PDA

View Full Version : where does intellectual debate stop and stupidity begin?


urgle burgle
02-03-2010, 10:16 AM
let me throw this out there......ive been trying to get a handle on this for a bit.
ill throw out a couple examples....

the Iraq Parliment has just now decided to allow 500 candidates with Baathist links to run for office....Baathist equals bad...
however, intellectually should true freedom allow for this....in our society we say yes....socialists can run, klaansmen can run, etc......but our society is and has been pretty stable for 200 yrs.....Iraq not so much.....we may be able to use our influence to put a stop to it, but should we....just like their initial constitution....they werent so much for allowing women much in the way of rights....be we said thats a no go....was that right to do? intellectually no......sensibly, probably yes.

another example is the Hamas debate in Palestine (or whatever you want to refer to it as).....true democracy allowed for that......but allowing a terrorist organization to hold a large sway over a totally screwed up situation and society, probably not the best idea...but intellectually it has to be allowed for, is suppose.

now for the craziest example, and one that really bothers me...
heres the setup.....perusing the internet, i came upon a word i had never heard before....so i looked it up.....zoophilia.....to my surprise (and disgust), means sex with animals.....out of sick curiosity to see how in the world somebody could defend something so disgusting, i went to a blog on it (yeah, i know, let the flaming begin)
there was this dude who really, really loves his horse.....wrote love poems and the like.
on his blog he had an ongoing debate with others over his desires (best way i can put it i guess)....now there was the expected banter about how disgusting, etc. he was...but he did have an interesting debate with a few who were trying to be intellectual about it. wierdly enough, the freak seemed pretty intelligent and sober about it (as far as you can be). he went with the "if its not hurting anybody, i dont hurt him, my freedom, kind of argument"......
now being esseentially libertarian in a lot of ways, myself....i could understand his rather intelligent argument.....however, i know this is wrong (and disgusting) and that this dude has serious mental issues. i know this

my point being....when you know beyond a doubt (in your gut, soul, etc.) something is wrong, but the intelligent debate can argue against (kind of a Josef Mengele or Hermann Goering argument, circa Nuremburg trials)......when and how can you dispute it intelligently or do you just cut the debate off....

anyway....just thought id throw this out there...

Vincent
02-03-2010, 10:40 AM
now for the craziest example, and one that really bothers me...
heres the setup.....perusing the internet, i came upon a word i had never heard before....so i looked it up.....zoophilia.....to my surprise (and disgust), means sex with animals.....out of sick curiosity to see how in the world somebody could defend something so disgusting, i went to a blog on it (yeah, i know, let the flaming begin)
there was this dude who really, really loves his horse.....wrote love poems and the like.
on his blog he had an ongoing debate with others over his desires (best way i can put it i guess)....now there was the expected banter about how disgusting, etc. he was...but he did have an interesting debate with a few who were trying to be intellectual about it. wierdly enough, the freak seemed pretty intelligent and sober about it (as far as you can be). he went with the "if its not hurting anybody, i dont hurt him, my freedom, kind of argument"......


Try to keep an open mind UB :chuckle:

A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mister Ed.

Go right to the source and ask the horse
He'll give you the answer that you'll endorse.
He's always on a steady course.
Talk to Mister Ed.

People yakkity yak a streak and waste your time of day
But Mr. Ed will never speak unless he has something to say

A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And this one'll talk 'til his voice is hoarse.
You never heard of a talking horse?

Well listen to this: "I'm Mister Ed."

HometownGal
02-03-2010, 10:55 AM
when and how can you dispute it intelligently or do you just cut the debate off....

anyway....just thought id throw this out there...

Why do you think we have deleted so many threads and posts around here over the last 2 months? :chuckle:

urgle burgle
02-03-2010, 10:58 AM
Why do you think we have deleted so many threads and posts around here over the last 2 months? :chuckle:

touche' :tt02:

urgle burgle
02-03-2010, 10:59 AM
Try to keep an open mind UB :chuckle:

A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mister Ed.

Go right to the source and ask the horse
He'll give you the answer that you'll endorse.
He's always on a steady course.
Talk to Mister Ed.

People yakkity yak a streak and waste your time of day
But Mr. Ed will never speak unless he has something to say

A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And this one'll talk 'til his voice is hoarse.
You never heard of a talking horse?

Well listen to this: "I'm Mister Ed."


true true.....i guess that some would think Ed was sexy, well spoken, and charming....what more do ya need?

revefsreleets
02-03-2010, 11:20 AM
I think the answer to this lies along the same lines of how societal norms are established. These norms are not established by the prevailing "median" thoughts (i.e. the way MOST people think), rather by the far edges, the radical extremes.

Think abortion. The "norm" is going to be somewhere between the far right who advocate killing abortion doctors, and the far left who advocate using abortion as birth control. The people on the edges of the envelope are probably going to have the arguments that closest resemble "stupidity", whilst the rest of us in the middle with the less radical views will be defined as normal. In their minds, though, their arguments sound rational and logical.

steelreserve
02-03-2010, 12:29 PM
On here? As soon as someone mentions Arians.

urgle burgle
02-03-2010, 01:32 PM
On here? As soon as someone mentions Arians.


ha! that does seem to be the buzzword of the past year, doesnt it? just think how it will be this upcoming season, since he will be the only one left (that drew ire) on the coaching staff......besides tomlin. should be interesting....

urgle burgle
02-03-2010, 01:36 PM
I think the answer to this lies along the same lines of how societal norms are established. These norms are not established by the prevailing "median" thoughts (i.e. the way MOST people think), rather by the far edges, the radical extremes.

Think abortion. The "norm" is going to be somewhere between the far right who advocate killing abortion doctors, and the far left who advocate using abortion as birth control. The people on the edges of the envelope are probably going to have the arguments that closest resemble "stupidity", whilst the rest of us in the middle with the less radical views will be defined as normal. In their minds, though, their arguments sound rational and logical.

that is the frustrating part.....what they view as rational and logical. ive had a few arguments with, and seen a few that, in actuality, can be quite the wordsmiths and make quite the rational and logical arguments. but, of course, sounding rational and being rational may not be the same side of the coin. i can only handle it so far until my mind starts hemmoraging.