Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Critical Thinking

Simple
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 1:13:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
One of the most valuable lessons in life is the ability to filter out all the crap you hear or read in the course of a day. Teaching this ability to students would be the hardest most satisfying skills any teacher could bestow upon any class. The reason it would be the hardest is that it removes the teacher as the ultimate authority in the classroom. The students would be rewarded for breaking down a question instead of simply repeating an answer they were taught to give. Rather than simply repeating "facts and dates" in history they would have to find out the real reasons behind a war and how their ancestors may not have been the ultimate heroes and righteous souls countless generations before have been spoonfed.
Can you imagine the wonderfully total chaos in a school full of children who have learned to question, wonder and think for themselves?
Once the skill is learned the children could approach life as rational human beings instead of production and consuming robots those in charge wish them to be.
I don't hold out much hope of this happening but it is a wonderful fantasy in which to indulge.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 7:14:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
An opening topic on critical thinking filled with generalization, non-sequiturs, and emotional and loading reasoning. How unique!
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Simple
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 8:17:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 7:14:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
An opening topic on critical thinking filled with generalization, non-sequiturs, and emotional and loading reasoning. How unique!

Non-sequiturs and loaded reasoning? Of course there are generalizations is a short introduction. Apart from the snide comment perhaps you would like to expand your thinking and I would be happy to do like wise.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 8:23:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of course critical thinking is an important skill to teach and learn. So are those rote facts and dates you mention too.

Let's say, for example, you want to become a chemist. We can take two paths:

1. I simply teach you, as a matter of fact, the history of chemistry and the laws that govern it, as we understand them today, as undisputed and indisputable fact, and grade you solely on your ability to memorize and vomit that information back to me. This can be done in about 8+ years, depending on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go (4 years HS, 4+ years college). After you've learned the basics, we then teach you the nitty gritty details, and reveal that things aren't so black and white and teach you the critical thinking necessary to effectively evaluate things.

2. I teach you to question mean, resulting in you questioning, and not learning, anything at all about chemistry, meaning you have to learn it by yourself, somehow. Since you're on a high kick questioning authority, textbooks are out of the question, meaning you have to learn modern chemistry (About 200 years worth of stuff, if we begin with modern atomic theory) first hand, by yourself.

Which do you think would more effectively produce chemists?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 9:11:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 8:17:11 PM, Simple wrote:
At 1/26/2013 7:14:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
An opening topic on critical thinking filled with generalization, non-sequiturs, and emotional and loading reasoning. How unique!

Non-sequiturs and loaded reasoning? Of course there are generalizations is a short introduction. Apart from the snide comment perhaps you would like to expand your thinking and I would be happy to do like wise.

Non-sequiturs -> Logic does not follow. For example, "There's a grape. Therefore pudding."
Loading reasoning -> Put in many assumptions and emotionally charged statements. Example "Once the skill is learned the children could approach life as rational human beings instead of production and consuming robots those in charge wish them to be."

a) Apparently there's some people in charge that want us to be production and consuming "robots"? What!? How do you expect anybody to take that at face value?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 10:37:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 8:23:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
Of course critical thinking is an important skill to teach and learn. So are those rote facts and dates you mention too.

Let's say, for example, you want to become a chemist. We can take two paths:

1. I simply teach you, as a matter of fact, the history of chemistry and the laws that govern it, as we understand them today, as undisputed and indisputable fact, and grade you solely on your ability to memorize and vomit that information back to me. This can be done in about 8+ years, depending on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go (4 years HS, 4+ years college). After you've learned the basics, we then teach you the nitty gritty details, and reveal that things aren't so black and white and teach you the critical thinking necessary to effectively evaluate things.

2. I teach you to question mean, resulting in you questioning, and not learning, anything at all about chemistry, meaning you have to learn it by yourself, somehow. Since you're on a high kick questioning authority, textbooks are out of the question, meaning you have to learn modern chemistry (About 200 years worth of stuff, if we begin with modern atomic theory) first hand, by yourself.

Which do you think would more effectively produce chemists?

Both of them are horrible and incredibly inefficient options, but 1 is less horrible.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Simple
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 9:23:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 8:23:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
Of course critical thinking is an important skill to teach and learn. So are those rote facts and dates you mention too.

Let's say, for example, you want to become a chemist. We can take two paths:

1. I simply teach you, as a matter of fact, the history of chemistry and the laws that govern it, as we understand them today, as undisputed and indisputable fact, and grade you solely on your ability to memorize and vomit that information back to me. This can be done in about 8+ years, depending on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go (4 years HS, 4+ years college). After you've learned the basics, we then teach you the nitty gritty details, and reveal that things aren't so black and white and teach you the critical thinking necessary to effectively evaluate things.

2. I teach you to question mean, resulting in you questioning, and not learning, anything at all about chemistry, meaning you have to learn it by yourself, somehow. Since you're on a high kick questioning authority, textbooks are out of the question, meaning you have to learn modern chemistry (About 200 years worth of stuff, if we begin with modern atomic theory) first hand, by yourself.

