Posted on 9th July 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , ,

Neil Howe with a new post. A Boomer telling a Millenial she is part of the worst generation ever and then describing why America isn’t the best anymore based upon the results and leadership of his generation. The irony and hypocrisy is palpable. Blaming 20 year olds for problems that really got rolling over 30 years ago is laughable. But, I would expect nothing less from Boomers.


“You are the Worst. Generation. Ever.”

I’ve run a few posts recently on older generations running down Millennials, so I thought—before moving on—that I ought to add this clip.  It’s from the new HBO series, “The Newsroom,” written by Aaron Sorkin (first-wave Xer, born 1961, creator of “West Wing”) and starring Jeff Daniels (Boomer, born 1955) as the cynical yet philosophical news anchor.  In this clip, Millennials are portrayed as callow, shallow, and out of their depth.  The starring Boomer, on the other hand, comes across as deep, passionate, heartfelt—and the flagrant insults he flings at his Millennial audience (e.g., “if you ever wandered into a voting booth”) would be rude only if he weren’t speaking truth to power, which in the Boomer mind justifies any manner of offensive behavior.

I’d be curious about what you all think:



One complaint about Sorkin as a screen writer is that he loves to create set-piece dialogue situations which sets up his favorite character to rhetorically vanquish an opponent, sometimes lending his shows a preachy tone.  That certainly happens here.  I’ve never in my life heard a Millennial ask a Boomer a question like, “Could you say why America is the greatest country in the world?”  That’s like pitching underhand to Ty Cobb.  As one might expect, it triggers this Boomer to unload a truckload of venom.  (His initial reluctance, I guess, makes his explosion seem more authentic.)  Did you feel you were on the side of the preacher?  Or did you feel preached at in this scene?

And what about the substance of his remarks?  Are they on target?  Here’s a Boomer who no doubt recollects America’s First Turning greatness in the 1950s with the rising G.I. Generation at the helm–when we were “number one” in everything because the rest of the world was staggering among the rubble of WWII.  But, as I recall, it was the explicit intention of the leaders of that era to raise the rest of the world up to our level of productivity, affluence, and education precisely because we thought this would make the world a safer and better place.  Among other things, we thought it would foster liberal and democratic values worldwide.  That’s why we funded the Marshall Plan and created the UN, IMF, World Bank, Bretton Woods, etc.  In terms of geopolitical power, we remain the global hegemon.  But in other respects, we are merely one of many.  Would this result have really disappointed the leaders of the American High?  Does it bother Millennials today?

One last point.  Jeff Daniels (as anchorman Will McAvoy) does not talk so much about what his own generation has done that embodies a “greater” America (though he does talk about how we once did things for “moral reasons”).  Rather, he talks mostly about what he recalls of greatness from the elders of his youth.  Here, he epitomizes the Prophet Archetype, which seldom moralizes by invoking its own deeds—but rather by invoking memories of the Heroes it recalls from childhood.  There’s a wonderful book by George Forgie (Patricide in the House Divided: A Psychological Interpretation of Lincoln and his Age) about how Lincoln’s Transcendental Generation–an extreme example of the Prophet Archetype–was forever talking guiltily about their parents’ nation-founding greatness.  They kept wringing their hands about it even as they led American into the Civil War.

Or, if you want to go back to the Ur-Model of all Prophet Archetypes, look at passages by the wise old Nestor in Homer’s Illiad.  He complains that all the Achaean warriors arrayed against Troy are mere “boys” compared to the right stuff he recalls from his own youth—the age of Jason and the Argonauts.  When I first read this passage from Nestor, it made me think of all those fake re-enactments—like Mike Tyson versus Joe Louis in his prime.  I’m suddenly thinking, did some ancient young Dorian wonder, after hearing the Nestor stanzas, about who would have won—Jason or Achilles–if they had been put in the same ring?


  1. Ron says:

    Everyone has selective memory.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 1:55 pm

  2. flash says:


    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

    9th July 2012 at 1:57 pm

  3. Colma Rising says:


    Looking with nostalgia to what they worked so hard to tear down.


    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

    9th July 2012 at 2:10 pm

  4. Chicago999444 says:

    I call the Millinniels the UNLUCKIEST generation.

    They were raised by Boomer parents with extreme material indulgence made possible by borrowed money, and were conned into believing that expensive toys and going through college living in your own condo bought with borrowed money are birthrights, just to be delivered into a reality that nothing and nobody prepared them for.

    Being raised with absolutely no financial knowledge or even basic numeric competence by foolish, indulgent Boomer parents, they are arriving at adulthood encumbered with college debt of $150,000 or more in many cases, to pay for degrees in courses of study that gave them no marketable skills, and then dropped into an economy absolutely destroyed by Boomer and GenX greed, dishonesty, and insanity.

    Shame on the Silent, Boomer and GenX elders who didn’t care enough about their children to leave them any other legacy.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 8

    9th July 2012 at 2:13 pm

  5. Thunderbird says:

    I’ll second that Chicago999444!

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

    9th July 2012 at 2:35 pm

  6. TC says:

    Millennials are at a huge disadvantage if for no other reason than spending their formative years watching MTV, and not the MTV which played music videos, but rather the agenda-driven MTV with 24/7 pseudo-reality shows like [Un] Real World and Cribs where vapid and depraved morons are celebrated to the highest degree.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2

    9th July 2012 at 2:45 pm

  7. Axel says:

    If somebody with talent were to make up a response, using an actress digitally inserted into the role of the doe-in-the-headlights millenial that was the subject of McAvoy invective, and make that response as rhetorically clever, and along the same lines as what Chicago999444 said, it would go viral on YouTube.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

    9th July 2012 at 2:49 pm

  8. SSS says:

    Worst generation ever? Ever? As in going back about 8,000 years or so?

    How about that collection of heathens that came flying out of the Arabian peninsula after Mohammed died and headed for all points north, east and west, murdering, pillaging, and plundering along the way? Or those fine, upstanding gentlemen from Germany who put together the Thousand Year Reich?

