Page 1 of 20 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 197

Thread: bulmabriefs144

  1. #1
    Blue bird of friendliness penguinzrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    ???
    Posts
    4,212

    Default bulmabriefs144

    Making a new thread because the old one was more about FireFox than it was about glaring character flaws.

    Quote Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
    Anyway, you're still wrong. If you teach a person how to think, you're not "teaching critical thinking." You're brainwashing them. You're just mad you swallowed the lie you've been taught, instead of actually using critical thinking.

    You can't teach creativity in art either. All you can teach is how to make straight lines, and shading and stuff, what comes from interpretation or creativity is part of you.

    Oh yes, and you should call me the Maiden of Sorrows, because of my vision.
    Creativity and critical thinking are not the same. Your argument is inherently flawed due to your correlation of the two.
    "You're just mad" also implies that you think I'm somehow bitter about a "lie I've swallowed."
    You're doing the same thing you've been doing since your dark chat thread; IE telling people they believe a lie of some "establishment" if they don't think the way you do.

    I've read works by T.S. Eliot, e e cummings, Ginsberg, and Nietzsche, so believe me when I tell you I'm very open-minded.
    I'm not afraid to believe anything or follow the advice of anyone.

    It is you who cannot accept anyone's wisdom but your own, especially if that wisdom is generally agreed upon by the general public (no matter how much you say you agree otherwise).
    You draw all your "definitions" from your own takes on wikipedia articles and... anime.
    You think you're somehow "unique" or "special" or even "morally justified" just because you have unbelievably inconsistent circumstances and because you think differently from an established authority.
    You claim to draw knowledge from everywhere, including the established authority, and only reject its principles for your own should you test them against your own bizarre circumstances and they prove to be false;
    HOWEVER most times you just declare some established principles and definitions to be "lies" or "stereotypes" or whatnot just because you have a different take.

    Soon enough you will have to realize the duplicity of your character. You cannot be at once "accepting" and at once so paranoid of established rule.

    So to settle my case in the Canadian thread here, I must say as follows:

    Thinking critically requires a breadth of knowledge such that its analysis, synthesis, and application may well suit your circumstances. You cannot think critically without prior knowledge, else you are just making up new inaccurate rules and procedures as you go. Thinking critically, believe it or not, has a set formula, whether you agree or not. The human brain carries out thought-to-action processes in such a way that can be analyzed and compartmentalized, that is why we have the study of psychology. Thinking critically is no different. Thinking critically is different from creativity, in that not everyone is born with creativity, but thinking critically may be taught.

    Believe it or not, but your own definitions for words or concepts do not make them true. They may be true when applied to yourself, but should you switch the definitions for war and peace and try to apply them to the general public, your definitions will be rejected. In a sense, you are actively creating your own "religions" in regard to everything you think differently about. It's true that there is a general consensus about the Christian faith, but when one makes up his or her own definitions for it, it becomes unique for that individual (IE believing that "god" is actually just an omnipresent driving force in the universe, such as physics). You are doing this for every concept you think differently about.

    Just because you've accepted your own glaring character flaws (IE disqualifying every established principle regarding your own flawed beliefs) does not mean they are justified. Your constant hypocrisy is what will always keep you from true learning and wisdom. You are wrongfully self-enlightened, a bane to those of us who actually know our own paths to enlightenment.
    Hate is easy; love takes courage.
    2/1/2010 - supalim becomes first to ever download an entire yobibyte of internet pizza
    PENGUINZ 4 MOD 2012!

  2. #2
    im a helicopter Omar Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    over the Middle East dropping my payload
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    We all know Bulma is annoying. Too bad he's been getting worse lately.
    Spoiler!

    Spoiler!

