Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Calling people brainwashed

Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 5:48:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

I believe it is essentially a Poisoning the Well fallacy (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...) (unless justified, of course), as a response to alleviate or preempt Cognitive Dissonance (http://www.simplypsychology.org...) by providing a means of dismissing the conflicting evidence, as well as the credibility of the source of the evidence, in order to avoid modification or abandonment of one's currently held beliefs, which is also a strong human tendency know as Belief Perseverance (http://psychologydictionary.org...).

My personal view is that yes, brainwashing (http://psychologydictionary.org...) occurs through indoctrination and tradition, primarily by those that don't realize that's what they're doing. The nemesis of brainwashing is critical thought, and if one is open and willing to apply critical though to oneself or to allow others to do so, then that is indicative that the accusation of being brainwashed is not likely to be true.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 6:11:30 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 5:48:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

I believe it is essentially a Poisoning the Well fallacy (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...) (unless justified, of course), as a response to alleviate or preempt Cognitive Dissonance (http://www.simplypsychology.org...) by providing a means of dismissing the conflicting evidence, as well as the credibility of the source of the evidence, in order to avoid modification or abandonment of one's currently held beliefs, which is also a strong human tendency know as Belief Perseverance (http://psychologydictionary.org...).

My personal view is that yes, brainwashing (http://psychologydictionary.org...) occurs through indoctrination and tradition, primarily by those that don't realize that's what they're doing. The nemesis of brainwashing is critical thought, and if one is open and willing to apply critical though to oneself or to allow others to do so, then that is indicative that the accusation of being brainwashed is not likely to be true.
An actual definition might actually help.....brainwash can be used ambiguously to the point where everyone on this planet has been brainwashed in respects to lots of subjects.
The typical idea of brainwashing is more aptly applied to the psychological conditioning of someone with forcible measures, most consider some type of physical "torture" like lack of sleep via loud sounds or physical pain, etc. If one uses the term indoctrinate or teach it applies to all. If someone uses it in regards to reeducation, you don't actually reeducate a young child who doesn't already have beliefs or ideas about subjects.
The claim that chaosim makes in regards to the nemesis being critical thought is leading. It doesn't matter how intelligent or how rational you are you can be brainwashed via numerous methods so he's merely attempting to equate being brainwashed with being stupid. Which he himself admits is poisoning the well "thinking".
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 6:35:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 6:11:30 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/5/2016 5:48:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

I believe it is essentially a Poisoning the Well fallacy (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...) (unless justified, of course), as a response to alleviate or preempt Cognitive Dissonance (http://www.simplypsychology.org...) by providing a means of dismissing the conflicting evidence, as well as the credibility of the source of the evidence, in order to avoid modification or abandonment of one's currently held beliefs, which is also a strong human tendency know as Belief Perseverance (http://psychologydictionary.org...).

My personal view is that yes, brainwashing (http://psychologydictionary.org...) occurs through indoctrination and tradition, primarily by those that don't realize that's what they're doing. The nemesis of brainwashing is critical thought, and if one is open and willing to apply critical though to oneself or to allow others to do so, then that is indicative that the accusation of being brainwashed is not likely to be true.
An actual definition might actually help.....brainwash can be used ambiguously to the point where everyone on this planet has been brainwashed in respects to lots of subjects.

I absolutely agree, and that's why I forwarded one.

The typical idea of brainwashing is more aptly applied to the psychological conditioning of someone with forcible measures, most consider some type of physical "torture" like lack of sleep via loud sounds or physical pain, etc. If one uses the term indoctrinate or teach it applies to all. If someone uses it in regards to reeducation, you don't actually reeducate a young child who doesn't already have beliefs or ideas about subjects.

For the most part, I agree. Indoctrination*, although it's form of teaching, isn't equivalent to teaching. The former deters criticism and questioning while the latter should promote it, ideally. The way I was eluding to indoctrination was really in the form or "pre-education" rather than reeducation, in that, the child is brought up with a specifically manipulated system of beliefs by the parents, family, and/or other members of society that are also under the umbrella of said belief system.

*Indoctrinate : "teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically" [Oxford]

The claim that chaosim makes in regards to the nemesis being critical thought is leading. It doesn't matter how intelligent or how rational you are you can be brainwashed via numerous methods so he's merely attempting to equate being brainwashed with being stupid. Which he himself admits is poisoning the well "thinking".

Yes, all humans, regardless of intelligence, are susceptible to psychological manipulation. Now, how exactly did I attempt to claim that brainwashed=stupid?? You are putting words in my mouth.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 6:39:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 6:35:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Yes, all humans, regardless of intelligence, are susceptible to psychological manipulation. Now, how exactly did I attempt to claim that brainwashed=stupid?? You are putting words in my mouth.

My point. Either everyone is born as empty notebooks that are to be filled by someone else, or no one is.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 6:49:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 6:39:36 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:35:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Yes, all humans, regardless of intelligence, are susceptible to psychological manipulation. Now, how exactly did I attempt to claim that brainwashed=stupid?? You are putting words in my mouth.

My point. Either everyone is born as empty notebooks that are to be filled by someone else, or no one is.

Learning and being taught is not the same as being brainwashing, though. If the learner is permitted or encouraged to question the teachings, then do you still consider it being "brainwashed"? As Skip said, a definition is important or you could write off everyone as brainwashed, in some way.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 6:59:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 6:49:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:39:36 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:35:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Yes, all humans, regardless of intelligence, are susceptible to psychological manipulation. Now, how exactly did I attempt to claim that brainwashed=stupid?? You are putting words in my mouth.

