Not a sympathizer

by Richard Oliver 130 Replies latest jw experiences

  • sparky1
    sparky1

    " I don't care anymore. Do whatever the hell you want and want to believe."- Richard Oliver

    TRANSLATION:

    " No one here recognizes my superior intellect and wisdom. There is no need for me to see any other sides to any issue. I deal in facts only (albeit my own translation and interpretation of the facts). Why can't you all just agree with me and everything will be all right. If you aren't willing to play by my rules than I am going home!"

    Outlaw had you 'pegged perfectly' towards the beginning of this thread:

    "You ignore anything that doesn't fit your narrative...."

    "You outright make shit up......"

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow
    It was to highlight that as a society we need to focus on things that are verifiably true and things that masquerade as fact even though they are opinion or feelings.

    Really? Then why was the title of this thread "Not a sympathizer"?

    And besides...you have demonstrated that you only think you know what those terms mean. Or...maybe I should use your lexicon here...you only feel that you know what those terms mean

  • sparrowdown
    sparrowdown

    Now Richard if the admin of this forum informed you that if you leave this forum and you started believing things different from the forum or engaged in activity this forum is against then any of your family or friends that use this forum would not speak or socialize with you until you came back to the forum would this forum be a high control group?

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Ten Signs of Intellectual Honesty


    When it comes to just about any topic, it seems as if the public discourse on the internet is dominated by rhetoric and propaganda. People are either selling products or ideology. In fact, just because someone may come across as calm and knowledgeable does not mean you should let your guard down and trust what they say. What you need to look for is a track record of intellectual honesty. Let me therefore propose 10 signs of intellectual honesty.

    1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

    2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

    3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

    4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

    5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

    6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

    7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

    8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

    9. Show a commitment to critical thinking.

    10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

    While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    Finkelstein -

    1. Do not overstate the power of your argument.
    2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist.
    3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases.
    4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak.
    5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong.
    6. Demonstrate consistency.
    7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument.
    8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it.
    9. Show a commitment to critical thinking.
    10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good.

    All excellent principles to follow.

    Problem is, applying them can leave one potentially vulnerable to losing the argument.

    And when it comes to authoritarian belief systems, that prospect is completely unacceptable.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    And when it comes to authoritarian belief systems, that prospect is completely unacceptable.

    Yes I agree

    Unfortunately power as wining to gain power is more important than intellectual honesty and when one debates with religionists they are notorious toward appeal to win for the sake of power unto themselves..

  • AllTimeJeff
    AllTimeJeff

    If there is one thing 2016 taught me, it's that beliefs are more powerful than facts.

    As the old saying goes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not your facts. I disagree with this actually. Civilized behavior means that we control our emotions and behavior. As such, being civilized means that some opinions should hold sway. Facts should rule. You are entitled to say it if you want, but if you say stupid stuff, you shouldn't expect to be celebrated for exercising your Constitutional right to free expression. Babies do that too.

    In any case, JW's are full of crap. Just because some people are hurt by them and may not have their facts 100% straight doesn't change the established fact that JW's are a cult, and it is accepted that they have harmed many people, especially those who no longer want to be a part of their fruity little club.

    Having said that, I have never approved of Six Screens and I never will. The end has never justified the means IMO.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Well said AllTimeJeff good synopsis

    An analogy ..... people can make diverse opinions of what type of color a certain shade of red is but that doesn't change the fact that the color is in fact red ........... and nice to see you posting again !

    Its true that we make up are opinions on acquired information but were they unbiased complete facts derived from neutral unbiased sources, this is why we should be always unbiased and open to all information from various sources and this again appeals to intellectual honesty.

    Where have you been ? ATJ

  • notsurewheretogo
    notsurewheretogo

    Richard created a thread asking why everyone hates the WT because of them not reporting child abuse in certain situations and tries to back it up with facts.

    When pointed out that the WT policies creates an environment where child abusers can carry out their desires and get away with it and the abject failure of the WT to help victims, protect children and deal properly with the offender and he is not a WT sympathizer?

    Sorry but that is utter bull.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot
    notsurewheretogo - "Richard created a thread asking why everyone hates the WT because of them not reporting child abuse..."

    Oh my God...

    ...I don't dare facepalm; I'd get brain damage.

    I mean, seriously... there's regular, garden-variety stoopid...

    ...and then there's epic, mind-blowing, "Here-Comes-Honey-Boo-Boo-roadkill-eating" stoopid....


Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit