And I think its because the majority of people don't understand math. Specifically, Algebra. See, by and large Algebra is a persons first exposure to variables, and process in which to turn a variable into a functional constant is crucial to life in general.
In math, we understand that a problem cant be worked out farther until the pieces have been labeled and defined for further utilization. In debates, or (I would hope) arguing in general, breaking things down into pieces and working things out is called logic.
Note, I know that term is thrown around a fantastic deal, but I mean it in the driest way. The way we break things down is by utilizing Syllogisms, or logical appeals. Thus, we have to assume that a person has an appropriate amount of logic to be able to create and throw out actual syllogisms.
More often than not, people don't examine what others say very carefully. Our brains are wired to react far more readily than scrutinize. And for many people, they can win arguments by stumping people in the black hole of False Syllogisms. Now, more than just the innocent "some A are B, and some B are C" people are quick to assume automatically that "some A are C" which, at times, is not true at all. Example:
Some cats(A) are black(B), some black(B) things are televisions(C) and it doesnt make sense that some cats(A) are televisions(C) now does it? People can do this ALL the time when discussing people and they fall into that gray area of blending and being vague.
Whats worse, is the other forms of failed argument, and we all know them, insults, appeal to social norms (which we'll discuss in a minute) creating associative terms, etc etc.
So lets ask a question: Is it okay to hit a child? (Aged:9-4 lets say) (Oooooh, this will be fun won't it?)
Now, outside of an absolutist's standpoint of: No! Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES will I EVER hit a child! and (the far funnier) Yes! Under EVERY Circumstance I will ALWAYS hit a child! We can use logic to shape some sort of answer, (I will hopefully not divulge my personal feelings here and simply state the possibilities.)
First, "okay" is intentionally vague to add a web of complexity, so lets throw three more specific synonyms to replace "okay":
A.) Socially Acceptable,
B.) Morally Right,
C.) Intelligent (hehehehe)
These are all conditional, but at least we have 3 things we can branch off now. We can define "Hit" to be more specific as well, lets use:
"Violently stop"
"Physically Correct" and
"Assault" (like reaaaally wail on the little bastard.)
Again, conditional (kinda), So lets put three specific situations that might come up with a gamut of all 6 possibilities. These can be:
$.) Gunmen have put you (and the child you retarded hippies) in a life or death situation and have ordered you to hit the child.
@.) A deaf and blind kid has guns glued to his hands and you have to stop him with your hands glued into the shape of fists. (Since many of you would go "there has to be some other way!" you damn hippies, so its for HIS own good okay?)
%.)He's gathered a group of 10 of his malicious bastard kid friends and they are going to attack and perhaps try to maim you. (Like, lose a leg kind of thing)
Situation $: will probably be socially acceptable if you do mean Hit to violently stop(1) the situation, though physically correcting(2) the child for putting you two in that situation might be pushing it, and if you're just going to town on the poor little thing, you should get some counseling. Morally right (A) is up for the reader I'd imagine, and Intelligent will probably be a yes (since striking is not as bad as dying I'd think we can all agree) all around; even really pummelling that kid if you think it'll make the gunmen believe you (yeah sure, THATS why you are still thinking about hitting him again) And Intelligent? Kinda.
Situation @: Will likely not fall into the category of socially acceptable even if you use both 1, 2 or 3 as your definitions of "hit" (because of you damn hippies who previously "insisted" on there being some other way you judgemental bastards). Morally right(B) will be for the reader to decide, 1 or 2, (though correction should stop that kid from ever wanting to touch a gun or anything ever again.) And I guess if you thought Deaf blind kids deserved to really be beat on you could consider 3. Intelligent? sure, The situation (and the narrator) has set the situation up for you to logically choose smacking him to understand "bad" is happening right now if you do 1 and 2. 3 will also get the job done, but its not intelligent because you'll end up beating the Hellen Keller potential right out of them.
Situation %: Like anyone will ever believe you under any circumstances 1-3 that a group of kids were gonna beat you up and take a leg. Morally right? 1-2 for sure I'd imagine, and 3 I'd give the go ahead if you caught one of the kids after hopping after him with your one leg. Intelligent? now, going on personal preservation as at least a general inclination for intelligence, sure. Though thats also personal for you and you might think differently.
