Obit: The sad passing of Common Sense

Subject: RE: Obit: Common Sense
From: Gurney
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 02:36 AM

Something to say?   Now THAT'S what I call understatement.

Subject: RE: Obit: Common Sense
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 01:12 AM

well--I had never heard it before but then I am not a big on line user......Mudcat and work email about covers it for me...........

But I did think it had something to say.....

Subject: RE: Obit: Common Sense
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 12:47 AM

Nothing wrong with posting it of course, but..................

This thing has been floating around the net for as long as I can remember. At one time it was even used for a hoax virus as I recall. One of those typical "Don't Open" things with nothing to it, just a hoax.........I just now tried a few words of it in quotes on Google and got 290.000 hits so its got some years on it. But it is sad but true as TB said although I'd vote for an obit to the obit.{;<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: Obit: Common Sense
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 12:32 AM

Funny - and sadly, true......

Subject: Obit: Common Sense
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 11:54 PM

Somebody sent the following to my wife in an e-mail. Whether or not it was actually printed in the Times of London is largely irrelevant. It is still fun to read.

Stephen Lee Rich



An Obituary Printed In The London Times


Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has
been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his
birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be
remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:


Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets the worm;
life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault. Common Sense lived by
simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and
reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).


His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but
overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy
charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from
school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding
an unruly student, only worsened his condition.


Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job
that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.
It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent
to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student, but could not inform
parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.


Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses, and
criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a
beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home,
and the burglar could sue you for assault.


Common Sense finally gave up the will to live after a woman failed to
realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled some in her lap
and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.


Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust; his
wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is
survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, Someone
Else Is To Blame, and I'm A Victim.


Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you
still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

---

Threads combined. -Moderator

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Jack Campin
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:17 AM

Columbus knew the earth was a ball because he was familiar with the writings of Copernicus.


Copernicus's book wasn't published until 1543 and Columbus died in 1506.

By Columbus's time nobody needed to argue that the earth was round anyway.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:08 AM

What was I saying earlier?

LTS

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 07:54 AM

I talk to kids on buses, when they sit there swearing at the tops of their voices.

I talk to them again, when the content of their conversation would make an Aged Prostitute's hair stand on end.

Why???????

Because I am incensed.

Not by a bloody newspaper.

I am incensed that so many children have been raised in a society that has let all the unwritten rules of decency go. I am incensed because that bus is being shared with small children and elderly people. I am incensed because those elderly people, the very ones who went to war to give those kids their freedom, are too frightened to turn around and ask them to stop, because they know that more than likely, they'll get told to "F*ck off, Old man!" or be threatened, or worse still, find themselves being arrested because the kids have complained about them.

So I wade in there, and they can see the fire in my eyes, and hear the tone of my voice, and yes, when I get angry, all nervousness goes away from me. I don't stop if they don't stop. I ask them politely, I ask them again, then...I get narky with them, and embarrass them to hell. I am sick to death of bad manners, inconsiderate behaviour towards others, and some kids who think they are the absolute bees knees and that they have the right to behave however they want and sod everyone else.

Mostly, they stop at Stage One.

It has NOTHING to do with a bloody paper, and all to do with being raised by parents of different generations! My father's generation is the one I chose to follow. So if I sound old-fashioned, I don't apologise for it, because I happen to think that the old-fashioned ways, many of them, not all, are a terrible loss to society.

And as far as being a Reactionary now, is that the new buzz word for 'racist' 'facist' 'communist'...because I get kinda lost with which insult is supposed to incur the most wrath from other people.

Tell the Education system about Reactionaries, because they're sending in The Grannies to our schools, to teach our children how to make do and mend, talk to them about 'the old ways' and how they got through the war.

So horror of Extreme Left horrors, The Grannies are back, and maybe, just maybe, The Grannies will bring forth a whole new generation, with a whole new outlook, that will care not only about their world, their families and their money, but about each other too.

And while I'm at it, hats off to Michelle Obama for declaring herself to be a Mother first and foremost, and First Lady when she has the time left over from looking after her children.