Which do you think would more effectively produce chemists?

In every court of law, where evidence is given, the opposing council has the right to test the voracity of the testimony and evidence. This is not the case with history books professing what had happened long ago. It is these very history books which are taught in schools as fact.
Books on chemistry and other sciences are easily provable by experiments. Any student questioning the truth of what they are being taught can easily be shown, through experimentation, the results.
Chemistry has been and continues to be a work in progress. Without questioning and experimentation the laws of chemistry would still not be known.
If you are teaching chemistry, surely you have used designed experiments to prove what you are saying to be true.
At no point did I say the knowledge had to be self learned but your students would still require some proof as to what you are teaching. Would you deny your students the ability to question the things you are saying?
Sulfuric acid is colorless and appears to be quite harmless so teaching its safe handling you would undoubtedly show the consequences of improper use. Students would naturally be curious about how something which appears to be so innocuous can also be so dangerous.
Your statement about questioning does not result in learning is also puzzling. I am not now nor have I ever recommended the elimination of textbooks. They are simply another tool to answer questions. The simple fact that information is in a textbook does not mean it is either true or false. I am simply saying that blindly following what you read presents and entire array of different problems. There is a reason for scientific conclusions to be peer reviewed.
Questioning authority, to me, is one of the greatest leaps forward any person can make. Once the authority has proven itself as a reliable source of accurate information it is easier to trust the information you hear but that does not replace listening, thinking and making up your own mind based on the things you know.
I am going to make a leap of faith here and assume you are a rational human being. As a rational human being, do you believe everything you read in a history book? Do you believe everything you read in a newspaper? Finally, do you believe that law makers always tell you the truth about the laws they are passing?
Simple
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 9:49:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 9:11:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/26/2013 8:17:11 PM, Simple wrote:
At 1/26/2013 7:14:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
An opening topic on critical thinking filled with generalization, non-sequiturs, and emotional and loading reasoning. How unique!

Non-sequiturs and loaded reasoning? Of course there are generalizations is a short introduction. Apart from the snide comment perhaps you would like to expand your thinking and I would be happy to do like wise.

Non-sequiturs -> Logic does not follow. For example, "There's a grape. Therefore pudding."
Loading reasoning -> Put in many assumptions and emotionally charged statements. Example "Once the skill is learned the children could approach life as rational human beings instead of production and consuming robots those in charge wish them to be."

a) Apparently there's some people in charge that want us to be production and consuming "robots"? What!? How do you expect anybody to take that at face value?

The world economy is based on production and consumption. What happens when people stop buying? The system collapses.
The consumption of goods and services is at the heart of the system. The only thing you need to do is to take a look at your own household. Determine for yourself how many possessions you have and which of them are of no practical use or are just plain frivolous. Now think about where the frivolous ones were made, by whom and for what reason. Do you think the people who made them did so because of the love of their work, the necessity of the product or for the money the owner is paying them? If it is for the money being paid to them then they are production robots. Would they even have the job if the owner could make the product through technology more cheaply and efficiently?
Now think of the car you drive, the house in which you live, the computer you use, the TV you watch and the phone you have. Do you need the level of technology you currently possess or do you just want it? If you just want it then why? What lead you to the buying decision? Now ask yourself if you truly needed it or are you a consumption robot.
I contend that there have been tremendous strides in technology and some of them are incredibly important and useful but there are far more that are less so.
By the way thank you for the lesson in non-sequiturs and loaded reasoning but I am already familiar with the terms.
Fouler4990
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 10:52:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Education on critical thinking. Quite an wonderful and unique idea. This will not only help the the students themselves but also the nation in terms of development.
------------------------------------------
the well wisher of humanity
~ Fouler4990
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 11:00:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 9:23:46 AM, Simple wrote:
At 1/26/2013 8:23:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
Of course critical thinking is an important skill to teach and learn. So are those rote facts and dates you mention too.

Let's say, for example, you want to become a chemist. We can take two paths:

1. I simply teach you, as a matter of fact, the history of chemistry and the laws that govern it, as we understand them today, as undisputed and indisputable fact, and grade you solely on your ability to memorize and vomit that information back to me. This can be done in about 8+ years, depending on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go (4 years HS, 4+ years college). After you've learned the basics, we then teach you the nitty gritty details, and reveal that things aren't so black and white and teach you the critical thinking necessary to effectively evaluate things.

2. I teach you to question mean, resulting in you questioning, and not learning, anything at all about chemistry, meaning you have to learn it by yourself, somehow. Since you're on a high kick questioning authority, textbooks are out of the question, meaning you have to learn modern chemistry (About 200 years worth of stuff, if we begin with modern atomic theory) first hand, by yourself.

Which do you think would more effectively produce chemists?

In every court of law, where evidence is given, the opposing council has the right to test the voracity of the testimony and evidence. This is not the case with history books professing what had happened long ago. It is these very history books which are taught in schools as fact.
Books on chemistry and other sciences are easily provable by experiments. Any student questioning the truth of what they are being taught can easily be shown, through experimentation, the results.
Chemistry has been and continues to be a work in progress. Without questioning and experimentation the laws of chemistry would still not be known.
If you are teaching chemistry, surely you have used designed experiments to prove what you are saying to be true.
At no point did I say the knowledge had to be self learned but your students would still require some proof as to what you are teaching. Would you deny your students the ability to question the things you are saying?

