Theophobia

[Canadian_watcher]

Not only is critical thinking NOT the 'number 1 survival skill for the human race', if we go down a path where we actually think it is , the human race is likely to be utterly utterly hosed.

well, I like critical thinking.. and the video said that critical thinkers should have open minds...
I have to admit that that '#1 survival skill" bit threw me off too.

Critical thinking is about being correct at each step of thinking, it is about "What Is", not "What Could Be".

you see it that way? I don't. But maybe I haven't given it enough non-critical thought.

It creates a false sense of certainty It glorifies analysis It is very very poor at enabling new ideas and approaches

well, I see that in part, but not totally. I am fairly good at getting people to try new things by appealing to their reason. Is this a good test of the limits (or not) of the possibilities of critical thinking? I mean I'm a lot more emotionally/spiritually motivated than most everybody I know so I have to play their game most of the time....

Contrast with the Hopi Elders, who in the past would consider the consequences of major tribal decisions as far forward as seven generations...

Contrast it? Isn't that precisely the point? They are thinking critically when they look into the future, are they not?

[American Dream]

Clay Butler, author of those cartoons, introduced Marijuana Soda to the California market and also specializes in Corporate Branding.

Now, I'm not the sort of person to write someone's entire ouevre off because I don't happen to agree with one or two things they've done. But if I were... I'd say your Mr. Butler is a dubious character unworthy of further inspection.

Ad hominem

An ad hominem argument, or argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the man [or person]"), is a fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attempting to discredit the person offering the argument or assertion. Ad hominem rebuttals are one of the best-known of propagandist tactics.

Simply, it is a refutation of a proposition, based solely upon some unrelated fact about the person presenting the proposition. Such refutation is said to be "against the person" (ad hominem) and not their proposition. Properly, it consists of saying that an argument is wrong because of something about the individual or organization is in error rather than about the argument itself. Moreover, it is not necessary to insult the individual or organization whose argument is attacked in order to commit the ad hominem attack. Rather, it must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ad_hominem

[Canadian_watcher]

Here is the final sentence from that article:

We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.

I didn't say integrity. I said courage. If you're in an oppressive system and you're courageous you'll either leave it or change it.

[MacCruiskeen]

Posting Smart Articles By Other People.

Here is something else that is not a smart article:

"My Thritical Crinking allows me to bully other people smugly while posing as the Epitome of Undeceived Intelligence, all the while failing to notice that Thritical Crinking is merely an epiphenomenon of Being, which allows me (just for example) to sleep, breathe, fuck, shit, read, care about things, and even ride a bike."

[Canadian_watcher]

Clay Butler, author of those cartoons, introduced Marijuana Soda to the California market and also specializes in Corporate Branding.

Now, I'm not the sort of person to write someone's entire ouevre off because I don't happen to agree with one or two things they've done. But if I were... I'd say your Mr. Butler is a dubious character unworthy of further inspection.

Ad hominem

An ad hominem argument, or argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the man [or person]"), is a fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attempting to discredit the person offering the argument or assertion. Ad hominem rebuttals are one of the best-known of propagandist tactics.

Simply, it is a refutation of a proposition, based solely upon some unrelated fact about the person presenting the proposition. Such refutation is said to be "against the person" (ad hominem) and not their proposition. Properly, it consists of saying that an argument is wrong because of something about the individual or organization is in error rather than about the argument itself. Moreover, it is not necessary to insult the individual or organization whose argument is attacked in order to commit the ad hominem attack. Rather, it must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ad_hominem

HELLO.. we've arrived at a juncture. Can you recognize it?

[Searcher08]

Here is the final sentence from that article:

We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.

which begs the question -
what is going to be put in their place?
and the answer to that will be precisely the same old classes of systems, just with an apparently different power distribution, and which, because of built in systemic incompetence, will be playing the same old tune soon enough and then it will be time for a new 'revolution'.

Designing organisations in terms of power dynamics and politics is as sane as trying to navigate a plane by political power.