Now, you might say That I wrote a whole bunch and didnt actually get very far. But I think I show that I got somewhere. Addressing a large group is hard, so you have to take baby steps. People having a conversation can find out a lot very quickly. So long as they accept that they MAY be wrong. which is a huge first step for lots of people. Anyway, for those nice enough to read this all the way through, let me ask a few questions:
You have a son/daughter, 9-13yr old. They will either be raped (Like, RAPED) by two STD-free strangers; or you personally must have incestuous relations (all sorts of fluid exchange) Both options must fill up an entire nights of events.
General starters: Rape is often considered traumatic, but might not be the worst thing ever. You assumedly love your child, though this will probably mess them up somehow.
For those of you really thinking about it: Does it REALLY matter what gender the strangers are? or what gender your KID happens to be? What if its not drugged raped (might not remember?) vs struggling raped? is that better than the at least kind of positive spin you could have about it? What if they told you their preference? On the one hand, they're kids, but on the other, are you going to go through with their answer if its different from yours?
Anyway, Roommates and I discuss things like this at length. (using LOGIC!)
(This is going to be hilariously awful for you.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"[B]ut its not intelligent because you'll end up beating the Hellen Keller potential right out of them." Just had to mention how hilarious that was.
ReplyDeleteI believe you found yourself discussing the problems that people have when arguing about tough situations--particularly ones that carry a moral question above and beyond most humans' capacity to think. But I see a much larger issue with today's society when it comes to arguing. There is a lack of GENERAL understanding (which you did mention while discussing algebra's relevance to the art of argument) that has flooded society, leaving people of all ages stuck without any way of efficiently and accurately expressing themselves. The first well of knowledge that is leaking is vocabulary. I know it seems elitist of me (why should people have to use big words to express themselves?), but vocabulary is a pertinent part of being ACCURATE. I can't count the number of times I've been in an argument with someone who has used a particular word (usually one that is in every way important to their side of the argument) either incorrectly, or without knowledge of its true definition. When arguing, defining your terms (which you were, again, touching on when discussing algebra) is almost more important than whether or not your argument is right. If you can define every single word you say (particularly, define every word as YOU are using it), the clarity and accuracy of your argument is flawless. Having a flawlessly accurate statement of what you believe is the only way someone else can engage you in a moral-based discussion(I would rather use the term discussion, just because I feel that arguments connote, as you stated, reaction-based, not logic-based, expressions of beliefs.)
Once vocabulary is out of the way, then comes grammar (yes, it's the grammar Nazi, and she's here to stay). This, of course is not as important in verbal discussions, though it still plays an important role as syntax. Poor grammar hinders the accuracy of a discussion in the same way as a lack of vocabulary, except, instead of there being a hidden misunderstanding (one person knows what they mean by "hand grenade" and the other thinks they are talking about kittens), there is a mutual misunderstanding. I find that tense as well as subject vs. object becomes quite difficult to argue against if they're out of whack. Syntax, of course, is the most important part of grammar when it comes to discussionary purposes. Possibly I should practice what I preach: syntax is the way in which a sentence is formed--where the writer or speaker chooses to put the particular elements of a sentence: verb, subject, object, adjectives, etc. Syntax is what makes a person interesting, and what makes communicating interesting in the first place (among other things).
With all of that said, society is lacking in all of these departments. Yes, moral values (more than that: moral UNDERSTANDING in general.) have gone down the toilet, but it is not just because people don't think about themselves in that way (though this is entirely TRUE, as well), it is because people no longer have the faculties to insight interesting and accurate conversation. Without the tools, how can we expect anything more than incoherent babble? You are correct in saying that the majority of the population does not possess the ability to use logic in everyday arguments (I, personally believe that even those whose job it is to argue have lost that ability as well), but it runs much deeper than that. Society has pretty much lost the ability to SPEAK. One cannot argue if one cannot speak.
I would quote Ayn Rand here (God, you know how I love to do that!), but I have to get ready to go to work. The daily drudgery--no time to practice communication, and without practice, I could end up like the rest of society: without words, without comprehension, and without values.
Oh well! I still have you, right?
Lauren