Really you sound like a skeptic, that doubts the reality of anything, poltical theories, economic theories everything is a theory for that matter, the percentage of acurracy of a theory how ever is another thing. I once did a study of the philosophy of science, you can look it up on line it gives one a good understanding about science and theory, also there are articals on line about critical thinking that you can look at some very good ones at that. the world human and other wise dose not operate chaotically there is a system with rules and regulation, if you understand that system you can predict the actions in that system, will your understanding be 100 percent i dont know, it will be as great as your investment in the task. the reason i put history out there is that it is a record of what has happen, it allows one to examine an occurance, find predictablity its a tool that is saddly missing here. there are all sorts of adage s/he who forgets history is bound to repeat it. i did read your post 3 times minimum and its still not clear, but here are my thoughts

its not that im a skeptic. its not that i dont believe in political and economic theories. my point is theories can have flaws, and books should read and taken with a grain of salt. :uh:

wow i dont know how i missed out on this convo.

its not that im a skeptic. its not that i dont believe in political and economic theories. my point is theories can have flaws, and books should read and taken with a grain of salt. :uh:
Abiskan Moon-Angel: First off let me say that i am not launching a personal attack against you because i dont know you but i do have a problem with your analysis of reality, my response is based on that issue. I wonder if you ever did the reading and comprehension bit in grade school, what you have just written is the definition of a skeptic kapeach, as for the other part i dont know how you go through this life determing how real this world is, that is a psycological study if there ever was one? I wrote if you read that theories are based on there reproducibity or predictability, if you understood that it means that there is some uncertainty. take for example driving a car if the car is in the range of its opperational parameters and you turn the key from on to off it should start, will it always start i cannot gurantee that, some times its fun to stand on the fence and be mentally lazy but please at least know what it is that you are conversing about.......................

Abiskan Moon-Angel: First off let me say that i am not launching a personal attack against you because i dont know you but i do have a problem with your analysis of reality, my response is based on that issue. I wonder if you ever did the reading and comprehension bit in grade school, what you have just written is the definition of a skeptic kapeach, as for the other part i dont know how you go through this life determing how real this world is, that is a psycological study if there ever was one? I wrote if you read that theories are based on there reproducibity or predictability, if you understood that it means that there is some uncertainty. take for example driving a car if the car is in the range of its opperational parameters and you turn the key from on to off it should start, will it always start i cannot gurantee that, some times its fun to stand on the fence and be mentally lazy but please at least know what it is that you are conversing about.......................


ooook. i take no offence to your posts. now that thats out of the way...i apologize, but i simply cannot understand what is so difficult to understand about my comments? i also dont understand what a 'skeptic kapeach' is...i dont have a psychology background, nor do i philosophy - so you will have to explain that one to me. i have, however done a course in critical thinking...ions ago...maybe thats why i cant quite get where you are coming from...[critical thinking] is obviously pretty new to you, which makes me presume you are still rather young. however, is it not contradictionary, for a critical thinker (like yourself) to not question all literary works, with regards to overall purpose of the work and affiliation(s) of the author? just wondering. teach me something new Clint.

ooook. i take no offence to your posts. now that thats out of the way...i apologize, but i simply cannot understand what is so difficult to understand about my comments? i also dont understand what a 'skeptic kapeach' is...i dont have a psychology background, nor do i philosophy - so you will have to explain that one to me. i have, however done a course in critical thinking...ions ago...maybe thats why i cant quite get where you are coming from...[critical thinking] is obviously pretty new to you, which makes me presume you are still rather young. however, is it not contradictionary, for a critical thinker (like yourself) to not question all literary works, with regards to overall purpose of the work and affiliation(s) of the author? just wondering. teach me something new Clint.
look skeptic is one term and kapeach is slang for do you get it. there is an excellent post on critical thinking on line its not a one all but it is a good source and i will post the address for you so that you can refresh your self. if you are critiquing any thing what is the source that you are using to make the critique, see its such a quarimire that you have drawn this conversation into. first of we have to learn to see the world, and we learn these things from the culture in which we are socialize, each culture has built in safe guards that allow for it to be perpetuated, within the culture how ever there is room for personal experiences, but at the deep level, all members of that particular group will veiw certain occurance as the same.

