What's your critical process?

[Schmeltz]

Alright, so the most lively recent discussion in this forum has centered around the proposition and assertion of what seem to me (and, it seems, many others as well) to be fringe theory. By which I mean thinking and ideas that lie well outside traditional parameters of conversation based around what I thought were common definitions of rational thinking and critical analysis. ericg has devoted a lengthy thread to the repetitious copy-and-pasting of material that ascribes the function of contemporary history to the deliberate conspiratorial machinations of a secret cabal of elite manipulators, while fucktopgirl has started an equally monotonous thread in which she continues to insist on the ineffectiveness of medical vaccines (joined, of course, by ericg himself, and his seemingly inexhaustible supply of MySpace bulletins).

I have to wonder where this material comes from and how such apparently irrelevant info seems to have gained such a wide following among internet users. In particular it makes me wonder about the actual practical effect of higher education upon the level of discernment in the general public, and in turn this leads me to ponder exactly how different people process different kinds of information. It also seems to me that we'd have more productive conversations if we could all describe, in a few words, how we go about deciding what information is relevant and what is not.

Here, I'll try, to get us started. The way I look at things, and understand what is happening in the world, is defined in large measure by my efforts to remain as critical and exclusive as possible in assessing the information with which I am presented. I have spent five years working on a history degree and this, I feel, has elevated my standards for what I consider acceptable information. I always try my best to accomodate the most comprehensible possible consideration of the context of my information, and I apply this to all media that I view, whether online, televised, or printed. Oftentimes this forces me to reconsider or revise positions I have taken on various issues, and I think this deepens my understanding of them and refines my point of view on life in general.

This, together with a personal rejection of the fundamentalist Christian information environment in which I was raised, has led me to a strongly secular humanist vision of the world and its history that I try to constantly revise as I come across new information and learn about different things. At heart I consider the human experience to be knowable and understandable through the application of classically defined rational enquiry and removed objectivity. I do not ascribe the occurrence of historical events to essentially unknowable and unprovable postulation. Nor do I see any reason to do so when the tools we have developed to improve our understanding of the world have improved to a degree greater than any in our species' history. I hold my sources of information to what I consider a rigourous standard and I refuse to consider media that constitutes what I think is bullshit - like the type of fringe theory we've seen lots of around here lately.

How about you? How do you see the world and what makes you tick? What influences make you think that way? It would be good to know what kinds of information form our understanding of the world, I think.

[fucktopgirl]

talk about monotonous tone.....

[EN[i]GMA]

I don't understand it either.

It's really the same sort of mental dispathy that afflicts religious fundamentalists, this unwarranted, over-riding sense of certainty. You'd think that common human experience would instill, if nothing else, a healthy respect for doubt and uncertainty. How many times in our lives our we proven wrong, embarrassed, made out to be fools? I would say quite a few, especially when we're young. So if you'll permit me some theorizing leverage, I'll posit that that we have at least two ways of dealing with this fact: we can open ourselves up to ideas, that is, we can change, or we can stultify when we find a particular set of ideas that appeals to us. And to some degree we all do both of these things. But in certain cases, and these recent threads seem to be evidence of this, one of this traits comes to the forefront. Fucktopgirl and ericg are very obviously people who pride themselves on being discerning. This, it seems, is their self-conception. They think they're "got it figured out" and that it's us who groping in the dark. It doesn't take Freud to see that this is a subconsciously appealing idea, because it's latent with elitism and superiority. It's esoteric. What better why to prove that you're smarter and more knowledgeable than to spout of some pet theory that goes against common knowledge? And you know what's even better? A theory that so goes against common knowledge that according to basic precepts of logic and reason, it doesn't even make sense. Now that's esoteric.

Couple this fact with another powerful human emotion, the persecution-complex, and you've got a recipe for idiotic delusion. When people think that criticism of their ideas is VINDICATION of their ideas, it becomes impossible to criticize them. I truly believe that belief systems that harshly exclude opposing viewpoints are sickness and should be purged, if at all possible. Fundamentalist religion and Conspiracy dogma are pernicious belief systems because they define opposing evidence out of existence: if it opposes, it must be wrong.