No, but that's not what you are saying. You are saying you want to remove the teacher as the ultimate authority. Questioning is fine, but if you want to see the the end of the day you either A) have to simply conclude ignorance, in which case nothing is learned; or B) settle on an answer which cannot be questioned. Since the point of school is learned, you have to settle with B.

Sulfuric acid is colorless and appears to be quite harmless so teaching its safe handling you would undoubtedly show the consequences of improper use. Students would naturally be curious about how something which appears to be so innocuous can also be so dangerous.

Excellent point. But instead of the teacher declaring that it is dangerous to use, let's just give it to the students so they can find out for themselves, right?

Your statement about questioning does not result in learning is also puzzling. I am not now nor have I ever recommended the elimination of textbooks. They are simply another tool to answer questions. The simple fact that information is in a textbook does not mean it is either true or false. I am simply saying that blindly following what you read presents and entire array of different problems. There is a reason for scientific conclusions to be peer reviewed.
Questioning authority, to me, is one of the greatest leaps forward any person can make. Once the authority has proven itself as a reliable source of accurate information it is easier to trust the information you hear but that does not replace listening, thinking and making up your own mind based on the things you know.
I am going to make a leap of faith here and assume you are a rational human being. As a rational human being, do you believe everything you read in a history book? Do you believe everything you read in a newspaper? Finally, do you believe that law makers always tell you the truth about the laws they are passing?

No, no, and no. But that's because I'm out of that phase of my life.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 4:45:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Critical thinking combined with creative problem solving (something that is also very lacking in school) would be excellent.

Too many people in the world do not know how to construct an argument; and simply understanding the logical princples, as well as concecepts such as various cognitive biases can only be a good thing.

I would also point out the flaw in this:

Non-sequiturs -> Logic does not follow. For example, "There's a grape. Therefore pudding."

"Therefore pudding" is never a non sequitor, regardless of the previous statement. Pudding logically follows everything.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 11:17:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 1:13:38 PM, Simple wrote:
One of the most valuable lessons in life is the ability to filter out all the crap you hear or read in the course of a day. Teaching this ability to students would be the hardest most satisfying skills any teacher could bestow upon any class. The reason it would be the hardest is that it removes the teacher as the ultimate authority in the classroom. The students would be rewarded for breaking down a question instead of simply repeating an answer they were taught to give. Rather than simply repeating "facts and dates" in history they would have to find out the real reasons behind a war and how their ancestors may not have been the ultimate heroes and righteous souls countless generations before have been spoonfed.
Can you imagine the wonderfully total chaos in a school full of children who have learned to question, wonder and think for themselves?
Once the skill is learned the children could approach life as rational human beings instead of production and consuming robots those in charge wish them to be.
I don't hold out much hope of this happening but it is a wonderful fantasy in which to indulge.

Critical thinking is more than simply "questioning authority" it's a methodology for evaluating the probable veracity of truth claims.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 9:02:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here's my thought, "libertarian" (and other free-marketeer) types quite imperatively, and I do mean imperatively, need to hone their critical thinking faculties and to begin subjecting their precious capitalist system and status quo to a good bit of critical thinking. Well, they've rationalizingly beatified what they euphemistically prefer to call the "free market" as their doctrinal sacred cow, which they've naively hoisted up upon a pedestal of false consciousness where they sophistically maintain and defend it, none of which they would have gone in for if they were truly critical thinkers. Mm-hmm, they alas don't seem to realize that placing capitalism up on a faulty ideological pedestal isn't at all the same thing as claiming the moral high ground for it, and for their fundamentalist faith in it; if they learned how to practice critical thinking and the hermeneutics of suspicion, well, perhaps they'd be able to make the critical distinction.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Simple
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 9:31:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 9:02:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
Here's my thought, "libertarian" (and other free-marketeer) types quite imperatively, and I do mean imperatively, need to hone their critical thinking faculties and to begin subjecting their precious capitalist system and status quo to a good bit of critical thinking. Well, they've rationalizingly beatified what they euphemistically prefer to call the "free market" as their doctrinal sacred cow, which they've naively hoisted up upon a pedestal of false consciousness where they sophistically maintain and defend it, none of which they would have gone in for if they were truly critical thinkers. Mm-hmm, they alas don't seem to realize that placing capitalism up on a faulty ideological pedestal isn't at all the same thing as claiming the moral high ground for it, and for their fundamentalist faith in it; if they learned how to practice critical thinking and the hermeneutics of suspicion, well, perhaps they'd be able to make the critical distinction.