    Only guessing here, but I think “ever” might be a stretch.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2

    9th July 2012 at 4:30 pm

  9. Zarathustra says:

    It’s all the fault of the boomers. They didn’t create anything that made this country what it is today, such as the Federal Reserve, keynesian economics, Israel or the military industrial complex.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6

    9th July 2012 at 6:01 pm

  10. Jmarz says:


    Well said. You sound like a pretty sharp dude.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    9th July 2012 at 6:07 pm

  11. Stan says:

    The generation of Barack h Obama is the greatest generation. Just him being in it makes it the greatest!!!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

    9th July 2012 at 7:19 pm

  12. flash says:

    When metro-sexual Berkley boy Howie condemns the corporate pimps he whores for, I’ll give a rats ass for the his opinion, until then he’s just another shill diverting attention from where the blame really lies….with he and his corporatist asshole buddies.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9

    9th July 2012 at 7:28 pm

  13. Administrator says:


    Chicago ain’t a dude.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 8:43 pm

  14. Jmarz says:


    Thanks for the heads up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 9:09 pm

  15. ThePessimisticChemist says:

    I love the show, and loved the speech. That particular comment rankled a bit, but the show has enough entertainment value that I’m willing to watch it anyway.

    A lot of the commentary in that speech (and otherwise in the show) is spot on.

    The most humorous part of it all is that its a boomer challenging the status quo and trying to make a change in the world.

    The reality is that its going to be an X-er (highly unlikely), a millenial (fairly unlikely) or not at all (bingo).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

    9th July 2012 at 9:14 pm

  16. Anonymous says:

    “I think Boomers have many admirable traits. But I have little patience for any generation (or individual) when it knocks the milk carton off the table, whines about it, and then blames someone else for all the mess on the floor.”


    “America feels like it’s unraveling. Though we live in an era of relative peace and comfort, we have settled into a mood of pessimism about the long-term future, fearful that our superpower nation is somehow rotting from within. The America of today feels worse, in its fundamentals, than the one many of us remember from youth, a society presided over by those of supposedly lesser consciousness. We yearn for civic character but satisfy ourselves with symbolic gestures and celebrity circuses. We perceive no greatness in our leaders, a new meanness in ourselves. Each new election brings a new jolt, its aftermath a new disappointment.”

    – Strauss & Howe (The 4th Turning)

    PissyChemist…. we haven’t even really gotten started.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 9:24 pm

  17. Colma Rising says:

    ^^^ Me @ 9:24 ^^^

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

    9th July 2012 at 9:43 pm

  18. Joe Gargery says:

    Sorkin likes to have his heroes pitched softballs that they can knock out of the park, preferably with a string of memorized statistics recited rapid-fire which leave no room for questioning or refutation. The softball pitcher just stands there, mute, overwhelmed by the Sorkin-manque’s brilliance, just as the audience is supposed to be.

    Just like real life, right?

    The quick response to Sorkin-McAvoy’s rant is to eschew empty statistics assembled by God-knows-who on God-knows-what-standard and to say that you favor the “Open Door” test to a nation’s status in the world.

    What’s the “Open Door” test? Open the doors to a nation: Do people want to come in or to go out?
    Voting with one’s feet beats statistics any day.

    Naturally, such a counter-argument would put Sorkin-McAvoy in a difficult position. But not to worry: like the crypto-Marxist he is, Sorkin-McAvoy would immediate go ad hominem. It’s automatic.

    BTW, the worst generation in American history wasn’t the Boomers. It was the Cavaliers who settled the South in the seventeenth century. They encountered an indigenous Stone Age aboriginal people in the New World and decided that it would be a great idea to import another group of Stone Age aboriginals from Africa. They did so for two reasons only – so that they wouldn’t have to work, and so they could get free pussy. We are still living with the byproducts of their decision.

    I hope all of them are burning in Hell.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 10:53 pm

  19. Smokey says:

    The 4th Turding of Neil & Howe is just stupid shit.
    Give it up already!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7

    9th July 2012 at 1:18 am

  20. SSS says:


    The Smokey posting above has a whiff of the real thing. Just a whiff, based on the “4th Turding” comment. You’re on the hotseat here. Real? Or not? All my sources in Homeland Security have either died or are in jail.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 1:36 am

  21. Der Scheisskerl says:

    The problem with America is not that it is no longer the greatest nation in the world.
    The problem is that it has been taken over by a gang of criminals.
    This is no longer our country. We are mere renters now. If you have any doubts about this, please
    check your latest property tax bill.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 3:38 am

  22. John Gault says:


    Most of the crap has already been covered here, the “spot on where this rant is coming from” line was the glorifying of the “War on Poverty” as moral. First off, LBJ and his gang kicked that off, not Boomers, second the reasoning for it was the future voter base of the Democrat Party, not a real attempt to eradicate poverty, third it was [is] a very expensive failure that we cannot get rid of. The only success it has had was in the real purpose by the designers, the current voter base of the Democrat Party.

    On the propaganda scale, the childish unsubtle shots of the quiet audience amazed at the brilliance of the boomer was laughably transparent and one of Hollywierd’s worst, rating zero. Is this all it takes to be rich in Hollywood? When will real talent be allowed to make TV shows and movies? I guess when you limit your choices to one ethnic group and one sexual preference for the most part, this is what you get.


    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 6:04 am

  23. Administrator says:


    Not Smokey.

    Sounds like that blithering idiot sheep fucking mongoloid David Pierre.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

    9th July 2012 at 6:41 am

  24. flash says:

    When Hurling Howie embraces the total truth and forthright admits he and his corporate cronies ass raped America using the cover of government regulatory protection and subsidies to do so , then we may be able to get to the bottom of what ails America(e.g.crony capitalism) ,until then he is just adding more nonsensical muck to an already overly silted information stream.

    Howie stands to gain more by protecting his clientele from the repercussions of truth, than implicating himself as part of the problem.It’s called obfuscation and he does it well.
    Get the generations/class/races embroiled in a bitter conflict while the corporate criminals skate…works for Howie, but only an idiot bites.