The other abiding similarity is the constant comparison between believers and non-believers. Take religion, once more, as an example. What do non-believers hear? "It takes just as much faith to be an atheist!" as a pejorative. But this is a self-defeating statement. If faith is good, then aren't atheists right to have it? Oh, we've hit upon a sore spot. Hypocrisy. Believers in these cult theories constantly feel the need to compare themselves to others, in light of some fictitious ideal. So someone like ericg or fucktopgirl would accuse me of being close-minded, which is anything but the case. We can all recall my arguments with Ace, and as loud and boisterous and ultimately silly as they were, they were actually generally fair-minded, and I conceded things when I was wrong. If I could not admit to being wrong, I would still a libertarian, or before that a liberal, or before that, a believer. I have no problem admitting I"m wrong; I'm fine with it. I just require stringent evidence.

Even though I act certain in my beliefs, and speak as if I am, I'm actually quite doubting of everything. I took seriously the vaccine claims and 9/11 conspiracy claims, for as long as it took me to realize they were bullshit, which wasn't long.

There's an interesting finding in psychology that says that people don't believe in things because of reason, but come up with reasons to support their existing beliefs. This is true in most people. Maybe those of who value rational inquiry are just the minority in this respect, damned to this fate. I like we're just better than everyone else. But I might be wrong.

[SobaViolence]

"There is no fact, only interpretation."
-Nietzsche

[fucktopgirl]

First of all, you guys , especially Enigma, got me all wrong. His quite well written but false description of what he think is a wrong and a right way for theorizing is a bit, as can i put, pretentious. Someone that come around and judge somebody else by interpreting and guessing what they are actually thinking or what are their ''self-conception'' without really knowing them, furthermore all that base on their own certainty, this is for me the syndrome of superiority. It is not about proving who is smarter, it is about having an opinion on something, on a theory and it happen that, me as an example,i have a different vision from the common view. What is esoteric for me is people who believe things that defied logic and law of physics, like in the 9/11.



But you guys think YOU got it all figured out , you are certain that you are right too. So how does my certainty make me different from you? Because i don't laud the same ideas as you. because i am following an unconventional path. That right, because they are fringe theory. Who said they are? People who protect their own interest perhaps?

Anyway, what his important here is that, everybody think their right at one extent, it just happen that more people believe and accept what the State has established as official theories without questioning it. So socially, you think you have it all figured out because lots of people think like you do. It is a social conditioning, a sort of mind conformist. This is one of the downfall of democracy, real individuality are lost and the population are too lazy to search for other perspective so they accepted what they are feed with. A '' mainstream culture'' is put in place. A fast food culture with easy fix and chewed theories. And when people come along with different views not often heard that defy what the government or the culture has perpetuate, well they are call idiot or conspiracy theorists , well, this is amusing to me and clearly show how people are close minded. And there is nothing to convince you, even with logic and rationality , even video which are self explanatory of an event. Again, i have in mind the 9/11.

You guys go on and on about how YOU have a great discernment,because one study history for 5 years and yadda yadda . Anyway, I did not see that recently. All i see is people who are denigrating another human as soon as he/she arrive with another perspective , another opinion on the matter at hand, furthermore disregarding everything they say by poor rethorics. I do think that most of you are a bit TOO mainstream. . AS a matter of fact, you are well embedded in this artificial society that you cannot be open to other point of view as YOU think you got it all figured out. WEll, in fact, you are only accepting what has been already established. And of course, you think that those theories are all permanent, immutable.


It is like we are arrived and finally attain the truth, he? If someone believe, like me, that there is major flawed in our society, that we need to reorganize the current state of affair, socially , politically, economically. That our inter-states relations are fucked and quite devious. That the majority of the government of the world are corrupted. Well, how can someone have so much difficulty to see that some theory are just outdated or weak and need reexamination.


I honestly think that the majority of people think by conditioning therefore no discernment are being apply to the bullshit perpetuate in the mainstream media. Nothing is strain, everything is swallow. That why American still think that their government is trying to implement democracy in middle east

[Bob]

Originally Posted by fucktopgirl

I honestly think that the majority of people think by conditioning therefore no discernment are being apply to the bullshit perpetuate in the mainstream media. Nothing is strain, everything is swallow.

are you much better? from what you post on here, it seems like you're so desperate to believe anything that goes against the grain of what's said in the mainstream media that you'll swallow anything that's saying what you want to hear, no matter what the source.

[EN[i]GMA]

Alright, let me be more pithy. Here's your thought process, as Bob said:

What's mainstream is bad, therefore, what's underground is good.

This is underground.

Therefore, this is good.

And this causes you to believe all sorts of nonsense.