Verbosity for its own sake does not sharpen the intellect of either the writer or the reader.
All you have said is that the free market system is a new religion.
Attempted edification notwithstanding, parroting a single point, was made in the original comment while, expounding a diatribe which is not only repetitious and tedious to the point of absurdity it also runs counter to any fundamental concept of critical thinking.
If, however, the point you were attempting to make was turn a simple concept into a convoluted mess then you succeeded.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 3:59:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 9:31:17 PM, Simple wrote:
At 2/2/2013 9:02:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
Here's my thought, "libertarian" (and other free-marketeer) types quite imperatively, and I do mean imperatively, need to hone their critical thinking faculties and to begin subjecting their precious capitalist system and status quo to a good bit of critical thinking. Well, they've rationalizingly beatified what they euphemistically prefer to call the "free market" as their doctrinal sacred cow, which they've naively hoisted up upon a pedestal of false consciousness where they sophistically maintain and defend it, none of which they would have gone in for if they were truly critical thinkers. Mm-hmm, they alas don't seem to realize that placing capitalism up on a faulty ideological pedestal isn't at all the same thing as claiming the moral high ground for it, and for their fundamentalist faith in it; if they learned how to practice critical thinking and the hermeneutics of suspicion, well, perhaps they'd be able to make the critical distinction.

Verbosity for its own sake does not sharpen the intellect of either the writer or the reader.
All you have said is that the free market system is a new religion.
Attempted edification notwithstanding, parroting a single point, was made in the original comment while, expounding a diatribe which is not only repetitious and tedious to the point of absurdity it also runs counter to any fundamental concept of critical thinking.
If, however, the point you were attempting to make was turn a simple concept into a convoluted mess then you succeeded.

Translation: "I'm a Pooh Bear with 'libertarian' leanings."
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 4:11:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 9:31:17 PM, Simple wrote:
At 2/2/2013 9:02:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
Here's my thought, "libertarian" (and other free-marketeer) types quite imperatively, and I do mean imperatively, need to hone their critical thinking faculties and to begin subjecting their precious capitalist system and status quo to a good bit of critical thinking. Well, they've rationalizingly beatified what they euphemistically prefer to call the "free market" as their doctrinal sacred cow, which they've naively hoisted up upon a pedestal of false consciousness where they sophistically maintain and defend it, none of which they would have gone in for if they were truly critical thinkers. Mm-hmm, they alas don't seem to realize that placing capitalism up on a faulty ideological pedestal isn't at all the same thing as claiming the moral high ground for it, and for their fundamentalist faith in it; if they learned how to practice critical thinking and the hermeneutics of suspicion, well, perhaps they'd be able to make the critical distinction.

Verbosity for its own sake does not sharpen the intellect of either the writer or the reader.
All you have said is that the free market system is a new religion.
Attempted edification notwithstanding, parroting a single point, was made in the original comment while, expounding a diatribe which is not only repetitious and tedious to the point of absurdity it also runs counter to any fundamental concept of critical thinking.
If, however, the point you were attempting to make was turn a simple concept into a convoluted mess then you succeeded.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention that the "libertarian's" sacred cow (aka the so-called "free market" system) being up upon a lofty and ideologically beautiful pedestal gets away with frequently sticking its hiney out over its pedestal's edge and pooping on working-class folks in the form of visiting stagnating wages, unemployment, and occasional recessions on them.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 3:49:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 9:02:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
Here's my thought, "libertarian" (and other free-marketeer) types quite imperatively, and I do mean imperatively, need to hone their critical thinking faculties and to begin subjecting their precious capitalist system and status quo to a good bit of critical thinking. Well, they've rationalizingly beatified what they euphemistically prefer to call the "free market" as their doctrinal sacred cow, which they've naively hoisted up upon a pedestal of false consciousness where they sophistically maintain and defend it, none of which they would have gone in for if they were truly critical thinkers. Mm-hmm, they alas don't seem to realize that placing capitalism up on a faulty ideological pedestal isn't at all the same thing as claiming the moral high ground for it, and for their fundamentalist faith in it; if they learned how to practice critical thinking and the hermeneutics of suspicion, well, perhaps they'd be able to make the critical distinction.

Says the man who clings to systems that are proven to fail, time and time again.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 3:13:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 3:49:18 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/2/2013 9:02:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
Here's my thought, "libertarian" (and other free-marketeer) types quite imperatively, and I do mean imperatively, need to hone their critical thinking faculties and to begin subjecting their precious capitalist system and status quo to a good bit of critical thinking. Well, they've rationalizingly beatified what they euphemistically prefer to call the "free market" as their doctrinal sacred cow, which they've naively hoisted up upon a pedestal of false consciousness where they sophistically maintain and defend it, none of which they would have gone in for if they were truly critical thinkers. Mm-hmm, they alas don't seem to realize that placing capitalism up on a faulty ideological pedestal isn't at all the same thing as claiming the moral high ground for it, and for their fundamentalist faith in it; if they learned how to practice critical thinking and the hermeneutics of suspicion, well, perhaps they'd be able to make the critical distinction.

Says the man who clings to systems that are proven to fail, time and time again.

