NationStates Jolt Archive

"Bush said..."
"The Bible says..."
"I read this guy's essay, and he says..."
"The constitution says..."

I'm sick and tired of hearing "if said it, it must be right"-nonsense like that. I don't care [B]who or what gave you your opinion. I honestly do not. I care about why you feel the way you do.

I'm tired of trying to debate homosexulity with some fanatic and get no other answer than pseudo-arguments about the Bible. I'm tired of discussing gun laws with NRA fanatics who call me a Commie for wanting to violate the Second Amendment.

Do anyone feel the same way? It doesnt' matter who says what. It matters what is being said.

For example, in my eyes you can say "I dislike gays because I believe it's not right for a kid to have to grow up with two dads" (which, of course, science has proven that it is not -children with same-gender parents do amazingly well- I just needed an example) more than "Bible, chapter this, verse that, you're a Sinner, praise God or Burn in H[...]." Or a Democrat going "watch Fahrenheit 9/11, you fool!". Now, I hate Bush too, but simply saying you agree with some respected source doesn't make you right.

If you use the "because [...] said so" argument, you either can't come up with arguments yourself or you won't. Same goes with slogans. If you use slogans to supplement something, good enough. If it's all you throw at your opponent, not good enough (case of point, a gun fireak going "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have 'em!). The only thought in my head is "my God, what kind of pathetic moron is he, who can't do better than throw that cliche at people?!"

Look, quote essays, movies, etc. all you want. But please don't just give me a source and go. Think for yourself. I hope you know what I mean.

I hear you, and I fully agree. I believe that people should reference reliable sources if they want, but should only be doing so to express their own opinion.

As to why--it's because thinking takes too much work; just talking is much easier.

Socrate said that everybody should make his own opinion.

Socrate said that everybody should make his own opinion.
Well, actually, the Socratic method is getting someone to think one's way through asking questions, not forming opinions on one's own. And most of what we know of Socrates has been through Plato's texts, so it was probably Plato who allegedly said that, or Plato saying what Socrates actually thought. So, no, he didn't say "that everybody should make his own opinion".

Thinking is hard. It makes my head hurt. What if I'm wrong?
Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow
what you need is someone strong to guide you
Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow
Let me lay my holy hands upon you
Tool, Opiate from their first EP

Thinking hurts my head. Daddy told me that I shouldn't have to think, because other people can think for me.

I think Rasputin was being ironic.

I think Rasputin was being ironic.
I'm pretty sure he was, but he was fallacious in his irony.

Well, actually, the Socratic method is getting someone to think one's way through asking questions, not forming opinions on one's own. And most of what we know of Socrates has been through Plato's texts, so it was probably Plato who allegedly said that, or Plato saying what Socrates actually thought. So, no, he didn't say "that everybody should make his own opinion".

well, in fact I had no idea who said it, or if anyone famous said it. Was just for the joke; it would have fitted socrat, so I atributed it to him :p

I don't really rely on authorities for my views. While many people have influenced them, I don't generally say "so and so said this".

Humanity as a whole is generally fearful of new or revolutionary ideas that might counter what they find comforting in life. Anything counter-culture pretty much pisses people off.


Nordfjord came out of the closet to say
(case of point, a gun fireak going "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have 'em!).

You should rarely hear this ever said unless it reaches a point where the counter-point (Democrat) is too stubborn to accept any other points made. I happen to be one of these gun "freaks". Thanks, you dirty hippy. Don't you just love making assumptions about people?

Or a Democrat going "watch Fahrenheit 9/11, you fool!". Now, I hate Bush too, but simply saying you agree with some respected source doesn't make you right.

Uh, since when was Fahrenheit 9/11 a respected source? For everything else, I agree with you fully.

Another reason I think that people think less is because they think more in terms of party identification than political ideology. I am a liberal, and vote for Democratic candidates, but I never call myself a Democrat.

I'm tired of trying to debate homosexulity with some fanatic and get no other answer than pseudo-arguments about the Bible. I'm tired of discussing gun laws with NRA fanatics who call me a Commie for wanting to violate the Second Amendment.

My standard tactic is to point out how their argument, taken literally, leads to ridiculous conclusions.

If you haven't read the quotes from West Wing regarding taking the Bible literally, it's worth searching for them on the net.

And as for the second amendment, I want someone from the NRA to claim constitutional protection when they're arrested for taking their shotgun onto a commercial airplane.

