Grown ups are stupid

[SpheresOfBalance]

unfortunately very few of them have read hume and so do not realize that even if they had some wisdom acquired through experience as they claim - even then it would mean nothing to those with no life experience since even the value of experience cannot be understood except through experience

That cannot be true since many people in your community believe in God and yet they have no experience of encountering God...

You apparently missed the word 'understood,' such that what you say above is meaningless. Do you 'understand?'

[The Jesus Head]

unfortunately very few of them have read hume and so do not realize that even if they had some wisdom acquired through experience as they claim - even then it would mean nothing to those with no life experience since even the value of experience cannot be understood except through experience

That cannot be true since many people in your community believe in God and yet they have no experience of encountering God...

You apparently missed the word 'understood,' such that what you say above is meaningless. Do you 'understand?'

No I didn't miss the word understood but I disregarded its cogency in Hume's argument
owing to the statement :" even then it would mean nothing to those with no life experience" .
I refute the idea that one has to have experience to learn.
I also refute the absurd idea that information must be experienced or it will mean "nothing".
The world is full of young people who have followed the advice of adults and prospered.

[chaz wyman]

No I didn't miss the word understood but I disregarded its cogency in Hume's argument
owing to the statement :" even then it would mean nothing to those with no life experience" .
I refute the idea that one has to have experience to learn.

Er.. except that learning IS an experience. SO you can learn nothing without the experience of learning.

I also refute the absurd idea that information must be experienced or it will mean "nothing".
Learning only really happens when information is relevant, else it is just a collection of words.
Learning has to relate.
The world is full of young people who have followed the advice of adults and prospered.
But you will know many people that have forgotten most of what they have supposedly learned because it has not related to their lived experience. They prosper by applying that learning, the rest is forgotten as merely the experience of learning for its own sake.

[The Jesus Head]

No I didn't miss the word understood but I disregarded its cogency in Hume's argument
owing to the statement :" even then it would mean nothing to those with no life experience" .
I refute the idea that one has to have experience to learn.

Er.. except that learning IS an experience. SO you can learn nothing without the experience of learning.



I also refute the absurd idea that information must be experienced or it will mean "nothing".
Learning only really happens when information is relevant, else it is just a collection of words.
Learning has to relate.
The world is full of young people who have followed the advice of adults and prospered.
But you will know many people that have forgotten most of what they have supposedly learned because it has not related to their lived experience. They prosper by applying that learning, the rest is forgotten as merely the experience of learning for its own sake.

Then let me modify my meaning. I refute that one has to have experience to act
in accordance with the advice of another.

The rest of your dialogue is merely sophistry at the expense
of the obvious truth that young people can follow advice
and garner advantage which is what this entire thread is about.

[reasonvemotion]

Grown ups are stupid, but I suspect Karla's "grown ups" ie her parents don't come into that category, as she has often succumbed to their opinions and advice, quite happily. I think this post is based on what her parents have discussed in front of the "children", ie Karla and co around the diningroom table.

[chaz wyman]

No I didn't miss the word understood but I disregarded its cogency in Hume's argument
owing to the statement :" even then it would mean nothing to those with no life experience" .
I refute the idea that one has to have experience to learn.

Er.. except that learning IS an experience. SO you can learn nothing without the experience of learning.



I also refute the absurd idea that information must be experienced or it will mean "nothing".
Learning only really happens when information is relevant, else it is just a collection of words.
Learning has to relate.
The world is full of young people who have followed the advice of adults and prospered.
But you will know many people that have forgotten most of what they have supposedly learned because it has not related to their lived experience. They prosper by applying that learning, the rest is forgotten as merely the experience of learning for its own sake.

Then let me modify my meaning. I refute that one has to have experience to act
in accordance with the advice of another.

Everyone has experience. Only things unborn do not. What you mean to say is that you refute that one has to has RELEVANT experience to act in accordance with the advice of another. To which I agree, though it is always better when you DO have relevant experience in the matter.


The rest of your dialogue is merely sophistry at the expense
of the obvious truth that young people can follow advice
and garner advantage which is what this entire thread is about.

Bollocks. Not only was I talking sense, but I was talking from years of experience as a teacher.

[The Jesus Head]

What you mean to say is that you refute that one has to has RELEVANT experience to act in accordance with the advice of another.

I think "relevant" was covered in my statement in so much as the implication is that
you do not need prior experience to act .

To which I agree, though it is always better when you DO have relevant experience in the matter.

This does not negate my case.

The rest of your dialogue is merely sophistry at the expense
of the obvious truth that young people can follow advice
and garner advantage which is what this entire thread is about.

Bollocks. Not only was I talking sense, but I was talking from years of experience as a teacher.

What if you have issues with other teachers who similarly have years of experience as a teacher ? If you invoke that criterion, as a sure endorsement of your views, then an observer
of such a debate, between you and a peer ,would not know who to depend on, all things being equal .
Perhaps the person may not like the taboo of the word "bollocks" used by yourself and
conclude that you are really rather crude in your means of debate and decide the other teacher is more trustworthy.

[chaz wyman]

What you mean to say is that you refute that one has to has RELEVANT experience to act in accordance with the advice of another.

I think "relevant" was covered in my statement in so much as the implication is that
you do not need prior experience to act .

To which I agree, though it is always better when you DO have relevant experience in the matter.

This does not negate my case.

