I almost got hit by a car Saturday night in Bayers Lake while trying cross the road to get to the bus shelter. Nothing new there. No matter how much eye contact I make with drivers, how many times I look both ways before crossing the road, or how many times I yell ‘please don’t hit me’ to drivers who are obviously not paying attention to what is in front of them, it doesn’t matter. I nearly get hit once a week. Now when I say I nearly get hit I do not mean while jay walking but when I am using a crosswalk. I’m little, your big and generally moving quite fast. I am patient enough to let you go when it is your turn. Please watch out for me! I realize everyone is in a hurry to get home but you are sitting in your nice warm car and I am walking through winter because I can’t afford anything more than my running shoes. I don’t want to die and that’s why I follow the rules of the road. You shouldn’t want to kill me so why don’t you all pay a little more attention. Please?
Also I hate drivers who stop to let me walk across the street and then change their minds and try and go anyways. I’m in the middle of the crosswalk! You stopped for me! Did you forget? WTF! —Just Two Feet and a Heartbeat… For Now
This article appears in Dec 8-14, 2011.
Exactly, your post is very quaint, no swearing or threats like mine would have, yet id not bother with posting. I like to just jump on their hood, or throw the rock I keep in my pocket for such drivers, damage to their car is all they understand. I spent the first two decades of my life following the rules, every time I was attacked or beaten, threatened, whatever the offence, I would try the legal route. We are taught police are gonna help you, if you tell the truth all will be well, do not steal and so on. Until I was fired the first time for complaining to my boss at age 20, about a girl who was sexually harassing me, and not in a good way.
A girl who had asked me on a date three times before, after leaving her bf, decided to call me a” faggot who likes it up the ass”, I was very upset and told her off. I was fired and told by their security/hit men,” if you push this, you will dissapear”. Upon this time I made a police report and left that city, the police refused to press charges, and i could not draw EI.
I watched my grandfather drink and drive my entire life, he got his licence at 14 in the 40s, guess that’s what they call a grand father clause.
I learned long ago, the only time to involve the law, is if you have no stake, or have way more money than the other person. Self regulating boards seem to be slightly biased, maybe its the “all proceeding and action are confidential”, guess that’s how they get away with raping underage girls in their cruisers?
I feel for ya poster, but I highly advise you just keep some throwing rocks at hand, they are too stupid to understand anything else. Its kinda like this, you buy insurance for your home, someone stals a 3$ copper pipe and let’s the drum empty on ur lawn, it costs you 120k to repair the damage to your property. One would think insurance would cover this, no, you get to pay, not covered sorry 🙂 . Now when they find a person doing this, how much penalty do u think they face?
See I can’t remember when or what show it was, but they explained, when you shoot someone. Empty the gun at least two in the head, its best to have an empty seat at the murder trial, than the seat be occupied during an attempted murder trial, it is often you will get less time for the murder, than the attempt.
You didn’t state it in your post, OB but I’m guessing that you’re crossing at crosswalks that AREN’T at signaled intersections? As much as I agree with your post, (having run the gauntlet in Bayers Lake myself on several occasions), you may stand a better chance of NOT becoming someone’s hood ornament if you cross at intersections with traffic lights. (Just a suggestion) And I know, you shouldn’t HAVE to just cross at the lights and by law, it shouldn’t matter where the crosswalk is but I tend to find the average Bayers Lake driver to be a complete fucking numpty at the best of times, (even moreso this time of year), and when you’re reduced to a grease spot on the pavement, it’s too late for you to worry about the legalities of it all anyway. So, I say cross where they’re forced to stop. It slightly increases your chances of making it home alive and as a pedestrian in Bayers Lake, you need every advantage you can get.
Yeah sure avasto, we will all adjust to fit in, stay out of the way, no. Walk heavy and carry a throwing rock with you. Problem fixed.
yep, let me know how that works out for you when they happened to be on their way to a drug deal and pull over to pop a cap in your ass for hitting their pimpin’ car.
There’s two kinds of people in this world Tuco. Them with bows on their Christmas presents; and them that dig. You dig, Tuco.
love the avatar vastie. the good, the bad and the ugly is one of my favourite spaghetti westerns. the beguiled and play misty for me are good/strange ones, he made them in 1971, same year as dirty harry
lol Ivan. I was wanting to put something similar to that as my screen name but, it was too big to fit in the field. Something about Santa Clint knowing who’s been good, who’s been bad and who’s ugly.lol
And it’s one of my fave spaghetti westerns too, Painy. I like Mr. Eastwood in just about everything he’s done with only a few exceptions (Bridges of Madison County and Space Cowboys come immediately to mind as forgettable)
And Jim Kramer, the rock in your pocket is all well and good but it’s kind of a moot point when you’ve just gotten an arse full of bumper and they’re scraping you off the asphalt. Again, just my opinion.
he has a large body of work, there’s bound to be some stinkers
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098097/
*shudder*
OB, buy a car and drive in Bayer’s Lake. It was designed for cars, not pedestrians.
