Walter S

I accept some blame. And you should too. Unless you just think you're perfect and can't see how your own ideas are an impenetrable fence themselves. Sometimes I see the opportunity to pounce and I do because I'm fed up with your crap. When I counter what you say you usually don't respond on topic. You should have just started a new post and ignored me instead of quoting me because you're response has next to nothing to do with what I said. You just make the big story you're telling longer.

Walter S

I said nothing of the kind. I was merely pointing out that the world IS going to be car free. Excuse me for putting the tiny slice of time we have on this planet in perspective.

tandempower

I just don't agree with your logic in many posts and it's too tedious to explain why not, which you will only counter by rehashing your same logic again. So at some point I just don't bother responding because I don't want the thread to continue in a tedious back-and-forth about conflicting logics/POVs.

I respond to many of your posts, I think. And I try to respect you by understanding what you're saying and honestly reflecting on it and explaining why I disagree, but that can only go so far before it becomes just a neverending back and forth between conflicting views.

Machka 

We don't agree with many of your ideas and try to present realistic and logical viewpoints to you ... but you're not willing to listen ... and it really does start to get tedious. Especially when all this would be solved if you would just do some real research.

tandempower

In some cases, there might be information I could research, but in many cases you and others will assert ideas and opinions that are just not well thought-out. Sometimes you think about something or understand something in a dogmatic way, but you validate your dogma because you learned it in a class or from some source you researched, but you don't think critically and when I talk about things in a way that seem unfamiliar, you just dismiss it by telling me to go take a class or do research. I think you could just think critically and discuss the idea or issue in question with a minimal amount of research you could just google, but in many cases the problem is that you just think within a certain box and you filter everything in a way that validates the box/mental-habits you stick with.

No one says you have to engage with me in discussion, so if you don't really get something I'm talking about, why waste thread space by being insulting or condescending about how I should go do research or take classes? You're not saying anything substantial about my post when you do that. It's just a generic way of being dismissive toward me because you don't agree with or like what I'm saying.

Machka 

But here's what you don't seem to get ... your ideas aren't unfamiliar. They're all too familiar. We do get what you are talking about. And we know from our own experience and education that many of the things you talk about are, on the one hand, commonly in existence already in other locations ... or, on the other hand, aren't valid or whatever for good reasons.

AND our ideas ARE well thought out. We aren't children with no experience or education.

It is just that it is easier for you to take a class or do some of your own research so that we don't have to do all the leg work for you. There are people who get paid to teach others all the things ... we're not those people. Especially not in a forum setting.

I do agree that you just think within a certain box and you filter everything in a way that validates the box/mental-habits you stick with. That's also why we suggest classes and/or research ... to help you find a way out of your box/mental-habits ... to expand your horizons ... to present a different perspective It's not condescending ... it's actually a genuine attempt on our part to be helpful.



BTW - just using google would never stand up in peer reviewed research.

Mobile 155

Is is way more than critical thinking, it is also studied knowledge versus regurgitated theory. Do you not remember our debate about nuclear power? Do you not remember telling me you were against it because we were removing the protective radioactive elements that kept the core molten? I had to inform you that we have no mines going down to the mantle let alone the molten core because it would take a hole 20-30 miles deep just to get to the mantle? The material we recover has already been expelled to the crust by tectonic movement. Did you ever look and research your thoughts on the matter? Earth's Internal Structure - Crust Mantle Core It was not critical thinking needed it was research on what takes place. People often debate your theories because they have experience in the subject or the pitfalls of the suggestions you postulate. Walter S may know something about the technology we are now discussing but you once again maintain without explanation or evidence that he is wrong and your ideas can be correct. You talked about building a small house off grid and living simply and yet dismiss the experiences shared with the rest of the group where Machka lived just that kind of off grid life. And then you think we are mean and disrespectful. Some things can be a two way street.

Walter S

Not true. You DO respond, but the content of your response is just to continue a rehash of YOUR points. It's OK if you don't want to pick thru my stuff and explain why you don't accept it. Just don't quote me in the first place. Make a new post of your own rather than quoting me. If you quote me and do not address my points, THAT is what causes the "tedious back-and-forth" to continue.

cooker

Google is not a source of information in itself - it's an excellent research tool because you can use it to find credible sources.

Machka 

Ummmm .... well ....

cooker

Here's Harvard's guide on how to use Google for research. Found it using Google.

https://guides.library.harvard.edu/googleguide

I-Like-To-Bike

Conjured and imaginative "creative thinking" on a subject, formed while free-form pondering, wondering or dreaming is not a credible source of information at all except for its originator, and anyone else who considers that a credible source.

Machka 

Yes ... but what you find on Google depends. There's a whole lot of woo available on Google too.

