Choice

[foxpaws]

From Koukl's website... Stand To Reason, in his mission statement...

We teach not just what to think, but how to think.

(Emphasis theirs)

I think that says it all... Glad to see that you are continuing to be a proponent of group think foss...

Being told not only what to think - but how to think it as well...

 

[shagdrum]

From Koukl's website... Stand To Reason, in his mission statement...

We teach not just what to think, but how to think.

(Emphasis theirs)

I think that says it all... Glad to see that you are continuing to be a proponent of group think foss...

Being told not only what to think - but how to think it as well...

Being taught how to think is a sin now? That is what schools (supposedly) aspire to.

It is in being taught what to think you that you get into indoctrination, group think, etc...

 

[foxpaws]

Being taught how to think is a sin now? That is what schools (supposedly) aspire to.

It is in being taught what to think you that you get into indoctrination, group think, etc...

So, shag, you agree that being taught 'what to think' is group think - right? Koukl makes that very clear - they want to teach beyond 'how to think' all the way to 'what to think'...

 

[fossten]

From Koukl's website... Stand To Reason, in his mission statement...

We teach not just what to think, but how to think.

(Emphasis theirs)

I think that says it all... Glad to see that you are continuing to be a proponent of group think foss...

Being told not only what to think - but how to think it as well...

Tsk tsk, fox, posting supporting opinions is not an example of groupthink. But quoting yourself as a source is an example of circular reasoning.

Credibility coefficient: 0

EPIC FAIL

 

[foxpaws]

Tsk tsk, fox, posting supporting opinions is not an example of groupthink. But quoting yourself as a source is an example of circular reasoning.

So, one extremist hippie quotes another extremist, atheist hippie's work.

Talk about circular reasoning.

Credibility coefficient: 0

EPIC FAIL

Heck, who better to quote then myself... (another one for your signature foss )

And you blithely follow someone who tells you what to think and is so proud of that he states it in his mission statement... groupthink foss, no way around it...

So one ultrazealous, fundamentalist conservative blindly following an ultraistic, impliable evangelist.

Talk about classic groupthink...

Better a hippie than a proponent of groupthink..

Peace, free love, F*ck the establishment.

Oh, I liked your earlier post - the one with 'hippies' in it - so I used that one...​

 

[shagdrum]

So, shag, you agree that being taught 'what to think' is group think - right? Koukl makes that very clear - they want to teach beyond 'how to think' all the way to 'what to think'...

You are viewing the quote as claiming to aspire to teach both what to think and how to think. However, the two options are mutually exclusive. If you teach one, you cannot really be teaching the other because free thinking and critical thought is the enemy of indoctrination and group think.

Better a hippie than a proponent of groupthink..

Hippies are a classic example of groupthink...

 

[foxpaws]

You are viewing the quote as claiming to aspire to teach both what to think and how to think. However, the two options are mutually exclusive. If you teach one, you cannot really be teaching the other because free thinking and critical thought is the enemy of indoctrination and group think.

So sort of going with the Gandhi quote
“Those who know how to think need no teachers.”

You can teach someone 'how to think' so they don't try to think beyond certain set parameters - so 'don't think outside the box' is a taught method of how to think, just as 'think outside the box' is a taught method of how to think.

I believe this group - especially when adding how they want to make sure they want to teach you 'what to think' are looking to make sure 'how you think' follows their approved guidelines... don't look beyond the parameters they have set.

If you want to teach someone 'what to think' you have to corral them and also teach them 'how to think' along certain guidelines... otherwise they might just go out thinking on their own, you wouldn't want that in a groupthink organization

Hippies are a classic example of groupthink...

Just something you believe shag - or do you have something else beyond that...

 

[shagdrum]

So sort of going with the Gandhi quote
“Those who know how to think need no teachers.”

You clearly do not understand that statement

You can teach someone 'how to think' so they don't try to think beyond certain set parameters - so 'don't think outside the box' is a taught method of how to think, just as 'think outside the box' is a taught method of how to think.

Your high school platitudes oversimplify things and mislead.

I believe this group - especially when adding how they want to make sure they want to teach you 'what to think' are looking to make sure 'how you think' follows their approved guidelines... don't look beyond the parameters they have set.

Again, it is uncivil to ignore the arguments of those you are engaging.

If you view the quote in light of the fact that teaching someone how to think and teaching them what to think are mutually exclusive, then the quote is not claiming to do both. That would be as absurd as claiming to breath while holding your breath.

In light of the fact that I made (and that you are conveniently ignoring), the quote is claiming not to fall to the level of teaching what to think, but to reach the higher aspiration of teaching how to think.

 

[foxpaws]

You clearly do not understand that statement

Your high school platitudes oversimplify things and mislead.

Again, it is uncivil to ignore the arguments of those you are engaging.

If you view the quote in light of the fact that teaching someone how to think and teaching them what to think are mutually exclusive, then the quote is not claiming to do both. That would be as absurd as claiming to breath while holding your breath.