[JohnnyChavello]

Originally Posted by Schmeltz

The way I look at things, and understand what is happening in the world, is defined in large measure by my efforts to remain as critical and exclusive as possible in assessing the information with which I am presented. I have spent five years working on a history degree and this, I feel, has elevated my standards for what I consider acceptable information. I always try my best to accomodate the most comprehensible possible consideration of the context of my information, and I apply this to all media that I view, whether online, televised, or printed. Oftentimes this forces me to reconsider or revise positions I have taken on various issues, and I think this deepens my understanding of them and refines my point of view on life in general.

...I consider the human experience to be knowable and understandable through the application of classically defined rational enquiry and removed objectivity. I do not ascribe the occurrence of historical events to essentially unknowable and unprovable postulation. Nor do I see any reason to do so when the tools we have developed to improve our understanding of the world have improved to a degree greater than any in our species' history. I hold my sources of information to what I consider a rigourous standard and I refuse to consider media that constitutes what I think is bullshit - like the type of fringe theory we've seen lots of around here lately.

The way I look at things is also shaped, largely, by my education. As a lawyer, factual assertions are judged by the weight of the evidence that can be marshalled for their support. Each piece of evidence is considered according to longstanding principles of evidentiary law that caution against common prejudices, inherent biases, unreliability, lack of relevance, etc. in order to come to a relatively objective view regarding its probable truth or falsity.

I fully support this type of approach to knowing things that can be perceived by the senses. However, assertions and propositions are not the same thing. The strength of particular legal propositions , which are, in all honesty, far more impactful, is judged only according to the persuasiveness with which they can be argued. For example, it would be naive to say that the scope of the Constitution's understanding of individually liberty can be subjected to the tools of rational thought and reason in the same way that factual assertions can be judged. Moreover, the ways in which individuals choose to orient themselves, or become accustomed to orienting themselves, toward particular questions determines, in large part, what are for all intents and purposes, their foregone conclusions. Man/woman, black/white, young/old, rich/poor, etc. are just a handful of examples of oppositions that can direct the individual to an approach toward a question that is so separate from their counterpart, that not only is the answer different, but it's fair to say that the question isn't even the same.

In the case of the internet, there's an interesting dynamic: as fucktopgirl mentioned in her post, widely held opinions on a particular question have a powerful effect. In meatspace, sociallly imposed behavorial constraints check non-conformism. On the other hand, in cyberspace, where anonymity is an overriding feature of most discourse, socially imposed behavioral constraints are severely diminishd, and non-conformism is allowed to thrive - for good and bad. For those who are attracted to non-conformism as a position, the internet allows them to experience a confirmation bias because there are likeminded people around ever corner.

So, what am I gettting at? (1) I think it makes sense to judge certain things according to the tools of rational, critical thought; (2) certain things are unnknowable in the sense that we know that 2 + 2 = 4; and (3) I have no idea exactly where to draw the line.

[ms.peachy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyChavello

In the case of the internet, there's an interesting dynamic: as fucktopgirl mentioned in her post, widely held opinions on a particular question have a powerful effect. In meatspace, sociallly imposed behavorial constraints check non-conformism. On the other hand, in cyberspace, where anonymity is an overriding feature of most discourse, socially imposed behavioral constraints are severely diminishd, and non-conformism is allowed to thrive - for good and bad. For those who are attracted to non-conformism as a position, the internet allows them to experience a confirmation bias because there are likeminded people around ever corner.

I think that this is an important point. I'm going to go out an tread on some dangerous ground here, but hear me out, I'm going somewhere with this: if you take the example of the proliferation on child pornography on the internet, what every expert who studies the psychodynamics of paedophilia will tell you is that the internet has allowed individuals who would otherwise never likely have come in contact with one another to establish communities where they can not only exchange images but also foster an environment that serves to support and 'normalise' their behaviour. And I think this is, essentially, what happens in the world of the conspiracy theorist as well - instead of sitting alone in your room with your tinfoil hat on, you venture into cyberspace in search of other with tinfoil hats. (Let me be perfectly clear: I am not equating holding fringe beliefs with paedophilia, I'm proposing a parallel in terms of rationalisation.)

The flip side of this is of course that the internet does provide quite vital community to many people who really do benefit greatly from being in contact with 'others like them' in a way that would not be possible in the 'real' world- for example, I work with a young woman who has Marfan syndrome, and she doesn't have a social life outside her home, but via her computer she has met several other young people with the same condition. And I am absolutely in support of the fact that the internet makes possible great exchanges of information between individuals that would otherwise be concentrated through the hands of a few media outlets.

