Jump to content
Pioneer1

Calling Professor Johnson: What Is America?

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Troy said:

@zaji I'm doing fine.  I moved to Tampa, full time, back in December 2017 and am really enjoying it. 

 

I'm near Melbourne, FL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2019 at 9:14 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Are Haiti, Mexico, Puerto Rico and Jamaica nations that are part of AMERICA (not U.S.A), or are they not ?

 

I see being a part of the AmericaS and being AmericaN (U.S.A Citizen) as different. All those places can be a part of the AmericaS, in fact. But not be AmericaN. So it really depends on what is meant. Based on maps online, the attached is what is actually, in modern times, considered The Americas.

 

11x17-map-72dpi.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Troy said:

I would not debate you about astrolog

I guess i am more democratic. I dont think my knowledge in the esoteric means a monologue. 

 

The differnce between me being overly sensitive and you being insensitive is perception. 

 

I prefer to be seen as sensitive to another person's feelings and positions than insensitive. 

7 hours ago, Troy said:

 

This is a patently false and ignorant statement  I guess you have never read any of my articles providing statistics and data

Expertise in engineering does not make you an expert in statistics. As is evident when you use statistics to try to prove a point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Delano said:

As is evident when you use statistics to try to prove a point. 

 

True, since there is apparently no such thing as objective sensitivity.

 

7 hours ago, Delano said:

As is evident when you use statistics to try to prove a point. 

 

Here we go... ok, point to a single article I've written to support your statement.  It never ceases to amaze what people will without a shred if evidence....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Troy said:

 

True, since there is apparently no such thing as objective sensitivity.

 

 

Here we go... ok, point to a single article I've written to support your statement.  It never ceases to amaze what people will without a shred if evidence....

 

 

We had this conversation years ago. And you started bitching about how that was years ago. So fur get it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zaji

 

I see being a part of the AmericaS and being AmericaN (U.S.A Citizen) as different. All those places can be a part of the AmericaS, in fact. But not be AmericaN. So it really depends on what is meant. Based on maps online, the attached is what is actually, in modern times, considered The Americas


Welcome back to the site, I missed your input.

Yes you're right that the most common term used in refering to the Western Hemisphere is the "Americas" (plural) and for the most part it's the term I also use; but because of the misinformation and confusion that leads so many to believe that ONLY the U.S.A should be called America....I often use the term "America" singularly for shock value to initiate conversation.

For example, I'll call Mexico or Brazil "America" expecting disagreement which will then lead to me correcting them and as it follows a conversations will usually open up over the matter.

 

 

 

 

Del

Expertise in engineering does not make you an expert in statistics.


Doesn't both fields require you to think logically and in terms of numbers and mathematics?
If so, I would think the same basic intellectual skills that lay at the foundation of both careers could be used by one field to understand the other.
Similar to how an expert in Espanol would atleast have some familiarity with Italiano since both have their roots in the same Latin foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:


Doesn't both fields require you to think logically and in terms of numbers and mathematics?

Ask @Troyhe's the engineer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 4:03 PM, Troy said:

Think you are a very smart and passionate woman Mel, one who thinks deeply about subjects and loves people.


@Troy  wow I didn't know that's how I appear to others.  Welp, here it is. Smart is not how I would describe myself.   I'm curious and sometimes that may appear to be passion but it's more of an obsession to understand the its properties.  I build on a foundation of information so I don't have to think deeply - so while it may appear I think deeply, its actually an  intimate understanding of topic.   And no, I don't have love for people.  I have a love for all living things and their ability to express life that will lead to evolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mel Hopkins said:


@Troy     And no, I don't have love for people.  I have a love for all living things and their ability to express life that will lead to evolution. 


Now wouldn't this "all" also INCLUDE people?
The man is giving you a compliment, why are you giving him a hard time....lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Now wouldn't this "all" also INCLUDE people?
The man is giving you a compliment, why are you giving him a hard time....lol.

 

@Pioneer1  who cares about compliments?   I prefer accuracy.  

... I corrected Troy's description because while he's assigned it to me - it has nothing to do with me.  And yes people are included in the set of living things but to focus on people would be a reductionist view of my outlook.  I would provide first aid to a person just as I would provide first aid to a plant.  I would relocate a person who seeks to harm me just like I would relocate a spider.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mel Hopkins said:

 

@Pioneer1  who cares about compliments?   I prefer accuracy.  