I guess that makes you a horrible pedestrian. Although I do drive, I have also been and continue to be a pedestrian quite frequently, and I have never had a close call. Pay attention to your surroundings, be deliberate in your actions, and for fuck sakes yield sometimes. Is saving 2 seconds worth your mobility?
oblivitrons don’t last long
Silly question, totally off topic….
Now, I’m no math whiz, not by a long shot, but, could someone perhaps explain to me how “3” of “2” people like my comment? How the heck does that work? Does one of them perhaps have multi-personality disorder? Does that mean that negative 1 person didn’t like my comment? Do I carry the 4 after dividing by the cosecant or does that get added to the square root of pi and then cross multiplied by the X value, solving for Y?
Anyone?
Bueller?
i’ve been trying to figure that out, i think the thumbs up were before the thumbs down…or something, feck it, throw them to the lions
I’m assuming it let you vote twice… by clearing or not retaining cookie info or something…
but the system only accepts one vote…
so despite it getting voted on 3 times… twice by the same person means it’s only out of 2.
my best guess…..
they aren’t feeding the code monkeys enough for proper debugging and error checking these days.
you can vote for yourself but you can’t vote more than once
If you have “1 of 7” people liking your post it means 8 voted and you’re off the island
are you attending the table of varying sizes, rosie and the bitch?
I plan to pop ’round… but despite asking for the day off I have to work @ 6pm
your mere presence is all i could hope for^^
avasto et all, I think it’s the lurkers thumbs up. Counted, but not counted, because they are not logged on.
I’ll test my theory later.
I thought of that too Hugo, but the Coast is looking on the situation as a glass half full… they only tell you who liked your comment and how many voted and leave you to do the math yourself
i don’t think you can vote without being logged in
No-the dislikes are negative numbers.
T (total votes) minus N (negative votes)= net votes.
So three voted and one disliked. 3 + (-1) = 2.
Using my words, say you post and one person likes it, then another one likes it. then a real d-bag doesn’t like it. There you have it. 2 out of 3 ain’t bad!
you’re the math teacher
That’s what I meant… I think… I hate math… If 1 of 1 people liked it, then one person voted… If one of 7 people liked it then 7 people voted and 6 hated what you had to say…. I’m a girl… I suck at math 🙁
Wish I was smart.
but you’re smrt, and that counts for more^^ i like math, i remember having many hallelujah moments
My hallelujah moment came in high school when I didn’t have to take math anymore and could squeeze in one more history class. Wish I could grasp it… being a math tard put the kibosh on my dream of being a vet 🙁
Actually, I used to suck at math and had ‘math anxiety.’ My first career was in the catering industry and I *had* to use business math all the time (sales tax, food costs, labour costs, gratuities, etc.) Somehow, when it was money, math was easier for me…
When I became a teacher, two careers later, I enjoyed teaching remedial math, because I could explain it better to my kids than ‘math whizzes’ could (being good in math and being a good math teacher are two different things!) I’d break it down every step and I loved seeing them ‘get it’…So, in a way it is funny to see myself described as good in math…My HS FB friends would laugh, I think, to see that!
THE IDOLATRY OF MATH
Recent comments on math presuppose its pre-eminence in the hierarchy of intelligence but I think its position ought to be seriously questioned.
Various commenters include the smug assertions of Xenophilia (Dec. 23, 5:28PM) followed, in due course, by the abject and supine confessions of Paingirl (5:35PM; 6:55PM) and Black Rose (6:35PM; 7:01PM).
But the question is just WHY is mathematics considered to be the measure of intelligence? Can anyone say why?
The answer, of course, is that no one can say why. Indeed, within its framework, mathematics is impotent to pronounce on its privileged position. It is, in fact, nothing more than an abstract symbol system which, given the conceptual framework in which it functions, arrives at an abstracted – albeit “certain” conclusion – which, outside that system, is meaningless. In effect, it is the logical conclusion of a “certain” but ultimately empty framework which, perhaps strangely, is not that different from the equally “certain” pronouncements of mediaeval theology.
