What can one say of 'Vox Day' and 'Spacebunny' and the Ilk? They're fools (and jerks).
ps. I don't at all mean to imply that I have not long been aware of the fact (at least with respect to him), I've known it for years.
pps. This is cryptic, of course; so, to explain:
1) Someone with the handle 'LF' told some atheistic type (who was behaving like a "troll") that he was either ignorant or a liar;
2) 'Spacebunny' told 'LF' that he'd left out the option "abject stupidity;"
3) I told 'Spacebunny' that someone who is indeed stupid cannot help himself, and that it is wrong to mock or be angry with someone over his (alleged) stupidity;
4) and it goes downhill from there ... because fools do not take to correction.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Isn't this the same blog that had a rather malignant thread regarding "bitches", "sluts", and "game"? (I do realize the blogger can't control the commenters, but, good grief... )
Yes. And, while it's true that 'Vox Day' can't control his commenters, they do, to some point, reflect him and his personality.
Near as I can tell, 'Spacebunny' is his wife.
I have to admit, I have respect for Vox. He has a temper problem, and he's unorthodox on Christianity, but frankly he makes great points that few others make, and often.
Then again, I'm a patient guy who sees the bright side when it comes to just about everyone. And The Irrational Atheist was shockingly effective and on-target.
I agree, when he chooses to think/reason properly he makes good points. And I agree that TIA was effective for its purpose.
However, when he chooses to dig in his heals in thinking/reasoning improperly, he acts pretty much like the typical so-called atheist (or Darwinist, or "liberal").
No one *likes* to be corrected, but fools refuse even to see the point of constructive criticism.
Someone who is 'stupid' is somewhere on te continuum of "slow to understand" (i.e. 'retarded') to "unable to understand." Even without a modifier, such as "abject," 'stupidity' generally refers to something stronger than 'retardation.'
So, to assert that another is 'stupid' -- regardless of the truth of the assertion -- is to assert that he cannot help that he does not understand the subject matter.
Once we assert that another is 'stupid,' we have voluntarily surrendered any moral right we may have had to be angry with him or to mock him with respect to his erroneous understanding. If he is stupid, he cannot help that his understanding is in error.
To mock (or be angry with) a stupid person *because* of his stupidity is as immoral and as repugnant as to mock (or be angry with) a cripple *because* of his infirmity.
"He has a temper problem, and he's unorthodox on Christianity ..."
I think he has a pride problem, and I think that 'unorthodox' is putting it mildly.
He's more intelligent than most persons with whom he comes into contact ... and he behaves as though his ability to think or understand more quickly that most others makes him better, possessed of a greater moral worth, than others. It's a very unattractive personality flaw; it's quite analogous to the beautiful woman (or handsome man) who imagines that her (or his) greater attractiveness confers greater moral worth.
You don't have to answer this at all, but just curious as to why the whole conversation or use of the term "stupid" peaked your interest. Seems to be connected with how the term was used to denote "the unfit" in the States not too long ago - just wondering if you're approaching it from that angle and why.
And yeah, I agree with the assessment of VD and the crowd. There's that defensive "I don't care if anyone listens to me or agrees with me" tactic. So then, why does he bother with the books, blog, and interaction in the comments section? Obviously, what other people say or think, or his impact on others' thinking, does show up on his radar. It does for most normal folks, I'd imagine - we all hope to be taken seriously, or to have some sort of impact in the way people think about the world around them.
Never really dug on direct name-calling anyhow, which seems pretty popular there. Kind of unimaginative. And something about it that lends itself to the adversary seeing their opponent losing their cool, thus their winning "debate points" if you will. Besides, better to just agree with the opponent reductio ad absurdum and watch the fun begin.
But, as the saying goes, "When one runs with the wolves..." I mean, you had to have known how things go down there. I've only been preview to it for a few months, and already I'm thinking that my reading stint there has run its course - who knows when the teeth and claws will be siked on me in the sandbox, you know.
Some interesting stuff there sometimes, and it can be fun to read the comments, but there are plenty of other sources of reading (namely, books) that should get preferred time if I want to learn something about econ or philosophy. Sowell's pretty dry, but he's sharp on economics, and the sociopolitical aspects that tie into it all.
Plus, he refrains from the term "stupid". For the most part.
AWA: "You don't have to answer this at all, but just curious as to why the whole conversation or use of the term "stupid" peaked your interest. Seems to be connected with how the term was used to denote "the unfit" in the States not too long ago - just wondering if you're approaching it from that angle and why"
I loathe sloppy reasoning; sloppy language is both a symptom of, and a cause of further, sloppy reasoning.
It is our dury, as rational beings, to help one another correct the sloppy reasoning into which we all fall from time to time.
Most accusations of "Yer stupid!" -- and which is how 'Spacebunny' was using the word -- have as much to do with sound reasoning as any other playground taunt.
You (and Gentle Reader) will notice in the next thread on this matter, should you care to read it, that I approached correcting this childish mentality in a dispassionate manner. Didn't matter: because they are fools -- I'm making a moral claim, not calling them 'stupid' -- they acted even more childishly.
AWA: "Never really dug on direct name-calling anyhow, which seems pretty popular there. Kind of unimaginative. And something about it that lends itself to the adversary seeing their opponent losing their cool, thus their winning "debate points" if you will."
Indeed. That was so transparently 'Spacebunny's' strategy in reacting to what I'd said.
But, as for "name calling," not all is the same, and sometimes it's warranted. But, it is a fine line, and better avoided.
For instance, calling someone "stupid" is almost never warranted -- how would one *know* that another is, indeed, stupid? If one doesn't know it, how can one be morally justified in making the assertion? And (as I pointed out more than once to the 'Ilk'), once one make the assertion (whether or not it is warranted), one no longer has the moral right to blame the (allegedly) stupid person for the (alleged) error(s) he is making -- one has asserted that he cannot help but make the (alleged) error(s).
On the other hand, calling someone "a liar" may be warranted. Or it may not. To make the accusation when it isn't warranted is to sin.
AWA: "But, as the saying goes, "When one runs with the wolves..." I mean, you had to have known how things go down there. ..."
Of course; I've been watching, off and on for a number of years, how those folk behave. I had a pretty good idea, before I said anything, how they'd react.
AWA: "... I've only been preview to it for a few months, and already I'm thinking that my reading stint there has run its course - who knows when the teeth and claws will be siked on me in the sandbox, you know."
If one understands the group-dynamics of how a playground bully and and his "posse," or alternately, how a junior-high "queen-bee" and her court, behave with respect to one another and with respect to the "out kids," one is well on one's way to understanding the jock-sni... er, the 'Ilk.'
Post a Comment