water until they "experience" ice (or know where the rocks are), Non?

FWIW...

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Caribbeachbum

You're tilting at windmills ...

Most of the people you're trying to reach probably can't do high-school algebra; they are people who cannot properly explain what an "artifact" is; they are people who cannot define "margin of error." These are people who actually believe their self-selected sample of "no one I ever met" is meaningful as science. They are people who believe that since their hometown had a record low-temperature freeze-over last week, it proves that global warming is bogus. They are people who have probably used the phrase "intellectual elite" as a pejorative in a political argument, as though being ignorant or stupid is somehow superior.

Even so, I for one do appreciate your attempts to educate and be polite and dignified at the same time. I have rarely been able to do either, and almost never both.

Please consider renaming your boat Rocinante, and keep up the good works!

-

Oh no, you mean I've actually been associating with posters on this site who can't properly define the word "artifact?" Say it ain't so!

BTW, you seem to thoroughly misunderstand the term "intellectual elite" because it has nothing much to do with actually being particularly intelligent or well informed and has much more to do with being highly educated (or pretending to be) and that somehow giving you the feeling that you have the right to look down on other people whom you deem to be inferior to your esteemed self, thus the "elite" part of the term. Don't confuse the word "intellectual" as used in the term "intellectual elite" with the dictionary definition of someone actually having great intelligence because it isn't necessarily so. Thanks for providing such a fine example of the attitude the "intellectual elite" are renowned for having.

[SailingFan]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Actually, I don't think we "have to look at" or even that it's anyone else's business, with the eventual exception of St Peter of course. The bottom line is that many, many people are no longer cold or hungry due to his generosity and when we stray into attempting to look into other people's heart/soul to judge their possible motivation for giving, that is an area where none of us are very well qualified. The best we can do is to notice the good they do and say thank-you.

Jt, please look at the context of the discussion I was replying to. It will hopefully allow you to understand what I meant, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with where you went with my statement.

What I said was in reply to someone citing that he was such a great example because he donated to "causes." But they did not consider that with the lack of attention to his motivations, if he were surely so great a philanthropist, they have to extend the same courtesy to any number of historical figures who donated SELECTIVELY to achieve a political end, rather than for the sake of philanthropy, and those ends were not always very good.

I bet Hitler donated to some charity and for sure tossed a coin and bread to the homeless now or then during the rise to and run of his campaigns, even during the war itself, that Stalin thought his "service" to Mother Russia was a donation considering how much MORE he could have pillaged that country going another way, and the Clintons, whom everyone liberal seems to just love, have a charity in play that is everything but (and that may well land one or more of them in prison if any legally operating politician (damned few if any of those around these days) is willing to enforce laws already on the books regarding corruption). Enforced rules are for the peasant folk, it seems.

To simply say that "(x person) donates to charity" or spends money or time on others and therefore is a shining star is ludicrous if no further examination of the case is made. It makes the person who makes that statement either naive, or biased in the extreme to the point of potential stupidity and denial. Perhaps all. That was the point I was making (if that point is not clear enough now, I can further elaborate).

The same actually goes for tracking the source of donated money because stolen and defrauded cash donated to a cause is still ill-gotten gains, thus not the property of the person making the donation. In this case, there are quite few innocents out there, and while it is socially acceptable to many that money is offered to the less fortunate (or lazy in some cases) without tracing the source (or actual use) of the "donated" funds, we have to see things with open eyes and understand motivations if we are to actually have any clue at all about whether it is philanthropy or just "good business", or even outright fraud in progress.

I am all for philanthropy, I am not, however, for selective donation for the purpose of gaining personal advancement (ie. real charity is anonymous), political benefit (gaining support for a stance because you "donated" to a "worthy cause"), or for the purpose of securing a place in history (thus stoking your ego through "charitable contributions" such as the departing US president has been doing). Further, the pocketbook lining that happens under this umbrella is literally revolting to me. Any review of a dictatorship readily reveals this premise, and the application of same for the purpose or power retention, and it angers liberty minded folk readily.