It is time to free ourselves from the tyranny of this unsupported and artificial regime.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
math anxiety, i remember that, until you had a good teacher. “high anxiety” that’s a bitch http://www.projectcherish.org/wp-content/u…
Right. Because saying that I sucked at math is a smug assertion. Essai une fois de plus, canard.
Yes you can vote, while not logged on. But I couldn’t get it to go 7 of 5 sort of thing.
Xeno – WRT Annie. Responsorium cum latinam. Stultus non intelliget.
– or as Plato said “ΑΓΕΩΜΕΤΡΗΤΟΣ ΜΗΔΕΙΣ ΕΙΣΙΤΩ”
Which of course means, a student “ignorant of geometry” would also be ignorant of logic and hence unable to understand philosophy.
THE IDOLATRY OF MATH (II)
RSVPs
: Paingirl (Dec. 13, 8:03PM) – Yes, “math anxiety” is a very common phenomenon and, of course, directly related to what I have called “The Idolatry of Math” in respect to its assumed place in the school curriculum generally and, indeed, in the currently received view that it is co-extensive with intelligence itself.
: Xenophilia (8:51PM) – You will note that I made no reference to your post of 7:54PM since it wasn’t up when I posted my comment about your being “smug.” Your assertion to the effect that you “sucked at math” absolves you of being smug but your underlying assumptions about the place of math – see my comments above – remain untouched. In other words Xeno, you are still, as the longshoreman philosopher Erc Hoffer puts it, a “True Believer.”
: Hugo Phurst (9:36PM) – I know that it will be impossible for you to understand this but you must try to engage the argument and not simply smear the arguer. While I realize that it will be futile at least as far as you are concerned, let me clarify my argument for others who might be interested.
The relationship of entailment between geometry, logic, and philosophy turns on what is to be understood by “philosophy.” If one conceives of philosophy as closed system, a series of formal steps proceeding from indubitable premises to indubitable conclusions (like those of formal logic and geometry) then, of course, the practice of philosophy must presuppose possession of logic and geometry. But philosophy is not reducible to formal steps proceeding from indubitable premises to indubitable conclusions.
Rather, philosophy concerns itself with normative (i.e., value-based) claims and the reasons given in their support. As a consequence it is ultimately an exercise in NORMATIVE JUDGEMENT which transcends the descriptive, shallow, and ultimately impoverished view which would reduce it to a variant of formal logic and geometry.
Look at the statement “Let no one enter here who does not know geometry.” This is not a claim in formal logic nor is it a proposition found in geometry. It is a normative judgement – what ought to be the case – and as such is not defensible on either logical or geometrical grounds. Indeed, such grounds are completely irrelevant to its philosophical consideration.
I would be happy to debate “The Idolatry of Mathematics” on condition that argument itself is engaged and not simply an attempt to smear the arguer (i.e., me).
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
——-
It is time to free ourselves from the tyranny of this unsupported and artificial regime.
——-
Sounds like someone’s unsupported and artificial regime feels threatened by someone else’s unsupported and artificial regime.
This should be (un)interesting.
Wp
Ring, Ring
“Hello, Kettle? It’s Pot calling”
Tl,dr
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMSEgE_obj4
Mathematics possesses not only truth. but some supreme beauty — A beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture. – Bertrand Russell
****
Recent comments on math presuppose its pre-eminence in the hierarchy of intelligence but I think its position ought to be seriously questioned.
****
OOOPS! Stepped in it again! Or should I say ‘once again painted yourself into a rhetorical corner’?
I would have thought that any philosopher worth his salt would be familiar with the philosophy of mathematics…After all, “the rigor and precision of mathematical language often serve[s] as a starting point for the philosophy of language.” (Jeremy Avagad)
I have attached a little chart for your edification, listing philosophers from Aristotle to Wittgenstein and their contributions to the philosophy of mathematics.
http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/maths…
Perhaps you should reflect on this: Why should I ‘smear’ you when you are already covered head to toe in a steaming manure tea of your own making?
THE IDEOLOGY OF MATHEMATICS (III)
RSVPs
: Wheeliep (Dec. 14, 10:27AM) – In spite of my statement to the effect that I would not engage in debate if I were just “smeared,” Wheeliep proceeds to – wait for it – smear me. The usual sort of thing – I “feel threatened” and so in his view lose the debate. But how did he know I feel threatened? Does he give any evidence? Of course not. No, the only basis for his claim appears to be the fact that he is unable to follow my argument. But he was right about one thing – his comment was (very) “uninteresting.” Wheeliep, I hope you have consulted professional help for your rage-related disorders.