The rest of your dialogue is merely sophistry at the expense
of the obvious truth that young people can follow advice
and garner advantage which is what this entire thread is about.

Bollocks. Not only was I talking sense, but I was talking from years of experience as a teacher.

What if you have issues with other teachers who similarly have years of experience as a teacher ? If you invoke that criterion, as a sure endorsement of your views, then an observer
of such a debate, between you and a peer ,would not know who to depend on, all things being equal .
Perhaps the person may not like the taboo of the word "bollocks" used by yourself and
conclude that you are really rather crude in your means of debate and decide the other teacher is more trustworthy.

Bollocks is a useful shorthand on a forum such as this. Get used to it.
And btw, most teachers would agree with my comments I think. All the teachers I have ever met have used the term bollocks outside the classroom.
If you want the security of the classroom then I suggest you go back to school where you might learn a little more; most of which you will forget if you do not apply it: integrate it into your experience of the world - whence real learning takes place

[The Jesus Head]

Bollocks is a useful shorthand on a forum such as this. Get used to it.
And btw, most teachers would agree with my comments I think. All the teachers I have ever met have used the term bollocks outside the classroom.

All the teachers ? I suggest that you are skewing the truth to support your case, that you
are a normal teacher.
Of course, not all teachers you know , use this expletive to refute a statement.

If you want the security of the classroom then I suggest you go back to school
where you might learn a little more; most of which you will forget if you do not apply it: integrate it into your experience of the world - whence real learning takes place

Did you know that in the UK ,under the public order act, expletives that are considered harassment are a criminal offense? If you said to a nurse in a hospital in the UK "you are talking bollocks" in all likelihood ,you would be arrested by the police.
I think it is fair to say that your use of this word is applied as derision and I don't have to put up with that .

[Kayla]

Grown ups are stupid, but I suspect Karla's "grown ups" ie her parents don't come into that category, as she has often succumbed to their opinions and advice, quite happily. I think this post is based on what her parents have discussed in front of the "children", ie Karla and co around the diningroom table.

in my first post in this thread i gave an example of adult stupidity that i have come across - take a look at it

it would be trivial to come up with more examples of adult stupidity - examples of adults who have clearly learned squat despite making multiple trips around the sun

for example in my neck of the woods most adults are republicans and plenty of them are tea party supporters, birthers and other idiots

many of them mistakenly believe that children and teenagers should not be provided with sex education except for the abstinence education idiocy - and they mistakenly believe that abstinence education prevents teen pregnancy

[The Jesus Head]

in my first post in this thread i gave an example of adult stupidity that i have come across - take a look at it

Nothing you won't find in a US Presidential political debate .

it would be trivial to come up with more examples of adult stupidity - examples of adults who have clearly learned squat despite making multiple trips around the sun

You should take my advice and learn to watch your arrogance because otherwise you will end up bitter like Chaz Wyman whose main preoccupation in life is to make himself
bigger by making others smaller.

for example in my neck of the woods most adults are republicans and plenty of them are tea party supporters, birthers and other idiots

I suggest that you separate the term idiots from the concept of belief.
You are going to have to cope with people having beliefs in life which you find
amazingly naive. If you go around calling all X's idiots you will cause people to attack you and attempt to undermine your credibility . You will then complain that you have been marginalized
and misrepresented by your enemies , unfairly , which is exactly what it will be. I suggest that you will find as much irrationality in children as adults. You are becoming an anti adult racist.

[mickthinks]

I think it is fair to say that your use of this word is applied as derision and I don't have to put up with that .

If you mean you can argue with chaz here without him throwing insults like a schoolkid, you are mistaken, TJH.

You may be interested in reading one of our exchanges from last year. My advice is don't take him too seriously.

[reasonvemotion]

in my first post in this thread i gave an example of adult stupidity that i have come across - take a look at it

I read your first post again and also included another post this time you submitted, see below

i feel kind of bad about my parents having to go see the vice principle yesterday morning when they had important shit at work

in retrospect maybe violence was not the answer

dont get me wrong i do not feel bad about hurting the beevis and butthead laugh guy (what the fuck is his name? i just realized that i have no slightest idea what his name is) but i do feel bad about wasting my parents time and getting people to do gobs of paperwork they would not otherwise have to do

My answer remains the same.

reasonvemotion wrote:
Grown ups are stupid, but I suspect Karla's "grown ups" ie her parents don't come into that category, as she has often succumbed to their opinions and advice, quite happily. I think this post is based on what her parents have discussed in front of the "children", ie Karla and co around the diningroom table.

[The Jesus Head]

I think it is fair to say that your use of this word is applied as derision and I don't have to put up with that .

If you mean you can argue with chaz here without him throwing insults like a schoolkid, you are mistaken, TJH.

You may be interested in reading one of our exchanges from last year. My advice is don't take him too seriously.

I cant wait to read the link but let me assure you that Chaz Wyman (Batman) and Arising (Robin)
are not taken seriously , by me, in any sense my friend.
The sad thing is that, in their little universal bubble ,they are gravely deluded .
I believe that delusion is a disease on par with cancer and these guys are terminal cases.

[mickthinks]

Ah, Arising is a very different proposition in my (long acquaintanced) view.

You may disagree with him but you would do well to listen carefully to his arguments, because he will listen carefully to you before responding, in a way that chaz seems unable to manage.