An Act of Incoherency
July 11, 2016 at 9:56 pm
(This post was last modified: July 11, 2016 at 10:03 pm by Complidudaaldo.)
The Spagetti Brain
Incoherent: is when an individual's thought process is has no basis.
Regardless of the truth behind their assertions, it is applicable to logical thought patterns.
An example of incoherent is:
using skepticism as a debate argument ~ since skepticism is neither a structural defence for one side of the argument, nor a sufficient argument towards the other. It was illogical, and redundant to present skepticism as an argument*
Presenting skepticism was in fact a demonstration of lack of coherent thought.
If one presents skepticism, it can only be done in discussion format.
Using skepticism in conversation format is evidence of ones own incoherency because proves they have drawn a blank, and do not know. Therefor their pattern is amiss, and inconclusive.
Another example of Incoherent is, when an individual ignores the context, flow or relevant content of a discussion and yet continue biasedly towards their preferences instead of facts. This is a typical tactic spouses, parents, children and counterparts use to ignore one another. They block off their thought process in favor of their bigoted ideology or desires.
More so. Incoherent applies to people who suggest something which is not a fact, is a fact. Because that person is suggesting or may even pretend to believe that something inconclusive is conclusive. An example is evolution, gravity or the table of elements. Were, a very plausible event were to present itself, altering the subjective nature of those Theories, then those things are proven wrong, and thus all former faith in those belief structures are Incoherent thoughts (undeveloped, baseless assertions.) even if they were largely true* They were wrongfully "Concluded."
If a person is not factually, apart from opinions, Conclusive in the process of cognitive generation, then they are inconclusive. Incoherent in conclusion.
HONESTY = coherency.
It does not make someone honest to state their own opinions. It makes someone honest to actually consider the context of all the content in stipulation.
People often knowingly rely on their incoherency to justify their actions. But no one is oblivious to their own incoherency, Nor is anyone ignorant to anyone else's incoherency. Often it is that people simply preference the product of incoherent bigotry, and support the bigots for self promotion.
People most often have biased, incoherent perspectives and opinions about religion, and this is obvious in the way that they attack or manipulate the nature of comments, scriptures and facts.
I hope this prompts a productive conversation.
Incoherent: is when an individual's thought process is has no basis.
Regardless of the truth behind their assertions, it is applicable to logical thought patterns.
An example of incoherent is:
using skepticism as a debate argument ~ since skepticism is neither a structural defence for one side of the argument, nor a sufficient argument towards the other. It was illogical, and redundant to present skepticism as an argument*
Presenting skepticism was in fact a demonstration of lack of coherent thought.
If one presents skepticism, it can only be done in discussion format.
Using skepticism in conversation format is evidence of ones own incoherency because proves they have drawn a blank, and do not know. Therefor their pattern is amiss, and inconclusive.
Another example of Incoherent is, when an individual ignores the context, flow or relevant content of a discussion and yet continue biasedly towards their preferences instead of facts. This is a typical tactic spouses, parents, children and counterparts use to ignore one another. They block off their thought process in favor of their bigoted ideology or desires.
More so. Incoherent applies to people who suggest something which is not a fact, is a fact. Because that person is suggesting or may even pretend to believe that something inconclusive is conclusive. An example is evolution, gravity or the table of elements. Were, a very plausible event were to present itself, altering the subjective nature of those Theories, then those things are proven wrong, and thus all former faith in those belief structures are Incoherent thoughts (undeveloped, baseless assertions.) even if they were largely true* They were wrongfully "Concluded."
If a person is not factually, apart from opinions, Conclusive in the process of cognitive generation, then they are inconclusive. Incoherent in conclusion.
HONESTY = coherency.
It does not make someone honest to state their own opinions. It makes someone honest to actually consider the context of all the content in stipulation.
People often knowingly rely on their incoherency to justify their actions. But no one is oblivious to their own incoherency, Nor is anyone ignorant to anyone else's incoherency. Often it is that people simply preference the product of incoherent bigotry, and support the bigots for self promotion.
People most often have biased, incoherent perspectives and opinions about religion, and this is obvious in the way that they attack or manipulate the nature of comments, scriptures and facts.
I hope this prompts a productive conversation.
