Originally posted by BlackampThat's all in the past. Now Brits are stupid, Chinese are more cunning, Japanese smarter for sure, Koreans smarter and with better karma ... Americans have to outsource their thinking, Australians ... well, the least said about them the better.
hmmm, not so sure. the West certainly seemed keen enough to colonise Asia, rather than kowtow: the Brits in Malaya (inc. Singapore), India, forced concessions in China, and Burma; the Dutch in the East Indies; the Portuguese in Goa and Macau; the French in Indochina; the Spanish in the Philippines; the US displacing the Spanish there, and forcing Japan into ...[text shortened]... f Asia(ns) tend or perhaps tended (at least, according to Edward Said) to 'feminise' the East.
1 edit
Originally posted by pawnhandlerWhich kind of demonstrates the point of that argument: you are a Westerner, with
No, closer to intelligence [b]including the ability to perform mathematical computations.[/b]
Western values, and able to reason within Western boundaries of thought.
Maybe there are societies where other abilities are more appreciated and seen
as intelligence over barely... well... counting beans.
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de Nageit's well known the world over that we have no interests besides BBQs, beer, sports (spectating), beer, fighting crocodiles, beer, boxing kangaroos, beer, the beach and, of course, beer, and have no time for poofy things like foreplay, intellectuals, tall poppies, and soccer.
Australians ... well, the least said about them the better.
Originally posted by BlackampAussie! Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!
it's well known the world over that we have no interests besides BBQs, beer, sports (spectating), beer, fighting crocodiles, beer, boxing kangaroos, beer, the beach and, of course, beer, and have no time for poofy things like foreplay, intellectuals, tall poppies, and soccer.
Originally posted by SeitseAnd in those societies, what is considered "intelligence" is different. A construct isn't invalid simply because it isn't universal or its criteria isn't universal.
Which kind of demonstrates the point of that argument: you are a Westerner, with
Western values, and able to reason within Western boundaries of thought.
Maybe there are societies where other abilities are more appreciated and seen
as intelligence over barely... well... counting beans.
Why do we use "universal" when we mean "planet-wide" or planetary?
Originally posted by pawnhandlerHey, if something is valid for you it already has some degree of validity.
And in those societies, what is considered "intelligence" is different. A construct isn't invalid simply because it isn't universal or its criteria isn't universal.
Why do we use "universal" when we mean "planet-wide" or planetary?
And, on the other thing... because we've been watching too much He-Man?
Originally posted by BlackampHave you ever had a kangaroo boxer fight an alligator wrestler? It would be like the Nature Channel version of MMA!
it's well known the world over that we have no interests besides BBQs, beer, sports (spectating), beer, fighting crocodiles, beer, boxing kangaroos, beer, the beach and, of course, beer, and have no time for poofy things like foreplay, intellectuals, tall poppies, and soccer.
Originally posted by BlackampAs you say, it's well known, so why bring it up?
it's well known the world over that we have no interests besides BBQs, beer, sports (spectating), beer, fighting crocodiles, beer, boxing kangaroos, beer, the beach and, of course, beer, and have no time for poofy things like foreplay, intellectuals, tall poppies, and soccer.