@Invidia said:

@write2topcat said:

Yes, leftists now go by the name progressive. They have historically changed names a lot. (The "New Party" was nothing more than the communist party re-labelled.)

Try to DENY what you said if you like ...

but it's PERFECTLY CLEAR that you claim LEFTISTS changed their NAMES and were NOTHING MORE than the COMMUNIST PARTY with ANOTHER LABEL.

What DISCIPLINES do you have your DEGREES in?

I also have 2 DEGREES and GRADUATED CUM LAUDE, so if you're trying to impress me FORGET ABOUT IT.

Maybe you're claiming that "The New Party" consisted of ALL liberals/progressives, not just those who previously considered themselves to be members of the communist party - which write2topcat did not - but that would make YOU wrong, not him/her.

Dr Charles Krauthammer sometimes says, more or less, "One advantage to having a degree from Harvard is never again feeling impressed by people who have a degree from Harvard."

Or, another expression I first heard decades ago, "An idea so obviously wrong/stupid that only someone with a Ph.D could believe it."

Well, I am done dealing with combative users and their tangents.

Basically I think the prime directive is a ridiculous stab at multiculturalism, and an unworkable ideal for a crew which has the mission of exploring new worlds. If you meet primitive cultures you will invariably influence them, even if unintentionally.

(The "New Party" was nothing more than the communist party re-labelled.)

"The "New Party"" is the subject of its own thought/sentence, within the parens. Why did you make the mistake of bringing in something from outside and pretending they're connected? Even without a degree in English/Writing/etc, I know that's wrong.

Try this: "Many Ford cars had manufacturing problems. (The Pinto was someone exaggeratedly famous for exploding if rear-ended.)"

Now, you explain to us how "The Pinto" really means ALL Ford cars, while the rest of us sit back and laugh at you and your degrees. And if you "cum laud," maybe that's something to discuss with your doctor. Or at least have soundproof walls so the rest of us don't have to hear it.

You think that's how a SYLLOGISM works? Wow, no wonder you have so much trouble.

The correct form would be:

SOCRATES is a MAN,

All MEN are HUMAN

Therefore SOCRATES is HUMAN.

Or, to quote your apparent favorite source, Wikipedia:

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore Socrates is mortal.

But your conclusion would apparently be something like "All mortals are Socrates" or "All mortals (creatures with finite lifespan) are men," or something else equally silly. And the laughing continues.

(and with or without the e, cum laud(e) still makes a good joke.)

@Invidia said:

It was a QUOTE from a FILM SILLY.

A COMEDY.

Even if true, 1) you didn't show it as a quote, 2) you didn't cite your source. So you still get an F.

For some reason, I find myself reminded of a recent news story about a girl taking a sociology course whose sociology Ph.D professor gave her a zero grade on a project because the Ph.D professor insisted that Australia is a continent, not a country.

But, maybe the Ph.D professor didn't cum laud(e). That could explain it.

Posters who engage in philosophical debate might be interested in looking into THE GOOD PLACE, which has a lot of philosophical discussion mixed in with the comedy ( references to Kierkegaard, Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham 's Utilitarianism, on the motives behind doing good deeds, on how somebody can make up for bad deeds, etc. )