A civil debate?

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
choomer said:
You admitted to not reading it;)
Click to expand...
TL;DR

No I didn't. You kept saying it and demanding I prove that I read it, but you can't even prove you read this thread, as you've just demonstrated. This supports the conclusion empirically drawn by the PEER REVIEWED STUDY that proves conservatism/racism is negatively correlated with cognitive function.

You just can't get over the fact that science backs this up.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
choomer said:
You admitted to not reading it as I did pages ago. Did you miss it when I said I wasn't going to pay for the paper and that it was definitely beyond your budget?
I don't deny hard science (when able to be replicated), or support Dumph.

I do, however, hold quite a bit of skepticism when it comes to paper about "soft" sciences like psychology. economics, political science, and other sociological sciences as they have tendency to 2.3-fold increased odds of positive results compared to the physical sciences (which has been scientifically proven).

Cars work because chemistry, electricity, and mathematics work 100% the time and don't rely on theory, where psychology (as opposed to psychiatry) relies on 51 different "schools" of thought to define itself as a "science".
Next time you get in your car to go somewhere be glad it depends on hard sciences that don't rely on consensus acceptance of 51 different schools of thought on how chemistry, electricity, and mathematics work.

So, in summary, a story that you read citing a paper that you've never read which reports positive results in a sociological investigation of polled data which suggests a trend is absolutely unquestionable to you?

That explains SO much.
It might also explain your preoccupation with suicide.

Keep digging! ;)

Bummer dude.
Did you come to the conclusion your theory was proving correct as evidenced by the reception of your observation?
Don't let popularity and biased administration silence your voice as at least it seems you can write well without invective and derision, and while I may not share your views, I cannot learn why I might want to come to agree with them without your making those views known.

Then he must have said something worth reading.
Are you jealous that posting more often does not equal being correct? ;)

We're you so afraid someone might miss your input that you had to post it twice?

Sorry, but posting self serving aggrandizement of your agenda and showing the inability to listen to anything that does not fit within your narrow understanding is not particularly flattering and posting it more than once does not help. ;)
Click to expand...
did you make facts not facts yet, closet homo?
 
Heil Tweetler

Heil Tweetler

Well-Known Member
WSN said:
Thenhe must have said something worth reading.
Are you jealous that posting more often does not equal being correct? ;) JEALOUS?, WSN YOURE AN ASS
! ;)

help. ;)
Click to expand...
"Worth reading" ? Whose stupid now, youve been catastrophically battered though out these pages yet youre still pushing your cracker-bart, creation camp ,trump u reading list ? Your notion of what is "worth reading" would be like Trumps notion of estimable colleagues, flynn, scaramucci, priebus, kelly ann conjob, manafort, spicer, moral failures all. Are you so ridiculously unaware of your clown level status that you imagine your judgment of reading materials is anything other than ludicrous?

WSN, your cred as a common idiot and the dull voice of riu`s grovelling racists is irreproachable. You might add another feather to your crown of droppings by posting up your most "worth reading" list and maybe sketch out the highlights of your academic achievements .
 
Last edited:
DiogenesTheWiser

DiogenesTheWiser

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
LOL, you are still smarting over that but have only recently come out of from under the covers that you pulled over your head to sulk.

You posited a baseless theory and was soundly trounced because it was false.

Your theory was "I'm calling it the Post-Cognitive Age, ushered in by smart technology in which machines think for us. " What factioid do you use as proof? "more and more Americans identify with a politician who, like them, says that "thinking is bad" and that he "loves the poorly educated." Actually, Trump lost the popular vote in the US and today fewer people approve of him than the day he won via an arcane relic of the days when the US economy was in part based upon chattel slavery.

Your complaint that people use technology to find answers more quickly than ever before centers on the your conclusion that this means computers are doing the thinking for us. I submit that this might be true for you but anybody who works in technical fields knows that aquiring information is not the same as thinking. It takes more intelligence and education to succeed today, not less. The challenge we face today is not the "loss of cognitive function" but the need to put additional resources into raising the level of competence of the masses so that they too can succeed in an age where simple tasks including some intelligence-based ones are done by machines.

You felt abused because you were obviously wrong and called out for it.
Click to expand...
I didn't feel "abused" and I don't think that I'm wrong--my point was that most people don't ever think, and they survive just fine--and that's my whole theory--in America today, one need not think ever to survive. What was so surprising is the negative reaction from just about everyone on this forum--and the personal attacks. Not one person on this forum knows me personally, but based on a thread I created, you all acted as though you've known me my entire life. Nothing could be more illogical than the personal-attack responses I received.