"Ladies and gentlemen, as a demonstration of my political solidarity with my stewerds on board, they sahall be flying your plane today. Also, I really really FEEL that we're fine, so Im not doing any pre-flight checks - hey Ive never crashed yet!!!"

[Canadian_watcher]

which begs the question -
what is going to be put in their place?
and the answer to that will be precisely the same old classes of systems, just with an apparently different power distribution, and which, because of built in systemic incompetence, will be playing the same old tune soon enough and then it will be time for a new 'revolution'.

WORD.

[American Dream]

Clay Butler, author of those cartoons, introduced Marijuana Soda to the California market and also specializes in Corporate Branding.

Now, I'm not the sort of person to write someone's entire ouevre off because I don't happen to agree with one or two things they've done. But if I were... I'd say your Mr. Butler is a dubious character unworthy of further inspection.

Ad hominem

An ad hominem argument, or argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the man [or person]"), is a fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attempting to discredit the person offering the argument or assertion. Ad hominem rebuttals are one of the best-known of propagandist tactics.

Simply, it is a refutation of a proposition, based solely upon some unrelated fact about the person presenting the proposition. Such refutation is said to be "against the person" (ad hominem) and not their proposition. Properly, it consists of saying that an argument is wrong because of something about the individual or organization is in error rather than about the argument itself. Moreover, it is not necessary to insult the individual or organization whose argument is attacked in order to commit the ad hominem attack. Rather, it must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ad_hominem

HELLO.. we've arrived at a juncture. Can you recognize it?

Tu quoque

Tu quoque, or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a kind of logical fallacy. It is a Latin term for "you, too" or "you, also". A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view on an issue on the argument that the person is inconsistent in that very thing. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.

[American Dream]

Here is the final sentence from that article:

We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.

which begs the question -
what is going to be put in their place?

Isn't it enough that individuals have courage?

[MacCruiskeen]

Isn't it enough that courageous individuals such as AD incessantly ask easy questions on websites?

[Canadian_watcher]

Oh AD...

You believe that you can make a point by posting some kind of 'rules of logic' thing. You would be better served (for yourself, not for anyone else) to examine the merits of the argument presented and not search for a way in which it might possibly violate some debate code of ethics or whatever the fuck.

It seems to me that there should be a separate rule for people who are constantly whipping out things like "post hoc ergo proptor hoc" when they feel backed in to a corner. If I were to name it I'd call it the "look! over there! it's a naked lady!" technique.

[Searcher08]

Here is the final sentence from that article:

We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.

which begs the question -
what is going to be put in their place?

Isn't it enough that individuals have courage?

No, it isnt.

[Searcher08]

Oh AD...

You believe that you can make a point by posting some kind of 'rules of logic' thing. You would be better served (for yourself, not for anyone else) to examine the merits of the argument presented and not search for a way in which it might possibly violate some debate code of ethics or whatever the fuck.

It seems to me that there should be a separate rule for people who are constantly whipping out things like "post hoc ergo proptor hoc" when they feel backed in to a corner. If I were to name it I'd call it the "look! over there! it's a naked lady!" technique.

WHERE?!!!

[Canadian_watcher]

Here is the final sentence from that article:

We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.

which begs the question -
what is going to be put in their place?

Isn't it enough that individuals have courage?

No, it isnt.

To be clear - the courage must be backed by the ability to listen to one's inner knowledge of right and wrong. Courage for things like putting all your chips on black is not what I'm talking about here. I assumed that AD could piece that together, however I might have been mistaken.

[Canadian_watcher]

Oh AD...

You believe that you can make a point by posting some kind of 'rules of logic' thing. You would be better served (for yourself, not for anyone else) to examine the merits of the argument presented and not search for a way in which it might possibly violate some debate code of ethics or whatever the fuck.

It seems to me that there should be a separate rule for people who are constantly whipping out things like "post hoc ergo proptor hoc" when they feel backed in to a corner. If I were to name it I'd call it the "look! over there! it's a naked lady!" technique.

WHERE?!!!

Right here, S08. It's summer time, and the livin' is easy.