    Quote Originally Posted by kaglover1 View Post
    But now I'm like screw that, I'm skipping to the part where Bella finally combines with Edward

  3. #3
    We're in a heap o'trouble Tesiqurasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lincoln, NE
    Posts
    6,251

    Default

    I normally enjoy arguing with Bulma, but it's incredibly frustrating and insulting when people attempt to summarize my field (education and/or english) using inaccurate personal perspectives and mediocre evidence. I could write pages of text explaining my stances, but I doubt anyone would even take the time to read it.

    It's especially frustrating when Bulma goes back and edits a previous post well after it was posted. I don't mind small tweaks, grammar fixes, added clarity, or even the occasional added example. The problem is that she often adds major points as "post script". I do take the time to read through the entire posts, but when this happens, major arguments will obviously be missed. Despite already having to wade through non-linear argument and explanation, I now must go back and edit my own response.

    The point of rhetorical theory is to turn non-linear thoughts, emotions, and beliefs into linear argument. If this is not done effectively, you have not argued effective. I don't expect anything formal, but some amount of effort would be nice. And please don't give me the "ADD" crap. One of my best friends has noticeable, diagnosed ADD, and is one of the most talented writers I have ever met. Beyond personal experiences (see what I'm doing here?), ADD should have little bearing on one's prepared work. It affects the process, but it does not have to affect the result, especially when it's recognized by the writer. Saying, "sorry it's the ADD" does not excuse non-linear argument. If anything, it shows you recognize the inconsistencies but still make no effort to amend them. The excuse in this case is "sorry, I'm lazy". I have tutored many children with ADD, and none of them are affected in this way. I must emphasize, it's the process, not necessarily the result that is altered. Once you recognize the problem, it becomes an issue of self-control.

    To summarize with an example:
    A bridge near my neighborhood collapses. I know nothing of the situation beyond general knowledge. I know it was funded by the city, designed by engineers, and used by civilians. I also have a rough high school knowledge of physics, economics, city planning, politics, etc.
    Now, here is what I would do if I were Bulma (based on previous examples)
    An editorial was posted in the paper listing some seemingly credible sources that said the engineers were at fault. Better materials should have been used.
    I then formulate the opinion that the engineers were greedy because they did not suggest top-quality materials. They should be brought to justice. I need a bit of attention, so I suggest that they be tried for attempted murder because people could have been killed.

    More evidence turns up, and it seems that the city had actually cut the budget on the bridge, and the cheaper supplies were necessary to finish on time.
    I am stubborn, and continue in my belief that the engineers were at fault. They should have demanded that the city allocate more funds to the project!

    Even more evidence suggests that the construction company and engineers had indeed raised public protest at the budget for the bridge, but the city did not heed the warnings.
    Still stubborn, I suggest that the engineers should not have even existed in the first place. If people want bridges, they should build the bridges themselves, then no one but them would be at fault.


    Spoiler!



  4. #4
    Crimson Balrog PhoenixRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,592

    Default

    Has nothing to add but my support due to Tesi and Pengu's successful Summarization of all that is flawed. Unfortunately this thread will be plagued with indifference and comments stating how people should just utilize the ignore feature and will somehow find it's way locked. Oh the curse of Hotsand.

    edit: Generally not a fan of Hotsand but this is a great exception.

  5. #5
    Always the Bridesmaid... bulmabriefs144's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    888

    Default

    A bridge near my neighborhood collapses. I know nothing of the situation beyond general knowledge. I know it was funded by the city, designed by engineers, and used by civilians. I also have a rough high school knowledge of physics, economics, city planning, politics, etc.
    Now, here is what I would do if I were Bulma (based on previous examples)
    An editorial was posted in the paper listing some seemingly credible sources that said the engineers were at fault. Better materials should have been used.
    I then formulate the opinion that the engineers were greedy because they did not suggest top-quality materials. They should be brought to justice. I need a bit of attention, so I suggest that they be tried for attempted murder because people could have been killed.
    I'm not so sure I'd do that.