Arguing logically with people who don't think for themselves can never work, so I do my best to shock them into realising their world view isn't quite as black and white as they would like it to be.

My standard tactic is to point out how their argument, taken literally, leads to ridiculous conclusions.
I try to do that, but they just end up saying they're against it and refuse to listen to me...any advice?

Another reason I think that people think less is because they think more in terms of party identification than political ideology. I am a liberal, and vote for Democratic candidates, but I never call myself a Democrat.

Bingo! That is why I choose also not to label (limit through categorization) myself a liberal or conservative. I prefer being a free floating thinker that sides with the best idea regardless of any political lines. Even if more of my ideas are labeled more liberal on one day doesn't mean they won't be construed or percieved the same the next. Yesterdays (labeled) liberal ideas are todays conservative ones. Essentially we all will hopefully come to the realization that labels and formalities were the biggest joke of our entire lifetimes. Paper laws and verbal categorization in the end don't mean shit. There is much life to be lived outside of that downhill floating pile of shit Sooner or later every terd breaks a part.

I don't know that I really want to conform to the "think for yourself" school of thought. :cool:

Why can't people think for themselves?!

I don't know. You tell me.

I try to do that, but they just end up saying they're against it and refuse to listen to me...any advice?

At some point, you may just have to give up and accept that the two of you will differ. You can't force someone to think for themselves.

The other thing is that they might in fact have thought about their views and come to a different conclusion. It's worth recognising that situation, because then you can have interesting discussions without really trying to change each other's minds.

well, for one thing, if we didn't base our thoughts on what we read/heard, then how would we know everything?

saying "the bible says homosexuality is bad" is the same as saying "i think homosexuality is bad" after reading the bible, its just you accrediting your thoughts to a certain source

I rather suspect that it would depend upon what source was quoted as to whether or not you would accept it as being part of a vaild argument. If, for example, I quoted Nils Bohr as saying that quantum mechanics provides a good explanation for why electrons seem to jump from one "orbit" to another around the nucleas of an atom, would you take issue with me on that?

What about if I quoted the Bible to help establish that Jesus was an historic figure?

What about if I quoted Charlton Heston as an autority on why guns should not be banned?

Same thing still applies ... it all depends upon whose ox is being gored. :)

Well I always present my own arguments, but sometimes citing others is necessary, namely if you are

a) Trying to disprove a source (bible namely, although there are others)
b) Show a fact (citing a source for a fact is much preferable to someone's opinion on a "fact")

"Bush said..."
"The Bible says..."
"I read this guy's essay, and he says..."
"The constitution says..."

I'm sick and tired of hearing "if said it, it must be right"-nonsense like that. I don't care [B]who or what gave you your opinion. I honestly do not. I care about why you feel the way you do.

I'm tired of trying to debate homosexulity with some fanatic and get no other answer than pseudo-arguments about the Bible. I'm tired of discussing gun laws with NRA fanatics who call me a Commie for wanting to violate the Second Amendment.

Do anyone feel the same way? It doesnt' matter who says what. It matters what is being said.

For example, in my eyes you can say "I dislike gays because I believe it's not right for a kid to have to grow up with two dads" (which, of course, science has proven that it is not -children with same-gender parents do amazingly well- I just needed an example) more than "Bible, chapter this, verse that, you're a Sinner, praise God or Burn in H[...]." Or a Democrat going "watch Fahrenheit 9/11, you fool!". Now, I hate Bush too, but simply saying you agree with some respected source doesn't make you right.

If you use the "because [...] said so" argument, you either can't come up with arguments yourself or you won't. Same goes with slogans. If you use slogans to supplement something, good enough. If it's all you throw at your opponent, not good enough (case of point, a gun fireak going "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have 'em!). The only thought in my head is "my God, what kind of pathetic moron is he, who can't do better than throw that cliche at people?!"

Look, quote essays, movies, etc. all you want. But please don't just give me a source and go. Think for yourself. I hope you know what I mean.
yes... but who and what are just as important in an opinion as the why, imo - just in debate its best to leave those out... unless the who/where is the only aspect of your arguement of course (as per your examples)

I don't know that I really want to conform to the "think for yourself" school of thought. :cool:

Alright, that is on my top 10 posts list. Good one Texan ;)

Yeah it's so damn hard to have a conversation when someone's yelling at you for a cite or link to referable soure.

