slimboyfat

Joined

• started 539 topics
• posted 17,734 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by slimboyfat

• 
  20

  JWs aren't stupid

  by cognisonance in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  the title is a bit of click bait.

  but here's the alternative title: what stupid beliefs/ideas did you have while an active jw.. i think the majority of jws that don't have obvious mental health issues are not stupid, just un/under-educated.

  for example, i now accept evolution as a thing, not a controversy or conjecture.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I may act stupid and talk stupid, but don't let that fool you. I really am stupid.
• 
  99

  The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.

  charlatanism of the highest order.

  .... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Stripped of context no description makes any sense. All utterances are dependent on context. The statement that "the earth is round" makes sense and is useful to humans living in the 21 century. It may be less useful to a worm or to an angel or to a human living 200 years from now. The grounds on which they may object to the utterance may not even be intelligible to us. We are so throughly immersed in the world as we construct it that the possibility of seeing it otherwise can be difficult. And yet history teaches us this happens all the time.

  Please see the video above and substitute "bottle" for "banana". I can see you genuinely want an answer to this question and there is a very good explanation of the concepts of constructionism in the video that addresses the point you are making. "Banana" is indeed a socially constructed concept.

  To bring this discussion right to focus and demonstrate its relevance, the point of insisting on the distinction between language as a useful tool and language as corresponding to reality, consider the situation which prompts most of these discussions here: acceptance of evolutionary theory.

  For many people leaving JWs, acceptance of evolutionary theory is a positive move for all sorts of reasons. It signals a new openness to views of the world that are forbidden by JW ideology. It marks closer alignment with mainstream thinking in modern society. It can free us up from worry and anxiety that may result from a literal reading of the Bible. All those things are excellent. But Cofty won't leave it there. Even if someone has left the JWs and is comfortable still believing in creationism, Cofty finds this unacceptable on the grounds that, while they may be happy, and it may be working for them, it is nevertheless not "true". As if what is "true" is the real point here. Cofty finds satisfaction in the idea that he has finally discovered how the world "really" is and insists that others must accept this as "true" or else be labelled ignorant. What is truly ignorant is the idea that the world is such that particular descriptions of it are what is important in life, rather than how useful those descriptions are for us getting on with things.
• 
  32

  what sort of reactions have you gotten when talking to other jw when telling them the "truth about the truth"?

  by AmIright in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  its funny ive read some stories on here about how they have become so infuriated by what logic dictates as being true and their own denying of it because it completely screws up their belief and shows how hypocritical it is xd some look like a nuclear reactor about to blow xd.

  share you experiences here :) .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Bad ones. I gave up pretty quick. JWs accepted that I simply didn't challenge them for a few years, but after a while even that wasn't enough. They wanted me to positively affirm their beliefs to stay "good association". What insecurity!
• 
  19

  Is it Okay for a JW to be a Storm Chaser?

  by Iamallcool in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am thinking about chasing storms for fun.

  i know it is very dangerous.

  i just think it will be very cool to have a new exciting hobby.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Is participating on the forum beneficial?
• 
  19

  Is it Okay for a JW to be a Storm Chaser?

  by Iamallcool in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am thinking about chasing storms for fun.

  i know it is very dangerous.

  i just think it will be very cool to have a new exciting hobby.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Floods too. I saw the Rhine and Danube flooded, amazing.
• 
  99

  The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.

  charlatanism of the highest order.

  .... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  In my opinion this misses the very simple observation that language easily allows us to communicate complex ideas with high fidelity and this type of common-sense view of language has been and remains important to understand the world -- both if you are a 6 year old or a scientist.

  
  

  Constructionists accept the ordinary use of language and respect its usefulness. What we object to is the idea that this usefulness equates to identity with reality. This distinction is what we are getting at. It is important because if you view descriptions of the world as useful/useless rather than true/untrue then it enables you to adapt to new circumstances, reject intolerance, and avoid dogmatism. Please see page 231 of this book available on Amazon's look inside.

  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Invitation-Social-Construction-Kenneth-Gergen/dp/1446296482/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
  

  Your further comments misunderstand my view of ordinary language. I accept it, use it, and find it helpful. Constructionism in no way demands that we give up using words in their everyday sense. What it means instead is a recognition that the everyday sense of words can be overturned at any time.

  It's an approach to language a bit like wishing for a sterile operating theatre. We would want the theatre to be completely sterile for our operation. In the real world a 100% sterile theatre cannot be achieved. That doesn't mean we give up and say what's the point of attempting a sterile environment if it's not 100% possible.

  With language, the aim to understand and to be understood is a worthwhile goal. That we realise this will never be acheived 100% and that all utterances are subject to revision is no reason to give up communicating.
• 
  48

  From yesterday WT, don't have kids and if you do then don't see them often nor the grandkids either

  by purrpurr in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  unbelievable paragraph in yesterday's watchtower was "encouraging" the sheep to not have kids.

  most of their growth comes from the born ins and they are still on about not having kids?.

  then it went on to "encourage" those that do have kids or grandkids not to spend to much time with them and instead to spend their time serving kingdom interests!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I'm confused how you're quoting Fisherman when he's not on this page.
• 
  19

  Is it Okay for a JW to be a Storm Chaser?

  by Iamallcool in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am thinking about chasing storms for fun.

  i know it is very dangerous.

  i just think it will be very cool to have a new exciting hobby.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I've always wanted to do that!
• 
  99

  The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.

  charlatanism of the highest order.

  .... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Don't know I can't say I've ever read Irigaray or Spivak, Kristeva and so on. Or Lacan for that matter. They're a different sort of thing from Foucault and Derrida as far as I can see. I agree the world is constructed not found, and I guess this has implications for feminism and so on. How we describe physical forms and events is shaped by power for definite. Some theorists may have made fools of themselves talking using scientific discourses they didn't properly understand. But it works both ways. Dawkins makes a fool of himself talking about poststructuralism for sure.
• 
  12

  A philosophical question

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  on the internet i keep bumping into people who are extremely insistent that our universe could be a simulation.

  while i think it may, in the future, be possible to simulate a high fidelity universe - i don’t think we should confuse the ability to model a universe with the ability to actually build a universe.. .

  for example, we can model weather patterns inside a computer.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Sounds a bit like my doctor who told me I have Tom Jones disease. I asked if that was a rare condition, he said it's not unusual.