My point. Either everyone is born as empty notebooks that are to be filled by someone else, or no one is.

Learning and being taught is not the same as being brainwashing, though. If the learner is permitted or encouraged to question the teachings, then do you still consider it being "brainwashed"? As Skip said, a definition is important or you could write off everyone as brainwashed, in some way.
See chaos, the dictionary actually says teaching, well inculcate which is teaching, is a synonym. But you're essentially right. It actually belittles people who have suffered severe brainwashing by claiming a child being guided by parents about belief in God is an equivalent. It reflects, in my opinion, that the person hasn't learned mutual respect for other people and probably lacks respect for themselves as well.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 7:03:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
After having studied philosophy and politics in University, I found it surprising how many ideas I had that I thought were my own that actually came from some dead guy hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

Odd that we identify and define our self-value on our ideas when so few of them are even our own to begin with.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 7:12:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 6:39:36 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:35:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Yes, all humans, regardless of intelligence, are susceptible to psychological manipulation. Now, how exactly did I attempt to claim that brainwashed=stupid?? You are putting words in my mouth.

My point. Either everyone is born as empty notebooks that are to be filled by someone else, or no one is.
Jovian, I havent read all about what you're addressing but be careful. If you believe God exists then stay away from the argument that people are born as empty notebooks because then you would have to reconcile the contradiction that could be exposed by what you are implying, The most consistent argument to counter against someone who says God belief has to be taught moves the assertion into a special pleading fallacy when you get them to reconcile how the very first human to introduce the idea of God came about it. Theists believe revelation from God, so theists can't argue humans learn god from other humans only. Atheists argue learning god via "brainwashing" but then have to make an exception, without any proof, about how the very first person got the idea in the first place. It's inconsistent logic. Most of the time they claim personification which means their argument that God belief has to be taught is invalidated by themselves. Lol
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 7:22:02 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 7:12:28 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:39:36 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:35:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Yes, all humans, regardless of intelligence, are susceptible to psychological manipulation. Now, how exactly did I attempt to claim that brainwashed=stupid?? You are putting words in my mouth.

My point. Either everyone is born as empty notebooks that are to be filled by someone else, or no one is.
Jovian, I havent read all about what you're addressing but be careful. If you believe God exists then stay away from the argument that people are born as empty notebooks because then you would have to reconcile the contradiction that could be exposed by what you are implying,

I am atheist, which is specified on my profile. I don't fully believe people are born as empty notebooks. I believe that some things could be inherited, such as an ear for music etc. But maybe not to a mind-boggling extent. When I said the thing about empty notebooks, I meant political opinions.

The most consistent argument to counter against someone who says God belief has to be taught moves the assertion into a special pleading fallacy when you get them to reconcile how the very first human to introduce the idea of God came about it. Theists believe revelation from God, so theists can't argue humans learn god from other humans only.

Yeah they believe everyone finds god in his heart if they listen carefully, don't they? But only the concept of a god, not exactly that everyone could hear the Presbytarian god if they listen carefully.

Atheists argue learning god via "brainwashing" but then have to make an exception, without any proof, about how the very first person got the idea in the first place.

Of the same reason why people make up ghosts, poltergeist and werewolves. A natural thing which stems out of fear and seeking for something higher, etc.

It's inconsistent logic. Most of the time they claim personification which means their argument that God belief has to be taught is invalidated by themselves. Lol

Religiousity comes natural and has always done. See for example how the primitive humans buried their people by puttning the dead man's hands on his chest, or together with symbolical objects such as beads. However, this does not follow agreeing with the Presbytarian Church of Northern Ireland or something else more specifically. That has to be taught.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 10:13:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 7:22:02 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/5/2016 7:12:28 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:39:36 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:35:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Yes, all humans, regardless of intelligence, are susceptible to psychological manipulation. Now, how exactly did I attempt to claim that brainwashed=stupid?? You are putting words in my mouth.

My point. Either everyone is born as empty notebooks that are to be filled by someone else, or no one is.
Jovian, I havent read all about what you're addressing but be careful. If you believe God exists then stay away from the argument that people are born as empty notebooks because then you would have to reconcile the contradiction that could be exposed by what you are implying,

I am atheist, which is specified on my profile. I don't fully believe people are born as empty notebooks. I believe that some things could be inherited, such as an ear for music etc. But maybe not to a mind-boggling extent. When I said the thing about empty notebooks, I meant political opinions.
I don't read profiles. Ear for music isn't analogous for thoughts though. So it isn't equivelant. You're essentially using an equivocation fallacy by changing the premise of what constitutes "writing in a notebook". No one can write in a notebook their ears hearing music, they can explain why they understand how music sounds etc.
The most consistent argument to counter against someone who says God belief has to be taught moves the assertion into a special pleading fallacy when you get them to reconcile how the very first human to introduce the idea of God came about it. Theists believe revelation from God, so theists can't argue humans learn god from other humans only.

Yeah they believe everyone finds god in his heart if they listen carefully, don't they? But only the concept of a god, not exactly that everyone could hear the Presbytarian god if they listen carefully.
You have no proof what other people have in their minds, I wouldn't argue that if I were you.
Atheists argue learning god via "brainwashing" but then have to make an exception, without any proof, about how the very first person got the idea in the first place.