Says a man who is ideologically invested in categorically and facilely identifying all forms of socialism/communism and their proponents with failed Soviet-style mock-socialism. Well, it's a rather easy way to dispose of us, isn't that right, friend innomen?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 3:31:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 3:13:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/4/2013 3:49:18 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/2/2013 9:02:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
Here's my thought, "libertarian" (and other free-marketeer) types quite imperatively, and I do mean imperatively, need to hone their critical thinking faculties and to begin subjecting their precious capitalist system and status quo to a good bit of critical thinking. Well, they've rationalizingly beatified what they euphemistically prefer to call the "free market" as their doctrinal sacred cow, which they've naively hoisted up upon a pedestal of false consciousness where they sophistically maintain and defend it, none of which they would have gone in for if they were truly critical thinkers. Mm-hmm, they alas don't seem to realize that placing capitalism up on a faulty ideological pedestal isn't at all the same thing as claiming the moral high ground for it, and for their fundamentalist faith in it; if they learned how to practice critical thinking and the hermeneutics of suspicion, well, perhaps they'd be able to make the critical distinction.

Says the man who clings to systems that are proven to fail, time and time again.

Says a man who is ideologically invested in categorically and facilely identifying all forms of socialism/communism and their proponents with failed Soviet-style mock-socialism. Well, it's a rather easy way to dispose of us, isn't that right, friend innomen?

So tell me friend Charles, what specific aspects of the Soviet economy do you take issue with? They are all variations on a common theme, no?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 5:16:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 3:31:20 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/5/2013 3:13:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/4/2013 3:49:18 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/2/2013 9:02:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
Here's my thought, "libertarian" (and other free-marketeer) types quite imperatively, and I do mean imperatively, need to hone their critical thinking faculties and to begin subjecting their precious capitalist system and status quo to a good bit of critical thinking. Well, they've rationalizingly beatified what they euphemistically prefer to call the "free market" as their doctrinal sacred cow, which they've naively hoisted up upon a pedestal of false consciousness where they sophistically maintain and defend it, none of which they would have gone in for if they were truly critical thinkers. Mm-hmm, they alas don't seem to realize that placing capitalism up on a faulty ideological pedestal isn't at all the same thing as claiming the moral high ground for it, and for their fundamentalist faith in it; if they learned how to practice critical thinking and the hermeneutics of suspicion, well, perhaps they'd be able to make the critical distinction.

Says the man who clings to systems that are proven to fail, time and time again.

Says a man who is ideologically invested in categorically and facilely identifying all forms of socialism/communism and their proponents with failed Soviet-style mock-socialism. Well, it's a rather easy way to dispose of us, isn't that right, friend innomen?

So tell me friend Charles, what specific aspects of the Soviet economy do you take issue with? They are all variations on a common theme, no?

No, they are not. The Soviet society was hierarchical and had a state (as opposed to being stateless and classless) and did not respect the humanity of most of the people within it.

Also, your ideal society is pretty much a failure as well. People are too selfish to be capitalist. They pass on wealth to their children and concentrate power over generations instead of concentrating wealth in each generation amongst those who have merit and would most efficiently promote the good of the market. People are too selfish to be capitalist; it requires the ultimate act of selflessness (not caring about how your children do) in order to succeed.

Oh, and please stop insisting that the Soviet Union is communist or else I'll have to insist that imperialism and state-run terrorism in other nations is capitalist.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 1:00:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 3:31:20 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/5/2013 3:13:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/4/2013 3:49:18 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/2/2013 9:02:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
Here's my thought, "libertarian" (and other free-marketeer) types quite imperatively, and I do mean imperatively, need to hone their critical thinking faculties and to begin subjecting their precious capitalist system and status quo to a good bit of critical thinking. Well, they've rationalizingly beatified what they euphemistically prefer to call the "free market" as their doctrinal sacred cow, which they've naively hoisted up upon a pedestal of false consciousness where they sophistically maintain and defend it, none of which they would have gone in for if they were truly critical thinkers. Mm-hmm, they alas don't seem to realize that placing capitalism up on a faulty ideological pedestal isn't at all the same thing as claiming the moral high ground for it, and for their fundamentalist faith in it; if they learned how to practice critical thinking and the hermeneutics of suspicion, well, perhaps they'd be able to make the critical distinction.

Says the man who clings to systems that are proven to fail, time and time again.

Says a man who is ideologically invested in categorically and facilely identifying all forms of socialism/communism and their proponents with failed Soviet-style mock-socialism. Well, it's a rather easy way to dispose of us, isn't that right, friend innomen?

So tell me friend Charles, what specific aspects of the Soviet economy do you take issue with? They are all variations on a common theme, no?

Let's see, I don't exactly advocate its excessive centralization; nor do I approve of the infamous nepotism practiced by its nomenklatura; and, oh yeah, the Soviet Union's totalitarianism was certainly nothing to fall in love with, i.e., the way that its rulers tyrannized and terrorized their society's own proletariat was pretty discreditable vis-a-vis their pretensions of being in the vanguard of an egalitarian form of economics and society.

