This made me laugh. Unlike the members of this community eh Phil? We're paragons of intellectual curiosity and always receptive to new ideas and reasoned debate here. It's almost like being at the 17th century Rota Club. Please just reply with "no, they're closed minded" as I need to calibrate my irony meter.
I think that is a very good saying. Alas, as long as we allow Faith schools - and even promote RE in the curriculum (as anything other than a small area of PSHE or history, for example) - it will never fully be the case. But it IS what we are aspiring to at our local Primary school - make kids critical thinkers, tenacious learners. All against an overpowering curriculum content. Wish us luck...
This doesn't make sense, on one hand your implying we're all thick, so that is contradictory, or we're all educated with closed minds.
Okay, maybe sarcasm wasn't the way to go here. No, I don't think we're all thick. I imagine there are a few people here with advanced formal qualifications (DrB? Maybe the "Dr" is a real title). There will be many autodidacts (self-taught) and these are to be admired. There are people here with a wealth of experience in problem solving. These aren't thick people. ..although, I suppose, some of us will be thick. But this isn't a forum for university professors is it? It's not a forum for those with the "most education". On the closed minded side of this equation... I can't remember any time you, JJ, Harry, DA or I have said "oops, you're right, I was wrong", or "that's interesting, perhaps I should change my opinion". We pretend we're discussing and debating issues, but we're not. We're just venting our positions into the void. No hope of persuasion, no hope of being persuaded. We're literally wasting our time. Facts? Facts bounce off us like a cheap hammer drill hitting a concrete lintel. Empathy for the experiences of others? Not us, like SWA we're insulated and will conduct that straight to ground. We hold on to our opinions like they are resin coated. You'll notice I'm saying "us" and "we". I include myself, but perhaps you don't recognize your own intransigence. Never mind, eh? I'm sure I can change your mind.
That bit makes no sense. Let me try again. ...SWA we're insulated and will conduct any breaches straight to ground. That was the metaphor I was after. Sheesh.
Hey, pal, I've been tryin' for years - really tryin' - to find a discussion with the u-s where I could demonstrate even slight contrition. On a somewhat more serious note, btiw2, I have largely given up trying to have a discussion with some folk. I now just have a wee gander and when 'they' say summat troooly daft, I'll have a go. It's allllll that's left to me... I truly admire the lengths you have gorn to with your detailed, multi-appendix'd (sic) posts, and have genuinely found them informative and useful. I have to ask, tho' - did they serve what I presume was their intended purpose?
SWA was the first insulated thing that came to mind... but then I started thinking about those twisted wires around the core, which put me into conductors.... now I have insulators and conductors in the same metaphor... and it's all turned into a big mess. Put me in the "thick" pile.
I don't really know what their intended purpose was. Maybe: An opportunity to try and clarify my own thinking by putting it into text? An excuse to research data and papers on a topic? Vehicles for weak puns or witticisms that were tickling the back of my mind? A pretext to use long words and pretend I'm clever? or maybe I just like the sound of my own voice ("sight of my own text"? That doesn't seem quite right)? Dunno, take your pick. Why does anyone waste their time in the "just talk" section? It's not for honest, open and productive debate. It's just opinionated banter, but that doesn't make it not fun in a weird sort of pointless way. Children waste time with pokemon or angry birds; I suppose it's like that but with more opportunity for grammatical mistakes.
I've lost count of the amount of times DA has been wrong about one thing or another,,,, but I can count on one hand the amount of times he's apologised.
Och, possibly all of these to some extent But mainly - I am pretty sure - to try and present a full and reasoned point backed up with research and evidence, in the hope it would make the 'opposition' behave in kind. I don't think it's worked.