Yup, The Mothers are back, along with The Grannies.


Heaven help us, eh? ;0)

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 07:18 AM

I don't think I was calling Lizzie a racist, VirginiaTam. What I tried to convey is that she can be prone to the knee-jerk, sometimes hysterical responses typified by certain nerwspapers. I don't think that this kind of paranoia is either realistic or helps to address the underlying issues that society really is facing.

I am very interested in the politics of fear, as discussed by Michael Moore in the film Bowling for Columbine. His underlying thesis was the question, "What is America so scared of?" He deomonstrated how the politics of fear are used as a tool of control, and to get people to behave, and vote, in certain ways.

When I see that sort of thing being propigated in the UK, I feel compelled to call it for what it is. That's not a vendetta; it's a logical response.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Paul Burke
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 07:13 AM

I don't think anyone has accused her of fascism or racism, though she proclaimed herself that she was neither racist nor facist (sic), and as far as I can tell she's right. I think she was suckered by an internet rant from some anonymous grumbler, and didn't bother asking too many pertinent questions about it like:

- did the alleged incidents ever occur?
- were they as portrayed in the rant?
- are people necessarily lacking "common sense" when they respond to legal and media pressure in an arse- protecting way?
- why do the media condemn "PC" and "risk averse" responses, when the same rags will crucify, for example, a social worker who doesn't exhibit perfect foresight in every case?

Perhaps I should have run down the original list and asked for a considered discussuion on each of the points raised. Some of them have merit, others are more or less bogus. But life is short, and I am weary.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 06:47 AM

SIGH!

We are not talking of what Lizzie may have or not defended in other threads. Let each thread stand alone.

As the makers and moderators of Mudcat would say, all are encouraged to express their opinion here. Singling out individuals and full on attacks discourage just that. Using a poster's comments on other threads for ammunition does nothing but make the one using the information appear a bully to put it nicely and/or a stalker or shit-stirrer put not so nicely.

I do not get the impression from anything Lizzie has said in this thread that she approves of fascism or racism. Reading a newspaper - like a swallow does not make a summer - does not make a racist. Lizzie has admitted to reading many of differing political poles. How else can one learn and make informed decisions, except you have everything accessible.

Read John Milton

And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? [Areopagitica]


I do remember the other thread and heated exchanges between you two and I don't remember anything in Lizzie's posts there that indicated intolerance. I only see that she is passionate about things that matter to her, which (no surprise) are things that matter to all of us. Same goes for Ruth. Be passionate both of you, but do not make it personal.

It all boils down to a matter of style of expression by one and interpretation by another. I do not see why there must be battle lines drawn and sides taken. This is not a playground.

I am now going to leave this thread because it seems to have lost the plot which is SENSE.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 05:20 AM

!I'm glad that I had the common sense to stay off this thread.!


And I'm glad I've the common sense to ignore the post above, which is directed at me.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Gurney
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 11:56 PM

I'm glad that I had the common sense to stay off this thread.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Rowan
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 09:13 PM

One use of common sense, becoming scarcer it seems, is 'giving someone the benefit of the doubt' when reading postings that can't convey the nuances that facial expressions and body language communicate so well. Emoticons don't cut it, for me.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 07:46 PM

Lizzie, why are you incapable of simply carrying out a reasoned discussion? As I said earlier, there was nothing personal in my arguments. I despise the politics of the Daily Mail and all it stands for - reactionary paranoia. The first post that you opened this thread with embodies, IMHO, many of those values. You defended the paper recently on another thread. You make numerous posts which are provocative, and then get arsey when people are provoked.

You bring things down to a highly personal level, then screech when things get personal. If you're incapable of having a discussion with people who disagree with your viewpoint, perhaps it would be better not to post anything which people might find contentous. Because I have been politically active all my life, and as long as you continue to post things which I find politically questionable, I will continue to say so. If you choose to interpret this as a personal attack, it would appear to be your issue.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 07:32 PM

"It is just that devices like repetition and manipulated negations of facts in order to make a point and designed to elicit emotion is pathos style of argument. And as such, does not appeal to me as a method of getting to truth."

