> On 31 Oct 2014, at 4:47 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Kim Jones <kimjo...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking.
>
> So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't agree
> with what you wrote above.
>
> John K Clark
>
>
Then your conclusion strikes me as facile in that you seek to find a logical
contradiction as a way of invalidating my assertion. This is another item from
your grab-bag of rhetorical tricks. There is no logical contradiction in my
assertion. I neither agree with it nor disagree with it. I present it as an
observation. You clearly saw a (negative) value in what I wrote because you
have responded to what I wrote. If you saw no value in it then you would simply
pass over it and ignore it. You are once again self-referentially incorrect (ie
lying to yourself - something I never thought was actually possible but you
demonstrate that it is possible to lie to yourself in this forum on virtually a
daily basis.)
In real thinking you can be "wrong" and as bloody-minded as often as you want
as long as you are "right" in the end ie when the thinking process reaches its
conclusion. Being "right in the end" means having an outcome that offers a
value that everyone sees. That is not the same thing as winning an argument.
Being wrong is creative. Many discussions here become bogged down in argument
which is anything but creative.
I don't do argument. Argument is based on the clash of opinion and values.
Argument is rarely about what is ostensibly being argued because it is mainly
powered by the values of those participating in the argument none of whom ever
admit that this is really what is happening. That's not science. Science is
about putting your personal prejudices, beliefs and convictions to one side as
the topic is examined from a variety of viewpoints. You do argument all the
time because it is the only way you have ever learnt to do thinking amongst a
group of people. You see a dialectic process as a kind of battle where the
winner is the one who is the most stubborn and self-convinced.
Look, John - you have a lot to offer, I will certainly give you that. But as
many have pointed out by now in so many different ways, you are more interested
in winning armchair arguments and launching ad hominems than doing real
science. Didn't your mommy love you enough when you were young, Sunshine?
That's the only explanation that sticks for this chest-beating profile you have
built for yourself. It's very disappointing because if only you would cease the
ego-struck nonsense I believe you would get on with people here a whole lot
better.
Kim
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