    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7

    9th July 2012 at 7:37 am

  25. flash says:

    for pissy and muck…

    Philosophical and Scientific Arguments in Favor of the Soul
    July 6, 2012
    By michaelsuede

    First I want to make a distinction between belief and faith. Belief does not require or equate to faith. One can “believe” that the day sky is blue, but one cannot have “faith” that the sky is blue, as faith implies belief without proof. Since one can prove through various means that the color of the day sky meets the accepted definition of blue, faith is not required to believe that the sky is blue. One could also believe that the day sky is green, but that belief could be refuted through evidentiary means. For the purposes of this article, a faith based belief must not be able to be refuted through evidentiary means, nor proven through evidentiary means. For example, it would be an act of faith to believe that Christ was/is the son of God, since that belief cannot be subjected to an evidence based proof/falsification test. One cannot prove nor disprove Christ’s assertion that he was the son of God, which leaves belief in his claim as an act of faith.

    Belief in a soul, defined as an immortal conscious awareness, is rather different than believing that any given religious doctrine is “God’s word.” One does not need to believe in the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon or any other religious doctrine to believe that consciousness is a separate, distinct, eternal and fundamental feature of this universe. Belief that any given religious doctrine is “the one true doctrine of God’s word” demands faith, since its claims can neither be proven nor disproved, whereas consciousness is obviously something that definitively exists within this universe, and as such, can be subjected to various tests.

    It should also be pointed out that belief in a soul is also distinct from a belief in God(s). It is not a logical contradiction to believe in a soul, yet not believe in a God, since the two could very well be separate entities. The existence of an all powerful, all knowing, eternal entity’s existence cannot be disproved. Such a God could have simply created the universe and set it into motion and then left it to its own devices. Yet neither can such a God be proven to exist, unless that God decided to make his presence manifest for inquiry. Presently, belief in the existence of such a God is an act of faith.

    What I’m trying to point out with my arguments here is that belief in a soul is entirely separate and distinct from a belief in a God or a religious doctrine. One can believe in a soul, yet not be in a logical contradiction with one’s own beliefs if they did not also believe in a God or a particular religious doctrine. And, since consciousness indisputably exists, holding a particular belief about its nature is not the same as having faith in the existence of a God or religious doctrine.

    That said, let’s take a closer look at the nature of consciousness. Modern scientific inquiry is unable to determine the causal properties of our awareness. We simply don’t know why the physical matter of our brains should give rise to the experience of awareness we deem to be consciousness. Science has provided us numerous deterministic theories in regards to how this may be possible, but there are no definitive answers that spell out precisely how inanimate matter can be organized into a conscious awareness. Nor does modern science tell us why the given organization of matter in our minds should give rise to conscious awareness.

    However, modern scientific inquiry has provided us a wealth of knowledge in regards to the biological functions of the brain. So let’s go over some of the things we know to be true about the physical properties of the brain. Scientists surmise that synaptic bonds are the method by which memory is encoded into the brain. They make this assumption based on the fact that the inhibition of a specific protein kinase, which blocks the strengthening of synaptic bonds, leads to apparent memory loss in animal tests. However, there are some problems with this theory.

    It is debatable that there are enough synaptic bonds to account for the amount of memory we know the mind is capable of storing. Further, we know from brain scans that short term and long term memories appear to be stored and recalled in differing areas of the brain. Modern science has not produced a plausible mechanism by which this transport of memories to differing areas of the mind could take place over time. Thus, it is accurate to say there is no proof that memory is entirely a physical construct of the mind. Obviously this is important given the intimate ties between experiential awareness and memory.

    Further, modern science has not provided us with an origin point of thought within the brain. Brain scans reveal that thoughts appear as a cascade of bio-electrical activity originating at differing points across the entire brain. There is no singular point in the brain that scientists can point to and say, “this is where all thoughts originate from.” There is no decision maker in the brain that decides what we will think about at any given moment.

    It is in the silence of the mind that we find a deeper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Science cannot tell us what biological mechanism provokes a thought into existence. Thoughts appear to coalesce in the mind purely at will. They appear to be willed into being by an unknown causal agent. A person can chose to think or not think at will, and as such, our consciousness appears to have total control over the thoughts we chose to manifest.

    If consciousness were purely the product of deterministic bio-chemical processes, it seems doubtful to me that we would have such control over our own minds. How is it possible that I can chose to think or not think, at will, if random bio-chemical reactions are the process through which consciousness manifests itself? If bio-chemical reactions are not the initiators of thought, then what is?

    At this point, I want to make a further distinction between thought and awareness. While most people consider them to be one in the same, there are notable differences between the two. You can have awareness without thought, but it is impossible to have thought without awareness. If we define thought as that which we think, and awareness as the ability to be aware of what we think, it should become clear that the two are not one in the same. For example, when I read something, I “audibly” speak the words I’m reading to myself in my own mind. My mind creates a mental voice that turns what I’m reading into a mental noise. The mental noise is what I’m thinking about, but the ability to be aware of that noise is my awareness. When I stop thinking, the mental noise is silent, yet I am still “aware” of my conscious existence.

    Try it once. Notice the silence around you.

    In order to notice silence, a curious thing takes place. The mind must become silent itself in order to notice silence. Noticing silence is a recognition of an awareness beyond thought.

    Getting back to the science of the brain, modern science has been able to dissect the brain down to the atomic level, yet it still has not produced a causal initiator of thought. Nor has it produced a physical mechanism that would explain how animal life becomes aware.

    Further, consciousness cannot be the result of macro processes if one believes in free will. This is because all macro processes are deterministic in nature. Probabilistic behavior of matter only occurs at the atomic/subatomic level. If we are to believe that macro processes are the causative agents of consciousness, then every thought and every action we have ever undertaken has been predestined to happen. I find this to be a rather ridiculous line of reasoning. Consider all of the judgments, emotions, and decisions that occur within an ordinary conversation between two people. Are we to believe that the reactions, judgments and emotions that arise between both parties are predestined to occur? How is it even possible for the two brains to coordinate a coherent response between each other if they are entirely separate entities governed by entirely separate deterministic processes?

