1. Why would "a confusing argument" be intimidating ["... Let's be intimidated by..]?
2. Where is the "threat" in any argument, particularly a "confusing" one?
3. Quote: "Nice logic on display here. 'Keep to the higher ground' means, basically, shut up and let the woke mob destroy STEM. Isn't that great advice?" [You tell us! That was your…
1. Why would "a confusing argument" be intimidating ["... Let's be intimidated by..]?
2. Where is the "threat" in any argument, particularly a "confusing" one?
3. Quote: "Nice logic on display here. 'Keep to the higher ground' means, basically, shut up and let the woke mob destroy STEM. Isn't that great advice?" [You tell us! That was your "advice" not his. This "argument" is called a "straw man", where you put your words in his mouth and then knock down the "straw man" with your question. It is also called "gas lighting". KB]
4. Quote: "And coming from one of the disciplines that spawned this woke mind virus." [ This is called the "genetic fallacy". The genesis or generator of the argument bogusly "determines" whether or not the argument is good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. It also features the actually "woke" tendency to focus on groups such as "disciplines" rather than individuals like Ed.]
Actually "Ed" correctly noted the one very minor "weakness" in a geophysicist's otherwise excellent argument. Certain populations, with woke "emphasized" traits or characteristics, do have distinct and different medical vulnerabilities. One does "take the high ground" when noting the few exceptions to a general rule. And just because you dislike "wokesters" does not mean that they haven't influenced how you argue against them --- or even against an actual ally like Ed.
Gadzooks Octavo! You're a living textbook of illogic. Now you've added the "ad hominem" (against the man --- er --- troll) fallacy and the "ad country" fallacy as well. Stay on, young blue amoeba and teach us some more fallacies, even though this is not your substack. Perhaps your illogic is a consequence of being a single blue-celled organism incongruously named 8. Let me guess. Your blurb says you are in a STEM field. Would that be engineering? The kind of engineering where you only need to know that "poop flows down hill", learnable by observation rather than logic? Keep up the good work. Plumbing is important and necessary work for, as Aristotle said, the mass of men prefer (illogical) lives more suitable to beasts. And beasts need their stalls cleaned and/or their toilets flushed into a suitable septic facility. For certainty:
ARISTOTLE: "Now the mass of mankind are evidently quite slavish in their tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts, but they get some ground for their view from the fact that many of those in high places share the tastes of Sardanapallus [a Persian King doomed by domesticity]. (The Politics Book I, Ch. 5. 1095b lines 19 - 22)"
So very good. All plumbers and beasts should ignore Socratics, because we're too poor to feed you and you beasts or plumbers have no use for logic.
Here is a suggestion for you, KB. You seem to believe that there are no problems with the current "woke mind virus" in STEM, and perhaps no any other problems in STEM. Therefore, why not write an essay for Dorian Abbot of Heterodox STEM on this topic? Lay out your self-proclaimed superior reasoning, from your position as a Canuck trained as a "medical lab technician" out on the tundra, and let others read your "contribution".
If you need his email address, it is easy for a master of the internet such as yourself to find it. Or I can provide it for you.
There is a problem with "the woke mind virus". You have it. You are illogical and have demonstrated several simple fallacies. Your teachers have been and are "woke". You learned from them. Ergo you have their "virus". I don't have "self proclaimed superior reasoning." I didn't invent the informal fallacies you have demonstrated. Aristotle and Socrates noted them circa 2400 years ago. I was not "Canuck trained". I was trained by pathologists and lab technologists of every race and ethnicity on the earth. Finally, I don't take the suggestions of irrational little twerps in order to "kiss the behinds" of their erstwhile "heroes" no matter their names. I take it that someone named Dorian Abbot was the anonymous author of the mostly intelligent essay which you call "this topic". But his topic was not "The illogic of a small blue Octave. (who has the woke virus and doesn't know it)."
I am, too, in a "position" to note logical fallacies that you demonstrate and to lecture you on them. That's what substacks are about. This topic is your illogic. You may consider it an "aspersion" on your character for you, yourself, to demonstrate fallacies. But DOCILE people may learn to correct their errors. You, however, TWERP, are not "docile". The anonymous author's topic was about warning "faculties" about DEI encroaching on STEM disciplines. Totally different subjects. What is your faculty, twerp? Beastliness, plumbing or what? Aristotle tells me that I have to know my audience in order to get through to them with the sort of "noises" to which their tiny little ears, brains and intellects are accustomed. Do you know what an intellect is, twerp? An intellect is something that becomes whatever it thinks IN FORM, but not in matter. As Aristotle said:- We don't have stones in our souls. We have the form/ideas of a stone/calculi without the matter. You have "woke ideas" but do not have the logical skills to refute/elenchus such ideas.