    While it's true I have a laymen's level knowledge about just about everything except stuff nobody knows about (my knowledge of education system, for instance, mainly comes from about four relatives wanting to be a teacher/ whining about already being a teacher, and then I did a very brief (very brief) stint of teaching in China), I think the grasp of how I'd think is slightly off.

    I always blame the top first. In education, I blame the school board long before the teachers (possibly some of the parents, but I know ultimately it's not their fault. The parents can be irresponsible (I've heard horror stories from my mom about parents who actually try to fraud details about where they live, and obvious have spent money on themselves while their kid doesn't have breakfast), but they're not really part of the problem, just a symptom of the poverty and corruption of the city they are a part of, and possibly a symptom of the failed education system itself), and before them I'd blame either the city, the government, or if I couldn't quite pin down the culprit, I'd resort to pointing to some nebulous "they."

    The movie liked to talk about lemon teachers, but here's my take on the subject. I had some girl in college that I was crushing on (who thinking back, wasn't really my type, probably), who wanted to be a teacher. She did the hard work (she had about 3x the course hours I had, plus essays from hell), but frankly, I'm not sure what she was learning was all that useful or she was all that qualified. I suspect, she was likely to be a lemon teacher, for the very reason she was asking someone like me to occasionally help her. I know tons of random and esoteric info, like that Angel Falls and not Niagara Falls is actually the highest waterfall, and that a magic circle that they show in movies has no actual power of itself (it's a medium, not a source, not that any of you guys likely believe in magic), but I'm not really trained specifically in a field. I knew this, but apparently she didn't. So, what does this say of any system that would let someone like her through? It's not the teachers, it's somewhere in the system that's off.

    So to get to your example, I'd definitely lead a crusade against the mayor or city or whatever, but likely wouldn't pin blame so much on the engineers first. I might later pin some blame on them, or perhaps their organization (I assume they have one), but it wouldn't be my first target.

    Even whoever led the engineer's organization isn't necessarily at fault, people are people, but organizations are evil. Whatever organization they belong to should be abolished (naturally, as centralized systems of overseeing industry are by definition messed up), and engineers should be free agents. But first, I'd assume "That mayor didn't pay them enough, told them to use faulty methods, whatever," or maybe blame the cost of unionizing engineering (if it is in fact unionized), causing too many people having too much pay with not enough left over for decent materials. If I couldn't in fact with any credibility prove my assumptions, I'd come up with some half-baked nefarious corruption happening somewhere else that caused this failing. You'd actually have more trouble convincing me that a single engineer could go wrong.

    And yea, you're right about the later thing, in the face of conflicting evidence I would still have severe trouble coming to terms with whatever was actually the culprit.

    M'kay, now about penguinz...
    Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 2nd June 2011 at 05:21 PM.

  6. #6
    We're in a heap o'trouble Tesiqurasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lincoln, NE
    Posts
    6,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
    I always blame the top first. In education, I blame the school board long before the teachers (possibly some of the parents, but I know ultimately it's not their fault. The parents can be irresponsible (I've heard horror stories from my mom about parents who actually try to fraud details about where they live, and obvious have spent money on themselves while their kid doesn't have breakfast), but they're not really part of the problem, just a symptom of the poverty and corruption of the city they are a part of, and possibly a symptom of the failed education system itself), and before them I'd blame either the city, the government, or if I couldn't quite pin down the culprit, I'd resort to pointing to some nebulous "they."



    So to get to your example, I'd definitely lead a crusade against the mayor or city or whatever, but likely wouldn't pin blame so much on the engineers first. I might later pin some blame on them, or perhaps their organization (I assume they have one), but it wouldn't be my first target.
    No you didn't. Don't ****ing say that.
    Quote Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
    Watching "Waiting for Superman." Americans rank close to dead last in just about everything (and IS last in math). But guess what we're first in?

    On a "Yes/No" checkbox of whether they have done well in mathematics, they pretty much as a nation said "Yes." We're the world's highest in arrogance.

