Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: Being Wrong
“Considering how often throughout history even intelligent people have been proved to be wrong, it is amazing that there are still people who are convinced that the only reason anyone could possibly say something different from what they believe is stupidity or dishonesty.” – Thomas Sowell
We have been seeing a lot of this over the last few weeks. Even here on Ricochet. Ironically, some of those most willing to call out others as dishonest and stupid seem to be wrong themselves. (We heard plenty of that at the State of the Union, didn’t we? But I can name other examples.)
Let me borrow some advice from science fiction writer H. Beam Piper: “When somebody makes a statement you don’t understand, don’t tell him he’s crazy. Ask him what he means.” Similarly, don’t assume someone is stupid or dishonest because you disagree with what they say. Ask them what they mean.
Published in General
Sadly, when I confront someone on the left about something I believe is dishonest or stupid, the best I can get from them (almost always) are bumper sticker slogans.
Not just “stupid” but “evil”
What I find interesting about these accusations of commenters being ill informed–some of which have been directed at me this week–is that the accuser has no idea what the person he or she is addressing actually knows. The assumptions of what the belittled commenter knows is astounding. No one ever knows that information about the people they are speaking to.
Furthermore, in the war of journal articles by scientists and historians, you show me yours and I’ll show you mine that counter yours. :-) Argument is what gets scientists and historians out of bed in the morning. :-)
Good advice.
That’s a reformulation the rule of dialog I’ve for years called “Camp’s First Law of Dialog”, or some variation of that.
I am delighted and encouraged to see it written by someone else.
I sometimes write it as, “To get a meaningful answer, start with a meaningful question: ensure that writer and reader are using the same definitions and assumptions.”
Tags: Observations, Wistful
And writers.
I’ll take the bumper sticker slogans – it’s the rants and snark that really get my hackles up, and most of the time, it’s not worth my time…….
There is another quote I often reference when I have concern over what someone has said.
There is some question over who said this originally and I’ve modified the original slightly to be more useful, or at least I think so.
And to be fair, I have to apply it to myself as well.
Especially writers.
I think genetic engineering and sex robots will make humanity more noble and more beautiful. For some reason, people think this is evil.
Because genetically programing people without their consent is evil.
I worry about the human consequences of the fact that people seldom think.
Thinking is a skill, like farming. It must be learned. The extraordinary luxury, indolence, and security of the lives of unthinking Americans are the gift of people who did think in the past, and acted courageously on their thoughts. In our glorification of slothful ignorance we don’t yet recognize that we are consuming our capital, and that when it’s gone we will not be rich nor secure.
Let’s restore education before it’s too late.
But we are already genetically programmed without our consent.
I am a fan of the election of 1800. It was the first time that power was transferred from one party to another without any wars. And Thomas Jefferson for all his many many faults, managed to avoid starting another war and cement the idea that you change power through elections rather than force of arms.
So the peaceful transfer of power is only 220 years old but the rest of the world thinks it’s normal and takes it for granted.
I was thinking of jokingly employing humorous, friendly sarcasm in my answer but I chose not to because I wasn’t sure how it would be taken.
It’s often hard to tell the difference in writing between friendly ridicule and sarcasm, and ill-intended ridicule and sarcasm.
Implying or calling members kool-aid drinkers, brain-washed, loons, thick-headed, mindless, moronic, idiotic, liar (and especially, living by lies), treasonous, or even evil is hard to take as either friendly banter or civil debate.
Okay. Brain-washed is probably justifiable, but anything about kool-aid crosses a bright red line.
Not by the deliberate action of people. The fact you cannot see how that is different shows something wrong with you approach.
But people deliberately mate with people who exhibit this or that trait.
Not to breed themselves. It is to whom they are attracted.
I know you don’t get it. I’m not going to help you get it. Just trust usl
But then, you are a master of humorous, friendly sarcasm. The rest of us, not so much.
Can we interpret Henry to be referring to our creation by God? We were created without our consent? Is Henry complaining to God about his genetic make-up?
“Shall a fault-finder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it….Gird up your loins like a man. I will question you and you make it known to me. Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be in the right?”
No consent? Robert Frost may disagree:
“Tis of the essence of life here, though we chose greatly, still to lack the lasting memory, at all clear, that life has for us on the rack nothing but what we somehow chose; thus are we wholly stripped of pride in the pain that has but one close, bearing it crushed and mystified.”
It is easy to see why if two people have different current mental dictionaries (which return an idea for any given term, during reading) and reverse dictionaries (which return a term for any given idea) they can’t communicate accurately and correctly.
In a simple rational exchange each of the four dictionaries is used:
Remember how all the experts predicted the Soviet Union would endure forever? And then, after it collapsed, how the world would now be safe forever? The experts know nothing. Radical change is always just around the corner.
I think it is absolutely wrong to think of us as being created by a just G-d. We our the descendants of clever apes and Genghis Khan and we are the conquerors of our Neanderthal snd Donosivan cousins.
I say we are 80 percent ape and only 20 percent a divine reasoning creature.