Conrad73: Max,you just proved the real intent of your Thread again! You have the only Truth,and everyone else is lying! I think Sigi would be immensely interested in you!
Conrad and I agree on something. I find that disturbing.
wolfenfun: dearest best before,once again you walk into a conversation that i'm involved in and seem to take what i'm saying about others and take it personally. you have shown more common reason than the other folks from your neck of the woods. so if you are not a clown then do not take offense. there are however those that always seem at the ready to hyena pack people who have a different opinion than theirs. i also am aware of the nice cop,naughty cop psychology,some are disruptive and some are freindly, to cause a push me,pull you effect. i've no problem with you as it were,so unless you want to get into the fray,pay my comments,no personal attention. i won't explain this again,i see no need.
You nailed the gang nicely Wulfen. The hooliganism being played here in this thread proves your every word.
Class5: Indoctrination implies a process a little more sophisticated than Carl voicing his opinions to others. You seem to be confused between persuasion and indoctrination. Indeed, you cite the Gorgics of Plato to support your case, when the texts aren't about the process of indoctrination inasmuch as persuasion. You need to discern between the two in order to avoid confusion. Clearly, there is some problem here regarding definition.
don't get too upset maxmate these hyenas' want you to stick your neck out so they can peck at it. they are splitters of hairs.so much attention to detail that the actual subject is lost. they have to compartmentalize their thinking,because they have no ability to give overall scope to situations,and would rather critisize the OP, than the effects of the subject, of the post.
Class5: Indoctrination implies a process a little more sophisticated than Carl voicing his opinions to others. You seem to be confused between persuasion and indoctrination. Indeed, you cite the Gorgics of Plato to support your case, when the texts aren't about the process of indoctrination inasmuch as persuasion. You need to discern between the two in order to avoid confusion. Clearly, there is some problem here regarding definition.
Indoctrination is merely an application of persuasion that helps create a voluntery thougthprocess that precedes the desired action the indoctrinator intends.
It is done through all forms of speeches, expressions and actions.
maxmate1: Indoctrination is merely an application of persuasion that helps create a voluntery thougthprocess that precedes the desired action the indoctrinator intends.
It is done through all forms of speeches, expressions and actions.
I see, not the usual definition, and not universally applicable either. So, are you saying that advertising is 'indoctrination'?
Noun 1. indoctrination - teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically; brainwashing - forcible indoctrination into a new set of attitudes and beliefs; inculcation, ingraining, instilling - teaching or impressing upon the mind by frequent instruction or repetition.
Hmm, I fail to see how voicing an opinion falls into the above definitions.
wolfenfun: don't get too upset maxmate these hyenas' want you to stick your neck out so they can peck at it. they are splitters of hairs.so much attention to detail that the actual subject is lost. they have to compartmentalize their thinking,because they have no ability to give overall scope to situations,and would rather critisize the OP, than the effects of the subject, of the post.
Am not upset Wulfen. This usual hooliganism from the same pack is not something new. Like I said, when somebody shows them the moon points at it, they will say his/her finger is not straight! They trying hard to ensure that no opinions are presented to a simple contention as follows:
The OP feels, that feeding the young with hate-based doctrines, specially guided by elderly individuals, is dangerous to the society as a whole and would bring disastrous results, creating many Brieviks in future. Where as we, humans, must spread peace for a better planet for our generations to come.
maxmate1: So your argument is that before condemning the motivating doctrines and actions of Brieviks and Osamas, we should rather focus on their socio-political bacgrounds?
That is not what the post states. No, to determine whether indoctrination has taken place as opposed to the individual (i.e. Carl-please stay with us and focused for a second) merely voicing an opinion, one would have to apply the above scientific methodology.
maxmate1: Sceondly, only and large group indoctrinates?
Again, that is not what the post states but rather the opposite. A group is indoctrinated usually, whether collectively, or individually doesn't matter. Indoctrination is ineffective if applied to one individual exclusively.
maxmate1: Funny and irrational stance it is.
