moved thread

[_marg]

Hi Jersey Girl I appreciate you wrote your post or note to JAK. I think you hit the nail on the head as to what JAK has been in effect trying to teach as concepts. I believe, it's a matter of man has brains to be used, so take responsibility for one's own thinking and don't rely upon authority absent skeptism. You said the same thing in different words. And you also point out that how we think is limited to or a function of the tools we have available, our knowledge being one when you say "putting to full use our own intellect to the extent that we are each able."

Whether JAK continues to write on the board or not, I don't know but in my opinion the environment here is not conducive to intellectually honest discussion. No matter how much time and posts JAK put into trying to keep focus on the thesis that recently ran amuck and moving forward with it he was bombarded with posts paraphrasing his point but misconstruing it to the point that his point was no longer being argued but a different interpretation was. Combined with ad hominem in lieu of substance and one is left with a significant hill to climb to get a point across even though it is a simple one and should be unoffensive to everyone. I think it might have hit a nerve though, because like it or not and you as a theist can appreciate this, religious organizations have no motivation, no reason to promote critical thinking as opposed to faith in the particular area of that religion.

Anyhow I'm sure JAK given that he was (maybe is) I don't know, a professional teacher from what he has told me, would appreciate that if he taught only one person to raise their critical thinking level, to be more open minded as opposed to closed, more objective, appreciate the limitations in their own thinking, to evaluate all claims given absent evidence then he's made a significant accomplishment. I'm sure you would feel the same if you accomplished that as a teacher as well. Teaching obviously is not about teaching facts but about teaching people how to think.

We don't have to be walking encyclopedias to be good thinkers, though knowledge is needed but we have to know how and where to get the information, and how to synthesize and evaluate it. And of course it isn't an all or nothing, there are degrees of ability in each individual and in different areas.

As you know we've had our disagreements. At one point I thought, sheesh, she's a teacher? Now I think you have the right attitude to be a good one.

[_dartagnan]

Anyhow I'm sure JAK given that he was (maybe is) I don't know, a professional teacher from what he has told me, would appreciate that if he taught only one person to raise their critical thinking level, to be more open minded as opposed to closed, more objective, appreciate the limitations in their own thinking, to evaluate all claims given absent evidence then he's made a significant accomplishment. I'm sure you would feel the same if you accomplished that as a teacher as well. Teaching obviously is not about teaching facts but about teaching people how to think.

Unfortunately, you've been bamboozled. JAK has never taught professionally. If he told you that, well, he lied.

Anyone who demonstrates a contempt for accurate information as JAK does, and anyone who resorts to plagiarism and the uncritical acceptance of whatever website tickles his fancy, cannot have been a teacher on any serious level. That alone flies in the face of reason.

[_marg]

Anyone who demonstrates a contempt for accurate information as JAK does, and anyone who resorts to plagiarism and the uncritical acceptance of whatever website tickles his fancy, cannot have been a teacher on any serious level. That alone flies in the face of reason.

Kevin I won't spend much time responding to you other than to say the reason being you focus too much on ad hominems.

[_dartagnan]

And you focus too much on defending JAK without cause.

[_marg]

And you focus too much on defending JAK without cause.

You know if this was important I would ask you to explain further but it's not.

[_dartagnan]

I've responded to JAK's ignorant rant as it has appeared in several forms on numerous threads over the past couple of weeks.

I'd respond again but I think he knows he'd just ignore any response like he has done so many times before. He can't debate the issues.

Suffice it to say JAK is an idiot who cannot only debate, but he cannot think for himself either. Relying on anything any website says about Dawkinism and leaving it at that is about as anti-critical as one can be. He plagiarizes and relies on bigoted perspectives to feed his own bigotry, all the while pretending he and his ilk represent "intellectuals" and are not on the attack, but rather on the defense. Hilarious.

[_marg]

You know Kevin you don't seem to give the benefit of doubt that people (anyone reading or participating) are able to form their own opinions without your help. I can understand you posting once or twice ad hominem but this repeated posting of them over and over again.. for what? Do you really think people are too stupid on this board and need you to help them form opinions of another poster? Isn't it the case that what JAK writes is there as evidence for anyone to read? Why do you continue to attempt to poison the well for future discussions JAK may have? What is in it for you?

As far as any discussion with you, and why you may be being ignored, it boils down to, one can not have a fruitful discussion with another person if they lack integrity and are focussed on fallacious argumentation. It is a waste of time.

[_dartagnan]

The fact is JAK is spewing ignorance and singing a tune that most people on this forum don't mind hearing. Let's bash religion? Sure, sounds great to us. So they aren't inclined to research for themselves whether or not what he blabbers is true. On a forum dominated by religion-hating atheists, this is music to their ears. JAK is dangerous because he feeds that hatred with more ignorance. He helps create bigots like Schmo and others.

And that explains why I am practically the only person who has challenged his claims. He won't respond to me because he has no education on anything he is trying to bloviate on. He keeps reiterating his "thesis" which he stole from online bloggers, every few days in new threads, as if it hasn't been addressed already. The two of you act as a duo for the cause of disinformation. You did it last year when you tag teamed against Tarski and you're doing it again now. In both cases your credibility has been trampled on.

And JAK doesn't entirely ignore me. He occassionally responds to tiny portions of my various refutations but he never addresses main arguments. So your lame cop out that he doesn't respond because he has too much integrity, won't hold water. He knows nothing of what he is talking about, which has been demonstrated on numerous threads. He'll disappear for a couple of days so he can figure out how to type up another response without any traces of plagiarism. He rewords sentences so they cannot be searched on the web, but he has been caught once with that tactic already. He is just a typical amateur atheist who scrolls websites and borrows arguments and even steals lines from people, so he can impress gullible people like you into thinking he's "brilliant."

You've been taken for a ride. That's the real tragedy here.

I'm going to do what I can, with what limited time I'll have, to make sure others ear the counter argument to his claims. I'm practically the only one who is doing that, which is why you guys keep rehashing the same crap on different threads trying to avoid a head-on collision with someone who is actually interested in challenging your nonsense.

Now you're pissed because I'm simply letting people know JAK has been shown to be no more educated than coggins or chairty.

Get over it. Or don't.

[_Ren]

If JAK was really here for 'discussion', then well - that'd be one thing.
...but I think it was made clear earlier that JAK is here to (in his mind at least) 'teach others'.

Regardless of whether JAK is in a position to teach anybody anything...
...this isn't a classroom. This is a 'discussion forum'. (If you don't believe me, check the title).

[_marg]

If JAK was really here for 'discussion', then well - that'd be one thing.
...but I think it was made clear earlier that JAK is here to (in his mind at least) 'teach others'.

Regardless of whether JAK is in a position to teach anybody anything...
...this isn't a classroom. This is a 'discussion forum'. (If you don't believe me, check the title).

"
RoP when you are in discussion, that is if and when you are in serious mode, you are teaching. You are attempting to teach me your views right now. You say "this isn't a discussion forum go check...those words are in essence instructing me. I may disagree but that is another story. The thing is RoP you don't have to read what anyone writes, nor respond. This is not the RoP discussion board in which you get to decide who should be able to post and what they can post. And it's rather immature of any adult to spend their time harassing on a message board. Sheesh if someone spends their time doing that...they need to get a life.