Yes, dear innomen, I'm a commie but not the sort of commie who calls Stalin "Uncle Joe" without a distinct hint of facetiousness in my voice indicating that I find that term of endearment for a mass murderer to be as pukey as any right-winger might find it. But now a perhaps equally inane question for you, which aspect of the capitalist world's Cold War to ensure the failure of the Soviet system (not as a consequence of its own weaknesses but rather as the result of the expansion of American hegemony in the name of spreading and safeguarding freedom) do you possibly take issue with? Perhaps the liquidation of as many as a million human beings in Indonesia's CIA-backed anti-communist pogrom? Or the U.S. capitalist-political complex's support of and working of its will through numerous repressive and homicidal regimes? Perhaps that lovely penchant of the military and security forces in Argentina for terrorizing their own people - for disappearing college kids majoring in social work or education because to the rightist mentality only a pinko would be interested in becoming a social worker or school teacher; or sadistically making individuals suspected of being adherents of the philosophy of communism skydive parachuteless from helicopters hovering over the sea, which would swallow their bodies leaving no evidence of the crimes perpetrated by staunchly Christian policemen doing their part to protect the "Free World"?

Well, I could continue to enumerate particular crimes committed by governments and intelligence agencies acting on behalf of and in defense of the capitalist power elite, but they're all variations on a common theme, no? Brutality, war-making, the establishment of capitalist hegemony under the pretext of a holy cause, etc. At any rate, since we're in the self-critical mode of owning the sins of our own camps, I'll let you pick for yourself which especially troubling examples of capitalist "Free World" evil you'd like to acknowledge as unworthy of the "good guys". Oh yeah, there are also the myriad ongoing examples of the pernicious propensity of the First World's capitalist Establishment for inflicting lethal poverty on the campesinos and garbage dump dwellers and debt-crushed masses of the developing world, or its new tack of perpetrating nefariousness in the name of the "War on Terror" (aka the new all-purpose excuse for the "good guys" to do dastardly things - pardon me for taking a moment to state the obvious). Mm-hmm, in the case of capitalism's sins we needn't limit ourselves to the sins of the past. You indeed have quite a bounty of badness to select from, I'm quite confident that you'll come up with some interesting choices to share with the class.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 11:55:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 5:16:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:31:20 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/5/2013 3:13:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/4/2013 3:49:18 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/2/2013 9:02:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
Here's my thought, "libertarian" (and other free-marketeer) types quite imperatively, and I do mean imperatively, need to hone their critical thinking faculties and to begin subjecting their precious capitalist system and status quo to a good bit of critical thinking. Well, they've rationalizingly beatified what they euphemistically prefer to call the "free market" as their doctrinal sacred cow, which they've naively hoisted up upon a pedestal of false consciousness where they sophistically maintain and defend it, none of which they would have gone in for if they were truly critical thinkers. Mm-hmm, they alas don't seem to realize that placing capitalism up on a faulty ideological pedestal isn't at all the same thing as claiming the moral high ground for it, and for their fundamentalist faith in it; if they learned how to practice critical thinking and the hermeneutics of suspicion, well, perhaps they'd be able to make the critical distinction.

Says the man who clings to systems that are proven to fail, time and time again.

Says a man who is ideologically invested in categorically and facilely identifying all forms of socialism/communism and their proponents with failed Soviet-style mock-socialism. Well, it's a rather easy way to dispose of us, isn't that right, friend innomen?

So tell me friend Charles, what specific aspects of the Soviet economy do you take issue with? They are all variations on a common theme, no?

No, they are not. The Soviet society was hierarchical and had a state (as opposed to being stateless and classless) and did not respect the humanity of most of the people within it.

Also, your ideal society is pretty much a failure as well. People are too selfish to be capitalist. They pass on wealth to their children and concentrate power over generations instead of concentrating wealth in each generation amongst those who have merit and would most efficiently promote the good of the market. People are too selfish to be capitalist; it requires the ultimate act of selflessness (not caring about how your children do) in order to succeed.

Oh, and please stop insisting that the Soviet Union is communist or else I'll have to insist that imperialism and state-run terrorism in other nations is capitalist.

Really, and there's no selfishness in anything that you propose? The most anti-capitalist countries are putrid with selfishness, but it isn't just money, but rather power that they covet so much. Look at the millionaires of Central and South America, they are also the leaders of the countries, and they spend most of their time amassing money and power at the expense of anyone who may fall to dissent.

The Soviet Union was socialist with communist ideals, but since communism was an even bigger failure than socialism, it was aborted.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 12:02:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 1:00:49 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:31:20 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/5/2013 3:13:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/4/2013 3:49:18 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/2/2013 9:02:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
Here's my thought, "libertarian" (and other free-marketeer) types quite imperatively, and I do mean imperatively, need to hone their critical thinking faculties and to begin subjecting their precious capitalist system and status quo to a good bit of critical thinking. Well, they've rationalizingly beatified what they euphemistically prefer to call the "free market" as their doctrinal sacred cow, which they've naively hoisted up upon a pedestal of false consciousness where they sophistically maintain and defend it, none of which they would have gone in for if they were truly critical thinkers. Mm-hmm, they alas don't seem to realize that placing capitalism up on a faulty ideological pedestal isn't at all the same thing as claiming the moral high ground for it, and for their fundamentalist faith in it; if they learned how to practice critical thinking and the hermeneutics of suspicion, well, perhaps they'd be able to make the critical distinction.