: Xenophilia (10:45AM) – Unsupported smearing.
: Hugo Phurst (11:26AM) – “TL dr.” See my comment on TL dr on “Red or White” (Dec. 9, 4:58PM). I didn’t bother looking at your attachment.
: Xenophilia (12:43PM) – Xeno, you have made a “category mistake.” The philosopher Gilbert Ryle once gave the example of the tourist who, after being shown around the colleges of Oxford University, then demanded to see the “university.” Of course, there isn’t one, at least not in any physical sense.
Quite simply, I never said that there was no “philosophy of mathematics.” Of course there is. But, let me take your hand and walk you through what I DID say: I questioned “the assumed pre-eminence in the school curriculum and, indeed, the currently received view that it is co-extensive with intelligence itself.” That was all. Does that sound like I claim that there is no philosophy of mathematics? Of course not.
Finally, in spite of your comment (10:45AM) to the contrary, I never had you in mind in respect to “smearing” me. It was the donkey at 11:26AM and, of course, my suspicions were confirmed.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
This from the gentleman(sic) who uses “Who cares” as a “debating tactic”. 🙂
Dearest Moleman,
Your (stated) reason for being here, is not to debate. You have said, more than once, in an early post that you are here as a philosophical exercise, and to “stir the pot”.
Every time you insult someone here or dismiss their writing out of hand, I never get mad because I remember why you are here( and you said it).
Anyhoo, some people see design and beauty in the philosophy and science/art of mathematics. To dismiss it, as you have, smells like the Philosophical Pot calling the Multiplying Kettle etc and so on.
I don’t expect you to agree, since you have a vested interest in this idea that only enlightened and worthy people deal with Life as you do. That’s okay though. I see room for both of you.
I’m just off to a movie with my old high school friend, Denny Cato.
Be back later!
Weetabix!
Wpaul
THE IDEOLOGY OF MATHEMATICS (IV)
RSVPs
: Wheeliep (Dec. 14, 5:30PM)
A light mailbag this morning so we can take our time with Wheeliep. I note five points that require discussion, half of which are – wait for it again – more smears!
1. “‘Who cares?’ as a debating tactic.”
This refers to my response to Wheeliep (Dec. 9, 4:51PM) when he posted a “DR tl” response just like Hugo Phurst did yesterday. But Wheeliep is mistaken, “Who cares?” wasn’t a debating tactic then and it isn’t now. It just means what it says: If people can’t be bothered to read what they are criticizing then, um, “Who cares?”
2. A logical contradiction: If my presence on this site is not to debate but is only a “philosophical exercise” as Wheeliep reports, how can I “stir the pot” without debating? In other words, a “philosophical exercise,” stirring the pot” and “debating” are interchangeable terms.
3. Smear #1: Contrary to what Wheeliep maintains, I never “dismiss anyone’s writing out of hand,” only those displaying self-contradictory reasoning and/or smearers (usually the same people).
4. Smear #2: “To dismiss it (philosophy and science/art of mathematics) as you have, smells like the Philosophical Pot calling the Mulltiplying Kettle black and so on.” The “Multiplying Kettle?” Anyway (1) I have never dismissed the philosophy and science/art of mathematics. See my response to Xeno below (Dec. 14, 4:39PM) and (2) your “Pot and Kettle” comment smells like Xeno’s (10:45AM) post. Generate your own analogies, Wheeliep.
5. Here it comes! The BIG SMEAR! – It seems that I “have a vested interest in the idea that only enlightened and worthy people deal with Life as you do.” Really, Wheeliep. Any evidence for that? What “vested interest” would that be? But, hey, thanks for the “enlightened and worthy” compliment. Took the words right out of my mouth. (Um, that’s a joke.)
: Xenophilia (Dec. 14, 12:43PM) Xeno never posted this morning so I guess she’s fatigued after painting herself into a “rhetorical corner.” Anyway, I took a look at her attachment (“Philosophers in Mathematics”) and, as far as I could see, all (except Lakatos who was an “intuitionist”) conformed to my view that mathematics is essentially formal logic but the difficulty, also pointed out in “Philosophers in Matematics,” is that its normative value can never be substantiated independently of its own premises. In other words, mathematics, like formal logic and geometry, is a closed system and its claim to pre-eminence in the curriculum and being co-extensive with intelligence itself can never be substantiated in its own terms.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!