    Due to the lack of plausible macro causal agents, many scientists have moved their theorizing to the subatomic level. I regard this as simply obfuscating the problem of awareness behind the incomprehensible jargon of quantum mechanics; I will explain why in just a moment. While I agree that there must be some kind of physical agent that creates the cascade of brain activity we see in brain scans, I disagree that it is even possible for any physical agent to be responsible for conscious awareness.

    Whether or not thoughts are physical manifestations of the brain is a debatable subject, but the nature of awareness itself is much more cut and dry. Natural philosophy makes it quite clear that it is very unlikely for awareness to arise out of physical matter. To prove my point, let’s start out with a thought experiment. If you have an unlimited amount of blue Lego blocks, is it possible for you to create a large red object by putting those blue Lego blocks together in various ornate ways?

    Obviously the answer is no. This is because all properties of a system must be inherent in the components that make up that system. Since you only have blue blocks to work with, there is simply no way to produce a red object. Similarly, if I create a gadget that utilizes electricity, I must supply a flow of electrons into that gadget before it will work. If I want to create a soft fluffy pillow, I can’t do it if I only have steel nails to work with.

    To claim that a physical manifestation of matter, be it macro, atomic or subatomic, is the causal agent of awareness, is to simultaneously claim that the matter in question is also aware itself. For one cannot produce a system with properties other than those already inherent in its component parts. Have scientists found any evidence to suggest that atomic/subatomic particles are aware of their own existence?

    Now which argument sounds more crazy? That atomic/subatomic particles are inherently aware, or that awareness is a separate fundamental component of the universe itself? Further, what are the implications if atomic/subatomic particles ARE aware? At this point we have entered the realm of faith again haven’t we? Since it cannot be proven nor disproved that atomic/subatomic particles are aware or have some aspect of awareness to them, isn’t it faith to believe they are the causal agents of awareness? On a philosophical level, we know physical matter exists because we are able to experience it. However, it is a fallacy to then conclude that because we can experience physical matter, that experience itself must be composed of physical matter.

    So what does science have to say about the nature of quantum mechanics itself? Interestingly, many experiments have demonstrated that in order for matter to exist, it must be consciously observed. This means that consciousness must have been present before matter came into existence. QM is quite explicit in stating that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function (ie. bring matter into a measurable state of existence). Quantum decoherence on its own does not attempt to solve the measurement problem. Decoherence as an explanation for wave function collapse results in either a many worlds or many minds interpretation of the physical universe.

    A many minds interpretation leads to a continuous infinity of minds existing in an infinite number of universes. This leads to a system that is unable to explain single photon interference patterns in experiments such as the double slit experiment. A many-worlds interpretation implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual “world” (or “universe”). But no matter which one you chose, conscious observation is inherently necessary before a wave function collapse, or branching of the universe, occurs.

    We can see that the fundamental tenants of QM theory are directly opposed to its use as an explanation for consciousness. Yet scientists have no other means to explain consciousness, other than through QM theory, because that’s the only avenue left that could possibly incorporate free will. The end result being that they are left floundering around in obscure mathematical theories trying to prove something that logic says cannot be proven.

    Now that I’ve covered the big scientific and philosophical points, I want to move on to something more metaphysical. While many scientists have poo pooed near death experiences as being the byproduct of a dying brain, there can be no doubt that these experiences do occur. Many people who have had a near death experience are able to report on verifiable veridical events that occurred while they were seemingly unconscious, which could later be confirmed by medical personnel. Here are a few cases for your consideration:

    Dr. Pim van Lommel, a cardiologist, conducted studies on NDEs that led him to conclude that consciousness is non-local (resides outside of the brain).

    Dr. Lloyd Rudy, a cardiologist, reports on a patient that accurately described his resuscitation procedure while unconscious in a state of near death.

    Dr. Evan Alexander, a neuroscientist, underwent a near death experience that made him a believer in the afterlife.

    Pam Reynolds, a musician, reported events while in a state of near death that were verified by medical staff.

    Hopefully these few examples will whet your appetite and cause you to dig a little deeper in to this phenomena. What I find fascinating about these experiences is that nearly all of the people who experience a “deep” NDE report that time seems to lose all meaning. Many of them report that they experience the infinite, which is something that seems impossible for the physical brain to create.

    Given that the best science we have today says consciousness must preexist matter, and given that logic dictates that the properties of a system must be inherent in the components of that system, and given that all macro processes are deterministic, and given that science has found no causal agent for the initiation of thought, and given that science is unable to explain a mechanism for the transference of memories between differing brain regions, and given that the number of synapses in the brain seems too small to hold volume of memory we know the mind is capable of storing, and given that atomic/subatomic particles show no signs of awareness, is it illogical to conclude that consciousness is not a property of matter, but is instead a separate fundamental component of the universe?

    I say no.

    I would also like to point out the timeless nature of awareness. No matter what we experience, we can only experience things that are happening at this present moment. We cannot experience the future, nor can we experience the past. Awareness seems to reside outside of time in this regard. We can experience time as a sequential flow of moments, but only ever experiencing one moment at a time. If time were to stop, would we cease to experience? Logic says no, since we don’t ever experience time in the first place. We only experience this moment.

    While it is true that the senses need time to receive information and transport it to the brain for processing, the experiences those senses bring to us reside outside the flow of time. Physical things need time to act and react, sense receptors need time to encode and decode information that is sent to our brain, but experience is always instantaneous in the present moment. If experience was not instantaneous, everything we experience would be smeared across time. It’s impossible to even comprehend what that might be like.

    In conclusion, I believe that consciousness is separate from the physical mind and that consciousness is infinite and eternal in nature, and I don’t need any faith to arrive at this conclusion.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

    9th July 2012 at 7:42 am

  26. Zorro says:

    First lets notice the obvious errors. The Baby Boom generation includes those born between the years 1946 and 1964 (inclusive), and in the spirit of being flexible, we can let the endpoint years overlap by + or – one. Thus Aaron Sorkin is a Boomer. Every older man lecturing a young person is not a “prophet” personality type. In The Fourth Turning H&S throw out modern scientific understanding of human personality and instead replace it with a simplistic four model abstraction. It’s a fun game to play; it’s easy to understand and everyone can join in. However it’s not scientifically sound.