Of the same reason why people make up ghosts, poltergeist and werewolves. A natural thing which stems out of fear and seeking for something higher, etc.
Except "making up" is ambiguous. A wolf exists, therefore combining a man and wolf as a character is not making something up, its making something from what already is. Ghost and poltergeist are the same thing, one is just a pissed off ghost. And they're not made up, they're a reflection of what already exists, humans. Sorry, I'm not gonna engage with someone who claims they know what another person was experiencing and what it resulted in. You have absolutely no proof fear was the basis for what you claim it was. Doesn't mean it isn't possible, just claiming it serves no purpose as far as arguing a point.
It's inconsistent logic. Most of the time they claim personification which means their argument that God belief has to be taught is invalidated by themselves. Lol

skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 10:31:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 6:35:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:11:30 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/5/2016 5:48:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

I believe it is essentially a Poisoning the Well fallacy (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...) (unless justified, of course), as a response to alleviate or preempt Cognitive Dissonance (http://www.simplypsychology.org...) by providing a means of dismissing the conflicting evidence, as well as the credibility of the source of the evidence, in order to avoid modification or abandonment of one's currently held beliefs, which is also a strong human tendency know as Belief Perseverance (http://psychologydictionary.org...).

My personal view is that yes, brainwashing (http://psychologydictionary.org...) occurs through indoctrination and tradition, primarily by those that don't realize that's what they're doing. The nemesis of brainwashing is critical thought, and if one is open and willing to apply critical though to oneself or to allow others to do so, then that is indicative that the accusation of being brainwashed is not likely to be true.
An actual definition might actually help.....brainwash can be used ambiguously to the point where everyone on this planet has been brainwashed in respects to lots of subjects.

I absolutely agree, and that's why I forwarded one.

The typical idea of brainwashing is more aptly applied to the psychological conditioning of someone with forcible measures, most consider some type of physical "torture" like lack of sleep via loud sounds or physical pain, etc. If one uses the term indoctrinate or teach it applies to all. If someone uses it in regards to reeducation, you don't actually reeducate a young child who doesn't already have beliefs or ideas about subjects.

For the most part, I agree. Indoctrination*, although it's form of teaching, isn't equivalent to teaching. The former deters criticism and questioning while the latter should promote it, ideally. The way I was eluding to indoctrination was really in the form or "pre-education" rather than reeducation, in that, the child is brought up with a specifically manipulated system of beliefs by the parents, family, and/or other members of society that are also under the umbrella of said belief system.
"Specifically manipulated system of beliefs"......quite the claim. I assume you can prove they are only beliefs. I assume you have proof the parents are being manipulative. I assume you have proof the society is being manipulative. Do you know all of these parents? Are you exposed to all these societies? You make sweeping generalizations to appear to have a valid point, why is that? Lol
*Indoctrinate : "teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically" [Oxford]
I agree. This though is of course predicated on the fact that you can prove something is only a belief.
The claim that chaosim makes in regards to the nemesis being critical thought is leading. It doesn't matter how intelligent or how rational you are you can be brainwashed via numerous methods so he's merely attempting to equate being brainwashed with being stupid. Which he himself admits is poisoning the well "thinking".

Yes, all humans, regardless of intelligence, are susceptible to psychological manipulation. Now, how exactly did I attempt to claim that brainwashed=stupid?? You are putting words in my mouth.
You're right, having the ability for critical thinking is also something stupid people possess. I concur. Don't pay me no mind, i'll attempt an argument against just about anything someone claims. After all, only unintelligent people argue for what they already think is true.
snkcake666
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 12:47:27 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Honestly, I would not necessarily think it far from the truth to say that a vast majority of the public is brainwashed.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 1:25:38 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 12:47:27 AM, snkcake666 wrote:
Honestly, I would not necessarily think it far from the truth to say that a vast majority of the public is brainwashed.

Ironically, if you start accusing people of being brainwashed, you sound like someone who's been brainwashed.

But I agree with you. Here's some evidence of attempts to brainwash the public at large that was successful:

https://www.youtube.com...

Of course, one man's brainwashing is another man's education.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 1:19:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 10:31:41 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:35:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:11:30 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/5/2016 5:48:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

I believe it is essentially a Poisoning the Well fallacy (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...) (unless justified, of course), as a response to alleviate or preempt Cognitive Dissonance (http://www.simplypsychology.org...) by providing a means of dismissing the conflicting evidence, as well as the credibility of the source of the evidence, in order to avoid modification or abandonment of one's currently held beliefs, which is also a strong human tendency know as Belief Perseverance (http://psychologydictionary.org...).

My personal view is that yes, brainwashing (http://psychologydictionary.org...) occurs through indoctrination and tradition, primarily by those that don't realize that's what they're doing. The nemesis of brainwashing is critical thought, and if one is open and willing to apply critical though to oneself or to allow others to do so, then that is indicative that the accusation of being brainwashed is not likely to be true.
An actual definition might actually help.....brainwash can be used ambiguously to the point where everyone on this planet has been brainwashed in respects to lots of subjects.

I absolutely agree, and that's why I forwarded one.

The typical idea of brainwashing is more aptly applied to the psychological conditioning of someone with forcible measures, most consider some type of physical "torture" like lack of sleep via loud sounds or physical pain, etc. If one uses the term indoctrinate or teach it applies to all. If someone uses it in regards to reeducation, you don't actually reeducate a young child who doesn't already have beliefs or ideas about subjects.

