Dear Earth People...
Hi, I need to tell you all something. I suck at explaining myself. And? The only way I learned to do it is from debate class and rhetoric and oratory training. So...when I say something? I say it like I'm giving a speech. Or like...I'm fact-checking in the air. In other words, I say, "This is what I believe, based on this." At some point, that might sound like I'm saying, "I'm right and you're wrong and stupid too." But the idea that...my beliefs are non-fluid or unable to be changed is not true. I say things, because they're truths I've discovered. Please (respectfully and without calling me a doodoo head) inform me of imperfect fits, mistaken facts, or alternate perspectives. I am not a massive jerk. Really. I say stuff the way I do...because I learned to expect to be challenged on it. So...it's out there, with the expectation of that.
The only time I'll 'irrationally' stick to my beliefs is when your argument is based on faith or on 'facts' that are open to interpretation. But I won't ever call you stupid. I might say "It is silly to think that people will do this/not do this." In other words, I question if you've examined this from a human-actual perspective. The failing of Marxism and Randism both, ironically. I believe in morals, in ethics, in what is right. In what should be. But 'should' doesn't matter, in the slightest, if we're talking about a real world problem, unless you have a 'can' or 'could' too. ie. 'men shouldn't abuse women'. Can men abuse men, can women abuse men, can women abuse women? How are you going to make a change in culture or society to actually do something about it? A petition campaign or a facebook like group isn't going to work and I'm not going to take it seriously. That doesn't mean I think you're dumb. Or even wrong. So anyway, there have been a couple of miscommunications with people lately. And I wanted to address this.
I think it was Aristotle that said that nothing becomes truth, until it is held in more than one person's mind. And thus, the solution to scientific problems was for two scientists to go do studies, and then talk about it to learn from each other. That's how you build a thesis or defense in debate too, as well as in most modern political systems. You establish a solution, have it evaluated by individuals educated in the field, and then subject it to the opposition/real world tests. In other words, I expect people to disagree with what I say. But the stuff I say is based on my personal application of the 'forensic' process, where you chip away belief, until you have something that can not be chipped away at any further. Until you find truth. Thus, challenges to it need to be based on truth, or the discussion is futile. Which is why faith-based arguments, or 'shoulds' might get responses from me that sound...negative, when usually I'm trying to highlight the distinction.
K.
The only time I'll 'irrationally' stick to my beliefs is when your argument is based on faith or on 'facts' that are open to interpretation. But I won't ever call you stupid. I might say "It is silly to think that people will do this/not do this." In other words, I question if you've examined this from a human-actual perspective. The failing of Marxism and Randism both, ironically. I believe in morals, in ethics, in what is right. In what should be. But 'should' doesn't matter, in the slightest, if we're talking about a real world problem, unless you have a 'can' or 'could' too. ie. 'men shouldn't abuse women'. Can men abuse men, can women abuse men, can women abuse women? How are you going to make a change in culture or society to actually do something about it? A petition campaign or a facebook like group isn't going to work and I'm not going to take it seriously. That doesn't mean I think you're dumb. Or even wrong. So anyway, there have been a couple of miscommunications with people lately. And I wanted to address this.
I think it was Aristotle that said that nothing becomes truth, until it is held in more than one person's mind. And thus, the solution to scientific problems was for two scientists to go do studies, and then talk about it to learn from each other. That's how you build a thesis or defense in debate too, as well as in most modern political systems. You establish a solution, have it evaluated by individuals educated in the field, and then subject it to the opposition/real world tests. In other words, I expect people to disagree with what I say. But the stuff I say is based on my personal application of the 'forensic' process, where you chip away belief, until you have something that can not be chipped away at any further. Until you find truth. Thus, challenges to it need to be based on truth, or the discussion is futile. Which is why faith-based arguments, or 'shoulds' might get responses from me that sound...negative, when usually I'm trying to highlight the distinction.
K.