But at the end of the day the fact is, not all 'urls' are equal, and if you are getting your information from internet sites, it is vital to look at their provenance and weight their credibility against non-internet sources. I seem to recall a while back (must be at least 2.5 years ago, as it was before I was pregnant) there was a thread here where we were discussing the relationship between the consumption of soy and fertility. Now if you go and google "soy" and "fertility", I promise you you will get a plethora of links to sites that will tell you that the phytoestrogens in soy can/will/do affect fertility in women. But if you actually follow these claims back to their source, virtually all of these sites are basing their claims on extrapolated data from a single study conducted in New Zealand on sheep whose diet was high in clover. If you just looked at the number of sites and the claims - and you were prone to belief in conspiracies - you might be inclined to think "Oh my god! Soy is the devil! And it's in so much stuff these days! The big food corporations aren't telling us the TRUTH about soy! They are just trying to protect their profits!" etc, etc, ad infinitum. But if you look at the actual raw data, there's just not much cause for concern. Unless you are a sheep in New Zealand and trying to get pregnant, I guess.

[fucktopgirl]

[quote]

Originally Posted by ms.peachy

I think that this is an important point. I'm going to go out an tread on some dangerous ground here, but hear me out, I'm going somewhere with this: if you take the example of the proliferation on child pornography on the internet, what every expert who studies the psychodynamics of paedophilia will tell you is that the internet has allowed individuals who would otherwise never likely have come in contact with one another to establish communities where they can not only exchange images but also foster an environment that serves to support and 'normalise' their behaviour. And I think this is, essentially, what happens in the world of the conspiracy theorist as well - instead of sitting alone in your room with your tinfoil hat on, you venture into cyberspace in search of other with tinfoil hats. (Let me be perfectly clear: I am not equating holding fringe beliefs
with paedophilia, I'm proposing a parallel in terms of rationalisation.)

YOu think you are rational and have a proper discernment. To put crazy dude who like to wank while checking child nude picture with people being non-conformists. Nice one....YOu think it is the same ''term of rationalisation'',hahahaha. I don't want to descend in the world of attack and petty insults like you guys do, mind you that i think you are utterly wrong. There is nothing that can possibly link people with a twisted mind with people getting access to information that are, otherwise, suppressed in the main stream media . the former have no logic whatsoever, there are deranged.

Nice one....

But at the end of the day the fact is, not all 'urls' are equal, and if you are getting your information from internet sites, it is vital to look at their provenance and weight their credibility against non-internet sources.

BY the way non- internet source are owned by the 2-3 corporations, therefore all you get , even though you listen or read different source, the same info over and over again, same propaganda. There is, as you may not like to believe, a control and suppression in the media. Some things are alright to tell and some are not, it always goes in the interest of the elite. Often what make the government look bad, a company, and so on, is not told and it is put in a corner to forget.


I can take as an example, which will not traumatize your mind, the USA and their massive genocide of the Indians population in North America, well , in mainstream history book and media, this is almost never point out. But it was an horrendous massacre, it is , for some, one of the greatest genocide of the world. So , if you go on the net, you are able to find plenty of GOOD source on the subject. And i could come up with lots and lots of cases similar to this one. Internet is a vast source of information for many, many topic that would , otherwise, not being transmitted.


But this freedom of information is about to change on the internet, as there is a hot debate about how , government can take control of this media of communication. Suppression of info and data are already appearing around the world.

[ms.peachy]

I don't really see any point in trying to have any further discussion with you. Interpret that however you like, I don't much care. I'm happy to have conversations with people with whom I disagree, even vehemently, but not when it's utterly pointless and circular. You know what you know, if you know what you mean.

[Bob]

[quote=fucktopgirl;1526848]

I can take as an example, which will not traumatize your mind, the USA and their massive genocide of the Indians population in North America, well , in mainstream history book and media, this is almost never point out. But it was an horrendous massacre, it is , for some, one of the greatest genocide of the world. So , if you go on the net, you are able to find plenty of GOOD source on the subject. And i could come up with lots and lots of cases similar to this one. Internet is a vast source of information for many, many topic that would , otherwise, not being transmitted.

yes, but then you also have shit like this

what is your critical process for discerning between the two?