    Who here is a teacher? I will beat you.

    Oh yea, and they were saying that despite interest in cellphones and technology, most of our tech jobs are outsourced because teacher's unions are getting in the way of higher teaching.
    Quote Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
    Even if he's not too chatty, all it really takes to teach is just "(grunt) watch what I do." After that, it's your failing as a student, not his as a teacher.
    You blamed the teachers, unions, and students before the education board.
    Think before you post, please. Stop tacking things on while keeping the same original thesis. It does nothing but lead to cluttered contradiction.


    Spoiler!



  7. #7
    Crimson Balrog PhoenixRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,592

    Default

    Parents are at fault for failing to teach their child basic morals, respect and a sense of shame. I can maybe give a pass on stealing food to eat if times get drastic but putting anywhere near 50% of the blame on those in power or the system isn't putting much faith in the responsibility of individuals.

    Also I am doing the very thing I warned against but I have time to waste.

    Also you completely disregarded pengz post for an unneeded and unguided rant.

  8. #8
    Always the Bridesmaid... bulmabriefs144's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tesiqurasa View Post
    No you didn't. Don't ****ing say that.

    You blamed the teachers, unions, and students before the education board.
    Think before you post, please. Stop tacking things on while keeping the same original thesis. It does nothing but lead to cluttered contradiction.
    Yea, well maybe I did. ...Ummm. But I didn't really mean it? (This is why I hate the thesis format, it isn't I don't think, it's that my mind wanders. And I actually do change my stance if convinced enough. You guys say "you never listen to anyone" and then "you're contradicting yourself." Make up your minds...) I maintain the unions (not the members, the unionizing itself) and the school board are chief problem, regardless of who I blamed first.

    And seriously, for something as simple as apprenticeship, it's not even half the level of regular teaching. If you can't learn on the job by watching the guy after he tells you to watch, you shouldn't be working. There's nothing in the way of teaching there, plenty of time, and it's a very simple instruction. Something's wrong with you as a student if you can't take directions, and you'll likely be fired.

    Parents are at fault for failing to teach their child basic morals, respect and a sense of shame. I can maybe give a pass on stealing food to eat if times get drastic but putting anywhere near 50% of the blame on those in power or the system isn't putting much faith in the responsibility of individuals.
    Columbine HS. Were the parents actually at fault? From what I saw, it was that the guy was socially isolated. And targets of heavy bullying. Did anyone actually tell the parents "I'm sorry your kid got so messed up"? Nope, who wasn't taking responsibility here? The school system (and in this case, probably the student body).

    I couldn't even get to pengz post, because it made the whole thing too long, and net kept timing out. Basically what I wanted to say was...

    Creativity and critical thinking are not the same. Your argument is inherently flawed due to your correlation of the two.
    "You're just mad" also implies that you think I'm somehow bitter about a "lie I've swallowed."
    You're doing the same thing you've been doing since your dark chat thread; IE telling people they believe a lie of some "establishment" if they don't think the way you do. (...)

    It is you who cannot accept anyone's wisdom but your own, especially if that wisdom is generally agreed upon by the general public (no matter how much you say you agree otherwise).
    You draw all your "definitions" from your own takes on wikipedia articles and... anime.
    You think you're somehow "unique" or "special" or even "morally justified" just because you have unbelievably inconsistent circumstances and because you think differently from an established authority. (...)

    Thinking critically requires a breadth of knowledge such that its analysis, synthesis, and application may well suit your circumstances. You cannot think critically without prior knowledge, else you are just making up new inaccurate rules and procedures as you go. Thinking critically, believe it or not, has a set formula, whether you agree or not.
    I never said that they were. I said they were similar (I think, based on Tesi's comment, I'm sure I'm contradicting something).