Says the man who clings to systems that are proven to fail, time and time again.

Says a man who is ideologically invested in categorically and facilely identifying all forms of socialism/communism and their proponents with failed Soviet-style mock-socialism. Well, it's a rather easy way to dispose of us, isn't that right, friend innomen?

So tell me friend Charles, what specific aspects of the Soviet economy do you take issue with? They are all variations on a common theme, no?

Let's see, I don't exactly advocate its excessive centralization; nor do I approve of the infamous nepotism practiced by its nomenklatura; and, oh yeah, the Soviet Union's totalitarianism was certainly nothing to fall in love with, i.e., the way that its rulers tyrannized and terrorized their society's own proletariat was pretty discreditable vis-a-vis their pretensions of being in the vanguard of an egalitarian form of economics and society.

Yes, dear innomen, I'm a commie but not the sort of commie who calls Stalin "Uncle Joe" without a distinct hint of facetiousness in my voice indicating that I find that term of endearment for a mass murderer to be as pukey as any right-winger might find it. But now a perhaps equally inane question for you, which aspect of the capitalist world's Cold War to ensure the failure of the Soviet system (not as a consequence of its own weaknesses but rather as the result of the expansion of American hegemony in the name of spreading and safeguarding freedom) do you possibly take issue with? Perhaps the liquidation of as many as a million human beings in Indonesia's CIA-backed anti-communist pogrom? Or the U.S. capitalist-political complex's support of and working of its will through numerous repressive and homicidal regimes? Perhaps that lovely penchant of the military and security forces in Argentina for terrorizing their own people - for disappearing college kids majoring in social work or education because to the rightist mentality only a pinko would be interested in becoming a social worker or school teacher; or sadistically making individuals suspected of being adherents of the philosophy of communism skydive parachuteless from helicopters hovering over the sea, which would swallow their bodies leaving no evidence of the crimes perpetrated by staunchly Christian policemen doing their part to protect the "Free World"?

Well, I could continue to enumerate particular crimes committed by governments and intelligence agencies acting on behalf of and in defense of the capitalist power elite, but they're all variations on a common theme, no? Brutality, war-making, the establishment of capitalist hegemony under the pretext of a holy cause, etc. At any rate, since we're in the self-critical mode of owning the sins of our own camps, I'll let you pick for yourself which especially troubling examples of capitalist "Free World" evil you'd like to acknowledge as unworthy of the "good guys". Oh yeah, there are also the myriad ongoing examples of the pernicious propensity of the First World's capitalist Establishment for inflicting lethal poverty on the campesinos and garbage dump dwellers and debt-crushed masses of the developing world, or its new tack of perpetrating nefariousness in the name of the "War on Terror" (aka the new all-purpose excuse for the "good guys" to do dastardly things - pardon me for taking a moment to state the obvious). Mm-hmm, in the case of capitalism's sins we needn't limit ourselves to the sins of the past. You indeed have quite a bounty of badness to select from, I'm quite confident that you'll come up with some interesting choices to share with the class.

So you are looking to make it a contest of morality? Ah yes the US has sinned, I don't deny that, but nothing to the scale of those countries that you seem to lean with.

But that's not the question really, it's more about the inherent unworkable, and disasterous nature of anything that you may propose. I know your song, that your way is different, and it's not going to fall into the same problematic traps that the others fall into. My dear friend, probably the six most dangerous words to be spoken are "This time it will be different". All the marxist ideals were tried, and failed, and modified to work, and still failed, and the casualties that mounted are uncountable. Do I take issue with some of the actions of the US - yes I do, but they are irrelevant to capitalism.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 12:06:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think it's productive to argue with them, innomen. Communists are a stubborn sort (they have to be just to be communist).

In any case, royal doesn't appear to know how a free market works.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Simple
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 12:36:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 12:06:17 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I don't think it's productive to argue with them, innomen. Communists are a stubborn sort (they have to be just to be communist).

In any case, royal doesn't appear to know how a free market works.

I am wondering how a discussion on critical thinking degenerated into this communism nonsense.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 1:04:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 12:36:27 PM, Simple wrote:
At 2/7/2013 12:06:17 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I don't think it's productive to argue with them, innomen. Communists are a stubborn sort (they have to be just to be communist).

In any case, royal doesn't appear to know how a free market works.

I am wondering how a discussion on critical thinking degenerated into this communism nonsense.

Our friend Charlesb.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 3:50:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 12:36:27 PM, Simple wrote:
I am wondering how a discussion on critical thinking degenerated into this communism nonsense.

