Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2007 7:52:59 GMT -5
quote - "what exactly is your motivation for being on this board"
Someone wrote and told us our first web site was being discussed on this board. We came on line out of curiosity. The real reason we stayed is because we are concerned about so many young people in our church belonging to the internet generation. A lot of what is written about us is quite shallow, personal and suffers from confirmational bias. We all know this is the case with much of the medium.
|
|
|
Post by been warned on Aug 14, 2007 12:05:44 GMT -5
(By the way, I am presently teaching a module on debating tactics in my English class. I am using the advice presented by a world-class debating team, who won 288 matches to exemplify this skill. Moreover, I can tell you that, in terms of the standard of argumentation given by ex-2x2s, they would have lost the vast majority of formal debates on all the key elements: matter, method, and manner). [/i][/quote] You bitter exes can consider yourselves warned: You're dealing with a Master-debator here. 'Nuf said.
|
|
|
Post by More 2x2 Delusion on Aug 14, 2007 12:38:48 GMT -5
HaHa Ho Ho what a laugh
Why Critical Thinking?
The Problem: Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced: Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.
GIT with most hard core 2x2s fail at critical thinking
A Definition: Critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it.
The Result: A well cultivated critical thinker: raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively;
Git, Nate and other so called 2x2s fail in the above.
comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
and they fail in the above
thinks open mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
Also another failure
communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems:
Failure
Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self corrective thinking
Impossible for 2x2 to do the above.
It requires. rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
And they fail in all of the above because of the two words in bold.
The Problem of Egocentric Thinking
Egocentric thinking results from the unfortunate fact that humans do not naturally consider the rights and needs of others. They do not naturally appreciate the point of view of others nor the limitations in their own point of view. They become explicitly aware of their egocentric thinking only if trained to do so. They do not naturally recognize their egocentric assumptions, the egocentric way they use information, the egocentric way they interpret data, the source of their egocentric concepts and ideas, the implications of their egocentric thought. They do not naturally recognize their self-serving perspective.
As humans they live with the unrealistic but confident sense that they have fundamentally figured out the way things actually are, and that they have done this objectively. They naturally believe in their intuitive perceptions-however inaccurate. Instead of using intellectual standards in thinking, they often use self-centered psychological standards to determine what to believe and what to reject. Here are the most commonly used psychological standards in human thinking.
"IT'S TRUE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT? Innate egocentrism: I assume that what I believe is true even though I have never questioned the basis for many of my beliefs.
"IT'S TRUE BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IT." Innate sociocentrism: I assume that the dominant beliefs within the groups to which I belong are true even though I have never questioned the basis for many of these beliefs.
"IT'S TRUE BECAUSE I WANT TO BELIEVE IT." Innate wish fulfillment: I believe in, for example, accounts of behavior that put me (or the groups to which I belong) in a positive rather than a negative light even though I have not seriously considered the evidence for the more negative account. I believe what feels good;' what supports my other beliefs, what does not require me to change my thinking in any significant way, what does not require me to admit I have been wrong. "IT'S TRUE BECAUSE I HAVE ALL WAYS BELIEVED IT." Innate self-validation: I have a strong desire to maintain beliefs that I have long held, even though I have not seriously considered the extent to which those beliefs are justified, given the evidence.
"IT'S TRUE BECAUSE IT IS IN MY SELFISH INTEREST TO BELIEVE IT” Innate selfishness: I hold fast to beliefs that justify my getting more power, money, or personal advantage even though these beliefs are not grounded in sound reasoning or evidence.Because humans are naturally prone to assess thinking in keeping with the above criteria, it is not surprising that the F&W's have not developed a significant interest in establishing and teaching legitimate Biblical Doctrine. It is not surprising that their thinking is often flawed. They are truly the "self-deceived animal:
|
|
3
Senior Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by 3 on Aug 14, 2007 13:47:49 GMT -5
fmofthe2x2's
referring to GIT you write :If by relevancy you mean self-satisfying, snobbish, pretentious, pompous, and a intellectual elitist... then yes, I agree...
I do not question his ability to form a well qualified sentence, but his condescending demeanor peppered thoughout is nauseating..."
May I gently point out that you are the 'pot calling the kettle black?' And, I'm not the only one on this board who feels this way....
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 14, 2007 14:06:23 GMT -5
[Bryan Wrote] Nate gets all awestruck at big fancy words... Kind of like how my cat gets awestruck at pretty colors on the TV...As I have said in the past, the intellectual quality of some participants on this forum is not great. Honestly! How can you have any respect for a post that uses adolescent taunting like this? Paraphrase: "You're just like my kitty cat watching the telly!" (Insert thumbs into ears, splay fingers, and flap hands back and forth for full visual effect.) GiT, Feel free to not respect anything I say.... I promise you I will not be hurt... As for my comments regarding nathan... they were quite funny, were they not?