    Creativity and critical thinking have two important similarities. Critical thinking (and in fact, all modes of thought) cannot be taught. The techniques can be taught, the theories can be taught, etc. But the act itself is an automatic skill, and a matter of will to use (there are plenty of people who don't think and just accept what they've been told). You do not have to think like me, but I'd like you to think, rather than accepting secondary info at face value. Do the facts add up? Can I weigh this against other sources? Etc? In painting regardless of teaching, it's ultimately up to you whether it will look more like a Rembrandt or a Picasso.

    The second similarity, I brushed against in the first paragraph. Talent is a myth. I learned this firsthand because I've made alot of things, from books to music (what we call talent is actually a combination of interest, drive, hard work and follow-through, and several random factors. Nobody I know is born running olympic level, they train for it) having zero natural ability in any of the things I made, so I would say the other connection is that both have framework for proper functioning. In order to paint a painting, you have to be taught painting, you have to be exposed to several influences. In the end, what is supposedly "original" is largely done by splicing together several random thoughts into a tapestry to make something new. If you'd said the bit about a "breadth of knowledge" from the start, I would have agreed with you. Instead you said something about "acting according to a set of laws." That wasn't even sounding like thought, but conditioned response.

    No, I don't really consider myself unique, or whatever. You think I think I'm special, I think I'm just an outsider. But a word about these authorities. Did they get to be established because they were right 100% of the time? Better trained? More knowledgeable? Many of these are true some of the time, but not all. There are plenty of idiots in high positions. If history teaches us anything, it's that the "losers" (Mongol hordes, gypsies, holocaust victims) don't tend to write memoirs. It's those in power. So are these people authorities because they actually are correct, or merely well-schooled in the prevailing dogma? And can you really trust what they say?

    As far as duplicity... I actually try to take the opinions of others, but seriously, this sort of stuff is why I hold back. I don't believe in credentials (a boss of mine had "30 years of experience" carpet-cleaning as his credentials, which I taught my mom in 15 min, and she did it just as well), so I don't necessarily take from proper sources viewing everything with the same weight (so seriously, what's wrong with anime, it may be fiction, but it's talking about a moral or theory which is topical, not the story itself). So I'm supposed to agree with people, but if I change my mind I'm "contradicting" myself. Wtf?
    Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 2nd June 2011 at 07:47 PM.

  9. #9
    Blue bird of friendliness penguinzrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    ???
    Posts
    4,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
    I never said that they were. I said they were similar (I think, based on Tesi's comment, I'm sure I'm contradicting something).

    Creativity and critical thinking have two important similarities. Critical thinking (and in fact, all modes of thought) cannot be taught. The techniques can be taught, the theories can be taught, etc. But the act itself is an automatic skill, and a matter of will to use (there are plenty of people who don't think and just accept what they've been told). You do not have to think like me, but I'd like you to think, rather than accepting secondary info at face value. Do the facts add up? Can I weigh this against other sources? Etc? In painting regardless of teaching, it's ultimately up to you whether it will look more like a Rembrandt or a Picasso.
    Critical thinking and its application are different from actual thinking. When you are taught to think critically, you aren't taught how to think. You are taught how to collectivize your resources, analyze a situation, and move through the processes of utilizing your resources to solve any problem at hand. A teacher of critical thought will give you the hammer, but they will not tell you how to strike.
    This is where you are wrong. You think that "critical thinking" has something to do with someone's outlook on life or how they go about with life's daily machinations. You are wrong. Thinking critically is something anyone may be taught, and has almost zero to do with creativity.