My complaint is that I demonstrated an original thought (or what I thought was original at the time, but after doing a little research, a bunch of cognitive scientists and AI developers, in addition to Ray Bradbury's biographer, all agree with me). Anyway, you guys then attacked me for trying to develop an original thought. It's almost as if you all were saying that a "post cognitive America is not true, but you SHOULD NOT EVER THINK ORIGINALLY!" In other words, in a thread about the loss of human cognition in contemporary society, you all said that I should not think. Just about everyone who responded in such a way was actually doing so in support of my idea.

Not only is thought ending in contemporary society, but people are attacking people who do think, or exhibit the ability to think. It's the same thing as Plato's cave all over again.

My theory that thinking is unnecessary for survival may or may not be true. But for people to attack me personally for thinking this is the problem that humans have. Generally speaking, we humans don't like to hear new information, and we lash out at the person who's coming up with new ideas. It's not just partisan politics that separate us and divide us. Rather, Americans have become so debased that whenever we're approached with a new idea, for the most part, we attack the person bringing it forth.

As for being wrong--that might be something that upsets you--but I'm wrong about shit daily, and being on earth for more than 50 years means that I'm rather comfortable in learning from my mistakes. Being wrong doesn't really faze me other than trying to do better as I move forward. What bothered me so much about the folks on this forum is that so many of you are incapable of thoughts devoid of personal attacks.
 
DiogenesTheWiser

DiogenesTheWiser

Well-Known Member
choomer said:
Bummer dude.
Did you come to the conclusion your theory was proving correct as evidenced by the reception of your observation?
Don't let popularity and biased administration silence your voice as at least it seems you can write well without invective and derision, and while I may not share your views, I cannot learn why I might want to come to agree with them without your making those views known.
;)
Click to expand...
Yes, I did, and that's why I vanished from this forum. The people on this forum are really no different from the lotto ticket buyers in my own community in the real-time world. (hint: thinkers don't buy lottery tickets).
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
DiogenesTheWiser said:
I didn't feel "abused" and I don't think that I'm wrong--my point was that most people don't ever think, and they survive just fine--and that's my whole theory--in America today, one need not think ever to survive. What was so surprising is the negative reaction from just about everyone on this forum--and the personal attacks. Not one person on this forum knows me personally, but based on a thread I created, you all acted as though you've known me my entire life. Nothing could be more illogical than the personal-attack responses I received.

My complaint is that I demonstrated an original thought (or what I thought was original at the time, but after doing a little research, a bunch of cognitive scientists and AI developers, in addition to Ray Bradbury's biographer, all agree with me). Anyway, you guys then attacked me for trying to develop an original thought. It's almost as if you all were saying that a "post cognitive America is not true, but you SHOULD NOT EVER THINK ORIGINALLY!" In other words, in a thread about the loss of human cognition in contemporary society, you all said that I should not think. Just about everyone who responded in such a way was actually doing so in support of my idea.

Not only is thought ending in contemporary society, but people are attacking people who do think, or exhibit the ability to think. It's the same thing as Plato's cave all over again.

My theory that thinking is unnecessary for survival may or may not be true. But for people to attack me personally for thinking this is the problem that humans have. Generally speaking, we humans don't like to hear new information, and we lash out at the person who's coming up with new ideas. It's not just partisan politics that separate us and divide us. Rather, Americans have become so debased that whenever we're approached with a new idea, for the most part, we attack the person bringing it forth.

As for being wrong--that might be something that upsets you--but I'm wrong about shit daily, and being on earth for more than 50 years means that I'm rather comfortable in learning from my mistakes. Being wrong doesn't really faze me other than trying to do better as I move forward. What bothered me so much about the folks on this forum is that so many of you are incapable of thoughts devoid of personal attacks.
Click to expand...
People are using technology in very innovative ways. Your thesis wasn't even original. Old shits have been complaining about progress probably since the before bow and arrow replaced the atlatl. You might as well complain about how the telephone is diminishing people's ability to write letters.

If you don't think people need to think any more to survive, consider this. The majority of adults living on the street are either drug addicts or mentally deficient or both. In either case, they aren't using their head very well, aren't coping with society and will die early.

Disagreeing with a dumb premise and calling it dumb is not a personal attack. But your whinging about a people pointing out that you continue to repeat a dumb premise makes you a dumbshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top