Now if our TP would actually use Google to locate solid peer reviewed research ... great!!

tandempower

I think you are just biased, because otherwise why would you make sweeping generalizations about everything I think and say like this? Even if you do read something I think and believe it already exists somewhere or is invalidated by some reason, you fail to acknowledge that your reason might overlook something and that something existing in one place doesn't mean it shouldn't somewhere else. What if everyone who promoted LCF in Copenhagen had just been told to move to Amsterdam because it already existed there? If that would have happened, the impetus for positive change in Copenhagen would have been lost.

You don't defend ideas/thoughts based on who or what you are. The fact that you are not a child doesn't validate or invalidate anything you think. If you have thoughts, and you post them for discussion, others should discuss them without prejudice. They should just give their reasons for what they think and listen to others. Deeming something "well thought-out" or not is a distraction from the actual process of thinking about it and discussing it.

You don't have to do anything except ignore posts you don't want to respond to. If you know something you feel like contributing that's constructive to the discussion, go ahead. Otherwise, you don't need to complain about having to do something that's not required of you in any way.

You never ask me if I have considered the POVs that you are suggesting I 'learn.' You never think that maybe I was raised like everyone else to just make as much money as possible and buy things that I wanted, but that I also had influences that taught me to do things for myself and conserve resources and that those ethics won out over the ethic of using others to do everything for you for money you spend.

I lost a lot of respect for academic institutions when I was in graduate school. I saw that many people are using peer-review as a way of building up publications for tenure and so they are less interested in really discussing the issues of their work in depth as they are in proving that they did work in order to get professional recognition and promotions.

For this reason, I came to value online discussion more than peer-review publication, at least in theory. In practice, online discussion attracts a lot of low quality discussion, but in principle it is a better format than peer-review because it is more interactive. When you submit an article for peer-review, you get accepted or rejected (or "revise and resubmit') with some brief reason for the decision that is practically just an excuse. If your submission gets rejected, there's no way to get elaboration on what it was about your ideas that were considered unworthy of submission, and as a result you can't judge whether the reviewers' perspective is valid or not. Many people don't care, because all they care about is that the journal in question is reputable so they just want to get their work published in it to put it on their resume', but in terms of having a productive and constructive exchange of ideas, it would be better to post your work online and have reviewers discuss in detail their opinions about what is wrong and right about it, so that you can get an idea of how they think and whether their thinking is valid or misplaced based on faulty assumptions, disciplinary biases, etc.

tandempower

Yes, I continue to study information about geology, but you got so fixated on the fact I haphazardly used the word, 'mantle,' instead of 'lower crust' or whatever, that you ignored my general point that radioactive materials have always been underground and that they might have a function there. The core is molten and the energy dissipates upward/outward, so the more holes we drill in the crust, and the more radioactive fuel (and other fuel) we remove, the faster the core heat will dissipate and the faster the core/mantle will cool and thicken/solidify, which will weaken the magnetic field that shields the planet from life-killing radiation. If you want to discuss this further, which I'm happy to do, we need to do it P&R.

I don't dismiss anything. I just don't defer to other people because I don't believe in authoritarian intellectual relationships. I listen to what people have to say and think critically about it. I don't uncritically accept or reject anything that anyone says based on some prejudice I have about them as a person, whether it's accepting them because they are more of an expert than me or rejecting them because I deem them inferior in some way. I accept that truth can come from the mouth of babes and that the greatest genius or expert is still an imperfect human being, who can get things wrong for all sorts of reasons.

tandempower

I am responding to something you said, trying to explain to you why I believe you're wrong. You obviously can't or won't understand my explanation because you are too entrenched in your own thinking or beliefs, but all I can do is explain what I think with the assumption that you will read and understand it.

Walter S

I guess you're trying to stop the back and forth again huh?

Zedoo

Carlite by swimming to work: German man swims 2 km to work every day to avoid traffic | Inquirer News

McBTC

Rent in London is so high that one young professional has worked out it would be cheaper live in Barcelona and fly to work...more cost effective to relocate to the sun-kissed coast of north east Spain, more than 700 miles away.


Read more: London rents are so high it is now cheaper to live in BARCELONA and commute in (and here's how...) | Daily Mail Online

Walter S

Apparently you don't feel compelled to think rationally in your own head and maybe do some reasearch before you start typing. You can bang out one thing after another in a stream of consciousness. Don't worry we're your personal search engine. We'll tell you what's valid and what's not.

Roody

Liar.

McBTC

****--

(acting pretty tribal here, no...?)

tandempower

You wouldn't know validity unless someone else told you.

Walter S

I'm OK with not knowing things. It's better than pulling facts of my a...

tandempower

You don't have to make up facts to hypothesize about what those facts may be and why.