No, don't worry too much, it's just the way my brain works, Virginia Tam. That came out in minutes (I type very fast) and I liked the way the words looked as I was typing it, the 'maybe' bit found its way into my imagination and out it came. It was the 'maybe' word that started it off, nothing else, and then it was half down to how the 'picture' of the words looked, as much as what I was actually saying.

I think a little oddly at times, that's all, we're a dyslexic family and we're all a little weird in how we think. I think entirely in pictures, listen to music in pictures, hear and read poetry in pictures.

Blame 'Maybe'...he was the one who did it! :0)

And Joan, can we please get this sorted out once and for all.

I'm really sorry to disappoint you here, but I'm NOT racist. I know that you're kind of determined to prove to everyone that your hunch about me is right, but it ain't.

Yes, I have at times read the Daily Mail. I have also read The Times, The Independent, The Telegraph and The Guardian. So what?
The Daily Mail sometimes has some excellent articles in it, and it's contributed to by many famous people from time to time. It's also one of the most popular newspapers in this country, so that means we're either the most racist country in the world, or that maybe this campaign of hysteria in here is perhaps a little OTT. I've read some great articles in other papers too, and some crappy ones, same with The Mail.

When I delivered papers around Sidmouth, with my son, last year, I didn't paint a swastika on the doors of every house that had The Mail, nor did I paint a hammer and scythe on the doors of those who had The Guardian. I do NOT judge people on the papers they read and have never heard of such a thing until I fell into the folk world.

For your information, I have met Sir David English and Stuart Stephen, both of whom were strongly connected with The Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday. This is not because they were awarding me a prize for reading every single word ever published by their papers, but because they both came to visit the heart specialists for whom I worked in Harley Street.

Ask Stuart Stephen if he remembers Dr. Spurrell's secretary, and he'll tell you the story of when he tried to pull rank on me, and got short shrift...and he ended up laughing about it.

I don't judge people like you do. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but I don't. I don't judge papers like you do either. I know there are some good journalists and one hell of a lot of bad ones. I loathe The Sun and The Mirror because they're so damned dumbed down and crude. I don't like naked women in my paper (down boys!) :0) never have done, but I did once work with Denise, who lef the chemist shop we both worked in and became a model for those two papers, a Page Three one. She eventually went on to become Miss United Kingdom. A very pretty girl and to be honest, one who didn't need to take her clothes off to get somewhere, but she eventually packed it all in when she had children, as she didn't want her kids to see their mother across the papers like that.

I won't refuse to read something, just because there are people out there who tell me I mustn't. I make up my own mind about things.

The paper I like best, at the moment, is The Independent, and I like it because it's different. All the other papers so often have the same boring story on their front pages, but that paper nearly always has something different. It's a breath of fresh air, although no doubt I'll be told that reading The Independent proves I'm 'something else' entirely...

I'm not a racist, nor a facist. Neither was my father, who, along with one hell of a lot of other people in the UK used to read The Daily Mail all his life. He went to war though, to er...fight the facists and the racists, and to ensure that you were born with the freedom of speech to infer that his daughter is a racist.

Personally, I'd rather you used that freedom to be uplifting, kind and inspirational, but then....I'm my father's daughter....and you're not.

And now, back to common sense.

And also...to bed, as I'm about to turn into a pumpkin again.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 06:43 PM

Much older than that Liz. I first saw it more than twenty years ago, and speaking from reasonably good memory, the wording has changed very little, though some of the reported incidents have replaced earlier ones.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 06:31 PM

Well, Liz, it isn't a personal attack. I've responded to the points Lizzie has made with, I believe, cogent and reasoned arguments. Others are doing the same. No one has attacked any individual. So what's the problem?

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 06:13 PM

This is starting to look like a personal attack, can we just stop it now please?

The piece that started this thread has been around for a long time. I was passed a copy albeit a paper copy, at least 5 years ago, when I became a Health and Safety rep. That could explain the 'vintage' information.

