How do you define stupidity? My friend - Kalai - stupidity just means you were stumped by your emotions. What do you think?
Showing posts with label stupidity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stupidity. Show all posts
Don’t fight stupidity with more stupidity
Why you must rise above conflict to succeed.
The other day, a blog I read, and normally really like, got upset that someone they don’t like made a racist comment. They responded by calling out the woman they accused of racism using some really ugly sexist terms and suggesting she perform what one can only assume they think is a degrading sex act (because if it wasn’t degrading it wouldn’t be an insult now would it).
This blog routinely calls out sexism when it is directed at their heroes so it came as a bit of a shock to me that they so eagerly and graphically engaged in behavior they themselves have rightly condemned. This just goes to show you no one corners the market in stupidity.
This brings me to today’s point. Don’t be a dick (or an elbow), even if other people are. You don’t show how stupid someone is by being equally stupid. All that does is show off how stupid you are and they are and the adults in the room will consider you unworthy of their time.
In order to claim the moral high ground, you first have to be moral. Need another reason? Consider this quote by Albert Camus, “In order to keep faith with ourselves, we are obliged to respect in you what you do not respect in others.” – Letters to a German Friend.
Want another reason to not stoop to the level of others? Here’s another quote from Camus, “When fighting for your truth, you must take care not to kill it with the very arms you are using to defend it.” – Preface to Algerian Reports.
Don’t fight bigotry with bigotry of any sort. Rise above and let the other person show off how stupid they are. It’s easy to shine like a beacon of rationality by comparison.
The other day, a blog I read, and normally really like, got upset that someone they don’t like made a racist comment. They responded by calling out the woman they accused of racism using some really ugly sexist terms and suggesting she perform what one can only assume they think is a degrading sex act (because if it wasn’t degrading it wouldn’t be an insult now would it).
This blog routinely calls out sexism when it is directed at their heroes so it came as a bit of a shock to me that they so eagerly and graphically engaged in behavior they themselves have rightly condemned. This just goes to show you no one corners the market in stupidity.
This brings me to today’s point. Don’t be a dick (or an elbow), even if other people are. You don’t show how stupid someone is by being equally stupid. All that does is show off how stupid you are and they are and the adults in the room will consider you unworthy of their time.
In order to claim the moral high ground, you first have to be moral. Need another reason? Consider this quote by Albert Camus, “In order to keep faith with ourselves, we are obliged to respect in you what you do not respect in others.” – Letters to a German Friend.
Want another reason to not stoop to the level of others? Here’s another quote from Camus, “When fighting for your truth, you must take care not to kill it with the very arms you are using to defend it.” – Preface to Algerian Reports.
Don’t fight bigotry with bigotry of any sort. Rise above and let the other person show off how stupid they are. It’s easy to shine like a beacon of rationality by comparison.
Logic Matters
Recently O'Reilly had Richard Dawkins on to discuss his new book which is about evolution. Now, I don't normally watch O'Reilly but this clip is amazing in the illogic O'Reilly uses to debate . I am posting the clip here because I think it provides an excellent example of why logic should be taught in the schools. It is important for people to learn how to discern between valid and invalid arguments because otherwise there is no good way to determine truth. And if you can't determine who is telling the truth, then you are a sucker just waiting to be taken advantage of. Anyway - here is the clip.
What is amazing about this clip is that O'Reilly doesn't say a single logical thing. NONE of his arguments follow standard rules of logic. NONE! Mostly, he uses what is called a non-sequitor. (A=C so therefore unrelated X is somehow true) In this instance, Science doesn't have the answers to everything (a=c) so therefore there must be a flying spaghetti monster or god (X= true). He uses the same structure to argue for teaching creationism in the schools.
O'Reilly also uses some informal colloquial fallacies. And really, these are his unique variations on established fallacies. The first is anonymous authority. Some really smart people (unnamed) agree with him, so he must be right. He also uses what can only be called a reverse dogmatic fallacy, which I think should be called "the O'Reilly fallacy" in honor of his repeated use of this form. Basically, a dogmatic fallacy is to arbitrarily exclude evidence in favor of X from the universe of discouse. In the O'Reilly fallacy or reverse dogmatic fallacy the refusal to allow X into the universe of discourse because X isn't logical or factually true is evidence of facism on the part of your debate opponent. I particularly like that one.
But my favorite part of this clip is when he argues by choir - essentially saying that more people believe as he does then don't so he must be correct. This is akin to saying 50,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong (even though they can). Argument by choir is totally irrelevant to whether any of the statements are true or logical.
So, to sum up O'Reillys illogic. Science can't explain everything, therefore the theory of biological evolution has gaps. Those gaps can only be filled by the flying spaghetti monster. If you don't allow this random and arbitrary conclusion to be taught to school children in a science class simply because it doesn't meet the minimal scientific standards for evidence or logic you are clearly a fascist and by the way 50,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong. Dawkins was right to shake his head and point out that this was a truly remarkable peice of illogic.
What is amazing about this clip is that O'Reilly doesn't say a single logical thing. NONE of his arguments follow standard rules of logic. NONE! Mostly, he uses what is called a non-sequitor. (A=C so therefore unrelated X is somehow true) In this instance, Science doesn't have the answers to everything (a=c) so therefore there must be a flying spaghetti monster or god (X= true). He uses the same structure to argue for teaching creationism in the schools.
O'Reilly also uses some informal colloquial fallacies. And really, these are his unique variations on established fallacies. The first is anonymous authority. Some really smart people (unnamed) agree with him, so he must be right. He also uses what can only be called a reverse dogmatic fallacy, which I think should be called "the O'Reilly fallacy" in honor of his repeated use of this form. Basically, a dogmatic fallacy is to arbitrarily exclude evidence in favor of X from the universe of discouse. In the O'Reilly fallacy or reverse dogmatic fallacy the refusal to allow X into the universe of discourse because X isn't logical or factually true is evidence of facism on the part of your debate opponent. I particularly like that one.
But my favorite part of this clip is when he argues by choir - essentially saying that more people believe as he does then don't so he must be correct. This is akin to saying 50,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong (even though they can). Argument by choir is totally irrelevant to whether any of the statements are true or logical.
So, to sum up O'Reillys illogic. Science can't explain everything, therefore the theory of biological evolution has gaps. Those gaps can only be filled by the flying spaghetti monster. If you don't allow this random and arbitrary conclusion to be taught to school children in a science class simply because it doesn't meet the minimal scientific standards for evidence or logic you are clearly a fascist and by the way 50,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong. Dawkins was right to shake his head and point out that this was a truly remarkable peice of illogic.
Just Because You Can
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Humanists are really big on thinking before we act. We have found that if we don't think before we act, we are liable to do something stupid, or worse, dangerous.
This is especially true when you are hurt in some way. Just remember, you don't have to act on every emotion you feel. Especially when you are feeling feelings of revenge. Just think about what the consequences of your actions will be. And... wait a few days to before acting on any negative emotion. What seemed perfectly reasonable in the heat of emotion will often seem really idiotic once reason has regained supremecy. Remember, you are in control of what you do. Don't let your emotions control you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