For the most part, I agree. Indoctrination*, although it's form of teaching, isn't equivalent to teaching. The former deters criticism and questioning while the latter should promote it, ideally. The way I was eluding to indoctrination was really in the form or "pre-education" rather than reeducation, in that, the child is brought up with a specifically manipulated system of beliefs by the parents, family, and/or other members of society that are also under the umbrella of said belief system.
"Specifically manipulated system of beliefs"......quite the claim. I assume you can prove they are only beliefs. I assume you have proof the parents are being manipulative. I assume you have proof the society is being manipulative. Do you know all of these parents? Are you exposed to all these societies? You make sweeping generalizations to appear to have a valid point, why is that? Lol

I did not forward this as some universal truth. I am just saying that it occurs. Would you deny that some families that are heavily religious, for example, have manipulated and engineered their children's beliefs as they raised them?

*Indoctrinate : "teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically" [Oxford]
I agree. This though is of course predicated on the fact that you can prove something is only a belief.

Why? I don't see such a qualifier about the teachings being "only a belief".

The claim that chaosim makes in regards to the nemesis being critical thought is leading. It doesn't matter how intelligent or how rational you are you can be brainwashed via numerous methods so he's merely attempting to equate being brainwashed with being stupid. Which he himself admits is poisoning the well "thinking".

Yes, all humans, regardless of intelligence, are susceptible to psychological manipulation. Now, how exactly did I attempt to claim that brainwashed=stupid?? You are putting words in my mouth.
You're right, having the ability for critical thinking is also something stupid people possess. I concur. Don't pay me no mind, i'll attempt an argument against just about anything someone claims. After all, only unintelligent people argue for what they already think is true.

It's not just the ability to think critically, it's to honestly consider criticism, too. I can understand arguing for the sake of arguing, but you were not doing that here: you were leveling accusations towards me based on assumptions of my motives. (underlined above)
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 3:08:31 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 10:13:29 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/5/2016 7:22:02 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/5/2016 7:12:28 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:39:36 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:35:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Yes, all humans, regardless of intelligence, are susceptible to psychological manipulation. Now, how exactly did I attempt to claim that brainwashed=stupid?? You are putting words in my mouth.

My point. Either everyone is born as empty notebooks that are to be filled by someone else, or no one is.
Jovian, I havent read all about what you're addressing but be careful. If you believe God exists then stay away from the argument that people are born as empty notebooks because then you would have to reconcile the contradiction that could be exposed by what you are implying,

I am atheist, which is specified on my profile. I don't fully believe people are born as empty notebooks. I believe that some things could be inherited, such as an ear for music etc. But maybe not to a mind-boggling extent. When I said the thing about empty notebooks, I meant political opinions.
I don't read profiles. Ear for music isn't analogous for thoughts though. So it isn't equivelant. You're essentially using an equivocation fallacy by changing the premise of what constitutes "writing in a notebook". No one can write in a notebook their ears hearing music, they can explain why they understand how music sounds etc.
The most consistent argument to counter against someone who says God belief has to be taught moves the assertion into a special pleading fallacy when you get them to reconcile how the very first human to introduce the idea of God came about it. Theists believe revelation from God, so theists can't argue humans learn god from other humans only.

Yeah they believe everyone finds god in his heart if they listen carefully, don't they? But only the concept of a god, not exactly that everyone could hear the Presbytarian god if they listen carefully.
You have no proof what other people have in their minds, I wouldn't argue that if I were you.

Sure, but it doesn't make sense to me. Think of someone in one of the primitive human tribes that still exist in the world. Do someone of these people think "Hmm, I sense something in my heart. An elephant god called Ganesha" or "Hmm, I sense someone called Jesus talks to me". It doesn't make sense to me at least. They do have a religious aspect though. Go to one of these tribes and they would surely have some kind of sacrifice rite.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 3:19:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

You have obviously been brainwashed into thinking it's bad to say others are brainwashed >:(

jk, I think calling people brainwashed is meaningless because it doesn't matter where they got their beliefs from. It only matters whether their beliefs are justified.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 5:27:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

What you are claiming is that there is no truth. Someone who is brainwashed refuses to accept a truth that is logically presented to them. Conservatives and liberals have viewpoints that incline them to believe that their approach to doing things is in greater alignment with the truth. However, both should be subservient to the truth.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 10:56:30 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 1:19:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/5/2016 10:31:41 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:35:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:11:30 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/5/2016 5:48:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

I believe it is essentially a Poisoning the Well fallacy (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...) (unless justified, of course), as a response to alleviate or preempt Cognitive Dissonance (http://www.simplypsychology.org...) by providing a means of dismissing the conflicting evidence, as well as the credibility of the source of the evidence, in order to avoid modification or abandonment of one's currently held beliefs, which is also a strong human tendency know as Belief Perseverance (http://psychologydictionary.org...).
Erased characters......
Belief perseverance would necessitate you prove evidence to the contrary of what subject your applying this to is actually valid evidence. Not assumptions based on a biased you might have towards the evidence. Hint, evidence for evolution is biased, as there are holes. You simply are arguing from your worldview and assuming the links aren't confirmation bias or use them because they are ambiguous enough that you can claim there is evidence that is valid and not in dispute to the contrary position that you're forwarding as "true" and "fact" and (implied the "intelligent" position)
Erased characters......

I did not forward this as some universal truth. I am just saying that it occurs. Would you deny that some families that are heavily religious, for example, have manipulated and engineered their children's beliefs as they raised them?
I'm not a psychologist, are you? Have you actually acquired the information through personal experience and had it confirmed via a professional of what constitutes manipulation in regards to parents and children? What I believe is irrelevant as to the topic, it's what you have proof of, not just a sweeping generalization or an assumption based on a biased sample or throwing mud across a wall and seeing what sticks......How do I know your parents haven't manipulated and engineered this assertion you made in you as a child? Simply claiming something is done as an opinion is rather useless. But you're welcome to think whatever you want about other people. Proving it about other people and their motivation is another story. That's why you do what you do. Religion is a manipulation by parents, the position that it is manipulation apparently doesn't cross your path as being a part of what parents could manipulate their children into believing. Wonder why, are you somehow biased In your assessment as to what subjects, and opinions about them, only qualify as what a parent manipulates a child into thinking?
*Indoctrinate : "teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically" [Oxford]
I agree. This though is of course predicated on the fact that you can prove something is only a belief.