In light of the fact that I made (and that you are conveniently ignoring), the quote is claiming not to fall to the level of teaching what to think, but to reach the higher aspiration of teaching how to think.

You discredit me because I can write so people can understand me?

You know I can write like this too...

That is why you don't supplant socially evolved systems with untested social constructions based in the postulations of elites.​

I would rather not.

So, 'how do you think' Shag. You can be taught how to think within certain parameters - correct? You aren't looking at the quote as a whole - which it is, it is one sentence - Not only are they going to teach you how to think (within their 'box') but what to think (their certain form of dogma).

If you hope to teach someone 'what to think' you also have to make sure 'how they think' falls within their parameters. If you don't teach them the correct 'how' of thinking (in their definition), the followers might actually start thinking on their own, and then escape from the dogma of the groupthink.

One of the 'how's' of thinking in groupthink is to not question. If you teach that when you are thinking you shouldn't question the teacher, that is a 'how' of teaching 'thinking'.

 

[fossten]

Heck, who better to quote then myself... (another one for your signature foss )

And you blithely follow someone who tells you what to think and is so proud of that he states it in his mission statement... groupthink foss, no way around it...

So one ultrazealous, fundamentalist conservative blindly following an ultraistic, impliable evangelist.

Talk about classic groupthink...

Better a hippie than a proponent of groupthink..

Peace, free love, F*ck the establishment.

Oh, I liked your earlier post - the one with 'hippies' in it - so I used that one...​

LOL...I guess I got under your skin with the hippie comment. Ah well, if it doesn't work the first time, re-assert it, eh fox? You're a parody of yourself, fox. And no, quoting yourself as a source does NOT lend credibility. How pathetic that you a) use your own writings as a source, b) use ad hominem on my source, c) use a non sequitur and a red herring to distract from the issue that you are unable to answer. So now you change the subject from your failed campaign on Biblical abortion to a false assertion of groupthink. You're like Mike Tyson, just grasping the word of the day.

I guess we've moved on to the final steps - everybody leaves the the thread due to foxpaws' ad nauseum and nonsensical arguments, and foxpaws claims victory.

Buh-bye, victim!

1. Topic comes up
2. Discussion begins
3. Foxpaws shows up and draws false comparison or throws up straw men/red herrings or a bunch of nonsense
4. Conservs call her out for her dishonesty
5. Foxpaws happily plays victim and doggedly continues to defend, deflect, and change the subject
6. Everyone tires of her ad nauseum arguments and leaves the thread
7. Foxpaws claims victory

 

[shagdrum]

One of the 'how's' of thinking in groupthink is to not question.

So suspension of critical thought is now a type of thought?

Not thinking is now thinking?

Equivocation; defining down a concept is a means of misleading.

Again, it is uncivil to mislead.

You claimed to be willing to "discuss things civilly" (your words) yet in every post you have made since you made that claim, you have shown that not to be the case.

These blatant attempts to mislead are why there is no point in wasting time on you. You are duplicitous.

 

[foxpaws]

So suspension of critical thought is now a type of thought?

Not thinking is now thinking?

Equivocation; defining down a concept is a means of misleading.

Again, it is uncivil to mislead.

You claimed to be willing to "discuss things civilly" (your words) yet in every post you have made since you made that claim, you have shown that not to be the case.

These blatant attempts to mislead are why there is no point in wasting time on you. You are duplicitous.

We teach not just what to think, but how to think.

So, finally caught on that being taught 'how to think' is a very integral part of that statement Shag?

You can be taught 'what to think', but to be able to let your little disciples out into the world you need to make sure you have also taught them 'how to think', just in case they get asked a question that doesn't fall into the group's preconceived 'what to think' list.

In groups like this one the 'how to think' rhetoric falls on this lines...

What would the Scripture say? How should we interpret the Bible?

So, to solve the problem or answer the question, the person would first go to the Bible. That is a 'how to think' solution shag.... You might not have told the person 'what to think' about calling someone a retard, however, you can make sure they go to the 'correct' source so when they 'think it through' (the 'how' part) and their thinking process would follow along set guidelines...

Unless you have a structure in place that teaches people 'how to think' the 'what to think' will eventually erode...

So, in this case - if Foss didn't know what to think about abortion - he could go to the scriptures, and since the scriptures are rather 'fuzzy' and need interpreting to 'fully understand' them, he then can go to the writings of Koukl and get the correct interpretation...

Another link in how... If you don't understand yourself, refer to our leader, he will teach you the correct way... the 'how'... to think...

 

[fossten]

Fox, you've outsmarted yourself in the midst of tying yourself into little pretzels in a desperate attempt to erect a straw man. Nobody's interested in your pathetic prose.

 

[foxpaws]

You attack my source, I attack yours - isn't that how you do things here? Why bother with original thought...

wait...

I got to use my original thought, wow - what a concept Foss...