and these people vote?

No. Wrong, wrong, and . . . wrong. We (everybody) can and do measure the quality of people's expereinces. Example:You (Ringo) are a school history teacher. Kinda fed up with kids, and looking forward to retirement, (just giving your character motivation). You want the kids to study famous explorers this week. You have the opportunity to get one of two people to give a speech to the class. One of them is recently ressurrected Sir Edmund Percival Hillary, first man to summit Everest. The other option is a brocoli salesman (and recent comatase patient) named John Smith.Based on their experiences, which do you choose? (BTW, they both are asking for the exact same speaking fee.)

Groooan.Okay, lets play this game . . .You (RAZD) are a school history teacher. Kinda fed up with kids, and looking forward to retirement, (just giving your character motivation). You want the kids to study famous explorers this week. You have the opportunity to get one of two people to give a speech to the class. One of them is recently ressurrected Sir Edmund Percival Hillary, first man to summit Everest. The other option is a broccoli salesman (and recent comatase patient) named John Smith.Based on their experiences, which do you choose? And Why?

(Why do I get the feeling everyone in this thread has been gaslighting me?) Gaslighting - Wikipedia[Dronester steps up on a soapbox, a flute in the background is heard]Americans have been thoroughly indoctrinated by our government and media that we americans are exceptional. We have been taught that even if america made poor choices and 'mistakes' in the past, america has ONLY strived for freedom and justice. This indoctrination has been most successful with the uninformed, the less-traveled. I strongly believe if more americans would travel we would have less comic-book-mindsets to the world's problems. We'd also believe that our government is not always a loving parent that looks after us and should not be trusted in every action it takes.So even though it may appear that I have been de-riding 'mere' 'tourists' in over-crowded bus tours, I want to make clear every citizen's curiosity is needed to be fed and encouraged. How else to counter the inbred onslaught of corporate media and government's propaganda? I implore, get yourself a passport, go west (young man), go east, go south, go north.Whether at the base of Everest or the summit of Everest, you probably will come back with something far more valuable than just novel conversations.[steps down from the soapbox][NSA agent jabs a poison tipped umbrella into dronester's calf. Dronester TRAVELS to a undisclosed foreign rendition site. Oh, the irony]

Excellent choice Ringo, I am sure Mr. Broccoli can regale the children in wonderful and spine-tingling tales on nothingness. Kudos.

I wonder if we can prevail upon Mr Broccoli to show a 180 page powerpoint presentation of his epic journey. Each screen . . . black.I just hope we aren't overstimulating the children.

Well first of all, . . .

quote:

---

I wonder if we can prevail upon Mr Broccoli to show a 180 page powerpoint presentation of his epic journey. Each screen . . . black.

​

I just hope we aren't overstimulating the children.

---

THAT's funny. I mean, c'mon, that's using my "A" material Ringo! Get Oni's opinion if you doubt me. Someone needs to elect that post as post of the month, TODAY!!! (Cast aspersions on my concept of humor, will ya. [dronester shaking fist])And secondly, how about, "careful ringo, if you strain any harder to make any more contrived scenerios, you'll burst a blood vessel."RAZD suggested, regardless of experience, hiring the zombie speaker because that may very well play better to today's Hollywood-influenced children. Oooookay.How's this . . .Mr. Broccoli should bring along a talking, flying dog side-kick. Eh? Eh? The dog could wear a cape. The kids will LOVE it!!!I STILL stand by my argument:

quote:

---

a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.

---

If you want to continue arguing that the experiences of a comatose person CAN be just as rewarding as a person who climbed Everest, be my guest.

Huh? I think it surely does. Brilliantly! Like a million suns. "Subjective"? When was that word weaseled into the argument? Where did you (Ringo) use SUBJECTIVE experience in these comparisons Message 56:

quote:

---

What led up to the coma? Was Mr. Smith a hero or a fool or a victim of circumstance? What are the after effects of the coma. What blocks of his life does Mr. Smith recall and which does he not?

​

Or, you could have Mr. Hillary standing in front of the class saying, "Um... well... I guess so.... No, not really.... Sometimes...."

---

(Being in a coma is an affliction?)Okay, strike the coma patient (not literally, as I think I caused enough undue distress for all the comatose people out there reading this forum), let's use my penultimate example, the two-year-old toddler . . .You (Ringo) are a school history teacher. You want the kids to study famous explorers this week. You have the opportunity to get one of two people to give a speech to the class. One of them is recently ressurrected Sir Edmund Percival Hillary, first man to summit Everest. The other option is a two-year old toddler named Jane Smith.Based on their experiences, which do you choose? And Why? Edited by dronester, : : )Edited by dronester, : wrong quoted person, sorry RAZD

If you want to continue arguing that the experiences of a two-year-old toddler person CAN be just as rewarding as a person who climbed Everest, be my Percy's guest.Seeya in our next debate ringo.