Why? I don't see such a qualifier about the teachings being "only a belief".
So a set of beliefs doesn't start with 1 belief? Lol
The claim that chaosim makes in regards to the nemesis being critical thought is leading. It doesn't matter how intelligent or how rational you are you can be brainwashed via numerous methods so he's merely attempting to equate being brainwashed with being stupid. Which he himself admits is poisoning the well "thinking".

Yes, all humans, regardless of intelligence, are susceptible to psychological manipulation. Now, how exactly did I attempt to claim that brainwashed=stupid?? You are putting words in my mouth.
You're right, having the ability for critical thinking is also something stupid people possess. I concur. Don't pay me no mind, i'll attempt an argument against just about anything someone claims. After all, only unintelligent people argue for what they already think is true.

It's not just the ability to think critically, it's to honestly consider criticism, too. I can understand arguing for the sake of arguing, but you were not doing that here: you were leveling accusations towards me based on assumptions of my motives. (underlined above)
Honestly consider criticism??? Really , you can prove another person is "honestly doing something" , LOL
Posted link to website based on what they think critical thinking is defined as.
Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself.

Critical thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500 years. The term "critical thinking" has its roots in the mid-late 20th century. We offer here overlapping definitions, together which form a substantive, transdisciplinary conception of critical thinking.

Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987

A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987.

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
http://www.criticalthinking.org...
So just explain from this how someone can be stupid and possess the defined traits mentioned by these people. Since you're saying that stupid isn't what people who don't possess these traits are.
"Universal INTELLECTUAL values...."....you say people who lack this aren't stupid, what would you call them, not very smart?
stu"pid
G2;st(y)oV2;opəd/
adjective
1.
lacking intelligence or common sense.
"I was stupid enough to think she was perfect"
I don't put words into anyone's mouth, I took what they said and what is implied. If you're saying critical thinking is also a part of how a stupid person thinks, then just admit that instead of deflecting. Say it, "critical thinking is also what stupid people do too"......therefore critical thinking can also be stupid.....not intellectual or base on intelligence.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2016 3:58:50 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

- I actually like the term "brainwash". Our brains do need some washing from time to time.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2016 2:10:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 10:56:30 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:19:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/5/2016 10:31:41 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:35:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:11:30 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/5/2016 5:48:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I believe it is essentially a Poisoning the Well fallacy (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...) (unless justified, of course), as a response to alleviate or preempt Cognitive Dissonance (http://www.simplypsychology.org...) by providing a means of dismissing the conflicting evidence, as well as the credibility of the source of the evidence, in order to avoid modification or abandonment of one's currently held beliefs, which is also a strong human tendency know as Belief Perseverance (http://psychologydictionary.org...).
Erased characters......
Belief perseverance would necessitate you prove evidence to the contrary of what subject your applying this to is actually valid evidence. Not assumptions based on a biased you might have towards the evidence. Hint, evidence for evolution is biased, as there are holes. You simply are arguing from your worldview and assuming the links aren't confirmation bias or use them because they are ambiguous enough that you can claim there is evidence that is valid and not in dispute to the contrary position that you're forwarding as "true" and "fact" and (implied the "intelligent" position)
Erased characters......

What does evolution have to do with this at all? I was generalizing about humans in general - I was not targeting any specific group or people. Belief Perseverance reflects a general human tendency. I'm not understanding where your contention is coming from.

I did not forward this as some universal truth. I am just saying that it occurs. Would you deny that some families that are heavily religious, for example, have manipulated and engineered their children's beliefs as they raised them?
I'm not a psychologist, are you? Have you actually acquired the information through personal experience and had it confirmed via a professional of what constitutes manipulation in regards to parents and children? What I believe is irrelevant as to the topic, it's what you have proof of, not just a sweeping generalization or an assumption based on a biased sample or throwing mud across a wall and seeing what sticks......How do I know your parents haven't manipulated and engineered this assertion you made in you as a child? Simply claiming something is done as an opinion is rather useless. But you're welcome to think whatever you want about other people. Proving it about other people and their motivation is another story. That's why you do what you do. Religion is a manipulation by parents, the position that it is manipulation apparently doesn't cross your path as being a part of what parents could manipulate their children into believing. Wonder why, are you somehow biased In your assessment as to what subjects, and opinions about them, only qualify as what a parent manipulates a child into thinking?

The majority of your rant here is irrelevant. I gave an example, and I am not addressing any group. I agreed that brainwashing occurs, and did not mention anything about it applying universally. Just accept this as opinion, then, because that's how I offered it anyway. I won't address your added imaginary implications.

*Indoctrinate : "teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically" [Oxford]
I agree. This though is of course predicated on the fact that you can prove something is only a belief.

Why? I don't see such a qualifier about the teachings being "only a belief".
So a set of beliefs doesn't start with 1 belief? Lol
The claim that chaosim makes in regards to the nemesis being critical thought is leading. It doesn't matter how intelligent or how rational you are you can be brainwashed via numerous methods so he's merely attempting to equate being brainwashed with being stupid. Which he himself admits is poisoning the well "thinking".

