No, they should be taught not to be idiots. Thinking for yourself is a waste of time if your brain don’t work.
I’ll have to disagree. I don’t care if people are idiots, as long as they’re idiots on account of their own reasoning. Some of my best friends are complete idiots. I’m probably an idiot.
In other words, I should drive a car I built myself, even though I have no idea how to build a car, rather than a car designed and built by trained automotive engineers?
I don’t think the comparison is valid, however if you were to expound on the best car engine design, I’d have much more respect for your point of view, even if complete bullshit, if it was reached through independent investigation, rather than just a repeat of the general consensus of the dudes at your local pub.
That sounds like a 14 year old version of deep.
That’s because everything sounds deep for a 14 year old.
So, in regards to Ms. NonConformist of a few posts back who claims the military is “on the streets of St. Louis” and making mass arrests in Denver and other cities that the mass media is keeping quiet about, that St. Louis is built “on an unknown sacred city” etc. etc., I am obliged to run around disproving her paranoid fantasies, otherwise I’m a dull conformist playing to the approval of the Dope?
I agree that sometimes the looniness has entertainment value (I’ve gotten a fair amount of enjoyment over the Giant Alien Lizards thing). However when it includes just enough shreds of plausibility that considerable effort must be expended on debunking it, and it contributes to a pervasive environment of paranoia damaging to useful social and political policy, I stop being entertained and start to get pissed off.
And if my independent opinion happened to match that of the general consensus? Would I still be an “independent thinker”?
Kozmik is being urged to think for himself, that is, to think critically. That’s the soul of fighting ignorance. Thinking for yourself is no good if it’s just random thoughts collected haphazardly. Critical thinking includes some of the elements that people have been trying to urge Kozmik to do, such as:
- Gathering verifiable facts from credible sources. Critically examining what kinds of sources and facts carry sufficient weight as to be reasonably relied upon.
- Constructing a coherent hypothesis that can be analyzed.
- Analyzing that hypothesis with respect to reasonably reliable facts.
- Demonstrating rational analysis, such as logical inferences and other types of valid reasoning.
- Answering questions directly and admitting when facts and reasoning do not support a given conclusion.
The fact that this particular forum is a place where things like this are valued is a virtue. Your bizarre iconoclasm seems to suggest that whoever is in the minority is in the right, regardless of the soundness of his or her case.
Hey, Rune -
sweeping overgeneralizations are a poor basis for debate of any sort…the real world tends to be a bit more…complex.
Yes, I know that. Do you know that some of those “items” used to belong to different “countries”? For example, Hong Kong (China) used to be Hong Kong (UK).
Evidence - not proof - is the Project For A New American Century:
Emphasis mine. I agree with Valenzuela, Danner, Pilger, and Weiner, and I follow the argument to wherever it leads.
It means George W. Bush is suspicious of political journalists and their “unseen editors”.
Valenzuela, Danner, Pilger, and Weiner are credible sources.
Your “evidence” does not say what you think it says.
Apparently.
It’s homeopathic philosophy. The fewer people that believe in it, the more correct it must be!
I have a better idea: let’s stick to the subject. I’m guessing your letter was not about how the Stuxnet-writing Illuminati run the world, so it’s not relevant. The fact that you may be able to write coherently on one subject does not mean your views on global conspiracies are valid.
Instead of making broad conclusory statements like this, how about constructing a coherent argument? Who are Valenzuela, Danner, Pilger, and Weiner? What do you consider significant about what they say? And how do what they say support your hypothesis? Hell, just start with stating an actual hypothesis before you even go to those steps.
That’s built in to our knowledge system. The Null Hypothesis is always the default position.
Does the Illuminati secretly rule the world? I don’t know: show me a reason to believe so, otherwise I will continue to act as if I had never heard the proposition.
Maybe so, but that’s a really shitty reason for urging us to believe lies.
So, you’ve decided to join the ranks of that wing of the Lefties who think that facts are the oppressive weapons of the ruling class? 
Or, are you just taking an oppositional stance to anything posted on the SDMB in order to maintain your image as an “independent thinker” (as you regurgitate any idea that is rejected by a majority of posters, here). 
That’s not evidence for the Illuminati. That’s evidence for the Bush administration being slimy.
The truth is just a way for The Man to keep us down.