LTS

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 05:37 PM

But on a recent thread, she was defending the paper and its readers.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 05:22 PM

Uhh I didn't see anywhere in this thread where Lizzie stated that she reads the Mail.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 05:13 PM

Indeed, spleen cringe.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Rowan
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 05:11 PM

One of my favourite definitions of common sense is

"That load of prejudices you picked up before you turned 15."

I suppose I first heard it when I was about 17, when it certainly rang true for me.

And I rather like VirginaTam's paraphrasing of Thomas Paine's definition; there was a thinker who could make sense and still get parties opposed to each other also opposed to his ideas.

In Oz, the national broadcaster (ABC) runs a short weekly program called MediaWatch that regularly reveals the laziness of editors and presenters who present urban myths and hoary chestnuts as recent and gospel. Around Christmas they put the program out to pasture to give us whistleblowers a break but it is scheduled to return.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 05:10 PM

Lizzie you just demonstrated what I cannot help but be wary of. The presentation is packed with emotion. And it is fine and good for you to feel so strongly. It is equally good for you to express as you wish.

It is just that devices like repetition and manipulated negations of facts in order to make a point and designed to elicit emotion is pathos style of argument. And as such, does not appeal to me as a method of getting to truth.

It may be purely reactionary on my part due to upbringing, etc. That is just my take.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 05:00 PM

That Ruth, she reads my mind. Charlie Brooker should be made compulsory. As should Ben Goldacre.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 04:55 PM

or maybe a deep breath and some slightly more logical and critical thought is in order.

Or maybe you should read less of the Daily Mail and more Charlie Brooker.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 04:46 PM

With all due respect, Lizzie, that's a dizzyingly random list of maybes...

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 04:33 PM

Correction:

Maybe our kids *aren't* drinking themselves half to death on our city streets.....

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 04:30 PM

Maybe you're right.

Maybe it was written by some down and out facist.

Maybe my country and the whole of the US is simply filled with racists and we just haven't sussed it out yet, because some of the English Folk World is so busy bullying people on other threads, that they're overlooking this important matter.

Maybe the lawyers aren't getting rich everytime someone wants to sue someone else.

Maybe the kids aren't getting pregnant/having sex without their parents knowledge, whilst their schools and GPs aid and abet an illegal act.

Maybe so very many adults haven't let go of all their responsibilities, leaving children wandering around in a world that doesn't seem to give a shite any longer, because they're way too busy behaving like bafoons on some BBC radio shows.

Maybe the banks aren't bankrupt.

Maybe the country isn't bankrupt.

Maybe the people aren't bankrupt.

Maybe they're not losing their homes because they borrowed 6 to 10 times their salary, fed by greedy bastards who would have given them more.

Maybe the criminals don't have more rights than their victims.

Maybe our kids are drinking themselves half to death on our city streets every day.

Maybe that piece about the little lad being sued for sexual harrassment was made up.

Maybe the kid with the mouthwash was being a little bastard after all who deserved kicking out of school bigtime for larking around.

Maybe Truth, Trust, Discretion, Responsibility, and Reason are still alive.

Maybe I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I'm A Victim never got to be born.

Maybe I've never been one of the majority.

Maybe I still remember Sense...and his twin, Sensibility, along with Integrity, Empathy and Compassion.

Maybe, now that Barack Obama has ridden into town, he remembers them too.

Maybe he was never one of the majority either.

Maybe Hope is now out there.

And Maybe, just maybe Hope is here, because Denial, Stupidity and Apathy have finally started to be buried.


Maybe.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 03:53 PM

"The little lad though, WAS charged with sexual harrassment, in 1998, I found it in several American papers. The mouthwash incident also happened, again in 1998 in America, according to The New York Times. The last one is somewhat more ambiguous, but I'd not be surprised if that too happened, round about the same time, perhaps,"


Re the mouthwash incident: 'In a letter to the youth's parents, the principal, James E. Person, said their son had admitted to drinking the mouthwash and had bragged to classmates about its content of nearly 22 percent alcohol.