    Anchorman Will McAvoy’s (Jeff Daniels) rant about how Americans are falling behind is very interesting and should serve as another warning to all of us who teach or mentor the young.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

    9th July 2012 at 10:30 am

  27. Der Scheißkerl says:

    Boomers speaking about morality is rediculous.
    I thought there are no absolutes? Who is to say
    what is right and what is wrong? I doubt most
    of them can fire up enough neurons in their drug addled brains to even define the term .
    My life goal as an x-er is to one day pass on to
    my children the kind of country the boomers
    inherited from their parents. I am afraid though that
    it will take several generations to undo the damage they
    have done.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

    9th July 2012 at 11:13 am

  28. Thunderbird says:

    Flash: “Philosophical and Scientific Arguments in Favor of the Soul.” by: michaelsuede

    A very thought provoking piece. I would like to comment based on my observations of a couple of points he made.

    Based on my personal understanding of belief and faith: Belief is a prerogative of the executive function of our mind and faith is a faculty of our mind.

    “Further, modern science has not provided us with an origin point of thought within the brain.”

    This may be so but in my own experience the activity of thought is in the front of the brain behind the forehead. When going to sleep at night, I consciously move away from this activity of thought in my mind, by moving my conscious awareness to the top of my head. It works all the time.

    Free Will: I don’t believe people have that much free will. People respond to stimulus; external or internal by trained automatic responses. We are automations of nature. Think about it. When we first learn to drive a car it is very difficult to coordinate all our functions but after practice our sub-conscious takes over and it becomes automatic. This is the way we are with everything we do. Free Will leaves the scene. After a period of time where people are following the same routine in like all their actions and responses become automatic. This is my beef with following the “rule of law.” We lose conscience and become automations of the law. This is “being” in the box. We will not be able to solve our economic and social problems until we break away from these laws and again begin to exercise our “free will.” We have to rebuild conscience to exercise free will. People have very little free will left. Oh, we think we have free will! But look at how we respond to anything? It is automatic. Someone says the wrong thing that irritates us and we have an automatic response before we can even think about it. We have become automations without even realizing it!

    Belief in the Soul: I believe we have a Spirit but not much of a Soul; if any. A Soul has to be built consciously by practicing certain traits using the faculties in our consciousness. But we have to be consciously aware to do that. The first trait is to use our faculty of Faith in God to provide for us. Not the God of religion; but the God that animates the universe we live in and created life. This is our source of abundance and happiness; not the government and money or religion.

    Love is a Faculty we have to use to cultivate relationships between people; not rule of law. Rule of law is a substitute for Love (grace) in our interactions with men and women. Wonder why we are in so many wars and feuds with other nations and between ourselves? Look no further than love being replaced by rule of law. When you love someone unconditionally you allow them to be them self. How many people on this blog have unconditional love in their life? In unconditional love one lives by grace; not law or a list of rules.

    Many of our faculties of our mind like imagination, our own sense of order, elimination, justice, zeal, personal strength, our own power of the mind, has been dumbed downed by our educational system and the rule of law. All of these faculties of our mind has to be developed along with a conscience that feels the emotions of the heart and the body for us to develop a Soul.

    In our present state of affairs with our attention focused on the government as our provider & source, and our love of money to provide our lust of consumer goods to tickle our physical desires we are headed for perdition as a people and a country.

    When a politician boldly pronounces to you that we are a nation of people who live by “the rule of law” be wary, you are looking at someone who wants to strip you of your free will and personal power.

    Worst generation ever? That is yet to be seen.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    9th July 2012 at 12:09 pm

  29. Muck About says:

    @flash: Goddamit, your cut and paste finger got stuck up your ass again! We’ve told you about doing that and you just keep it up.

    Of course, you lucked out and T-bird rushed to the rescue with a barmy but brave comment.

    Be glad I didn’t come along first.

    Just because the 6,000 scientists working round the world just decided they’ve actually found foot prints left by “The God Particle” (and boy, do they wish Leon Lederman had kept that label to himself instead of putting it on a book cover about the theoretical Higg’s Boson) , does not any proof of anything else make.

    Just like your voluminous cut-and-paste comment has no basis in fact, nor draw any conclusions and, in fact, is bull shit from the first sentence. The key word here is “Philosophical”. Take the rest of the title and shitcan it.

    You can be “Philosophical” about anything you want to but truly, flash, the real meaning of PhD means “piled higher and deeper”. Sort of like a “Philosophical Engineer”, who continually learns more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing.

    I won’t even comment on the article because you’ve thrown imaginary shit all over the thread, making it too slick and smelly to continue..


    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 12:37 pm

  30. Colma Rising says:


    Let’s notice the obvious….

    You’re full of shit. Linear thinker. “Divide by four and play along”? The foolish musing of a mind incapable of abstract thought.

    Or I suppose that the idea of reference using two axis’ and four quadrants went unnoticed in your algebra class?

    I suppose the idea of archetype is beyond your scope of comprehension as well….

    I would wager you believe economics an exact science.

    I suppose you feel that seasons don’t exist?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

    9th July 2012 at 12:52 pm

  31. flash says:

    Thunderbird- choosing not exercising your free will is not evidence of being not in possession of it.
    Having the free will to ignore reality is proof positive of the existence of free will.
    A soulless spirit?…would that not be an oxymoron?

    muck, if you don’t want to read the essay then scroll on…
    Yes muck, i’ve read all about the data concerning the higins-boson shadow of a god gene and i laughed.
    Translated that means the scientoadies need more tax money to piss away at accomplishing nothing…the god particle ,just like dark matter and string theory require a leap of faith to believe just like the god you deny.
    See I knew you had faith in something ,if only bullshit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

    9th July 2012 at 1:18 pm

  32. Bruce says:

    “Can you tell me why America is the greatest nation on earth?”


    America is the greatest nation on earth because of Necon foreign policy, clusterfuck politics, Wall Street banking, the military industrial complex, big box stores, fast food chains, remedial TV, video game addictions, celebrity worship, cheap junk from China, cheap mediocre crap from China, affordable quality stuff from China, half ass education, welfare and SNAP cards, a pandering media and a public largely made up of morons of every age, size, income level and race.