Yes, all humans, regardless of intelligence, are susceptible to psychological manipulation. Now, how exactly did I attempt to claim that brainwashed=stupid?? You are putting words in my mouth.
You're right, having the ability for critical thinking is also something stupid people possess. I concur. Don't pay me no mind, i'll attempt an argument against just about anything someone claims. After all, only unintelligent people argue for what they already think is true.

It's not just the ability to think critically, it's to honestly consider criticism, too. I can understand arguing for the sake of arguing, but you were not doing that here: you were leveling accusations towards me based on assumptions of my motives. (underlined above)
Honestly consider criticism??? Really , you can prove another person is "honestly doing something" , LOL
Posted link to website based on what they think critical thinking is defined as.
Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself.

Critical thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500 years. The term "critical thinking" has its roots in the mid-late 20th century. We offer here overlapping definitions, together which form a substantive, transdisciplinary conception of critical thinking.

Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987

A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987.

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
http://www.criticalthinking.org...
So just explain from this how someone can be stupid and possess the defined traits mentioned by these people. Since you're saying that stupid isn't what people who don't possess these traits are.
"Universal INTELLECTUAL values...."....you say people who lack this aren't stupid, what would you call them, not very smart?
stu"pid
G2;st(y)oV2;opəd/
adjective
1.
lacking intelligence or common sense.
"I was stupid enough to think she was perfect"
I don't put words into anyone's mouth, I took what they said and what is implied. If you're saying critical thinking is also a part of how a stupid person thinks, then just admit that instead of deflecting. Say it, "critical thinking is also what stupid people do too"......therefore critical thinking can also be stupid.....not intellectual or base on intelligence.

You said that I tried to claim that brainwashed=stupid. All I said was critical thought is a nemesis to brainwashing. This is because the practice of critical thought generates contention towards a belief or claim, and permits people to take that into consideration to modify their prior judgments. I made no claims about individuals necessarily possessing the ability for themselves, and the intelligence of individuals is not involved, here. Your accusation is irrelevant to what I said. I won't be catering to these contentions that you perceived as implications from my statements.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2016 9:59:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/8/2016 2:10:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/7/2016 10:56:30 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:19:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/5/2016 10:31:41 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:35:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:11:30 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/5/2016 5:48:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Erased characters......

What does evolution have to do with this at all? I was generalizing about humans in general - I was not targeting any specific group or people. Belief Perseverance reflects a general human tendency. I'm not understanding where your contention is coming from.

People who are capable of critical thinking know exactly what evolution has to do with indoctrination. People who don't give a dam either way, like me, take all the ideas about evolution at face value and search for ALL information that should be considered. I'll mention a few but this isn't about debating the merits of the evolution theory.
Symbiotic relationships in nature cannot evolve by definition, they have to pre-exist when existence is why they are there in the first place, simple logic.
Polystrate tree evidence.
Mass extinction is evolution, lol illogical and they claim 4 at the least
Reptiles evolve into birds. Yet not one fossil where there is a feature between a feather and a scale.
Only 2% of the actual places on earth have been studied in regards to the fossil record. This is self explanatory.
So you ask what evolution has to do with indoctrination or critical thinking? Lol
"No specific group or people"????, yeh except the parents who manipulate their children, nah, that's not a people is it. Here's where you deflect to "I wasn't addressing any particular religion being manipulated", you still were addressing a group of "people". Manipulative parents.

I did not forward this as some universal truth. I am just saying that it occurs. Would you deny that some families that are heavily religious, for example, have manipulated and engineered their children's beliefs as they raised them?
I'm not a psychologist, are you? Have you actually acquired the information through personal experience and had it confirmed via a professional of what constitutes manipulation in regards to parents and children? What I believe is irrelevant as to the topic, it's what you have proof of, not just a sweeping generalization or an assumption based on a biased sample or throwing mud across a wall and seeing what sticks......How do I know your parents haven't manipulated and engineered this assertion you made in you as a child? Simply claiming something is done as an opinion is rather useless. But you're welcome to think whatever you want about other people. Proving it about other people and their motivation is another story. That's why you do what you do. Religion is a manipulation by parents, the position that it is manipulation apparently doesn't cross your path as being a part of what parents could manipulate their children into believing. Wonder why, are you somehow biased In your assessment as to what subjects, and opinions about them, only qualify as what a parent manipulates a child into thinking?

The majority of your rant here is irrelevant. I gave an example, and I am not addressing any group. I agreed that brainwashing occurs, and did not mention anything about it applying universally. Just accept this as opinion, then, because that's how I offered it anyway. I won't address your added imaginary implications.
Yeah, your opinion is always the argument of atheists when they have no proof.
*Indoctrinate : "teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically" [Oxford]
I agree. This though is of course predicated on the fact that you can prove something is only a belief.

Why? I don't see such a qualifier about the teachings being "only a belief".
So a set of beliefs doesn't start with 1 belief? Lol
The claim that chaosim makes in regards to the nemesis being critical thought is leading. It doesn't matter how intelligent or how rational you are you can be brainwashed via numerous methods so he's merely attempting to equate being brainwashed with being stupid. Which he himself admits is poisoning the well "thinking".

Yes, all humans, regardless of intelligence, are susceptible to psychological manipulation. Now, how exactly did I attempt to claim that brainwashed=stupid?? You are putting words in my mouth.
You're right, having the ability for critical thinking is also something stupid people possess. I concur. Don't pay me no mind, i'll attempt an argument against just about anything someone claims. After all, only unintelligent people argue for what they already think is true.