Mr. Person said teachers had seen the youth using the mouthwash at least once before "in a way that made others think he was drinking it." '

Now, do I believe the kid or the school? Is it really "PC gone mad" once you hear the other side of the story?

So that's one story where you admit you can find no evidence, one where there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the school responded as it did, and one which probably was, indeed, an OTT response.

See? No trend. Just unrelated, anecdotal (and in one case possibly completely untrue) incidents.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 03:43 PM

Is it the tone and style which is kind of mud stirring? The argument is presented as an Obituary. I've never read the Mail but gather from my partner is it .... well rubbish.   Does the Mail tend to use pathos disguised as "common sense" or "right thinking" or "logical?"

Best to caveat lector any arguments employing language which stirs emotions. I prefer my opinions informed by facts that are not hyperbolised or dressed up.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 03:40 PM

Do you understand the word "anecdotal", Lizzie? one incident, or even two or five, does not make a social trend. If the little pearl of spam-wisdom that started this thread has to troll back 10 years for examples and evidence, one could possibly surmise that there aren't actually all that many examples to be drawn upon. it's the same thing that happened with either the Express or the Mail last Christmas - the annual story about how "PC Gone Mad" is responsible for some town not putting up Christmas lights, but instead having a "winter festival" so it wouldn't offend all the immigrants. It turned out the story was about 8 years old, and that the idea had only ever been discussed at a meeting and not actually been actioned. But by the time such truths are revealed, the damage has been done.

This is precisely what's wrong with the kind of half-baked reporting you get from papers like The Daily Mail. They take one incident, whip it out of all proportion, and the next thing they're starting some telephone or e-mail campaign. And the dutiful sheep who buy the paper become suitably indignant about the whole country going to pot, and there they are, making their self-righteous phone calls. Down With This Sort Of Thing. Why - because it empowers them? Well, it might bring the illusion of empowerment. And for some people, that's enough.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 02:40 PM

The little lad though, WAS charged with sexual harrassment, in 1998, I found it in several American papers. The mouthwash incident also happened, again in 1998 in America, according to The New York Times. The last one is somewhat more ambiguous, but I'd not be surprised if that too happened, round about the same time, perhaps, and those three incidents together were in the author's mind...

There's a great deal of 'sense' in those words, to me.

These words in particular strike home to me, as a mother.

"It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent
to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform
parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. "

Isn't it still illegal for a child under the age of 16 to have sex, or anyone older than that to have sex with them? Yet, GPs and schools are free to give them contraception ad hoc, and yet their parents are kept entirely in the dark. So, doesn't that make the doctors, nurses and teachers guilty of aiding and abetting an illegal act?

That's always puzzled me, along with the fact that the State says we, as parents, are soley responsible for our children, and yet, if they want to have under-age, illegal sex, then we have no right to know and the State is in charge.

Hmmmmmmmm......

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 01:32 PM

Because statements such as

"Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student"

are, IMHO:

"anecdotal half-truths used to whip up paranoia, but not really indicative of any particular trend in society. It's like the "I'm not racist but..." examples that are regularly trotted out about the banning of black boards and black sheep and Christmas being turned into "Winterval". Look behind the headlines and there's usually very little substance - one teacup tempest after another, but it sells newspapers."

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 12:21 PM

I'm puzzled.

Why do some of you see that 'obituary' as being like a 'Daily Mail' reader/rant?

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 12:18 PM

Improved public health, including vaccination and inoculation; earlier diagnosis of disease; improved treatment...I suggest that these are the major reasons for the decline.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 11:49 AM

Found the reference: the crude death rate (i.e. the whole population rate) has stayed about the same, while infant and childhood mortality rates have plummeted. The figures are for age 1-14, not 0-18 btw.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 11:30 AM

Paul,
      I reckon "Disgusted of Tun. Wells" is pulling your leg!
                                                    John

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 11:03 AM

the death rate aged 0-18 was almost TEN times its present level...Due to what?

