Discussion in 'Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto' started by mafoofan, Jun 16, 2013.
alternating pale yellow, lime green and white is the ideal shag
You should have kept it as archeological contrast, like the parts of Michaelangelo's Last Judgment that were left uncleaned.
At that point in my life I don't think I understood it well enough.
I have a small-ish shag rug in my apartment.
Yes, it ties the room together and I pee on it.
shag rug is half assed, needs to be wall to wall
I'm talking about rugs. Wall to wall is almost always an abomination. With Matt's stuff it might be good though.
Shags/flokatis instantly class the joint up. Cheap as hell and I've never seen one fail.
Leather shags are my new love.
this is like saying "Buffalo wings are OK but that blue cheese dip is terrible." Are you in or out? Make up your mind.
We had a leather shag in my house growing up.
And look how you turned out.
There are few knockdown arguments in philosophy....Dispostive[sic] in your own world...
The criticisms of Rawls are not rubbish, but Rawls is more than that one book. Oh and you think Dewey and Rawls can be thrown in the same boat? Interesting Professor, do tell me more.
He would rather suffer than live without suffering in a world where the gifted are not given full resources to make use of their gifts? That does sound decidedly irrational though. What is "gifted" anyways and why does one need to give the gifted full resources--they shouldn't be hindered but they need not be subsidized considering that they are already "gifted".
Anyways, you cannot evaluate a thinker by what he said wrong or right---For instance, Aristotle thought women have a different number of teeth than men! A simple check of his wife's mouth would have been sufficient to correct him. But he didn't care, and today, we know it's false. Does that refute any of his teachings about logic or where his works led other thinkers or your own intellectual development? I don't see why it should.
Your analogy is a real argument I had with my wife a few weeks ago.
dismissals of what Machiavelli termed "the false opinions" can indeed be dispositve. Assertions of higher truth beyond the sensory are where things get tricky.
Yes, Dewey and Rawls come from the same branch of the Hegelian tree.
We can get more into the details of my critique if you like, but everyone else, save Manton, hates it when philosophical argument takes over a thread. I was using "gifted" and "ungifted" to capture the spectrum of individuals born with varying levels of talent and ability. The point is, it is not irrational to take an "all or nothing" position: "I'd rather be born untalented in a world that prioritizes the exercise of talent than be born talented in a world that marginalizes talent, since to me, talent is everything." Rawls's arguments are fundamentally driven by assumptions about people's value systems. He decides a priori which ones are "rational," when rationality has got nothing to do with it.
Aristotle would be a terrible philosopher as well if his main contribution to philosophy was identifying the number of teeth in people's mouths. I judge Rawls harshly because his central argument itself is bad.
Separate names with a comma.