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 14, 2007 14:08:12 GMT -5
GIT posts are very unique, informative, and he is a THINKER! comparing to your posts are very shallow, uninteresting to read, boring, and very childish content writing style. Now, you know why people don't answer your posts. Anther thing you're good at is posting different websites links in your posts. Thank you for proving my point that big fancy words in GiT's writing style makes you swoon...
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 14, 2007 14:09:49 GMT -5
fmofthe2x2's referring to GIT you write : If by relevancy you mean self-satisfying, snobbish, pretentious, pompous, and a intellectual elitist... then yes, I agree...
I do not question his ability to form a well qualified sentence, but his condescending demeanor peppered thoughout is nauseating..." May I gently point out that you are the 'pot calling the kettle black?' And, I'm not the only one on this board who feels this way.... I may be pompous... but an intellectual elitist... come now, let us reason....
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 14, 2007 18:10:23 GMT -5
I hate to say it, but this post by some anonymous individual must rank as one of the more absurd I have ever come across. I confess I found it deeply amusing, firstly because of its content, secondly because of its baseless accusations, and thirdly, because of the context in which all this is taking place ("critical thinking").
Here we have a poster who wants to demonstrate that I, and my fellow apologists, do not have critical thinking skills. In order to do this, he cuts-and-pastes a slab of text from a fairly popular document (I found this treatise on many a university website when I ran a quick search for it), and then sandwitches his comments in between someone else's writing. Each comment amounts to: "Nope! You fail here, and here, and over there. Boy, you 2x2ers are totally uncritical thinkers!"
Let's apply some critical reductivist methodologies to our friend's pithy comments to see whether he is in any position to lecture others regarding critical thinking:
GIT with most hard core 2x2s fail at critical thinking.
I almost laughed out loud, and my version of smile (a grimace) crossed my craggy features when I read this. Apparently I fail at critical thinking! Yet textual criticism and critical methologies was one of my best subjects at college, and one which I have re-visted in my postgraduate studies. To be accused of inability and ignorance by someone whose only apparent skill is googling, is either offensive or simply absurd. I cannot make up my mind which, at the moment.
Let us deconstruct our anonymous critical expert's sentence.
...with most...: Define "most". Does this refer to "most 2x2s on this forum" or "most 2x2s in the United States" or "most 2x2s in the entire world". This is shoddy writing indeed from a critical thinking expert!
...hardcore...: Define "hardcore". Is the elementary criterion simply zeal? If I am a "hardcore 2x2" then what about someone committed to the Baptist Church, or to Roman Catholicism? Could they be described as "hardcore"? Or, perhaps "hardcore" are those who are not swayed by the majority and who retain their own beliefs in spite of a barrage of abuse and idiocy, as manifested in this post.
...fail at critical thinking...: Define manner. Exactly how do the "hardcore" ones fail at critical thinking?
The Result: A well cultivated critical thinker: raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively;
Git, Nate and other so called 2x2s fail in the above.
As do you. Where are your vital questions? Where have you formulated your problem succinctly? You certainly have not gathered relevant information regarding my educational background, or otherwise you would not make these kinds of stupid assertions. Sorry. "Stupid" is the only adjective that applies.
...and they fail in the above...
Yes. And this is an excellent "well reasoned conclusion". This must be a taste of hell, readers! To be lectured about critical thinking by an ignoramus who does not even understand the advice proffered in the cut-and-paste job he has plastered on this forum to the rest of the world. Apparently you can accuse others of a lack of critical thought, without having a single critical thought of one's own.
thinks open mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
...Also another failure...
I mean, honestly! Look at what the text is saying and compare it with our anonymous poster's comment. Can this individual read?
communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems:
...Failure...
Not yet a monosyllabic response from our anonymous critical thinking expert. But is this "effective communication"? Only to the dimwitted crowd who feast upon one-worder responses as pithy, deep and meaningful.
Impossible for 2x2 to do the above.
You're going to have to do much better than this to establish the impossibility principle. Unbelievable!
And they fail in all of the above because of the two words in bold.
Generalisation, thy name is empty thought. Here we have the situation of someone plastering someone else's article on critical thinking on this forum, and then turning around and making a generalisation about the friends, OR, us apologists (the sentence is not clear to who "they" refers to, hence this is not effective communication), on the basis that we are egocentric (a psychological principle I also covered at college) and socio-centric.
There is no evidence given for this silly statement. Rather our anonymous poster is a bishop, speaking ex cathedra about things he is in no position to know or understand, relying on his own authority to give his words weight! So determined to prove the friends to be morons, he blindly blunders forward and does not even follow the principles outlined in the text he cites (en toto, as the case is - obviously copyright and referrencing one's sources has not entered this individual's purview, which suggests he never attended a college).