[yeahwho]

I spent a chunk of my life in a drug induced alcoholic haze. With that came some serious denial about myself and the world around me. I had visions of grandeur, never happy or content in my own skin. I always wanted to be the extravagant rock star or the most well read, then go to the opposite extreme of the street person (a reality I did live) or hippest beat punk hip anarchist.

In my life I came to a epiphany, I was full of shit. Once I realized this my critical process kicked into reality. I idolized the guy who had a mailbox and clean socks. An actual current drivers license. Owned his own telephone. Had food in the cupboards.

It took a miracle of coincidences for me to meet the right people at the right time to see through me and call me on my own bullshit.

I'm grateful to even have this opportunity to process what is happening on the surface of the worlds politics and social events. If I can scratch a little deeper into a topic and back it up with scientific fact, I'll post here or converse with others my POV.

If I'm lacking the evidence to back up my POV or if it appears that what is being presented causes harm, I'm out.

I would have to agree, at least 50% of what is on the internet is crap, including much of the mainstream web.

I'm happily boring reading PBS, Wiki and the links they take me to.

[yeahwho]

[quote=Bob;1526857]

Originally Posted by fucktopgirl

yes, but then you also have shit like this

what is your critical process for discerning between the two?

until I clicked your link I thought that whole "Ring of Power" thread was about gay sex.

[Bob]

[quote=yeahwho;1526862]

Originally Posted by Bob

until I clicked your link I thought that whole "Ring of Power" thread was about gay sex.

i still don't know what the hell that thread's about

[fucktopgirl]

Originally Posted by ms.peachy

I don't really see any point in trying to have any further discussion with you. Interpret that however you like, I don't much care. I'm happy to have conversations with people with whom I disagree, even vehemently, but not when it's utterly pointless and circular. You know what you know, if you know what you mean.

Fair enough. But can you blame me for having my own personal opinion?


Don't forget that you compare my mind and the ones who think like me with the one of a paedophile, you make a parallel with those fuckers rationality and us. You compare people digging for other information then the common ones, the ''politically accepted '' theories, you compare independent thinkers with useless freaks that use internet for evils reasons, a kind of human that should be eliminate by the way, leeches that are bringing nothing to this world; while the others who try to understand the world with a different perspective then the current one instigate. So.....hehe, no doubt that you are retreating yourself This was the most ridiculous statement i have read in a long time.

[Bob]

i think maybe you took it the wrong way

[yeahwho]

I'm having hallucinations on the quotes....the price is right.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by yeahwho

I'm having hallucinations on the quotes....the price is right.

yeah i dunno what's up with that, i've noticed it happening in a few posts

[yeahwho]

now i wanna misquote everybody...

[fucktopgirl]

I think not, she clearly said that she think there is a correlation with their use of the internet , which is totally unethical and insane , and non-conformists; who ratter find other explanation to certain theory that seem to be weak and lack in consistency and logic. The creation of peadophily cyberspace communauty on the net as nothing to do with the reunion of non-conformists who think alike. The former are insane, the latter are quite intelligent and independent thinkers.

this post is a reply to BOB

[Bob]

Originally Posted by fucktopgirl

the latter are quite intelligent and independent thinkers.

they sure are

[Schmeltz]

Nice, there's some really good stuff here.

fucktopgirl, you have gotten Ms.peachy's reply completely wrong. She is not equating counterculture with pedophilia, she is describing a type of behaviour and interaction unique to the media context in which we are all participating. She didn't equate counterculture (or pedophilia) with Marfan syndrome either - these are just examples of a trend she's noticed.

And I think it's an important trend to highlight. There seems to be a great extent to which people with poorly formed standards of critical thinking and information assessment will resort to the use of confirmation bias (to use Johnny Chavello's term) to justify the expression of ideas that would simply never fly in any other setting. And this in turn leads to a perspective in which any and every source of information is conceived of as equally valid, such that fucktopgirl is able to claim, with a straight face, that a video she found on Google stands as an irrefutable and uncontestable challenge to the well-documented and thoroughly researched worldwide scientific consensus on vaccination. Pressing the issue only leads to wild assertions of corporatist conspiracy, mass psychological manipulation, and other patent urban mythologies with little currency in realism, along with a continued insistence that this information must be valid because it's "non-conformist."