A single-issue ideologue entered the discussion. They tend to do that.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:19:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 12:02:43 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/7/2013 1:00:49 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:31:20 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/5/2013 3:13:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/4/2013 3:49:18 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/2/2013 9:02:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
Here's my thought, "libertarian" (and other free-marketeer) types quite imperatively, and I do mean imperatively, need to hone their critical thinking faculties and to begin subjecting their precious capitalist system and status quo to a good bit of critical thinking. Well, they've rationalizingly beatified what they euphemistically prefer to call the "free market" as their doctrinal sacred cow, which they've naively hoisted up upon a pedestal of false consciousness where they sophistically maintain and defend it, none of which they would have gone in for if they were truly critical thinkers. Mm-hmm, they alas don't seem to realize that placing capitalism up on a faulty ideological pedestal isn't at all the same thing as claiming the moral high ground for it, and for their fundamentalist faith in it; if they learned how to practice critical thinking and the hermeneutics of suspicion, well, perhaps they'd be able to make the critical distinction.

Says the man who clings to systems that are proven to fail, time and time again.

Says a man who is ideologically invested in categorically and facilely identifying all forms of socialism/communism and their proponents with failed Soviet-style mock-socialism. Well, it's a rather easy way to dispose of us, isn't that right, friend innomen?

So tell me friend Charles, what specific aspects of the Soviet economy do you take issue with? They are all variations on a common theme, no?

Let's see, I don't exactly advocate its excessive centralization; nor do I approve of the infamous nepotism practiced by its nomenklatura; and, oh yeah, the Soviet Union's totalitarianism was certainly nothing to fall in love with, i.e., the way that its rulers tyrannized and terrorized their society's own proletariat was pretty discreditable vis-a-vis their pretensions of being in the vanguard of an egalitarian form of economics and society.

Yes, dear innomen, I'm a commie but not the sort of commie who calls Stalin "Uncle Joe" without a distinct hint of facetiousness in my voice indicating that I find that term of endearment for a mass murderer to be as pukey as any right-winger might find it. But now a perhaps equally inane question for you, which aspect of the capitalist world's Cold War to ensure the failure of the Soviet system (not as a consequence of its own weaknesses but rather as the result of the expansion of American hegemony in the name of spreading and safeguarding freedom) do you possibly take issue with? Perhaps the liquidation of as many as a million human beings in Indonesia's CIA-backed anti-communist pogrom? Or the U.S. capitalist-political complex's support of and working of its will through numerous repressive and homicidal regimes? Perhaps that lovely penchant of the military and security forces in Argentina for terrorizing their own people - for disappearing college kids majoring in social work or education because to the rightist mentality only a pinko would be interested in becoming a social worker or school teacher; or sadistically making individuals suspected of being adherents of the philosophy of communism skydive parachuteless from helicopters hovering over the sea, which would swallow their bodies leaving no evidence of the crimes perpetrated by staunchly Christian policemen doing their part to protect the "Free World"?

Well, I could continue to enumerate particular crimes committed by governments and intelligence agencies acting on behalf of and in defense of the capitalist power elite, but they're all variations on a common theme, no? Brutality, war-making, the establishment of capitalist hegemony under the pretext of a holy cause, etc. At any rate, since we're in the self-critical mode of owning the sins of our own camps, I'll let you pick for yourself which especially troubling examples of capitalist "Free World" evil you'd like to acknowledge as unworthy of the "good guys". Oh yeah, there are also the myriad ongoing examples of the pernicious propensity of the First World's capitalist Establishment for inflicting lethal poverty on the campesinos and garbage dump dwellers and debt-crushed masses of the developing world, or its new tack of perpetrating nefariousness in the name of the "War on Terror" (aka the new all-purpose excuse for the "good guys" to do dastardly things - pardon me for taking a moment to state the obvious). Mm-hmm, in the case of capitalism's sins we needn't limit ourselves to the sins of the past. You indeed have quite a bounty of badness to select from, I'm quite confident that you'll come up with some interesting choices to share with the class.

So you are looking to make it a contest of morality? Ah yes the US has sinned, I don't deny that, but nothing to the scale of those countries that you seem to lean with.

... Do I take issue with some of the actions of the US - yes I do, but they are irrelevant to capitalism.

A libertarian ideologue's lame cop-out.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:24:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 12:06:17 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I don't think it's productive to argue with them, innomen. Communists are a stubborn sort (they have to be just to be communist).

Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur - change the name and the story is about you: I don't think it's productive to argue with libertarians, they're a stubborn sort (they have to be just to be apologists for all of the sins of capitalism).
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:32:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 3:50:02 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/7/2013 12:36:27 PM, Simple wrote:
I am wondering how a discussion on critical thinking degenerated into this communism nonsense.

A single-issue ideologue entered the discussion. They tend to do that.

I assume that you're referring to our friend innomen, or are you referring to my own efforts to countervail against the point of view promoted by "libertarians" suffering from the single-minded ideological need to defend capitalism? Well, I suppose that combating the ideologically single-minded can perhaps make one appear to be somewhat of a single-issue ideologue oneself, but I assure you that any such pigeonholing of me is quite unfair, ergo I certainly hope that you have innomen in mind and not little ole moi.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.