look skeptic is one term and kapeach is slang for do you get it. there is an excellent post on critical thinking on line its not a one all but it is a good source and i will post the address for you so that you can refresh your self. if you are critiquing any thing what is the source that you are using to make the critique, see its such a quarimire that you have drawn this conversation into. first of we have to learn to see the world, and we learn these things from the culture in which we are socialize, each culture has built in safe guards that allow for it to be perpetuated, within the culture how ever there is room for personal experiences, but at the deep level, all members of that particular group will veiw certain occurance as the same.


capiche???[/B] is that were you are trying to say?!? really, [B]clint, i feel dyslexic trying to read through your comments....they seem to lack content and/or susbtance...just words...lots and lots of words. And referrals to various critical thought materials. I think you are out of your league love. believe me clint, its just better to form an argument/opinion and stick to it. you will get more out of the MB if you do this. furthermore, i dont know what quagmire i created...also, small spelling mistakes are ok, but these gross grammatical errors are totally unnecessary.

capiche???[/B] is that were you are trying to say?!? really, [B]clint, i feel dyslexic trying to read through your comments....they seem to lack content and/or susbtance...just words...lots and lots of words. And referrals to various critical thought materials. I think you are out of your league love. believe me clint, its just better to form an argument/opinion and stick to it. you will get more out of the MB if you do this. furthermore, i dont know what quagmire i created...also, small spelling mistakes are ok, but these gross grammatical errors are totally unnecessary.

Abiskan Moon-Angel: When i was in high school i did alot of debates, and a common trick is if you dont know a subject just turn it to one you know. If i continue to respond to you in this way the origional point, which is how one comes to an understanding of reality, which comes from a reading of your post in regards to spelling and grammar, these are the two subjects i rebelled against the most in school, at the moment i am not using my spell check, as for the gramatical errors i will correct them in future post, one of the great things about self correction is the ability to look at one self and make the neccessary changes. However this is about thoughts and what you miss, is that a thought can be transmiited in many means, in language despite the context, or the format of grammar, have you ever listen to a grammatically correct rap /song? Yet in it the artist is conveying an idea, what about poems? this is what you miss. how about this how many bahamians speak gramatically correct? really this dose say a lot about you even in small brittan it self they have a silly argument of class based on how you speak. but i digrest! on a side issue, the main point is how do you come to an understanding of reallity? this is where i am, and this is what i am addressing, a period means the end of a thought there is no period here because the thought is in complete just a comar to indicate a pause as i sit and reflect and wait your response

Abiskan Moon-Angel: When i was in high school i did alot of debates, and a common trick is if you dont know a subject just turn it to one you know. If i continue to respond to you in this way the origional point, which is how one comes to an understanding of reality, which comes from a reading of your post in regards to spelling and grammar, these are the two subjects i rebelled against the most in school, at the moment i am not using my spell check, as for the gramatical errors i will correct them in future post, one of the great things about self correction is the ability to look at one self and make the neccessary changes. However this is about thoughts and what you miss, is that a thought can be transmiited in many means, in language despite the context, or the format of grammar, have you ever listen to a grammatically correct rap /song? Yet in it the artist is conveying an idea, what about poems? this is what you miss. how about this how many bahamians speak gramatically correct? really this dose say a lot about you even in small brittan it self they have a silly argument of class based on how you speak. but i digrest! on a side issue, the main point is how do you come to an understanding of reallity? this is where i am, and this is what i am addressing, a period means the end of a thought there is no period here because the thought is in complete just a comar to indicate a pause as i sit and reflect and wait your response

:screw: for fcuk sake! how old are you? really..have you read what you just typed??? you must concede...its very difficult to comprehend - because it makes no sense. i now know why yorick gave up on you. but the argumentative spirit in me is pushing to understand you. i want to have this debate. but you have to promise to be more clear and coherent :gi: . so the issue at hand: how does one come to an understanding of reality? is that it?
waiting for your response. :tup:

:screw: for fcuk sake! how old are you? really..have you read what you just typed??? you must concede...its very difficult to comprehend - because it makes no sense. i now know why yorick gave up on you. but the argumentative spirit in me is pushing to understand you. i want to have this debate. but you have to promise to be more clear and coherent :gi: . so the issue at hand: how does one come to an understanding of reality? is that it?
waiting for your response. :tup:

Abiskan Moon-Angel: How you come to an understanding of reality is a fundamental issue in this subject, it is one that you brought up, that i extrapolated from your comments if you disagree then do so and say.

