Ba-Dump Tissssh - Memes

[Alpo]

[Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062]

3 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

 

 

  ..... not on my pizza they don't .......

 

2 questions: why is pizza so small, .... and what are those horrible round, black abominations doing on my pizza ?????  🙃😇🤪

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 30 by Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062
stutter & speelin' errer

[Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062]

1 hour ago, Alpo said:

Thank You,  I may need this soon ....   🥸

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 30 by Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062
speeling erer

[Alpo]

[Rye Miles #13621]

1 hour ago, Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062 said:

 

 

  ..... not on my pizza they don't .......

 

2 questions: why is pizza so small, .... and what are those horrible round, black abominations doing on my pizza ?????  🙃😇🤪

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Olives 

[Buckshot Bob]

[Alpo]

[Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L]

2 hours ago, Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062 said:

  ..... not on my pizza they don't .......

 

2 questions: why is pizza so small, .... and what are those horrible round, black abominations doing on my pizza ?????  🙃😇🤪

 

Considering that someone put pineapple on it, they could be grapes! 😱

[DocWard]

On 10/27/2024 at 11:23 AM, Buckshot Bob said:

 

That is not the Hegelian Dialectic as I learned it way back when in college philosophy class. I mean, maybe if you squint one eye and close the other, and cant your head to the side, it might kind of, sort of, almost resemble the Hegelian Dialectic, but it is a stretch.

 

At its very simplest, there are premises. One is a "thesis," or positive statement, and an "antithesis," or a negative statement contradicting the first. Unlike Plato and others, who would discard both, Hegel asserted a third option, "synthesis," which reconciles the two premises creating a new "higher truth." If we take the synthesis as the new thesis, this can go on ad infinitum. Hegel applied the dialectic process to both logic and things such as understanding the consciousness. This brief explanation doesn't really do the process justice, but it gets the point across.

 

It is perhaps interesting to note that Marx and Engels were critical of Hegel and his philosophy, but essentially used it to say that in the contest between capitalism and socialism (thesis & antithesis) the result would be communism, hence ending the need for further dialectic. Again, they were more in depth, but the above is probably closer to their thoughts than Hegel's.

[John Kloehr]

24 minutes ago, DocWard said:

 

That is not the Hegelian Dialectic as I learned it way back when in college philosophy class. I mean, maybe if you squint one eye and close the other, and cant your head to the side, it might kind of, sort of, almost resemble the Hegelian Dialectic, but it is a stretch.

 

At its very simplest, there are premises. One is a "thesis," or positive statement, and an "antithesis," or a negative statement contradicting the first. Unlike Plato and others, who would discard both, Hegel asserted a third option, "synthesis," which reconciles the two premises creating a new "higher truth." If we take the synthesis as the new thesis, this can go on ad infinitum. Hegel applied the dialectic process to both logic and things such as understanding the consciousness. This brief explanation doesn't really do the process justice, but it gets the point across.

 

It is perhaps interesting to note that Marx and Engels were critical of Hegel and his philosophy, but essentially used it to say that in the contest between capitalism and socialism (thesis & antithesis) the result would be communism, hence ending the need for further dialectic. Again, they were more in depth, but the above is probably closer to their thoughts than Hegel's.

You may have just explained how colleges produce communists. They take a truth and a falsehood (thesis and anti-thesis) and create a new falsehood (synthesis).

 

I can easily postulate the synthesis of a truth and a falsehood must be a falsehood.

Edited October 30 by John Kloehr

[DocWard]

33 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

You may have just explained how colleges produce communists. They take a truth and a falsehood (thesis and anti-thesis) and create a new falsehood (synthesis).

 

I can easily postulate the synthesis of a truth and a falsehood must be a falsehood.

 

That would be the Marx and Engels approach, not Hegel.

[John Kloehr]

11 minutes ago, DocWard said:

 

That would be the Marx and Engels approach, not Hegel.

I;m seeing more that colleges are using Hegel to synthesize communism from Marx and Smith.

