I don't know if any of you have seen this, but I thought you might enjoy Liam's submission to Scott Adam's latest "Dilbert" book". Check it out and if you like it you might want to vote on the…Continue
I don't know if any of you have seen this, but I thought you might enjoy Liam's submission to Scott Adam's latest "Dilbert" book". Check it out and if you like it you might want to vote on the "comments section.http://www.dilbert.com/blog/See More
""Daniel your just a fat Mexican."
I usually enjoy your posts and photos-- you add flavor to this site. However, with the above statement I think you've stepped over the line. The comment was mean-spirited and…"
I think the way to describe Stone Turners (or at least what I hope it can become) is to compare it to The Great Debate. TGD is focused on questions that most people are aware of and takes an adversarial approach to answering them.
Stone Turners will hopefully focus on aspects of existence that don't get looked at because they are accepted as givens. An example would be jokes (how do they work, what assumptions lie beneath the surface, what does laughing at one say about me?). Another would be our forward facing eyes. The group image is actually of a New Caledonian Crow using a drinking fountain. What's fascinating about these birds is that they are observed using a range of tools not seen in other crows, even though their raw cognitive abilities aren't different. What they do have is a straighter beak shape and more forward-facing eyes, which is what researchers currently believe might account for the difference. So there's territory to be explored there about our natures and how they might result from such things.
So, by nature of the questions we're asking, I hope Stone Turners will be more exploratory and cooperative, as opposed to adversarial. Maybe it won't lead anywhere. Maybe it will just lead to bullshit. But my experience doing this kind of thing on my own is that questioning what's given has led me to some fruitful inquiries and improved my mindset.
"" If I was to say the reason women were so weepy is because they're lost little girls who had their masculin carved from them. If I was to proclaim men the saviors of women. I'm pretty sure I'd get kicked in the nuts for it…"
"Sure would. But if you instead said that the only proper emotional expression was FEMALE stoicism -- that women are weepy because the patriarchy carved out their inner confidence -- and that men are to blame for it -- that is, if you were a…"