    No place else on earth or in time has managed to do and have all these things in such mega proportions all orchestrated in sloth and greed while administered by imbeciles and actually exist. This has been made possible because no matter the short comings, problems
    or insurmountable obstacles we as a nation can pretend harder, better, faster and longer than any people in all of history. In spite of being delusional moron’s we have the capacity to either fix a problem, blow the problem up or deny it out of existence and we are expert in all three areas. We are united in inequality, disagreement, distrust, disgust and contempt for one another to the point that we are one and mighty………A steam roller of paradox and illusion transformed into a force of reality that can and has made great and improbable achievements while simultaneously producing endless piles of horseshit.

    And in the end we are Doomed in the greatest of ways too.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 2:30 pm

  33. ThePessimisticChemist says:

    @flash: Nice copy paste, good to see you are alive and your google still works.

    I challenge the assertion that our brains can’t be explained by conventional science. They are wonderfully complex, yet we continue to make great strides in understanding them every day.

    The synaptic bond idea is a good one, and one that is substantiated by research into long term potentiation in banana slugs. Scientists were able to induce a specific memory in a slug using a heat stimulus, and thank to the wonder of specific dye’s were able to track the growth AND degradation of the synapse that was formed. Formation = memory, degradation = forgetting.

    I won’t go into the entire paper here (fun for nerds, boring for everyone else), but it provided a very strong support for the idea that the synapse is where things occur.

    Brain science is still evolving, and as of right now all of our findings support that current levels of scientific understanding (long term potentiation, plasticity, evolution etc) can explain what is occurring and that we need not look as far as quantum mechanics.

    Thats not to say that quantum mechanics should be ruled out, just that they aren’t well enough established to provide some real biological research avenues yet.


    All that being said, I’m not against the idea of a spirit/soul. As I said above, science is continuously discovering new and wonderful things about the natural world, it would be foolish of ourselves to 100% believe a negative.

    I’m not sure where you get off thinking I’m an atheist. I’ve never claimed to be one, and I never will be one.

    Now, I don’t believe that the christians are any more right or wrong than any other religion, and I’ve noticed that they tend to get more bent out of shape over thinking outside the box than other faiths, so maybe thats it.

    The biggest argument against one singular entity (from my point of view):


    Not one shred or iota of documented evidence supporting the claims of any of the faiths. Those who tout the bible are just setting themselves up for failure, and are as horribly misguided as those people who bought owls because Harry Potter had one.

    Often we will then fall back on philosophical questions (the art of asking unanswerable questions so that no one will ask us to generate real work or results):

    The fundamental problem here is that we are relying on human imagination. I can think to myself “my bank account has $1 million in it today” and then proceed to tell others that same story. Just because I believe it, and others believed it too doesn’t make it any more real or false. Reality is what it is.

    The bible is not evidence that christianity is the “right” religion. Human imagination is not “proof” that there is a single omnipotent omniscient god.

    At this point in human history there is no reasonable evidence that such a divinity exists. At this point there is no reasonable evidence that everyday occurrences are actually miracles being perpetrated by a divinity. Modern science or conceivable future scientific discoveries can explain these phenomena.

    In all honesty I think organized religion is just another method of control. Control how you think, control how you believe, and control how you act. Insanity, but I guess some people need to believe that the Big Guy upstairs will punish them if they step out of line. Whatever works.


    If you made it this far, thank you very much, I greatly appreciate it! Now just one question:

    How the hell did this tangent get started? I read up above and it just turns into a standard flash-copy-pasta page real damned fast.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 2:34 pm

  34. Administrator says:


    I like your answer better than Sorkin’s.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 3:43 pm

  35. flash says:

    PC-Scientists were able to induce a specific memory in a slug using a heat stimulus, and thank to the wonder of specific dye’s were able to track the growth AND degradation of the synapse that was formed. Formation = memory, degradation = forgetting.

    Being able to induce a specific memory(of whatever) is no proof of cognition.It’s no different than pecking data into a hard drive.
    The ablity to reason, along with the specific ablity to purposefully deceive one’s self is the true measure of cognition.

    You’ll never see a deer deceive himself into believing that the wolves stalking him have only his best interest at heart.

    PC-”At this point in human history there is no reasonable evidence that such a divinity exists.”

    There are tomes of recorded empirical evidence to suggest divine intervention in not only changing peoples live, but saving their life as well.

    If God gave you absolute proof of his existence would you then follow or rebel?
    And, then there’s the greater challenge of the test of faith.

    BTW ,I agree with your assertion that organized religion bastardized the Christian faith, which is similar to democracy bastardizing republicanism.
    But, then God warned against collectivism administered by the rule of man.

    As usual God was ignored with great consequence.
    1 Samuel 8

    6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

    10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day. ”

    19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

    21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22 The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

    9th July 2012 at 4:50 pm

  36. Colma Rising says:

    Flash is busy embodying the “Prophet” archetype.

    Wonder if he realizes this or not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

    9th July 2012 at 5:44 pm

  37. Thunderbird says:

    Flash: “Having the freewill to ignore reality is proof positive of the existence of freewill.”

    I don’t call this freewill but rather denial. If you observe yourself and others; and are honest with yourself, you will find that that denial in most cases is automatic.

    What is freewill in your own words and where does it come from? You are good at quoting others but one can quote others without really understanding what others are saying. What is your meaning of freewill so I can understand what point of view you are coming from? Obviously we are on different pages on this subject.

    As far as a soulless spirit is concerned it is not hard to fathom this. You seem to be a fan of the Bible so what about the “walking dead.” What does that term mean if not soulless people. And, would you consider Hitler and Stalin soulless spirits?

    Conscious awareness and having a conscience would imply to me a having a soul. It seems to me that it requires conscious labors and suffering to build a conscience/soul. It requires spiritual food and the practice of certain traits; like duty, honor, helping others less fortunate, and having a respect for your fellow man. Do you really think a soul is a free thing given you by God? Sorry pal; it doesn’t work that way.