No, but rather, a funny and unusual interpretation you've arrived at.
maxmate1: So your argument is that before condemning the motivating doctrines and actions of Brieviks and Osamas, we should rather focus on their socio-political bacgrounds?
That is not what the post states. No, to determine whether indoctrination has taken place as opposed to the individual (i.e. Carl-please stay with us and focused for a second) merely voicing an opinion, one would have to apply the above scientific methodology.
maxmate1: Sceondly, only and large group indoctrinates?
Again, that is not what the post states but rather the opposite. A group is indoctrinated usually, whether collectively, or individually doesn't matter. Indoctrination is ineffective if applied to one individual exclusively.
maxmate1: Funny and irrational stance it is.
No, but rather, a funny and unusual interpretation you've arrived at.
maxmate1: Am not upset Wulfen. This usual hooliganism from the same pack is not something new. Like I said, when somebody shows them the moon points at it, they will say his/her finger is not straight! They trying hard to ensure that no opinions are presented to a simple contention as follows:
The OP feels, that feeding the young with hate-based doctrines, specially guided by elderly individuals, is dangerous to the society as a whole and would bring disastrous results, creating many Brieviks in future. Where as we, humans, must spread peace for a better planet for our generations to come.
Perhpas beats thier agendas!
No agenda from me Max...I just want to see some proof and a few facts to back your assertions.
Care to provide them...?
Or are you too busy calling the Majority who clearly disagree names.
Try debating your point Max, facts and proof would help if you have any....
But Max you are so light of this it shows clearly.
maxmate1: Am not upset Wulfen. This usual hooliganism from the same pack is not something new. Like I said, when somebody shows them the moon points at it, they will say his/her finger is not straight! They trying hard to ensure that no opinions are presented to a simple contention as follows:
The OP feels, that feeding the young with hate-based doctrines, specially guided by elderly individuals, is dangerous to the society as a whole and would bring disastrous results, creating many Brieviks in future. Where as we, humans, must spread peace for a better planet for our generations to come.
Perhpas beats thier agendas!
So, we are to voice an opinion without testing whether the premise is sound? Have you not read Plato? That would be poor practice in my academic background. Would it not be so based on yours?
patmac: Just the fact that so many folk disagree with you Max does not make them a "pack".
Funny how folk losing the debate (if it ever was) scream pack when a clear MAJORITY of folk show that the point of the thread is wrong.
Might help if you had shown us AS REQUESTED some actual proof Max.
Care to reply to the two questions I asked you or are you going to avoid them.
If you do avoid them Max I can and will claim your premise in this thread has been proven TOTALLY WRONG.
Count the folk who disagree with you Max...
Well....the posts#145, 161 and 167 from Carl are not a proof to you. So perhaps a veteran from your own may provide a good example.
First, let us look at Breiviks stance.
"He confessed to the attacks but rejected criminal guilt, saying he had acted to protect Norway from being overrun by Muslims by targeting the left-leaning political establishment he claimed had betrayed the country with liberal immigration policies"
OP's observation
"What Breivik revealed sounded so familiar and was shocking to note similar fears expressed by some, here on forums, that it DOES frighten them when they (in their bias minds) see their country being overrun with foreigners, specially moslems, who (so called) want THEM to live their way.
Reference as requested:
bestbefore: Actually not funny at all.I'm amazed that you purport to live in the UK and are not aware of the problems of late. Unless of course it suits your purpose to have Muslims take over our country.
We are having a huge problem whether people realise it or not.Same in other countries in Europe and Australia and even where you live.
Unfortunately some on here find it amusing. It isn't and it DOES frighten some people ,especially the elderly,when they see their country being overrun with foreigners who want US to live their way.
I don't like to quote as it beats the point of the contention OP presented in this thread. But you and your usual-gang might find it more credible coming straight from the horse's mouth, somebody of your own.
Hope that satisfies you well.
Now, please don't stirr more and more chaos and perhaps opine on the simple contention of the thread! will you?
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
How do you sleep in peace at night?
Reported.