I don't know. The figures were UK government figures, somewhere in the national statistics office. I'd guess at:

- a huge decrease in perinatal and neonatal mortality
- More vaccination and against more diseases (polio/ measles etc.)
- decreased road accident rate
- better housing and less air pollution
- Fewer young people working and work conditions safer
- the rest down to lowered accident rates in the home/ play etc.

But that's only using common sense :)

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 10:17 AM

I have to agree, Spleen Cringe. A lot of the statements in the first post read like a litany of Daily Mail headlines - anecdotal half-truths used to whip up paranoia, but not really indicative of any particular trend in society. It's like the "I'm not racist but..." examples that are regularly trotted out about the banning of black boards and black sheep and Christmas being turned into "Winterval". Look behind the headlines and there's usually very little substance - one teacup tempest after another, but it sells newspapers. Even if the paranoia seems to be driving a substantial proportion of the readership of certain papers to the brink of lunacy.

"the Daily Mail - not so much a newspaper as an idiot's guidebook issued in bite-size daily instalments" - Charlie Brooker

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 10:03 AM

Horse Sense

Now you're talking my language!

(Be careful people don't think you're referring to the 'I ain't ever heard a horse sing' quote, though...)

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 10:00 AM

Hi Spleen

Not a definition. It was simply a paraphrase of bits of the snip of intro to COMMON SENSE that struck me. But now you have sort of flipped the meaning of "common" for me, it fits.

I think "good" sense is dangerous description as well. "Good" would be defined differently by each argument. This all makes me very tired.

I think I will stick with horse sense. Eat hay, run around paddock, nibble oats, roll in grass, sleep.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 09:46 AM

Is that a 'common sense' answer, Foolestroupe?

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 09:41 AM

It isn't.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 09:34 AM

"long habit makes a wrong thing seem reasonable and time makes more converts than reason"

Is that a definition of common sense, VT? It sounds like one to me...

Most 'common sense' arguments I hear are whatever the right wing press are saying at any given time. And, interestingly, definitions of 'common sense' on resources such as Urban Dictionary define it negatively as something lacking in 'liberals, socialists and communists' (I guess lumping that disparate group together is another example of the 'common sense' approach at work). Which fuels my belief that 'common sense' in 21st Century Britain is a reactionary, right wing construct.

I also notice that appeals to 'common sense' are most often made when someone is losing an argument... especially if the person they are arguing with is using logic, rationality and other post-enlightenment tools...

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: kendall
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 08:31 AM

Columbus knew the earth was a ball because he was familiar with the writings of Copernicus.
The ancient Egyptians also calculated the circumference of the earth, although it is much bigger than they thought.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 08:28 AM

Common sense never existed, it has always been a figment. If it HAD been "common" you wouldn't remark on it.

Try "good sense" instead.

As for the Earth being flat -- not even the Papacy defended THAT ONE. (Vide William Manchester's "A World Lit Only By Fire" et al.)

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 07:32 AM

I think "flat earth" was questioned way back although when I don't. Some Greeks calculated the circumference of the earth at least a couple of thousand years ago.

As for climbing trees and seeing the curvature of the earth? is that so? It's true that sailors realised something was going on when land behind them disappeared and new land came up out of the sea.

Les

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: Chris Green
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 06:56 AM

The idea that the ancients believed in a flat earth is questionable to say the least. When kings were crowned, the golden orb they held represented the world. Presumably if the common belief had been that the world was flat they'd held a golden disc! And the idea of a flat earth certainly didn't seem to prevent the Vikings from sailing as far as America.

Subject: RE: Common Sense
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 04 Dec 08 - 06:06 AM

The topic prompted me to do a browse of Thomas Paine's COMMON SENSE

PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.

Even though paper is argument for American Independence, sacry that long habit makes a wrong thing seem reasonable and time makes more converts than reason [paraphrase] is applicable to so many things in life and threads on the Mudcat.

Common Sense is and has been sadly absent.

However, there is hope (tongue firmly implanted in cheek) as shown by this

Common sense breaks out at Harvard

signed

LosingTheWillToLive