Really you sound like a skeptic,that doubts the reality of anything, poltical theories, economic theories everything is a theory for that matter, the percentage of acurracy of a theory how ever is another thing.

ok clint. my view on reality - and please, this is not a philisophical response, because, as already noted, i have no background in that area, nor am i too bothered about developing one. if i seem skeptical about political theories for example, it doesnt mean that i dont think they exist/work. i think v. often various political ideologies are demonised and/or distorted by opponents of a system, for the purposes of concealing its positive qualities - all to attain a particular goal. so for example, lets take those who believe strongly in privatisation and capitalism. they might demonise socialism in their efforts to demonstrate that private services work far better than public. my point is each party/person/advocate has formed an opinion on 'the right way' and why that way is the right one, and all others are wrong. however, because (for example) 'well-read' academics have concluded that that something is so...doesnt necessarily mean that it is. To enlarge the picture a bit, my original comments were made in an effort to show: yes you can read, think as critically as you like -great. but you must be able to bear in mind the reasons/purposes of the materials you study/read. the epoch in which the were written, the political and social sentiments at that particular time. the experiences and background of a philosopher - this is in fact a component of thinking critically!.
i hope that has sorted out the 'quagmire' which i 'created', but to be honest with you, im sure you will have something more to add clint.

ok clint. my view on reality - and please, this is not a philisophical response, because, as already noted, i have no background in that area, nor am i too bothered about developing one. if i seem skeptical about political theories for example, it doesnt mean that i dont think they exist/work. i think v. often various political ideologies are demonised and/or distorted by opponents of a system, for the purposes of concealing its positive qualities - all to attain a particular goal. so for example, lets take those who believe strongly in privatisation and capitalism. they might demonise socialism in their efforts to demonstrate that private services work far better than public. my point is each party/person/advocate has formed an opinion on 'the right way' and why that way is the right one, and all others are wrong. however, because (for example) 'well-read' academics have concluded that that something is so...doesnt necessarily mean that it is. To enlarge the picture a bit, my original comments were made in an effort to show: yes you can read, think as critically as you like -great. but you must be able to bear in mind the reasons/purposes of the materials you study/read. the epoch in which the were written, the political and social sentiments at that particular time. the experiences and background of a philosopher - this is in fact a component of thinking critically!.
i hope that has sorted out the 'quagmire' which i 'created', but to be honest with you, im sure you will have something more to add clint.

Abiskan Moon-Angel; I must say that this is, but the introduction. ( here i am placing living speach into print) i agree with you on the motive of those expounding a particular ideology, as a person who employ critical thinking tactics i put forward my sources so that the receiver can look at it for self and for their own assessment. i do realize that i have my own bais and it is within all that i write say and do, but despite this i do my best to look at issues from differing perspectives the whole veses the part? (i am leaving this in a question because in terms of self i am looking at how i view the world)

:screw: for fcuk sake! how old are you? really..have you read what you just typed??? you must concede...its very difficult to comprehend - because it makes no sense. i now know why yorick gave up on you. but the argumentative spirit in me is pushing to understand you. i want to have this debate. but you have to promise to be more clear and coherent :gi: . so the issue at hand: how does one come to an understanding of reality? is that it?
waiting for your response. :tup:

Abiskan Moon-Angel: my assesssment was that yorick gave up because the falacies of his position were exposed, hence he did not have a ground to stand on. I put the statements out there with the references but he ran away, which was what i expected. you on the other hand i must give credit for engaging in the process of a dialogue and for that i say thanks...

Abiskan Moon-Angel: my assesssment was that yorick gave up because the falacies of his position were exposed, hence he did not have a ground to stand on. I put the statements out there with the references but he ran away, which was what i expected. you on the other hand i must give credit for engaging in the process of a dialogue and for that i say thanks...


you are more than welcome sir. :angel:

Abiskan Moon-Angel: my assesssment was that yorick gave up because the falacies of his position were exposed, hence he did not have a ground to stand on. I put the statements out there with the references but he ran away, which was what i expected. you on the other hand i must give credit for engaging in the process of a dialogue and for that i say thanks...

I dont think Yorick conceded, he probably just taking a Bahamasissues vacation.