The real paradox is that this is taking place in an era of unprecedented, unfettered access to information. It seems that our ability to spread information around has outpaced our ability to rationally process it (well, at least for some people) leading to a Disinformation Age in which the most outlandish and irrelevant perceptions of reality are hyped up as valid simply because they go against the grain and dammit, here's a website that you have to read from top to bottom in order to validly dissent from my alien lizard man theory. And while it's all well and good to keep going around in circles with these people online, what happens when the carryover hits the real world? fucktopgirl is refusing to vaccinate her daughter against common diseases (for absolutely no reason) and history shows the very real practical danger of this kind of thinking. If the confirmation bias reaches a tipping point at the same time as the epidemiological stability, there could be a very real crisis engendered by this type of disinformation.

[fucktopgirl]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Schmeltz

fucktopgirl, you have gotten Ms.peachy's reply completely wrong. She is not equating counterculture with pedophilia, she is describing a type of behaviour and interaction unique to the media context in which we are all participating. She didn't equate counterculture (or pedophilia) with Marfan syndrome either - these are just examples of a trend she's noticed.

This is pure stupidity.

A type of behaviour? A trend ? of what exactly?

I don't see the logic in her example, not at all. She did say ''a parallel in terms of rationalisation'' to normalize behaviour. You see, i don't need to normalize my behaviour, i feel perfectly normal. The internet , for me, it just a broader source of info. And it happen that it is a less control environment by the corporations/official media or government, so there is not just one perspective over something but others. The counterculture flourish in that space because no oppression can yet be apply.

[yeahwho]

I have to say fucktopgirl you can sure get people riled up on here. My critical thinking says you do put some thought into your decisions, I think you dismiss the official story on many topics before it has time to be fully digested. Then turn to an immediate alternative.

Without fully realizing the official story, then completely embracing the alternative, your fact finding process becomes less factual.

The one thread you started about vaccinations to me was sort of goofy. Parents, Mothers and Fathers I know and I'm sure on this board don't just willy nilly their childs health. They research benefits vs. health risks. It isn't something that just popped up on the radar that vaccinations may be risky.

I am deathly allergic to some antibiotics, they are a risk for me to take, but in the event of a major anthrax outbreak I'm down with the powerful BioThrax. It's a risk I would want my family to take.

This is because of the validity of fact of science.

Your cool in your conclusions for you, don't expect others to agree.

[fucktopgirl]

^ this is Schmeltz thread about critical process, if you want to talk about vaccination, post in the other thread.

'' My critical thinking says you do put some thought into your decisions, I think you dismiss the official story on many topics before it has time to be fully digested. Then turn to an immediate alternative''


I do put some thoughs into my decision? WOW, thanks to remind me that....

Dude, your critical process is awry, you don't even fucking know me.. how can you speculate how i actually strain, eliminate and digest information?

[yeahwho]

Originally Posted by fucktopgirl

^ this is Schmeltz thread about critical process, if you want to talk about vaccination, post in the other thread.

Your critical process completely missed my point. I am not slightly interested in your vaccination theory or anybody elses. I used it as an example of how your underestimating the intelligence of those who post here. Before you fool with a fool, be sure you have a fool to fool with.

You even jumped to conclusions on a simple elementary example of your own thought process. My critical process couldn't of been more justified.

Without fully realizing the official story, then completely embracing the alternative, your fact finding process becomes less factual.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by fucktopgirl

you don't even fucking know me.. how can you speculate how i actually strain, eliminate and digest information?

by your posts on the internet. what else can we use?

[Lyman Zerga]

i hardly ever make my 'mind' up on things, i usually speak out of emotions and ignorance

and im too emotional and ignorant to read this thread so i have no clue if my reply even fits but thats all you get
so lick my ass sweat

[fucktopgirl]

Originally Posted by yeahwho

Your critical process completely missed my point. I am not slightly interested in your vaccination theory or anybody elses. I used it as an example of how your underestimating the intelligence of those who post here. Before you fool with a fool, be sure you have a fool to fool with.

You even jumped to conclusions on a simple elementary example of your own thought process. My critical process couldn't of been more justified.

Without fully realizing the official story, then completely embracing the alternative, your fact finding process becomes less factual.

I did not miss your point by the way, you just express your opinion about vaccination and i specify that there is the other thread for that.That all.

And i am not underestimated the intelligence of anybody, i am just expressing myself . Boards members around ARE always underestimated me because i do not fit the mold.

Your critical process is only justified by your own subjectivity.