Just donate your efforts and assets as you are able to your fellow human, animal, or the planet (or whatever else) quietly without regard to what it will do for you personally in the tangible sense, and move on. THAT is philanthropy. I offer no praise to folks who brag about how much or often they donate for the motivations listed in the above paragraphs, and I further have no appreciation for efforts of aggrandizement of those individuals simply because they selectively "donated" to causes that further their own personal net worth or political value, or to make their social agenda (one the public cannot stand) move forward no matter which innocents are hurt or "utilized" in the process. True philanthropy is not disingenuous.

Before anyone goes off on the tangent that I have racial or social prejudices, nip it right there. I see all people as people, and actually see all humans as simply members of the animal kingdom. We are only different from other animals in that most of us use intellect and tools to move through our lives, rather than sheer instinct (most of us). My view is if someone is willing to put forth effort, they should reap what they sow. If they are unwilling to do so, they should experience like consequences. If they are unable to put forth like effort through no fault of their own, THAT is what the assistance of charity is for. Simple as that.

Save

[SailingFan]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Oh no, you mean I've actually been associating with posters on this site who can't properly define the word "artifact?" Say it ain't so!

BTW, you seem to thoroughly misunderstand the term "intellectual elite" because it has nothing much to do with actually being particularly intelligent or well informed and has much more to do with being highly educated (or pretending to be) and that somehow giving you the feeling that you have the right to look down on other people whom you deem to be inferior to your esteemed self, thus the "elite" part of the term. Thanks for providing such a fine example of the attitude the "intellectual elite" are renowned for having.

Ok, on THIS we agree!:t humb:

Save

[boatman61]

Most of the people you're trying to reach probably can't do high-school algebra; they are people who cannot properly explain what an "artifact" is; they are people who cannot define "margin of error." These are people who actually believe their self-selected sample of "no one I ever met" is meaningful as science. They are people who believe that since their hometown had a record low-temperature freeze-over last week, it proves that global warming is bogus. They are people who have probably used the phrase "intellectual elite" as a pejorative in a political argument, as though being ignorant or stupid is somehow superior

Artifact... A fact painted to suit an agenda..
Margin of error.. A line drawn without using a ruler..
No one I ever met.. Who are you.???
Intellectual elite.. A sarcastic expression.. usually applied to folks with a love for big words..

[Caribbeachbum]

Originally Posted by svHyLyte

Firstly, dismissing those with whom one disagrees as ignorant what-have-you's doesn't do much to bolster one's argument (as HR Clinton discovered).

Moreover, when empirical evidence base upon a person's own experience/observations is in conflict with the reported results of "expert's" experimentation, most would tend to rely upon their own experience and question the validity of the experiments and/or experimental methods and the resulting outcomes/pronunciations.

If, every time someone steps out of a boat they sink to the bottom, it is hard to convince them that one might walk on water until they "experience" ice (or know where the rocks are), Non?

FWIW...

Your observations might sometimes be valid, but they will never be science. If you believe otherwise, then you are ignorant (though I've no ad hominem "so-and-so" to append to that).

Self-selected sample data is universally bogus. If every time you step out of a boat you sink to the bottom, it's evidence from which your buoyancy can be calculated given all the variables you bring to that step. It provides no otherwise useful data.

Perhaps you should never read any advanced physics. I suspect relativity and quantum mechanics would make your head explode in all the ways that their verifiable predictions fly against the concept of "common sense" and "my experience."

-

[Caribbeachbum]

Originally Posted by SailingFan

Ok, on THIS we agree!:t humb:

Save

It's true. I do look down on people who make no effort to understand science and instead make pronunciations about how things are or ought to be because it's how they (apparently) want things to be. Note carefully that it's the astonishing arrogance and absurd and unearned sense of superiority that I'm contemptuous of; the sense that "I don't need any science to know I'm right." I respect people otherwise regardless of their intellect (or intellectual eliteness).