... I corrected Troy's description because while he's assigned it to me - it has nothing to do with me.  And yes people are included in the set of living things but to focus on people would be a reductionist view of my outlook.  I would provide first aid to a person just as I would provide first aid to a plant.  I would relocate a person who seeks to harm me just like I would relocate a spider.   

 

Out of all that he said to you I'm focused on the "love for people" portion of his statement because I was a bit puzzled for the reason you gave for objecting to it.

Is accuracy the issue here, or specificity?
It seems to me that his statement was not incorrect, but your issue with it was that it was too narrowly focused or "reduced".


BTW, I prefer a healthy balance of compliments-accuracy-criticizm.
Too much of either without enough of the other usually doesn't lead to the best results.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Out of all that he said to you I'm focused on the "love for people" portion of his statement

“Smart is not how I would describe myself.”

“ I'm curious ...that may appear to be passion but it's more of an obsession

 “i  don't have to think deeply”

 

Sooooo...

 

Out of all the things I wrote correcting Troy you chose to focus on “people” - why is that?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mel

 

Out of all the things I wrote correcting Troy you chose to focus on "people" - why is that?


It stood out for me because all the other reasons you gave for objecting to how he described you seemed rational (despite my not agreeing with your objections to a couple of them), but your objection to being described as "loving people" and declaring that you don't.....only to turn around and describe this as being too reductionist and that you actually love ALL living things seemed a bit irrational.

I can understand your objecting to it if he said outright or implied that this love was reduced to ONLY people instead of all living things, but this was neither said nor implied.
It just wasn't expansive enough to your liking.

Imagine walking into a pet shop and asking an employee,
"Since you work well with dogs, could you give me the best advice on how to train mine?"
....and they rebuke you by saying.
"Actually I DON'T work well with dogs, I work well with ALL animals!"

Perhaps it was just the wording.
Maybe if you had added a "just" in your objection it would have seemed more rational TO ME.
For example:  "I don't JUST love people.....I love all things"


 

 

Out of curiosity.......
Although you didn't say it outright, do you think for a man to call you smart is a bit "condescending" ?
Do you take that compliment from a MAN the same way a Black person would take it from a White who called them "articulate"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Troy said:

Del. "pedigree" holds no importance.

Can you provide a quote 

2 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

Smart is not how I would describe myself.

What is your definition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

It just wasn't expansive enough to your liking

@Pioneer1 this is exactly how I felt - and see,  you did understand.  Some how I had a feeling you knew exactly why I responded the way I did! And yes, I understand why it struck you as irrational - because “love” is irrational and to actually have love for all living things equally is probably something you don’t come across on a daily basis. 

 

Now, before you throw my children in the mix - I also have an uber irrational “LOVE” for them but if I were to think it through ... it would be because they came from me... and there’s no greater love,  I suppose than one who you’d lay down your life for..so yeah, my babies are on a whole different astral plane... one that even I can’t comprehend.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Out of curiosity.......
Although you didn't say it outright, do you think for a man to call you smart is a bit "condescending" ?

 

Not at all! There are a lot of smart people.  I  don’t think it suits me.  I’m curious and i keep digging like a dog looking for a bone.  Someone might say “he’s hungry” ... but in most cases that’s not true—-The pooch is looking for his “treasure”.  

 

30 minutes ago, Delano said:

What is your definition

 

My definition of “smart” ? I like what you’ve said @Delano “pedigree” - a “person of letters” is my definition of smart.  People who know enough to get the task completed by an agreed upon standard. 

 

Edited by Mel Hopkins
Annoying typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mel Hopkins said:

I like what you’ve said @Delano “pedigree” - a “person of letters” is my definition of smart.

What did I say, I can't recall my statement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mel

this is exactly how I felt - and see, you did understand. Some how I had a feeling you knew exactly why I responded the way I did! And yes, I understand why it struck you as irrational - because "love" is irrational and to actually have love for all living things equally is probably something you don’t come across on a daily basis.


It wasn't that hard to figure out, you pretty much said it plainly.

When you say "love for all things equally" I don't NECESSARILY consider that statement irrational because I realize the word "love" is just one English word that is used to describe MULTIPLE different types of feelings, many of which aren't even related to eachother.
I think Greek attempts to separate it with words like "agape" and "eros" ect....

I would guess that the feeling you're calling "love" that you feel equally for everything is a deep caring type of feeling which is a separate feeling than what you have for your children and both of those feelings are different than the type of feeling you have for a lover or spouse....but most people will call all of it "love" for lack of a better term in English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...