Pat Kelly

Here is a snip from a new article on freethinking...

<link deleted>

"Freethinking" seems to be an underused term for a world that places or claims to place such high values on individual freedoms. However, being free to think as an individual within any society really only applies to those individuals who have molded their beliefs and ideas to the accepted understandings of that society. Freethinking is certainly not encouraged at a social level because by its very nature, it tends to challenge accepted social norms. The "free" in freethinking is indeed a very relevant term. Anyone seriously attempting freethinking will be able to confirm it is a nice concept in theory, but in practical terms only an illusion reserved for those who think like the majority.

Enjoy

WWSD

I don't call myself a freethinker at all. My thoughts are constrained by my biology, my past experience, and my social environment. I'm just an infidel.

Pat Kelly

Anyone who would claim not to be a freethinker is likely far closer to that ideal than most.

Sunny Xanthippe

OK Pat....

In your profile, you have identified yourself as a "freethinker."

So please tell us how you live up to the title.

According to your definiton of "freethinker" in your reply post to WWSD, people such as Trent Lott and Fred Phelps could apply to the "freethinker" title because they do not follow the popular social constraints.

Pat Kelly

Sunny,

I am the editor of LogicalReality.com and have written most of the articles. You should be able to draw your own conclusions regarding just how free or restrained my thinking is. A good place to start would be:

<link deleted>

viscousmemories

That was a very long and convoluted article. If I was frustrated by the fact that the theme referenced in the title wasn't even hinted at until near the end of the first page, imagine how I felt when by the end of the three page convoluted rant no valuable point had been made.

A couple of things that jumped out at me:

This, like most of the main "points" in the article, is an absurd assumption. How could it possibly be shown that the average persons perception of reality is more accurate than that of others? Sure, maybe there is a likelihood that errors are introduced with every new interpretation and relaying of an experience. On the other hand, maybe every interpretation and relaying brings us closer to the truth. Who is qualified to make that decision?
The fact that we are under constant pressure to conform does not mean that we can never succeed in thinking for ourselves. If none of us is capable of thinking for ourselves and must naturally accept only that which we are bred to believe, why did the author of that article waste his time trying to convince us of something that isn't commonly accepted? Well, I mean, aside from the fact that as a human being (which I am simply going to have to assume accurately describes him) we can't possibly expect him to be able-minded enough to think for himself.

Then again maybe I'm just being cynical. Dictionary.com says a freethinker is: "One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation." Where is the mythology surrounding that?

viscousmemories

While a fervent defendant of free speech, I feel an obligation as a member of this site to forewarn others that following the link to the article referenced in the previous posts will take you to a site that has, in my opinion, images that could very easily be categorized as child pornography by every legal definition I have read. I strongly recommend that you not follow that link if you do not wish to download what is quite likely illegal material.

hezekiah jones

Especially with that caption, his message is pretty clear.

Pat Kelly

viscousmemories,

For you to even pose such a question indicates you have either misunderstood what was written or simply do not like the idea of having your irrationalism challenged. You sound like someone who feels compelled to defend the status quo even to the point of asserting your understandings are without fault and represent the pinnacle of human knowledge. There is nothing absurd in the premise that many of your understandings are inaccurate, flawed and downright stupid. The same applies to all of us. What is absurd is your apparent position that you dispute this.

Sometimes the truth hurts but it is far preferable to living a lie.

As far as your understanding of law and what constitutes child pornography you are all wet there as well. You see... You have proven my point.

Ronin

Well...there you are then.