It's not just the ability to think critically, it's to honestly consider criticism, too. I can understand arguing for the sake of arguing, but you were not doing that here: you were leveling accusations towards me based on assumptions of my motives. (underlined above)
Honestly consider criticism??? Really , you can prove another person is "honestly doing something" , LOL
Posted link to website based on what they think critical thinking is defined as.
Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself.

Critical thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500 years. The term "critical thinking" has its roots in the mid-late 20th century. We offer here overlapping definitions, together which form a substantive, transdisciplinary conception of critical thinking.


You said that I tried to claim that brainwashed=stupid. All I said was critical thought is a nemesis to brainwashing. This is because the practice of critical thought generates contention towards a belief or claim, and permits people to take that into consideration to modify their prior judgments. I made no claims about individuals necessarily possessing the ability for themselves, and the intelligence of individuals is not involved, here. Your accusation is irrelevant to what I said. I won't be catering to these contentions that you perceived as implications from my statements.
You used a link to psychological perseverance, once again a claim that evidence that makes beliefs irrelevant. All this in a response where you mention naive children, religion etc. If you think its unreasonable I concluded you were pushing a "stupidity" allows indoctrination , then so be it. Why would I ever put the train of thought together the way you "responded". You're the one who mention religion. You're the one who mentioned parents manipulating children. Children by definition lack intelligence, thus are stupid in regards to religion which is what you were tying your response into.
Critical thinking is the nemesis to brainwashing. Nemesis is the rival, the opponent, the opposition to.
You can justify why you're all over the place just as much as my responses. But that's what you should expect with "opinions" in regards to the only subjects you wish to interject as being those susceptible to indoctrination.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 7:53:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/8/2016 9:59:39 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/8/2016 2:10:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/7/2016 10:56:30 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:19:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Erased characters......

What does evolution have to do with this at all? I was generalizing about humans in general - I was not targeting any specific group or people. Belief Perseverance reflects a general human tendency. I'm not understanding where your contention is coming from.

People who are capable of critical thinking know exactly what evolution has to do with indoctrination. People who don't give a dam either way, like me, take all the ideas about evolution at face value and search for ALL information that should be considered. I'll mention a few but this isn't about debating the merits of the evolution theory.
Symbiotic relationships in nature cannot evolve by definition, they have to pre-exist when existence is why they are there in the first place, simple logic.
Polystrate tree evidence.
Mass extinction is evolution, lol illogical and they claim 4 at the least
Reptiles evolve into birds. Yet not one fossil where there is a feature between a feather and a scale.
Only 2% of the actual places on earth have been studied in regards to the fossil record. This is self explanatory.
So you ask what evolution has to do with indoctrination or critical thinking? Lol

This is all totally irrelevant to anything I said.

"No specific group or people"????, yeh except the parents who manipulate their children, nah, that's not a people is it. Here's where you deflect to "I wasn't addressing any particular religion being manipulated", you still were addressing a group of "people". Manipulative parents.

Where did I say that except for *an example* that I thought would be a simple, easy illustration to show the kind of thing I was referring to. I wasn't even addressing religion in my original posts. I left it open on purpose because it can occur with almost anything: religion, political ideals, racial/social ideals. You are arguing against your own assumptions: a straw man.

I did not forward this as some universal truth. I am just saying that it occurs. Would you deny that some families that are heavily religious, for example, have manipulated and engineered their children's beliefs as they raised them?
I'm not a psychologist, are you? Have you actually acquired the information through personal experience and had it confirmed via a professional of what constitutes manipulation in regards to parents and children? What I believe is irrelevant as to the topic, it's what you have proof of, not just a sweeping generalization or an assumption based on a biased sample or throwing mud across a wall and seeing what sticks......How do I know your parents haven't manipulated and engineered this assertion you made in you as a child? Simply claiming something is done as an opinion is rather useless. But you're welcome to think whatever you want about other people. Proving it about other people and their motivation is another story. That's why you do what you do. Religion is a manipulation by parents, the position that it is manipulation apparently doesn't cross your path as being a part of what parents could manipulate their children into believing. Wonder why, are you somehow biased In your assessment as to what subjects, and opinions about them, only qualify as what a parent manipulates a child into thinking?

The majority of your rant here is irrelevant. I gave an example, and I am not addressing any group. I agreed that brainwashing occurs, and did not mention anything about it applying universally. Just accept this as opinion, then, because that's how I offered it anyway. I won't address your added imaginary implications.
Yeah, your opinion is always the argument of atheists when they have no proof.

OK, so your replies here are evidently driven by your bias against atheists. Well, this thread is in the philosophy forum and religion was not mentioned in the OP, nor was it mentioned by me in my reply to it. Do you think that, because I am an atheist, everything I do revolves around 'destroying religion'?

You said that I tried to claim that brainwashed=stupid. All I said was critical thought is a nemesis to brainwashing. This is because the practice of critical thought generates contention towards a belief or claim, and permits people to take that into consideration to modify their prior judgments. I made no claims about individuals necessarily possessing the ability for themselves, and the intelligence of individuals is not involved, here. Your accusation is irrelevant to what I said. I won't be catering to these contentions that you perceived as implications from my statements.
You used a link to psychological perseverance, once again a claim that evidence that makes beliefs irrelevant. All this in a response where you mention naive children, religion etc. If you think its unreasonable I concluded you were pushing a "stupidity" allows indoctrination , then so be it. Why would I ever put the train of thought together the way you "responded". You're the one who mention religion. You're the one who mentioned parents manipulating children. Children by definition lack intelligence, thus are stupid in regards to religion which is what you were tying your response into.