*chuckle*What part of "objective" do you not understand? *more chuckle*And yet people do assign comparative and objective values . . . successfully . . . all the time . . . whether out on a date, during long interview sessions, or just using minimal common sense to make a simple choice between a two-year-old toddler and a world class alpinist for a speaking engagement about exploration.I have no doubt that EVERY school history teacher in the world would answer in a millisecond my following question, WITHOUT needing to add silly variables to the proposition such as a two-year-old toddler possessing extraordinary public speaking skills . . . :

quote:

---

You are a school history teacher. You want the kids to study famous explorers this week. You have the opportunity to get one of two people to give a speech to the class. One of them is recently resurrected Sir Edmund Percival Hillary, first man to summit Everest. The other option is a two-year-old toddler named Jane Smith.

​

BASED ON THEIR EXPERIENCES, which do you choose?

---

Yeah, I don't doubt that just taking a dump in a diaper would probably be a crowning achievement and an indubitably rewarding experience, . . . for a two-year-old.But if you want to equivocate and argue that taking a crap in one's pants is an entirely subjective experience that CAN be just as deep or rewarding as summiting Mount Everest, then I can only say your skills of objective discrimination are sorely lacking.Edited by dronester, : is>are, singular>plural

Hmmm, . . . seems like you're projecting.

Really, my witty retort gave you no chuckle? That would kill in the Poconos. Oni, help me out here.[Dronester shruggs] Allright . . . One of the definitions for 'objective' is nonpartisan. So IF there are no varying stances or differing opinions to an experience, THAN we can conclude that an evaluation to an experience is objective. How can anything be subjective if we ALL think the same way? Thus my proposition . . .

quote:

---

You (Ringo) are a school history teacher. You want the kids to study famous explorers this week. You have the opportunity to get one of two people to give a speech to the class. One of them is recently ressurrected Sir Edmund Percival Hillary, first man to summit Everest. The other option is a two-year old toddler named Jane Smith.

​

Based on their experiences, which do you choose?

---

Unless you desperately pry another silly qualifier into the mix, you know there is only one answer. The question confirms objectivity.

Wow, after so many posts, YOU are arguing whether or not climbing Everest is a wonderful experience? Is that what you really think my argument is about? Sheesh, my argument IS about the objective comparison of similar experiences, . . . here it is for the fourth (?) time:

quote:

---

a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.

---

My proposition (and other previous examples) was meant to show that we DO all (nearly all) think the same way about certain things. THAT'S the whole point. I have no doubt, I am quite confident, based on the experience, WITHOUT the need to add ANY other qualifier, 99.99% of teachers would easily choose Hillary as the speaker:

quote:

---

You (Ringo) are a school history teacher. You want the kids to study famous explorers this week. You have the opportunity to get one of two people to give a speech to the class. One of them is recently ressurrected Sir Edmund Percival Hillary, first man to summit Everest. The other option is a two-year old toddler named Jane Smith.

​

Based on their experiences, which do you choose?

---

Huh? "intentionally or unintentionally" And the experience of the students is hardly the main consideration in my proposition. Huh??? Huh? When Hillary describes his experience, you believe it to be a "SECOND-hand description" Huh???Ringo, I think the gaslight is still turned on, and I am getting woozy.

Yes, that may be true regarding the SAME exact event, I don't know why you keep bringing this off-topic up, we already confirmed agreement with that off-topic a dozen posts ago. Please focus Ringo, here is my actual argument again:

quote:

---

a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.

---

*Chuckle.* Again, I am arguing about COMPARATIVE objective experiences . . .Would a person choose:1. vanilla ice creamor2. dog-crap ice cream with broken glass shards (Baskin-Robbins unsuccessful 32nd flavor) ?Would a person rather breath:1. clean mountain airor2. dense sewer gas inside an animal rendering plant surrounded by a sulfer mineAgain, unless you desperately add contrivances, 99.99% would choose #1 for both propositions. Thus it confirms: for CERTAIN experiences, we DO all/nearly-all think the same. I am arguing for the rule. You have desperately argued for contrived exceptions. *Chuckle,* Nonsense. Re-re-read my actual argument instead of fabricating one for me:

quote:

---

a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.