And in the case of certain works of writing (not the Bible I swear) it was meant for different interpretation. It was originally written in just Latin to prevent the basic pleb from comming to their own conclusions (okay maybe it is the Bible) and giving the authority of the translations to the church so they could twist the meanings to their own ends. Now I'm just being caustic so I'll stop there.

It's all in your interpretation; even what someone says can be interpretted. Either they're being truthful or sarcastic or something else.

And that's why discussion is fun becuase we can argue and call it something else.

... In a nutshell, because if nobody took the words of those before them for granted, we'd still be inventing the wheel.

"Bush said..."
"The Bible says..."
"I read this guy's essay, and he says..."
"The constitution says..."

I'm sick and tired of hearing "if said it, it must be right"-nonsense like that. I don't care [B]who or what gave you your opinion. I honestly do not. I care about why you feel the way you do.

You've much left to learn about arguing on the internet. Quoting or citing known sources is good practice if you ever want to be taken seriously. There are many things I don't bother saying, because I can't back them up without using considerable time and effort.


I'm tired of trying to debate homosexulity with some fanatic and get no other answer than pseudo-arguments about the Bible. I'm tired of discussing gun laws with NRA fanatics who call me a Commie for wanting to violate the Second Amendment.

If you want to know why people are against homosexuality, you should expect the Bible to be cited. Although the Bible never "proves" that homosexuality is wrong, it only proclaims so. It's purely an article of faith, and it's unreasonable for others to expect you to take it seriously.

The US Constitution is an entirely different matter. It is the supreme law of the land. To support federal laws that violate the Constitution is a hypocritical position since the Constitution is the very document that empowers the legislature to make laws in the first place.


Do anyone feel the same way? It doesnt' matter who says what. It matters what is being said.

It does matter what is being said, but who said it also matters. For one, it's important to give credit where credit is due, and credibility is also important.

And as for the second amendment, I want someone from the NRA to claim constitutional protection when they're arrested for taking their shotgun onto a commercial airplane.
Private airlines. If the airline didn't allow it they wouldn't be able to bring the guns on board. Assuming, of course, that the Second amendment was actually followed.

Why can't people think for themselves?!

Most can. Most do. But few realize that everything that can be thought, has been. Just try googling for any idea that you think is original, and not only will you find that it's already been done, but that it's been done backwards and in the nude as well.

The way I see it, for any idea -- especially those relating to politics, religion, and societies -- there is is probably a more concise and more elegant statement thereof waiting in the history of literacy to be found, used, and abused in and out of context, and frankly, I would much rather read a restatement of eloquence than to try to bear through the incogency of most internet intercourse.

The flip-side of that coin is while I don't want to see copy/paste/link wars I really don't want to waste a lot of time reading something fresh from someones ass. I'd like to think that they researched their opinions just a little, and it's not so bad to think that they might refer to someone who has done a reasonable amount of research. As people have pointed out, it's a matter of degree. Quoting www.freshfrommyass.com to stand in as your commentary, not so useful. But something with a credibility that can at least be defended, not so bad.

edit: I didn't know that it would automatically make that www thing a link, and I can't believe that NO ONE is sitting on that adress....

Why can't people think for themselves?

Because their too caught up with normal everyday things that probably matters most that you can do something about.

Like shopping, the latest handphone, paying bills, paying the mortgage, working to feed the family or supporting your brother and sister to college, trying to think up a great idea to get rich quickly, how to impress their love one.

Not whining about all day that they don't conform to your ideals and how to convince them that their wrong and don't think for themselves.

Politics isn't for everybody, neither do they have the time to be bothered. Rather they prefer just to vote those that fit best into their ideals and benefit themselves most.

SOME people don't think for themselves because they're bloody sheep. They follow the flock because mommy and daddy brain-washed them at a young age. This just goes to show you, the Church is just another form of a cult...

SOME people don't think for themselves because they're bloody sheep. They follow the flock because mommy and daddy brain-washed them at a young age. This just goes to show you, the Church is just another form of a cult...
There may be a reason clergymen refer to their followers or people who attend their church as their "flock"...the connotations in that respect had never occured to me.

SOME people don't think for themselves because they're bloody sheep. They follow the flock because mommy and daddy brain-washed them at a young age. This just goes to show you, the Church is just another form of a cult...
And some people do not think for themselves by doing the opposite. They want to rebel against their parents so they choose the other party.

And some people do not think for themselves by doing the opposite. They want to rebel against their parents so they choose the other party.
...and are still conforming...thus not thinking for themelves.

