Or the food services industry.
No, they let just anyone do that.
Posted for agreement. Not for checkups, but any time I’ve had a procedure, signing one of those things has been part of the pre-intake interview. It’s actually more important for someone young, because they’re less likely to have talked about end-stage care with relatives and their relatives are probably not expecting to get suddenly stuck with those kind of decisions.
Yeah, that killed me. Hey, I have a degree in English literature. And since every discussion we have on here is in written English, why, that must mean I win every argument ever!
Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo stick!
Tell me that doesn’t really mean what I think it does!
It means exactly what you think it does, plus that he thinks he’s being very clever. In the second thread that I linked, he went as far as to bemoan the assumptions that were being made about his position and to suggest that, why, next people might try to tar him with “the N-word”. I assume that he hoped to earn bonus points for a little black-baiting too.
So, we have an honest-to-God Nazi and Hitler apologist on this MB. And he hasn’t been banned yet?
That’s quite an accomplishment!
Nah, being a racist on the Dope is actually really, really easy as long as they don’t break forum rules. I asked a question about it once in ATMB and the answer was, essentially that “Jews are evil and secretly control the world and anti-Semitism is caused by Jews’ behavior” is okay but “Jews are evil and secretly control the world and anti-Semitism is caused by Jews’ behavio and, oh, also, Kykes” is hate speech.
It does. I’m appalled by it but he appears way too stupid to debate the issues. I’m sure he’s not near as clever as he thinks he is.
Meh.
I did not know that he was a holocaust (semi) denier (I guess I don’t read those threads), and I remain skeptical about the intentions behind “hh”, but I have long been aware that he is an idiot.
I’m not too worked up about it. You don’t need those “living wills”, DNRs, directives and whatnot. We got them “Death Panels” for that shit now, you betcha.
I think I pointed that statement out in the other thread.I have a Bachelor’s degree with honours in Psychology but I wouldn’t use that in a debate. Come on, I don’t remember exactly but I believe less than half of my credits were actually in my major field.
Besides I probably remember less than 10% of the materials I studied for 4 years!
I think she might be annoyed at me for not knowing how she gets through life being so sensitive.
So, Handsome Harry was serious about beating women? Well, I can’t say I condone that.
Can you recommend a couple of good books that are accessible that would get on the path to that level of understanding of history? I’m afraid grad school is not in the cards for me.
Well, a few decent places to start might be:
E.H. Carr, What is History?
Richard Evans, In Defense of History
Marc Bloch, The Historian’s Craft
John Lewis Gaddis, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past
Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession
These books all deal with historiography, i.e., the writing of history, and with the nature of historical knowledge. They also deal, more generally, with the processes and strategies involved in learning to think historically, to evaluate historical evidence, and to draw conclusions from it.
The book by Carr is probably most accessible, but the ones by Bloch, Gaddis, and Evans are also quite straighforward, and not overly filled with jargon. The Novick book is more of a history of the history profession in America, and the ways in which it has dealt with questions about how to do history.
But, more generally, when i said that anyone can learn to do this stuff without going to grad school, i was suggesting that what it really takes in order to get better at this stuff is simply practice; that is, read good history books and think about what they tell you, and about what their strengths and weaknesses might be. The more history you read, the more you absorb the sorts of methods and evidence and techniques that historians use. With experience, you become familiar with what it means to think historically, and with ways to evaluate arguments and make some of your own determination about their significance and their strengths and weaknesses.
History is an interesting subject because it is both accessible to anyone, and also rewards experience and commitment. Anyone can read a history book and understand some or all of its main arguments, but a fuller understanding of the subject requires a more extensive engagement with the field, and a willingness to be a critical and an engaged reader, rather than just a gleaner of information. Also, find people who share your interests and talk about history with them; one of the greatest benefits of grad school, as i said, is simply being around people who are into this stuff, and who like to talk about it. Conversation and debate help to deepen your understanding.
And there’s no real measure of when you attain a higher level of understanding. There’s no particular formula that you master, or set of principles that you derive, that mark you as an “expert.” Historians are learning all the time, and even experts in the field learn from the work of other historians. Just read about things that you find interesting, and take the time to think about what you read, and the greater understanding will come.
nm
A little late to the party.