    And what is God to you? If you have to quote others to establish God then I would say you don’t know God. I told you my definition in my own words. You seem to have to quote others. I venture to say you do not even know what a soul is simply because you fail to use your own words.

    Man is an automation of nature. He has little or no freewill. You demonstrate it by quoting others. Then you say ignoring reality is proof positive of the existence of freewill. Simply not true. It is my wish that more people were proactive in life rather than reactors of stimulus. But that takes a brave heart.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

    9th July 2012 at 6:47 pm

  38. ThePessimisticChemist says:

    “Being able to induce a specific memory(of whatever) is no proof of cognition.It’s no different than pecking data into a hard drive.
    The ablity to reason, along with the specific ablity to purposefully deceive one’s self is the true measure of cognition.”-flash

    We must start small. First, memory induced by reactions. Eventually the scientific techniques we hone in lower organisms can be used more safely in higher lifeforms. Lets be realistic, we have the technological know-how to solve these issues within the next five years, it would just be morally reprehensible to move forward at such a breakneck pace.

    Basic stimulus retention can be thoroughly demonstrated and explained right now. Higher order traits (emotions, cognitive functions) will have to wait until we have safe methods of demonstrating them.

    “There are tomes of recorded empirical evidence to suggest divine intervention in not only changing peoples live, but saving their life as well.”-flash

    Attaching numbers to the claims do not automatically lend them credence. There are scientific texts from many thousands of years ago, but the old and new testaments are not among them.

    I’ll never understand why people have to get religion in my science. Religion seeks to provide the answers to “why”. Science seeks to provide the answers to “how”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 8:42 pm

  39. Chuck Burgess says:

    Hey, Joe Gargery
    Better brush up on your damn history. Yankees from New England brought the slaves here and sold them in the South and in the North; slave-holding died out in the North for economic reasons alone. Yes, Southerners have to accept their share of the blame but knock off the nonsense. Let me add that EVERY European country involved in the settling of the Americas is equally to blame because they all were in the slave game: England, France, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands. Hell, even Sweden and Denmark were up to their ears in it! Stop knocking the South. You don’t know what you are talking about, pal.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 11:58 pm

  40. Bruce says:

    All this religion, faith, and belief stuff makes my head hurt.

    Either there is a God of some sort or there’s not.
    Either the Spirit exists or not.
    Either the soul lives forever or not.
    Either you die and enter the spirit mode or you know nothing and turn to dust.
    Your either right about it or not.
    Thinking or contemplating it will not change what ever it is.

    Just to through out some negativity here’s an unpleasant possibility to consider. If the spirit lives forever just think about the billions upon billions of moron’s you might have to spend eternity with. And the billions and billions more that will join you sooner or later. You could be doomed no matter how things really work.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    9th July 2012 at 12:42 am

  41. flash says:

    Free will is my choice to answer your comment. ..enuff said.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    9th July 2012 at 5:07 am

  42. Thunderbird says:

    Flash: Michelle Amaral wanted to be a brain scientist to help cure disease but after her extensive education she didn’t know how and consequently gave up. This is a classic example of the lack of free will. People learn by rote, but without free will to investigate the unknown they end up failing to achieve their original goals.

    We are creatures of habit. Everything we do is habit. We react to outside stimuli. We tie our shoes the same way every morning, take the same route to work, eat at the same restaurants, react to our friends and coworkers the same way; everything we do we blindly do the same way and you say we have free will? We are human machines and that is all. Try changing your usual routine and you will get my point. We are creatures of habit; not free will. Free will is not your choice to answer a comment. Weather you do or not is a conditioned response.

    You even have a conditioned response when I tell you, you know nothing about free will! You are a human machine that churns out others people’s opinions. No free will involved; only a machine repeating a cycle. Michelle Amaral’s failure is the result of the same thing. As is the failure to turn our economy around. We don’t have the free will to do it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    9th July 2012 at 9:04 am

  43. Harry says:

    I hate to ctrl+c/ctrl+v (we’ve had enough of that, eh?), but for you self-actualized Boomers who are too lazy to read through the comments, Neil Howe essentially answered his own question in the comments:

    “Boomers, more than any other generation, were the ones responsible for grinding down all of the grand projects of the Silent and G.I.s by their fulminations against progress, by their moral indignation over hubris, by their ‘small is beautiful’ precisionism, by their back-to-nature ludditism, by their reject-the-world gnosticism… well, you get the idea. Jeff Daniels is nostalgic for the ‘Great Society’? His generation destroyed the idea of the Great Society, since his generation rejected being great in favor of being moral and it rejected trying to become a workable society in favor of becoming a self-actualized individual.

    I think Boomers have many admirable traits. But I have little patience for any generation (or individual) when it knocks the milk carton off the table, whines about it, and then blames someone else for all the mess on the floor.”

    And this was followed by the finest description of the Boomer mentality I’ve ever read:

    “the ‘great society,’ like the marshall plan, the apollo missions, the civil rights movement, and so on, were not the creations of the boomers, but the ideals they looked up to as children. [lbj, born 1908; mlk jr born 1929; jfk born 1917]. daniels’ character is nostalgic for his world as a child. he grew up full of himself and his sense of nobility because as a child he shared such big dreams. and being a child while he had those dreams, he was unaware of the compromises and the work and the sacrifices that had to go into creating realities. thus, as an adolescent he was disgusted by those compromises, and was all the more noble in his own mind because of his disgust. and he could explore his own consciousness much more easily that engage in a complex and compromised reality. and then self-actualization turned into self-gratification in the name of self-actualization, at least for most. not for jeff daniels’ character of course, who remains pure and noble. and thus, still, disgusted.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    9th July 2012 at 9:55 am

  44. ThePessimisticChemist says:

    flash -

    I think you need to take your meds again my friend. Right now you are jumping from topic to topic with little to no reason behind the moves.

    “Could the majority of scientoadies make a living sans the government subsidy spigot or university free ride?,,,,but scientoads are not part of the FSA, you say? LOL…

    Scientists are still stupid

    I’ve never said any of the things you try to insert into my mouth in this post.