Great post. It proves more about the anonymous individual than it does about those he was attempting to malign. This is why, as I have often said, one does not need to take these kinds of individuals too seriously. Firstly, they lack educational fortitude, secondly, they are totally one-eyed and place their own situation beyond analysis, and thirdly, they exist to direct mindless hostility toward the friends without any basis for so doing.
I repeat what I have said previously: the intellectual quality of some participants on this forum is not great.
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 14, 2007 18:49:18 GMT -5
Git,
Your above post (reply #43) is a perfect example of why many on here view you as a pompous intellectual elitist...
Your smug tone is entirely off-putting and makes you sound like a total snob...
You would do yourself a favor by coming down off your high and mighty tower and conversing with us in a normal way without all the pretentiousness...
I mean seriously... your puffed-up superiority complex is getting out of hand...
|
|
|
Post by to GIT on Aug 14, 2007 20:22:22 GMT -5
GIT,
A degree hanging on your wall does not make you a decent human being.
|
|
|
Post by Knowledge on Aug 14, 2007 21:01:43 GMT -5
GIT seems to be quite proud of his "knowlede". I wonder if GIT is capable of answering sincere questions posed to him?
GIT, do you feel superior to those who aren't as intelligent as you? Do you feel superior to others who aren't as well-educated? Do you secretly despise the mentally challenged?
There is something very important you should realize. Knowledge does not equal wisdom. I sometimes imagine God looking down upon those who think they're intelligence is above all others, and I picture Him laughing.
|
|
The Gititus Affliction
Guest
|
Post by The Gititus Affliction on Aug 14, 2007 23:44:31 GMT -5
GIT Proves the post Reply #38 on Today at 12:38pm. GIT fails to see himself and goes defensive when the surface is touched.
|
|
|
Post by repost on Aug 15, 2007 6:31:12 GMT -5
A Public Apology « Thread Started on Aug 8, 2007, 6:28pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have always said on this forum that if I made a mistake, that I would publically apologise; repent; show contritition for my error. Recently I have become increasingly embittered toward certain people on this forum - particularly anonymous posters. I have made a number of statements which I now regret.
It is easy to "maintain the rage" with people whose spirit is less than charitable, but unfortunately this only feeds the endless cycle of self-justification; attack; self-justification; counter-attack.
I regret my desire to put together a list of negative statements. There is no better way to promote disharmony than to be a collector of iniquity for the express purpose of entrenching others into the same negative mindset.
I regret concluding all ex-2x2s under the same mantle. I cannot restrain myself in making this comment: some are rotten. But there are more than a few who are good people.
I regret making judgements about others - calling some "sanctimonious" and so on and so forth.
I regret not exemplifying the Gospel commandment to answer "in love" those whom have questions regarding our faith.
I regret not "turning the other cheek" when I have been on the recieving end of unpleasant comments.
AND,
I regret my judgements in regards to the spirit of all ex-2x2s.
Part of my angst has been the lack of serious interaction. I almost beg people to explain their thinking, yet the most common form of communication seems to be abuse. Nevertheless, the proof of repentance is seen in action.
I sincerely thank "As I C It" who wrote a really kind note in a recent thread. As these are few and far between, it really gripped my attention. But also the wise advice melted my bitterness. Thanks, friend.
I hope any I may have committed offences against will be able to overlook these errors on my part.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Aug 15, 2007 7:40:14 GMT -5
For current friends like Bert and Nathan, what exactly is your motivation for being on this board...to convert exes back, answer questions from outsiders? ??......just wondering. I'm not really sure I'm a friend like Bert and Nathan. Actually, I don't know anybody who is like Bert and Nathan except Bert and Nathan. Nobody I go to meeting with is like them, that's for sure. They are definitely one-of-a-kind. Now, I like uniqueness--and I enjoy reading what they add to the discussion and all, so I'm cool with all that, but I just wanted to point this out before I answer the question. So, anyhow, here are my reasons: When things are peaceful around here, I enjoy the discussion. Then things aren't peaceful, I enjoy the drama. I guess that second reason isn't very noble, but there it is. peace, freespirit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2007 7:43:45 GMT -5
quote - "I don't know anybody who is a friend like Bert and Nathan except Bert and Nathan."
That's really profound. Now I have a headache! ;D
|
|
|
Post by of course on Aug 15, 2007 19:58:50 GMT -5
quote - "I don't know anybody who is a friend like Bert and Nathan except Bert and Nathan." That's really profound. Now I have a headache! ;D that's because you tried to think about it. Typical for you.
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Aug 15, 2007 20:48:36 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D
|
|