Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virex]

Ha! I wished! No, the discussion was initially about if calling someone stupid for not using logic in debates is elitist or not, but that debate kind of went in circles. Probably due to me, as Leafsnail pointed out.

[Jerick]

Those are valid points if you don't care for the moral problems associated with calling someone stupid for not adhering to your premises, and berating you for doing so would obviously be useless. So I guess you've won the debate?

You know it's possible to cure the cause of a headache in certain cases by literaly drilling a hole in your head, the ancient Egytians did it with some sucess.
But in this modern age with better alternatives would drilling a hole in your head be something you would classify as stupid?

I have completely lost track of what's being argued about in here, except for a vague impression that Virex apparently believes that inserting logic into a debate turns people into murderous automatons or something.

No he's trying to argue that not using logic in decision making doesn't make someone inherintly stupid.

[Virex]

I would classify it as unwise, which is the same classification I would use for debating purely on feelings. But who am I to insult someone who wants to drill a hole in his head?

[Duke 2.0]

I have completely lost track of what's being argued about in here, except for a vague impression that Virex apparently believes that inserting logic into a debate turns people into murderous automatons or something.

I'm not even sure how this was segued from my misleading point what, four pages ago?

[Truean]

I have completely lost track of what's being argued about in here, except for a vague impression that Virex apparently believes that inserting logic into a debate turns people into murderous automatons or something.

His self defeating argument is feelings > logic. Feelings exist to be satisfied and logic is needed for that.

Merely stating feelings does not satisfy them. And even feeling like you need to state your feelings requires logic:

A.) I like my feelings satisfied and don't like them unsatisfied .
B.) I feel like stating my feelings will satisfy them.
C.) I will state my feelings to satisfy them.

If everyone has desires, wants them satisfied, and logic is required to satisfy desires, then lack of logic will lead to unsatisfied desires. Thus, not using logic is suboptimal due to unfulfilled desires.

Thus not using logic doesn't make you "stupid," it makes you unsatisfied, which means frustrated, which isn't good. Thus, unless you like being unsatisfied, logic for the win....

And that's a recap of the last however many pages it was.

[Virex]

Was I arguing that? 
I really need to watch the tone I'm giving off...

[Jerick]

His self defeating argument is feelings > logic

Not really.

I would classify it as unwise, which is the same classification I would use for debating purely on feelings.

His argument is more: logic>feelings but debating on feelings doesn't make someone any less worthwhile.
I disagree with this a bit but this particular agrument has gone on way too long already so I'm going to drop it.

[RedKing]

Let me just link this op-ed from the Washington Post that gets at the heart of what I'm railing about, and does it far more eloquently that I could.

They have come to this conclusion not because the science is inconclusive, but because they believe, as a matter of principle, that scientific evidence is no evidence at all.

It’s on that basis that Ron Paul can say of evolution, “I think it’s a theory and I don’t accept it as a theory.” It’s on that basis that Rick Perry can call evolution “it’s a theory that’s out there, but one that’s got some gaps in it.” And it’s on that same basis, that same rejection of science, that Perry can say, “I’m not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how old the earth is.”

It should be noted that pretty much all of these same politicos will express so much skepticism about rigorously peer-reviewed science, but will vouch rock-solid faith in God Almighty, and will base their policy decisions on religious faith as much or more than on scientific evidence.

For a secular, multi-religious, multi-ethnic nation founded by rational Enlightment luminaries, that is simply unacceptable and it constitutes a cultural and political regression.

[SalmonGod]

the discussion was initially about if calling someone stupid for not using logic in debates is elitist or not

Come on guys, let's be fair.  This was the original debate, and it is a valid one.  People are free to personally value whatever they wish.  Differing values are intrinsic to the nature of being an independently self-aware and conscious being, and it actually is elitist to claim that one person is inherently better than another for placing greater value on rationality, just like anything else.

The point that I've tried to make is that it is unwise, as Virex described, and that to appeal to logic in defending one's beliefs/values while simultaneously rejecting the rules governing sound logic can be called stupidity as fact rather than insult or elitism.

[Vector]

All right, folks, here's a warning.

Next person I catch engaged in passive-aggressive argumentation will also be yelled at.  Do not worry; I won't report you or anything like that.  But I thought I should let you guys know that it's turning into a serious berserk button.

Next person to advocate violence for reasons of something like religion alone is getting both reported and asked to leave the thread forever.  This should be obvious from the OP.  I expect better from you guys.

[Andir]

IMHO, The passive aggressiveness is on both sides.

Calling those that you disagree with an idiot/simpleton/etc. is a good way to make them (and those that might have agreed with you) defensive and not want to listen to your message.  It's the primary reason I don't like generalization on that scale (ie: "Republicans are stupid")  It's guaranteed to get someone to ignore you and your message/facts.  Some here viewed it as elitism, but it's simple passive aggressiveness.  By taking that stance, you have decided that there's no recovery.  They're to be bundled, labeled, and sold as is.  Thus, the feeling that having a debate with such person is fruitless which leads you into a non-compete stance and only hurts everyone.  They leave the table ignorant and you leave it with negative impressions (due to your own labeling) perpetuating the loop.

Unfortunately the thread itself promotes this as "rage" (post a link to something you dislike, and while you're at it... tell us all why it enrages you!) and we'll keep coming back to these types of arguments.  Rage is such a hard thing to reason with.

[Vector]

Good point.

*cough*

Yeah, I've been thinking about that for a while.  I'll probably change the thread name again in a bit, but for now this one makes me laugh, so I'm sticking with it.

[Aklyon]

I'm not sure the thread title as a whole can actually be a thing. Chill and relaxed annoyed irritation sounds odd.

[Andir]

I imagine sitting outside by a fire, maybe having a drink or two and there's always just one mosquito bugging everyone.  Usually one person at a time, but it gets around to everyone eventually.

Chill, relaxed, slightly irritating and annoying.

[ChairmanPoo]

Change it to " the erotic progrssive adventures of Cacame the Barbarian and his canine companion, Woof Khan"