    I’ll bite though, in the interest of generating some fresh debates.

    I think public support of science is a necessity at this point in time. By allowing individuals to freely seek out answers to questions we allow our understanding of the world to grow naturally. Were we to stick tightly to the constrains of supply and demand many of the modern things we take for granted would never have occurred. Companies are loathe to pour big bucks into R&D when the ROI is so uncertain.

    Currently big companies take 1 of 3 routes with cutting edge R&D:

    1) Partner with a university to do it. The university supplies the technical expertise and basic laboratory equipment, typically the company supplies funding for a small research group as well as any research specific equipment that is needed.

    2) Partner with a government agency to do it. Certain government agencies do research, but are not allowed to make a profit off of the research. Instead what they do is partner with a company. The government supplies their research as well as any specific expertise required, and the company takes care of scale up and taking it to market. In the case of pharmaceuticals the company has to agree to sell it for substantially less than they might otherwise be able to, or else the government will refuse to partner with them.

    Please note, that I am listing ideal situations. In the case of the Government+Corporation interaction it has been all too common for big companies to take advantage of the public by screwing over our inept government, who seems far too afraid to go after large corporations….probably because they know if they let things slide they will be able to get a cushy position in said company after they leave their public post.

    3) A small start up company has a great idea and spends a lot of time and energy on R&D for a wonderful new product. Then they sell it out to a large company because its the easy way out. Anecdotally, this seems to be the most common way for companies to approach the R&D situation.

    Now, if the barrier of entry for a start up company was smaller I would be all for eliminating publicly funded research. Right now the cost of starting ANY company is prohibitive thanks to certain legislature our government has passed. In addition to this, science based start ups have their own unique problems in that the technical expertise required is large, and the equipment required to start a company is also prohibitively expensive.

    Simply put, its cheaper to start your own general contracting or IT business than it is to start your own biological/chemical lab. Probably the three biggest reasons why: rising cost of education, rising cost of chemical and biological equipment and of course the ever present storm of eco-nuts who hate on any and all things scientific.

    In regard to the cost of equipment, I believe this is a problem the scientific community has forced on itself. We always seek bigger and better instruments/methods. I think there is a market for smaller, more user friendly lab equipment however companies currently have little demand to create stuff for the little guy so they don’t bother.

    Hell, maybe I’ll grab a couple buddies and start a small scale instrumentation company. When things get better of course, I’d never dream of starting a company at this point in time unless it was some internet thing that had relatively low start up costs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    9th July 2012 at 12:55 pm

  45. Administrator says:

    There is no doubt that I’m GenX


    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 2:38 pm

  46. flash says:

    Harry-“the ‘great society,’ like the marshall plan, the apollo missions, the civil rights movement, and so on, were not the creations of the boomers.
    Thanks Harry, for not hanging that collectivist bunch of wealth redistribution bullshit around US boomers necks as well.
    Bet’cha’ didn’t know the Marshall plan funded France war in Vietnam.
    That’s right Harry ,We the frikkin US paid for France to wage a bloody war against the Vietnamese for the right to steal their natural resources.Pat yourself on the back oh great one.

    TPC…wealth confiscation is OK with you and uh..Harry as long as it’s for the greater good,eh?
    Might have frikkin known.
    BTW, TPC that post wasn’t aimed at you, just a general plop…but you’re welcome just the same.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

    9th July 2012 at 3:06 pm

  47. flash says:

    Thunderbird. I hear you determinist arguments and will attempt to practice what you preach
    Now when I’m out drinking and decide that I have no free will to choose not to get behind the wheel of my truck and end up going the wrong way down the 4 lane expressway, causing 40 car pile up, killing 19 pregnant women, I’ll just explain to the judge that I have no free will and that our wills are determined by genetics and our environment, therefore I am responsible for the mass carnage I caused.
    I’m sure he will understand,.
    Thanks for the enlighments.
    Now ,like the GenXers and the Minnie brats, I have an excuse for everything that ails me and society.
    I wholeheartedly embrace my victim-hood status…thanks again.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

    9th July 2012 at 3:14 pm

  48. Thinker says:

    “There is no doubt that I’m GenX”


    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 3:30 pm

  49. Colma Rising says:

    That’s one to sum it up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 3:36 pm

  50. ThePessimisticChemist says:

    TPC…wealth confiscation is OK with you and uh..Harry as long as it’s for the greater good,eh?
    Might have frikkin known.


    More strawmans.

    Keep this up flash and I’m going to make us all up bingo cards for every thread you post in.

    So far we have:


    ad hominem


    random post

    wall of text copy-paste


    millenial hate

    boomer love

    wikiphd (this is different from wikipedia. WikiPhD is when he tries to have an argument so far out of his scope of understanding that he is obviously quoting his opinion directly from what his favorite website tells him to think. Frequently followed up with a wikipedia link “proving” his superiority.)
    religious supremacy (if the world believed what I did then it would be a perfect place)

    atheist hate

    pictures of millenials

    Not quite there yet, gonna need around 5-6 more “flash-isms” before we have true bingo cards available.

    Either that, or the world’s worst drinking game. See one of the above in a thread, take a shot. If a post meets multiple criteria, you have to take multiple shots.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 5:10 pm

  51. ThePessimisticChemist says:

    I almost forgot the best one!

    -pictures of gay guys kissing from his late evening escapades

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 5:12 pm

  52. flash says:

    you forgot misogynist and racist…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    9th July 2012 at 6:02 pm

  53. Nick says:

    Oh Flash…..please…..grow up, get laid, and learn about the world.
    God is made in man’s image, not the other way around!
    Let’s face it; We are an incredibly complex life form that lives on an incredibly complex organism that we call the earth, that itself lives within an incredibly complex system called the solar system etc etc…
    Just because we don’t have the answers to how and why it all works, doesn’t mean that we should accept that it was all made by magic!
    The sort of theory that proves everything, proves nothing!
    Please, for the sake of your children and community, stop this rubbish….Please!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    9th July 2012 at 9:30 pm

Leave a comment

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.