    Quote Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
    The second similarity, I brushed against in the first paragraph. Talent is a myth. I learned this firsthand because I've made alot of things, from books to music (what we call talent is actually a combination of interest, drive, hard work and follow-through, and several random factors. Nobody I know is born running olympic level, they train for it) having zero natural ability in any of the things I made, so I would say the other connection is that both have framework for proper functioning. In order to paint a painting, you have to be taught painting, you have to be exposed to several influences. In the end, what is supposedly "original" is largely done by splicing together several random thoughts into a tapestry to make something new. If you'd said the bit about a "breadth of knowledge" from the start, I would have agreed with you. Instead you said something about "acting according to a set of laws." That wasn't even sounding like thought, but conditioned response.
    I did a Ctrl+F for the word "law" and found zero in my post (also it's not edited like many of yours are). Following a formula and being bound by a law are very very different. A formula is something human have constructed to explain a process and/or give guidance to future processes. A law is something humans have constructed to explain something that happens and should happen the same way every single time. I'm allowed to follow a formula in the way I live my life day-to-day, but in no way am I bound by a law. Critical thinking has a basic formula, but in no way, shape, or form does it teach students that they must somehow hold a certain worldview.

    Quote Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
    No, I don't really consider myself unique, or whatever. You think I think I'm special, I think I'm just an outsider. But a word about these authorities. Did they get to be established because they were right 100% of the time? Better trained? More knowledgeable? Many of these are true some of the time, but not all. There are plenty of idiots in high positions. If history teaches us anything, it's that the "losers" (Mongol hordes, gypsies, holocaust victims) don't tend to write memoirs. It's those in power. So are these people authorities because they actually are correct, or merely well-schooled in the prevailing dogma? And can you really trust what they say?
    This isn't what I'm talking about at all. You thinking yourself an "outsider" and yet also justified in all of your positions means you think you are "special" in some sort of aspect that makes flawed positioning acceptable. Second, I wasn't talking about "history" at all. When I say "established authority," I'm talking about the fact that if you walk into a large crowd (anywhere, be it in a big city, a group of your friends, or even a schoolyard), and shout "FIRE," people will freak out. Just because your own personal definition of "FIRE" actually means you think life is pretty great, everyone else thinks differently. People will get mad at you for these unjustified self-definitions, and you cannot possibly think that "oh, my own personal experiences with the word 'fire' make my completely irrational self-definition okay." It's not. There is an acceptable level of "thinking differently" that people can accept, that society will function on. Else it's just a group of people like you fabricating their own microcosms in some sort of attempt to "be yourself" or "feel unique." It's not the public pushing you away, it's yourself isolating yourself from everyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
    As far as duplicity... I actually try to take the opinions of others, but seriously, this sort of stuff is why I hold back. I don't believe in credentials (a boss of mine had "30 years of experience" carpet-cleaning as his credentials, which I taught my mom in 15 min, and she did it just as well), so I don't necessarily take from proper sources viewing everything with the same weight (so seriously, what's wrong with anime, it may be fiction, but it's talking about a moral or theory which is topical, not the story itself). So I'm supposed to agree with people, but if I change my mind I'm "contradicting" myself. Wtf?
    There's a difference between "admitting you are wrong" and "changing your mind." When your sources are clearly flawed and your stance on a topic is completely dismantled, it's expected that you have not only changed your mind, but also recognized the error of your previous stance. Some opinions are not opinions, much like in your case. Credentials of the individual are different from accepted general terms. You're constantly making up your own definitions for things that are actually very simplistic and pre-defined by an understanding of words themselves. This is not okay, and a big reason even someone who has little opinion about something will tend to disagree with you (like me back when threads about you first started).
    Hate is easy; love takes courage.
    2/1/2010 - supalim becomes first to ever download an entire yobibyte of internet pizza
    PENGUINZ 4 MOD 2012!

  10. #10
    Wyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    2,357

    Default

    penguinz, please write a book. There isn't a time where I tl;dr your posts.

    Also, if we all have come to an agreement. (all being anyone against bulma) then why even make a thread? If we know Bulma is wrong, and is a hypocrite, ignore him/her. We know he's persistent, and does NOT take advice, we can persuade him/her, it's like a child who wants to go to the park, but his/her parents say no. He still wants to go to the park, but he isn't going to stop, he's going to pester, and be persistent until he feels necessary.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •