Awesome Annie. see ya tomorrow!
Thank you Jehovah for answered prayers
by Annie Over 194 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
funkyderek
LittleToe:
What changes your behaviour to the situation when faced with such a comment from your boss or from an anonymous online poster?
Pragmatism and propriety. It would be a bad idea to confront my boss about his deeply-held beliefs and would be inappropriate for the workplace (although so would the initial comment). On a discussion board pertaining to JW issues, however, both the initial comment and my responses were completely appropriate, and I'm unlikely to lose my job if the poster happens to take offense.
AuldSoul:
If even 25% of the world believed in the protective nature of invisible elves persons who believe thusly should be accorded respect for their belief. But that is not the case with this poster. Her belief is not a fringe belief. It is not a silly notion, by virtue of the very commonality you admit. It is much less ridiculous simply by reason of the fact that it is a common perception.
Beliefs don't become worthy of respect because they reach a certain threshold of popularity. A silly idea is still a silly idea, no matter how many people hold it. What matters is how closely the belief corresponds to observable reality. I do agree, though that, all other things being equal, it is less ridiculous for someone to hold a popular belief than a novel one, given that the popular belief may be the default one in their community.
Your perception is actually held by less than 25% of the world, not that 25% is a standard that must be met in order to accord respect. Since your perception is held by a much smaller number of people in the world than is the perception held by her, should we ridicule your perception or treat it with respect?
If you respect it, treat it with respect. If you find flaws in it, point them out. If you deem it appropriate use such methods as reductio ad absurdum to highlight the flaws, but be prepared to back up your arguments.
Your often stated assessment of the "right to ridicule" is flawed in that it does not allow for the capacity of humans to change their minds and ignores the conditions under which that is most likely to occur.
If I didn't "allow for the capacity of humans to change their minds" I wouldn't bother arguing at all. If people will change their minds on a whim, or simply accept an argument because it's popular (or indeed, because it's not) or hold on to a belief out of pride, loneliness or comfort then I really don't know a method of convincing them. So I use the method I know, which is to prove that a particular belief is wrong or unlikely and present that proof to the person making the claim. If my argument is sound a rational person will concede; if not, they will present a rebuttal. Eventually both parties should reach the same conclusion or in the absence of conclusive evidence, agree to disagree. An irrational person will behave irrationally.
-
LittleToe
Annie:
Glad to see ya back
Did you previously post as Bull Yaa?
Derek:
We all set our bounds on what we think is proprietous. IMHO laying into a newbie of 4-10 posts, who shows no evidence of previous trolling, is improprietous. I accept that your standards may be different, though, and such makes the world go round.
On a similar note, behaviour of that kind does link back to my previous thread on intolerance:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/114833/1.ashx
Other than that, I concur with your comments to AuldSoul.
-
Crumpet
i just agree with everything LT said. Everything. Ok.
-
LittleToe
Everything??
Dagum, it's great being a smooth criminal!!!
-
Crumpet
baby - you're the best.
-
Annie Over
Thats my Mom, she said tell ya her name should have been Boolyahh but she thought Mad Money guy was saying Bull yahh.
She trades stocks, she does good. I gotta run, see ya Little Toe
-
AuldSoul
funkyderek: If you deem it appropriate use such methods as reductio ad absurdum to highlight the flaws, but be prepared to back up your arguments.
Was the target of your "mind changing" argument other readers or Annie Over? I am curious because I have never witnessed someone change their mind because they were ridiculed. Have you? If so, please describe the circumstances, I find your rationale (irrationale?) fascinating.
If not, you may consider this an example of reductio ad absurdum, because your contention that this is a method of changing minds is patently absurd. It is a method of winning arguments, but, as we both know, arguments won do not equate to changed minds.
But your argument was not actually reductio ad absurdum, it was simply ridicule. You reduced the argument to a question for which the majority of the world would answer "it is possible", therefore your argument never reached the absurd. It is absurd to you, but so what?
I have ridiculed people on this forum. I have ridiculed Schizm, scholar, thirdwitness, PMJ and others. In those cases, I had given up on the possibility of changing their minds. Winning an argument for the benefit of other readers makes sense in such a situation, because no matter how many arguments you win with that sort of person their mind will not change.