---

My argument is about COMPARATIVE objective experiences. Like my breathing and ice-cream examples above, and other life experiences elsewhere in the thread, the following simple proposition clearly demonstrates that one experience is more valuable/preferred/enlightening than the other:

quote:

---

You (Ringo) are a school history teacher. You want the kids to study famous explorers this week. You have the opportunity to get one of two people to give a speech to the class. One of them is recently ressurrected Sir Edmund Percival Hillary, first man to summit Everest. The other option is a two-year old toddler named Jane Smith.

​

BASED ON THEIR EXPERIENCES, which do you choose?

---

The simple answer to this clear proposition (to which you have strenuously avoided answering by continually inventing and moving goal posts) supports my argument:

quote:

---

a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.

---

If you want to equivocate and argue that taking a crap in one's pants is an entirely subjective experience that CAN be just as deep/enlightening/rewarding/valuable as summiting Mount Everest, WITHOUT ADDING MORE QUALIFIERS such as "to a two-year-old," then be my guest.

Hey Ringo, the following augmented Seinfeld dialogue reminds me of our current debate:

quote:

---

JERRY: Elaine, the mollusk travels from Alaska to Chile just for a shot at another mollusk. You think you're any better?
ELAINE: Yes! I do think I AM better than the mollusk!
RINGO: Well Elaine, suppose the mollusk is a really exceptional speaker?

---

Ringo, sigh, let me re-reiterate my argument to you, again . . .For CERTAIN similar experiences, we DO all/nearly-all think the same. My argument is about COMPARATIVE objective experiences. Well duh. I am clearly showing you that:For CERTAIN similar experiences, we DO all/nearly-all think the same. My argument is about COMPARATIVE objective experiences. Chuckle! No, since my proposition is original and unaltered, I have not ADDED qualifiers. The qualifier "to a two-year old" is YOUR desperately ADDED qualifier. Chuckle! Yeaaah, . . . the SEEMINGLY obvious choice looks and acts a whole lot like the ACTUAL obvious choice, don't it? . . . THAN crapping one's pants, yes, I and 99.99% concludes this. C O M P A R A T I V E objective experiences. Just as I am assuming that eating dog-crap ice cream is less rewarding than eating vanilla ice cream. (Wow, a really crazy random assumption based on life's experiences, right?) Thanks for offering me more off-topic assignments to work on but I'll just stick to the argument I've made in this thread . . .When comparing CERTAIN similar experiences, we DO all/nearly-all think the same. For example: Nearly everybody believes that eating dog-crap ice cream is less rewarding than eating vanilla ice cream.To help you focus, I'll keep on including my argument in each of my posts . . .

quote:

---

a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.

---

*cough* Hysterically funny *cough*[Off-topic. Like the Godwin Rule, as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches, also true that as an online discussion grows longer the losing party will desperately seek out meaningless technical counter-points. I call this the "Crashfrog Rule"]Yesss Ringo, I concede, I didn't actually use the word "certain" until message 73. Wow, a great counter-point! This really moves the discussion forward and changes my entire argument! . . .But from the beginning, Message 24, I had been very consistent that I was arguing about a specific experience, summiting Everest. AND back in Message 26, I conceded there could be exceptions ("the rule and the exception"), thus acknowledging I am talking about specific experiences. AND in Message 32 I contrasted/identified specific experiences about Everest to Modulous. AND in repeated posts I wrote:

quote:

---

a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.

---

How many times have I clearly posted my specific argument Ringo? Besides the QUANTITIES of posts, notice inside the text the re-re-re-repeating words "ALMOST always." Yet another very clear indicator that I am not talking about "every" experience, but rather specific experiences. I haven't been exactly shy or unclear about my argument, have I? But, if it will help salve your bruised ego, then, yes, technically you are correct, I concede I didn't actually use the word "certain" from the very beginning. Kudos, you sure showed me. Amazingly, you make the time and effort to seek out a meaningless technical counter-point about a single word. But, simultaneously disregard my entire opus of posts showing you, with examples, what criteria I used to support my argument.Amazing!It's as if I wrote nothing at all. I can hear your upcoming complaint already, "Would it kill you to re-reply all your dozens of posts?"I can only explain myself so many different ways. Your endlessly meandering off-topic asides and questions, culminating in a desperate effort to find the smallest technical counterpoint ("certain"?), has actually served to strengthen my argument over time. And quite frankly, it was just an ordinary self-evident statement, it practically delivered itself (here AGAIN):

quote:

---

a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.

---

If you want to continue equivocating and arguing that taking a crap in one's pants is an entirely subjective experience that CAN be just as deep/enlightening/rewarding/valuable as summiting Mount Everest, WITHOUT ADDING MORE QUALIFIERS such as "to a two-year-old," then be my guest.