[Rye Miles #13621]

[Buckshot Bob]

1 hour ago, DocWard said:

 

That is not the Hegelian Dialectic as I learned it way back when in college philosophy class. I mean, maybe if you squint one eye and close the other, and cant your head to the side, it might kind of, sort of, almost resemble the Hegelian Dialectic, but it is a stretch.

 

At its very simplest, there are premises. One is a "thesis," or positive statement, and an "antithesis," or a negative statement contradicting the first. Unlike Plato and others, who would discard both, Hegel asserted a third option, "synthesis," which reconciles the two premises creating a new "higher truth." If we take the synthesis as the new thesis, this can go on ad infinitum. Hegel applied the dialectic process to both logic and things such as understanding the consciousness. This brief explanation doesn't really do the process justice, but it gets the point across.

 

It is perhaps interesting to note that Marx and Engels were critical of Hegel and his philosophy, but essentially used it to say that in the contest between capitalism and socialism (thesis & antithesis) the result would be communism, hence ending the need for further dialectic. Again, they were more in depth, but the above is probably closer to their thoughts than Hegel's.

I think it would be hard for anyone to get this detailed in a meme 

[Subdeacon Joe]

35 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

 

Hey!  They took my suggestion!

[DocWard]

9 minutes ago, Buckshot Bob said:

I think it would be hard for anyone to get this detailed in a meme 

 

It's not that they didn't get it detailed, they got it wrong. 

[Buckshot Bob]

6 minutes ago, DocWard said:

 

It's not that they didn't get it detailed, they got it wrong. 

Well how would you do it ? 

[DocWard]

52 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

I;m seeing more that colleges are using Hegel to synthesize communism from Marx and Smith.

 

Hegel was generally thinking of logic, and was using the dialectic process to work toward what I will call "truths" by reconciling the thesis and antithesis.

 

On the other hand, I would proffer that colleges and the professors that push a communist perspective do so as Marx and Engels did. They have an endpoint in mind, and use the process to get where they want to be.

[DocWard]

3 minutes ago, Buckshot Bob said:

Well how would you do it ? 

 

Easy, just remove the reference to "the Hegelian Dialectic," and leave the remainder. Point made, problem solved!

[John Kloehr]

15 minutes ago, DocWard said:

 

Hegel was generally thinking of logic, and was using the dialectic process to work toward what I will call "truths" by reconciling the thesis and antithesis.

 

On the other hand, I would proffer that colleges and the professors that push a communist perspective do so as Marx and Engels did. They have an endpoint in mind, and use the process to get where they want to be.

Pretty much.

 

Like the Boulder Colorado weather center, they predicted we were going to have more storms than ever due to global warming (climate change). Then when that did not pan out (as to quantity quantity despite one hell of a century storm (despite a history of century storms)). the lack of storms was due to global warming (climate change).

 

When the end point is the agenda, actually doing something about the real problem (we do have climate change) becomes more difficult. Deforestation is a problem. CO2 is a problem. EVs today are not an answer without CO2-free power for them. Even then, our cars are not the problem compared to deforestation. Or international oceanic shipping. EVs can be part of the solution with clean power but the agenda is interfering with getting this done.

 

When I was young, I remember a trip up the California coast. Redwood trees. Signs advertising "Big Trees" coming up. Hour after hour of redwoods before getting to Big Trees.

 

As an adult, I drove it again, no trees, just signs for Big Trees coming up. Finally got to Big Trees, then no trees again for hour after hour.

 

But as an adult, there was another memory of a mountain (Siskyou? I'm not sure) covered in ice. The ice was gone. Just a few bits here and there, and a reservoir with low water levels. Sure, CO2 might have contributed, but cutting down hundreds of miles of forests likely did more to reduce rainfall and no burger I forgo will change this.

 

There are problems to fix, some of the solutions will involve things like EVs, but there is no way some drop in the bucket will make it better without plugging the hole in the bucket. Maybe the right thing is to replant those forests. And plant trees in the cities to shade all the tarmac roofs and streets.