Belief Perseverance reflects an intrinsic bias against change, not a claim that "evidence makes beliefs irrelevant". And the ONLY time I referenced children and religion was in that ONE specific example I gave you, which could have pertained to something else just as easily, as explained above. Again, that was an EXAMPLE; it does not reflect the intent of EVERYTHING I have said. You are drawing that from assumption.

Critical thinking is the nemesis to brainwashing. Nemesis is the rival, the opponent, the opposition to.
You can justify why you're all over the place just as much as my responses. But that's what you should expect with "opinions" in regards to the only subjects you wish to interject as being those susceptible to indoctrination.

I am not sure what you are saying, here. I am not saying that you are not entitled to your opinion, but if you are going to toss out accusations against people based on your own assumptions, then expect a little friction as a result. I am not bothered by any of this, and I won't be, FTR.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 3:22:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

Show how the celebration of homosexuality ,multiculturalism and abortion have had any positive effects on society. I don't see any
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 3:25:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 3:22:56 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

Show how the celebration of homosexuality ,multiculturalism and abortion have had any positive effects on society. I don't see any

Very off-topic since I was just examplifying, but you could although compare the HDI rates of countries who celebrate these things and compare them with countries who don't.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 3:33:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 3:25:18 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:22:56 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

Show how the celebration of homosexuality ,multiculturalism and abortion have had any positive effects on society. I don't see any

Very off-topic since I was just examplifying, but you could although compare the HDI rates of countries who celebrate these things and compare them with countries who don't.

How is me addressing your example off topic? If you regurgitate some social policy that shows no evidence of having a positive effect on society is positive then you are obviously brain washed.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 3:36:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 3:33:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:25:18 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:22:56 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

Show how the celebration of homosexuality ,multiculturalism and abortion have had any positive effects on society. I don't see any

Very off-topic since I was just examplifying, but you could although compare the HDI rates of countries who celebrate these things and compare them with countries who don't.

How is me addressing your example off topic?

The topic is about how legitimate it is to call your opponent brainwashed just because you dislike his opinions.

If you regurgitate some social policy that shows no evidence of having a positive effect on society is positive then you are obviously brain washed.

Yeah, because the HDI index is probably a fraud anyway. Even if it was like what you are saying, does it need to be brainwashing explicitly? Couldn't it be things like clinging to opinions for not breaking ones worldview? Etc.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 8:02:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 3:36:33 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:33:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:25:18 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:22:56 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

Show how the celebration of homosexuality ,multiculturalism and abortion have had any positive effects on society. I don't see any

Very off-topic since I was just examplifying, but you could although compare the HDI rates of countries who celebrate these things and compare them with countries who don't.

How is me addressing your example off topic?

The topic is about how legitimate it is to call your opponent brainwashed just because you dislike his opinions.

If you regurgitate some social policy that shows no evidence of having a positive effect on society is positive then you are obviously brain washed.

Yeah, because the HDI index is probably a fraud anyway. Even if it was like what you are saying, does it need to be brainwashing explicitly? Couldn't it be things like clinging to opinions for not breaking ones worldview? Etc.

Um what the hell is a HDI index and who made this up
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 8:03:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 8:02:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:36:33 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:33:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:25:18 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:22:56 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

Show how the celebration of homosexuality ,multiculturalism and abortion have had any positive effects on society. I don't see any

Very off-topic since I was just examplifying, but you could although compare the HDI rates of countries who celebrate these things and compare them with countries who don't.

How is me addressing your example off topic?

The topic is about how legitimate it is to call your opponent brainwashed just because you dislike his opinions.

If you regurgitate some social policy that shows no evidence of having a positive effect on society is positive then you are obviously brain washed.

Yeah, because the HDI index is probably a fraud anyway. Even if it was like what you are saying, does it need to be brainwashing explicitly? Couldn't it be things like clinging to opinions for not breaking ones worldview? Etc.

Um what the hell is a HDI index and who made this up

I'm not googling this for you.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 8:05:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 8:03:14 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/10/2016 8:02:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:36:33 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:33:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:25:18 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:22:56 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:40:36 AM, Jovian wrote:
I've noticed that this strategy of calling people brainwashed is an indeed popular one. It's mostly done by people who want to declare their opponents as stupid. An example is:

"Homosexuality/multiculturalism/abortion is not OK! You liberals have been brainwashed to think this!"

The thing is, couldn't this one saying this ironically just as well have been brainwashed too, by conservatives? Or is it just some opinions that people could be brainwashed to adapt? A conservative being against abortion is always an independent person who have acquired his opinion on his own, but a liberal being pro-abortion is always a deluded sheeple which has zero capability of thinking in his own?

Just making examples when I'm talking about this conservative/liberal thing. It could just as well be the other way around, or people of any political camp.

Either all people are brainwashed, or no one is. Why would some opinions bear witness to independence, and some not?

What do you think?

Show how the celebration of homosexuality ,multiculturalism and abortion have had any positive effects on society. I don't see any

Very off-topic since I was just examplifying, but you could although compare the HDI rates of countries who celebrate these things and compare them with countries who don't.

How is me addressing your example off topic?

The topic is about how legitimate it is to call your opponent brainwashed just because you dislike his opinions.

If you regurgitate some social policy that shows no evidence of having a positive effect on society is positive then you are obviously brain washed.

Yeah, because the HDI index is probably a fraud anyway. Even if it was like what you are saying, does it need to be brainwashing explicitly? Couldn't it be things like clinging to opinions for not breaking ones worldview? Etc.

Um what the hell is a HDI index and who made this up

I'm not googling this for you.

so you don't even know what it is
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%