You ridicule everyone who believes in God and speaks about it. Which is ridiculous if changing their mind is even part of your objective. Now, can you defend your use of this method in this instance? By what means did you determine that changing her mind should not be your goal? Or, alternatively, demonstrate why you believed ridicule is an effective method of changing people's minds.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
funkyderek
AuldSoul:
Was the target of your "mind changing" argument other readers or Annie Over?
My initial claim was little more than a throwaway comment. I didn't really expect it to overturn anyone's deeply held beliefs.
I am curious because I have never witnessed someone change their mind because they were ridiculed. Have you? If so, please describe the circumstances, I find your rationale (irrationale?) fascinating.
I wasn't ridiculing anyone. I was dismissive of what I perceived to be a ridiculous claim, and highlighted how ridiculous it was by making a similar claim which was even more obviously ridiculous.
But your argument was not actually reductio ad absurdum, it was simply ridicule. You reduced the argument to a question for which the majority of the world would answer "it is possible", therefore your argument never reached the absurd. It is absurd to you, but so what?
I think most people would answer something more like: "It's possible in that there is a non-zero probability of it being correct but it would be absurd to assume that without any evidence, especially given how many equally plausible explanations can be dreamed up." Or at least most rational people.
You ridicule everyone who believes in God and speaks about it.
I don't think I do. I question people who make claims that are unsupported by evidence. I can't recall ever actually ridiculing someone just for believing in God, but if you can provide an example, we can discuss it further.
Which is ridiculous if changing their mind is even part of your objective. Now, can you defend your use of this method in this instance? By what means did you determine that changing her mind should not be your goal? Or, alternatively, demonstrate why you believed ridicule is an effective method of changing people's minds.
As I wrote above, I didn't ridicule anybody, but perhaps my method has no hope of changing someone's mind. To be honest, when it comes to beliefs like this I haven't had much luck with purely rational argument either, as whatever causes such beliefs doesn't seem to have much to do with reason or evidence. I suppose my hope would be that someone (either Annie or someone who found her interpretation of the events to be likely) might read what I wrote and think something like: "Invisible elves, that's ridiculous. Hey, wait a minute, it's no more ridiculous than a big invisible man in the sky" and then examine why they believe that there is such a being and why he might behave in such a way.
-
AuldSoul
funkyderek: I think most people would answer something more like: "It's possible in that there is a non-zero probability of it being correct but it would be absurd to assume that without any evidence, especially given how many equally plausible explanations can be dreamed up." Or at least most rational people.
Your further explanation sets you as the judge of what is and is not rational. Therefore, you can start by ruling out anyone who believes that belief in God is rational and you are sure to confirm your prejudice through your arbitrary judgment. But the reality is that most people are not rational according to your standards of rationality, your prejudices are not regarded as rational by the majority. Therefore, your argument never actually reached absurd, unless first you rid the sample pool of everyone who doesn't agree with you.
Therefore, your "argument" was intellectually elitist ridicule, and nothing more, however much you wish it otherwise.
Using latin phrases (that do not even apply to your statements) to describe your prejudicial and callous responses doesn't alter the reality. You were not using reductio ad absurdum to highlight a flaw. You were using ridicule. Not against someone who injured you in some way by their comments, or who entered into a pitched argument with you on some point, but with someone who simply expressed relieved delight over not having a purse stolen in a manner that sat crosswise to your intellectually elite prejudices. So she received the sharp edge of your intellect after four whole posts on this forum. What valor you demonstrate in standing up for your prejudices on every occasion!
Does it make you feel better, smarter, like a bigger person to have made Annie Over feel less or appear silly? I believe you want to think better of yourself than that, and you probably believe you used reductio ad absurdum as an argument in this case. But it was actually senseless ridicule of the sort that I have seen often from your fingertips on this forum during the months I have been here.
funkyderek: My initial claim was little more than a throwaway comment.
Your initial comment was ridicule, not a throwaway comment:
funkyderek: Pah, my god wouldn't make me drive all over town. He'd just magically transport the wallet back to my pocket. In fact, this has actually happened hundreds of times, before I even missed it!
Your later comments were ridicule, not reductio ad absurdum. Your style of interaction on threads of this sort is ridicule. You just like to believe it is something else. Anything else, it seems, "throwaway comments," "reductio ad absurdum," anything but reality; ridicule. For someone who uses ridicule so frequently, I find it odd that you have such an aversion to being seen as a ridiculer.
AuldSoul