1. Why would "a confusing argument" be intimidating ["... Let's be intimidated by..]?
2. Where is the "threat" in any argument, particularly a "confusing" one?
3. Quote: "Nice logic on display here. 'Keep to the higher ground' means, basically, shut up and let the woke mob destroy STEM. Isn't that great advice?" [You tell us! That was your "advice" not his. This "argument" is called a "straw man", where you put your words in his mouth and then knock down the "straw man" with your question. It is also called "gas lighting". KB]
4. Quote: "And coming from one of the disciplines that spawned this woke mind virus." [ This is called the "genetic fallacy". The genesis or generator of the argument bogusly "determines" whether or not the argument is good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. It also features the actually "woke" tendency to focus on groups such as "disciplines" rather than individuals like Ed.]
Actually "Ed" correctly noted the one very minor "weakness" in a geophysicist's otherwise excellent argument. Certain populations, with woke "emphasized" traits or characteristics, do have distinct and different medical vulnerabilities. One does "take the high ground" when noting the few exceptions to a general rule. And just because you dislike "wokesters" does not mean that they haven't influenced how you argue against them --- or even against an actual ally like Ed.
Kevin James Byrne
KJB, you are obviously just a troll who everyone should ignore. You know your country is an international disgrace. Go away.
Gadzooks Octavo! You're a living textbook of illogic. Now you've added the "ad hominem" (against the man --- er --- troll) fallacy and the "ad country" fallacy as well. Stay on, young blue amoeba and teach us some more fallacies, even though this is not your substack. Perhaps your illogic is a consequence of being a single blue-celled organism incongruously named 8. Let me guess. Your blurb says you are in a STEM field. Would that be engineering? The kind of engineering where you only need to know that "poop flows down hill", learnable by observation rather than logic? Keep up the good work. Plumbing is important and necessary work for, as Aristotle said, the mass of men prefer (illogical) lives more suitable to beasts. And beasts need their stalls cleaned and/or their toilets flushed into a suitable septic facility. For certainty:
ARISTOTLE: "Now the mass of mankind are evidently quite slavish in their tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts, but they get some ground for their view from the fact that many of those in high places share the tastes of Sardanapallus [a Persian King doomed by domesticity]. (The Politics Book I, Ch. 5. 1095b lines 19 - 22)"
So very good. All plumbers and beasts should ignore Socratics, because we're too poor to feed you and you beasts or plumbers have no use for logic.
KJB
A more succinct way to put it is, put up or...
What does the beast or the plumber have of a "succinct" nature?
Use your head.
Here is a suggestion for you, KB. You seem to believe that there are no problems with the current "woke mind virus" in STEM, and perhaps no any other problems in STEM. Therefore, why not write an essay for Dorian Abbot of Heterodox STEM on this topic? Lay out your self-proclaimed superior reasoning, from your position as a Canuck trained as a "medical lab technician" out on the tundra, and let others read your "contribution".
If you need his email address, it is easy for a master of the internet such as yourself to find it. Or I can provide it for you.
There is a problem with "the woke mind virus". You have it. You are illogical and have demonstrated several simple fallacies. Your teachers have been and are "woke". You learned from them. Ergo you have their "virus". I don't have "self proclaimed superior reasoning." I didn't invent the informal fallacies you have demonstrated. Aristotle and Socrates noted them circa 2400 years ago. I was not "Canuck trained". I was trained by pathologists and lab technologists of every race and ethnicity on the earth. Finally, I don't take the suggestions of irrational little twerps in order to "kiss the behinds" of their erstwhile "heroes" no matter their names. I take it that someone named Dorian Abbot was the anonymous author of the mostly intelligent essay which you call "this topic". But his topic was not "The illogic of a small blue Octave. (who has the woke virus and doesn't know it)."
KB
You are not worth my time.
Whatever. You are in no position to cast aspersions or lecture anyone, particularly on this topic.
I am, too, in a "position" to note logical fallacies that you demonstrate and to lecture you on them. That's what substacks are about. This topic is your illogic. You may consider it an "aspersion" on your character for you, yourself, to demonstrate fallacies. But DOCILE people may learn to correct their errors. You, however, TWERP, are not "docile". The anonymous author's topic was about warning "faculties" about DEI encroaching on STEM disciplines. Totally different subjects. What is your faculty, twerp? Beastliness, plumbing or what? Aristotle tells me that I have to know my audience in order to get through to them with the sort of "noises" to which their tiny little ears, brains and intellects are accustomed. Do you know what an intellect is, twerp? An intellect is something that becomes whatever it thinks IN FORM, but not in matter. As Aristotle said:- We don't have stones in our souls. We have the form/ideas of a stone/calculi without the matter. You have "woke ideas" but do not have the logical skills to refute/elenchus such ideas.
KB
I can't be bothered with your nonsense. Write an essay, as I advised you before. You have no idea what "woke" even is, clearly.
And if you are a such a genius, why is your grammar so lousy?
Are you a good candidate for MAID? It might appear so.