 

Yes, trees. Sunnyvale California was once cool and comfortable in the summer, back when it was surrounded by orchards. But they got cut down and replaced with mile after mile of homes and duplexes and bigger structures. And summer temps went into and above the 90s.

 

I do think the agenda is getting in the way of fixing the problems.

[Rip Snorter]

4 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

Pretty much.

 

Like the Boulder Colorado weather center, they predicted we were going to have more storms than ever due to global warming (climate change). Then when that did not pan out (as to quantity quantity despite one hell of a century storm (despite a history of century storms)). the lack of storms was due to global warming (climate change).

 

When the end point is the agenda, actually doing something about the real problem (we do have climate change) becomes more difficult. Deforestation is a problem. CO2 is a problem. EVs today are not an answer without CO2-free power for them. Even then, our cars are not the problem compared to deforestation. Or international oceanic shipping. EVs can be part of the solution with clean power but the agenda is interfering with getting this done.

 

When I was young, I remember a trip up the California coast. Redwood trees. Signs advertising "Big Trees" coming up. Hour after hour of redwoods before getting to Big Trees.

 

As an adult, I drove it again, no trees, just signs for Big Trees coming up. Finally got to Big Trees, then no trees again for hour after hour.

 

But as an adult, there was another memory of a mountain (Siskyou? I'm not sure) covered in ice. The ice was gone. Just a few bits here and there, and a reservoir with low water levels. Sure, CO2 might have contributed, but cutting down hundreds of miles of forests likely did more to reduce rainfall and no burger I forgo will change this. There are problems to fix, some of the solutions will involve things like EVs, but there is no way some drop in the bucket will make it better without plugging the hole in the bucket. Maybe the right thing is to replant those forests. And plant trees in the cities to shade all the tarmac roofs and streets.

 

Yes, trees. Sunnyvale California was once cool and comfortable in the summer, back when it was surrounded by orchards. But they got cut down and replaced with mile after mile of homes and duplexes and bigger structures. And summer temps went into and above the 90s.

 

I do think the agenda is getting in the way of fixing the problems.

My friend it is called weather, we have always had it, and it has always had extremes.  Everything is climate change by their definition, their scam.  Carbon Dioxide?  Food plants love it. Please don't swallow the bait till you have done some research. History.  The contrary info is massive.  Think about the much simpler issues they can't solve, and even ignore, illegal immigration, narcotics flowing over the border, homelessness and crime.  They can't get the light work done and they want to change global climate?   

 

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

8 minutes ago, Rip Snorter said:

  Think about the much simpler issues they can't solve, and even ignore, illegal immigration, narcotics flowing over the border, homelessness and crime.  They can't get the light work done and they want to change global climate?   

They can't charge more taxes for the things that need done.

[Rip Snorter]

They could have invested in USA rather than an unwinnable conflict in the Ukraine.  Done.

[Alpo]

I got a great idea. Let's drop the politics and get back to memes.

 

[J-BAR #18287]

8 hours ago, Alpo said:

 

Actually, the ancient Greeks and Romans recognized that ants being attracted to urine was diagnostic for sugar diabetes.  It is considered the earliest "lab test".  But of course therapy was not as easy as diagnosis.

 

Just because they could diagnose a disease did not mean they could do anything about it.  It took a few centuries to get the physiological/biochemical details pinned down.  After that a rational treatment could be identified.

 

Knowing what is wrong is the first step.  Combating it may be difficult if not impossible.

[Buckshot Bob]

[Buckshot Bob]

[Rye Miles #13621]

[Sedalia Dave]

[Subdeacon Joe]

14 hours ago, Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L said:

 

Considering that someone put pineapple on it, they could be grapes! 😱

 

If they were grapes there would also be prosciutto on it.  And maybe figs. 

[Alpo]

[Subdeacon Joe]

[Cypress Sun]

6 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Frog has a great idea! 

Open mouth at speed (for any reason) and it's certain that a large insect, or a multitude of small ones, are going to congregate in front of you...GREAT plan there Froggie!

Winner, Winner, Lepidoptera dinner!

[Buckshot Bob]

[Buckshot Bob]