The only people who think for themselves are those who let their sanity go and let their mind just do the thinking subconsciously.

...and are still conforming...thus not thinking for themelves.

The only people who think for themselves are those who let their sanity go and let their mind just do the thinking subconsciously.
That probably is the only way anyone can actually think for themselves. We all have at least some influence on our opinions.

The only people who think for themselves are those who let their sanity go and let their mind just do the thinking subconsciously.
That means no concious philosophising? Then I must not be thinking for myself with my existential and scientific lucubrations...

Politics isn't for everybody, neither do they have the time to be bothered. Rather they prefer just to vote those that fit best into their ideals and benefit themselves most.
Well, there's more to thinking than just politics. There is existential thinking, political thinking, scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, comparative thinking, etc. They tend to overlap.

There may be a reason clergymen refer to their followers or people who attend their church as their "flock"...the connotations in that respect had never occured to me.
;) exactly....

"Bush said..."
"The Bible says..."
"I read this guy's essay, and he says..."
"The constitution says..."

I'm sick and tired of hearing "if said it, it must be right"-nonsense like that. I don't care [B]who or what gave you your opinion. I honestly do not. I care about why you feel the way you do.

I'm tired of trying to debate homosexulity with some fanatic and get no other answer than pseudo-arguments about the Bible. I'm tired of discussing gun laws with NRA fanatics who call me a Commie for wanting to violate the Second Amendment.

Do anyone feel the same way? It doesnt' matter who says what. It matters what is being said.

For example, in my eyes you can say "I dislike gays because I believe it's not right for a kid to have to grow up with two dads" (which, of course, science has proven that it is not -children with same-gender parents do amazingly well- I just needed an example) more than "Bible, chapter this, verse that, you're a Sinner, praise God or Burn in H[...]." Or a Democrat going "watch Fahrenheit 9/11, you fool!". Now, I hate Bush too, but simply saying you agree with some respected source doesn't make you right.

If you use the "because [...] said so" argument, you either can't come up with arguments yourself or you won't. Same goes with slogans. If you use slogans to supplement something, good enough. If it's all you throw at your opponent, not good enough (case of point, a gun fireak going "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have 'em!). The only thought in my head is "my God, what kind of pathetic moron is he, who can't do better than throw that cliche at people?!"

Look, quote essays, movies, etc. all you want. But please don't just give me a source and go. Think for yourself. I hope you know what I mean.



I see your general position as flawed. What you are saying is that they don't think for themselves because they don't agree with you...For instance your example about homosexuality,..if someone has chosen to be a Christian, they follow the doctrine of whatever form of Christian they are, so if their church believes that homosexuality is wrong...they have chosen to think that that is the right way of believing...they are expressing their opinion and exactly why they believe that... "it says in the bible..blah blah blah" they are thinking for themselves...it just happens to be different thinking than yours, and it doesn't mean they aren't thinking for themselves. I get the impression you believe if everyone was really thinking for themselves they would think just like you...that is a delusional state of mind. You came to conclusions about what you believe by reading, hearing or seeing something someone else expressed an opinion about. No one lives in a vacum and we all have differernt perspectives and thus different outlooks.

One of my favourite scenes in 'Life of Brian' is when he opens the shutters after a night of shagging his g/f to find the hordes of followers have been camped outside his house listening intently. Everything he says they repeat fervently:
...
Brian: "Stop repeating everything I say!"
Hordes: "Stop repeating everything you say!"
...
Brian: "You're all individuals!"
Hordes: "We're all individuals!"
Lone voice in the crowd: "I'm not."
:p

Works on so many levels.

Why can't people think for themselves?

That's because there is no longer anything called creativity. By this point in the evolutionary cycle, most ideas have already been exhausted, reused, and recycled. Therefore, it's almost impossible to come up with a "new" idea that hasn't already been thought up, implemented, and/or used.

Why can't people think for themselves?

That's because there is no longer anything called creativity. By this point in the evolutionary cycle, most ideas have already been exhausted, reused, and recycled. Therefore, it's almost impossible to come up with a "new" idea that hasn't already been thought up, implemented, and/or used.
disagree. look at computers for just one of the thousands of new industries that have sprung up in the last 60 years of the evolutionary cycle.

disagree. look at computers for just one of the thousands of new industries that have sprung up in the last 60 years of the evolutionary cycle.
I think he was talking more of positions on philosophy and ideas.