You quote out of context to attack this lady? Yet you state that you don't like to quote? That's a new low even for you. Wow, rarely does one encounter such vile tactics on CS. I hope you're proud of yourself little boy.
Now, lets keep this academic and I would be interested in an educated reply to posts 204, 208, 211 & 212. Please try to stay focused on the posts, not your opinion or fantasies.
I prove that the OP has incorrectly defined the word 'indoctrination' and then go to bed. I wake to find he has completely ignored the posts proving thus and continues his misuse and prates on about it for a few more pages.
Now that is stupidity in its most brutal form.
A wise person once said: "Never argue with idiots, for they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
We should leave this clown to his fanclub of nutters.
How do I know? Your post used plurals, not singular. Moreover, your post implies that you are the only individual educated in such subjects. It is not difficult, based on your post, to arrive at such a conclusion, and if anything, it is a highly probable assessment.
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?
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.
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.
No, but rather, a funny and unusual interpretation you've arrived at.
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.
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.
No, but rather, a funny and unusual interpretation you've arrived at.
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.
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.
How can that be evidence of indoctrination without knowing the individual or his socio-political background? That is mere assumption and therefore, specious for it lacks any evidence apart from mere opinion.
To prove indoctrination you would have to present a large group from the same locale who shared similar sentiments and opinions and hopefully, present any media distrubuted by those supposedly indoctrinating the study group for analysis.
Indeed, it is a shallow manipulation of a sort exhibited by children. There is no interest in facts, or balance, just the bullock-headed myopia associated with a form of obsession. And again, this individual evinces the stereo-typical behaviour attributed to playground bullies.
Need I remind everyone that the best way to silence bullies is to ignore them?
How can that be evidence of indoctrination without knowing the individual or his socio-political background? That is mere assumption and therefore, specious for it lacks any evidence apart from mere opinion.
To prove indoctrination you would have to present a large group from the same locale who shared similar sentiments and opinions and hopefully, present any media distrubuted by those supposedly indoctrinating the study group for analysis.
No, it is one man's opinion. How do you know it's indoctrination and how do you arrive at such a conclusion without knowing the man or his social environment?
And you assume that no-one else is educated and has opinions on subjects they know about? An unfounded and baseless generalisation such as this discredits your claim of being educated don't you think?
You're asking a barely literate guy, who thinks he's a viking, trying to write a book that won't be published, how an intelligent person forms an opinion?
RE: Frightening Consequences of negative Indoctrination - Hatred, Killings, Terrorism, Wars
What a waste of my time.