Good evening to you PERICLES...

Thank you for assisting us, by calculating my hourly rate as a static security guard. Do you agree that my remuneration wasn't particularly good, even for 1969. Or would you suggest it's more in keeping with my intellectual ability ? A low wage commensurate with a low intelligence ?

And of course you're right, Edgware Road does commence at Marble Arch, still it was all a long time ago. My last and final visitation to my beloved London was in 1995. And I had misplaced my trusty A to Z !

Walking down Kensington High Street, I couldn't help but notice many of the shop signs bore Arabic script. The old trio of Department Stores, 'Barkers', 'Derry & Toms', and 'Pontings', all split into smaller retail holdings, and yes many with Arabic signage ? Across the road, the hitherto magnificent Royal Garden Hotel, now regrettably showing it's age, was crowded with wealthy Arabs and their heavily veiled ladies (presumably).

I've got to say, how London had changed, since my first visit in '69 ? It seemed as if were almost in another country, as I meandered down the High Street towards Olympia. Of course there's this amazing Arabic presence everywhere even so, at no time did I feel uncomfortable nor even nervous ? A sign of the times I expect. They (the OPEC nations) have buckets of cash and many wish to invest in western European countries, such as the UK, obviously it's all quite lawful, so why shouldn't they ?

Actually their Islamic strategy is simplicity personified; you can't forcefully expel or expatriate someone from your country, if they own most of it ? That would be preposterous, and certainly not very British !

Naturally, many of my old friends weren't happy with what they describe as the Arabic invasion, or what they see as the cultural trespass, occasioned upon their private gardens, and their quaint mews ? With evidence everywhere of filthy lucre ostensibly emanating from Arabs visitors ? Still I don't hear Harrods or the wealthy Regent Street traders complaining ?

But how could you assume they were out-of-date, Jayb?

<<I don't know how you use the theories that were out of date 100 years ago in a modern World.>>

You don't even know what any of these theories are. If you did, then you'd... Oh, I don't know... choose one that was less than 100 years old, maybe? In fact, off the top of my head, I can’t even think of a sociological perspective quite that old. Only two of the three main sociological perspectives are over 100 and even then, only by a couple of decades. Hardly “out of date 100 years ago”.

This is the argument from incredulity fallacy too, by the way. Just because you can’t see how “old” theories could apply to today’s world, that doesn’t mean they don’t. Furthermore, when I say something is “quackery”, I’m not saying that I don’t know how it would work; I’m saying that it doesn’t work, or that there is no evidence that it works.

So if you could explain to me how any of the sociological perspectives amount to mere “quackery”, then that’d be swell. You don't have to know how one would utilise the perspective nowadays, you just have to point out how it couldn't work. And hey, you can even choose one that’s over 100 years old, just to make it easier for you.

<<It's still based on a Flat Earth & Witch Burning, theories that have no place in a modern World.>>

Care to give any examples? Of course you won’t. You just invent whatever crap you like.

<<Back to the 16th Century theories. They were good enough for people then, they are good enough for people now.>>

So first, sociology was about finding the “meaning of life” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6587&page=0#198583), now it’s about improving people? How can you determine that sociology is useless when you don’t even know what it’s used for?

Time to start making good of your claims, I think; or walk away with your tail between your legs as you had to on the last thread.

AJ: How can you determine that sociology is useless when you don’t even know what it’s used for?

Exactly right & neither does anyone else outside a small clique of Avant-garde Navel Gazers gloating over their Brandy & lime in their exclusive Club.

AJ: So first, sociology was about finding the “meaning of life”

Have you found it in any of the old writings? I didn't think so. It's 42, everybody knows that.

400 years ago the great Philosophers of the time still argued that the world was flat, The heavens were holes in heavens seven layers where God spied on his people. Illness was caused by bad vapours & the Devil & you take these peoples literature as a blueprint for knowing the "Meaning of Life." Yair right.

Society has changed greatly even in the last 100 years. the difference between in those 100 years ago & now is an extremely large chasm.

"400 years ago the great Philosophers of the time still argued that the world was flat"
Jayb, considering that Magellan and Drake had both circumnavigated the world more than 400 years ago, I can only conclude you don't know what you're talking about!

And sociology was never about finding the meaning of life. I think you're confusing it with philosophy (though of course some philosophers would argue that's not what phillosophy's about either).

Sociology is the study of how people behave in groups.

You're stalling, Jayb.

<<Exactly right & neither does anyone else outside a small clique of Avant-garde Navel Gazers gloating over their Brandy & lime in their exclusive Club.>>

I guess I must be in that club then, along with tens of millions of others. Nice. I like brandy.

So you agree with me then that you’ve changed your position somewhat? Good, we’re getting somewhere at least.

<<Have you found [the meaning of life] in any of the old writings?>>

So now you’re misquoting me; answering something I didn’t say; and persisting with the “old writings” line even though I’ve shown your claims there to be false? Dishonest three times in one sentence - I don’t think I seen that before. Nice going.

<<400 years ago the great Philosophers of the time still argued that the world was flat, The heavens were holes in heavens seven layers where God spied on his people. Illness was caused by bad vapours & the Devil & you take these peoples literature as a blueprint for knowing the "Meaning of Life.">>

Again, it was you who thought the goal of sociology was to discover the “meaning of life”, not me. Only one paragraph later, you’re already believing your own lies. I don’t think I’ve seen that before, either. You’re really on a roll here.

By the way, none of the current sociological theories are from people 400 years ago. This is just more of your own made-up rubbish.

<<Society has changed greatly even in the last 100 years. the difference between in those 100 years ago & now is an extremely large chasm.>>

So then, proving your point shouldn’t be too hard now, should it.

I’m still waiting.

Jayb,

"...an extremely large chasm."

That would be the difference between candor - and the sort of shifty disingenuous bilge you serve up on a daily basis on this forum.