Nu-uh, no way… Gawww…

Posted: September 6, 2011 by girolahozz in Grandad's Tea Kettle

Ever been in an argument and realize you may be getting through to the person only to have them question your education?

I’m not simply stating the classic, “Did you graduate middle school?” childish retort, but an honest question of either if you graduated high school/went to college and where? To me that’s the point in the argument where the one losing has to perform a David Copperfield and pull out a distraction in order to create a mini-argument inside the original argument in hopes to unbalance the conversation.

What does it matter?

Some folks think a person is smarter if they went to a prestigious university a thousand miles from their home as opposed to a person that stayed at home and went to a local university. Does that make the former any better? No. They may gain more life experiences by moving away from say Iowa to live in the big apple, but does that mean they are any smarter?

Some people test better than others, point blank. Put them both on Jeopardy and see what unfolds. The point I’m trying to make is, everyone wants to be right, and some will go to great lengths to not have to say, “you’re right.” Why is this? Is the conversation/argument not important enough to admit you are wrong about what you believed at the beginning of the discussion? And sure there are times when you just know you are right and the person is blowing smoke to try to sound smart, but in those cases, the best thing to do is to simply say, “You have any facts to back that up?” This will either cause a Copperfield moment or a “not with me but I’m right” moment. Either way, it’s not worth your time at that point to continue the conversation.

We have to stop thinking we are too special to be wrong. Learning something new is way more important than not having to say, “Whoops, you’re right, my bad.” It’s human nature to challenge one’s stance on an issue, but sometimes you can’t change a person’s belief. Point blank, you have to have faith in what you believe until someone brings the facts that challenge it enough to bend your view.

For example, I firmly believe that there is a God that created this universe. Coincidence is just too impossible of a reality given my personal experiences in life and that of so many others around me. For a person to challenge my belief with science only interests me since we have no proof of God other than what we see and experience daily all around us. His fingerprint on everything we encounter. So yeah, bring your ruckus to my table, I welcome it, but this kind of argument can go nowhere eventually since we don’t have PROOF or FACTS to back up, only faith. Sure science can prove how things came about, but something had to have created those things in order to happen.

Arguing over politics or who’s smarter is much different though, these require a bibliography the size of the Astrodome sometimes. A good old fashioned debate is fun, but don’t get your thong all stretched out over it. Enjoy having someone that either feels comfortable enough listening to your ranting or enjoys your magic tricks…

Bring the cold weather and the Cosby sweaters!

-Girolahozz

Advertisements
Comments
  1. aquasac says:

    Don’t you worry, I have plenty to say on this. It’s a comin’.

  2. aquasac says:

    I’m going to run by your post here a few lines at a time and respond.

    Ever been in an argument and realize you may be getting through to the person only to have them question your education?

    I’m not simply stating the classic, “Did you graduate middle school?” childish retort, but an honest question of either if you graduated high school/went to college and where? To me that’s the point in the argument where the one losing has to perform a David Copperfield and pull out a distraction in order to create a mini-argument inside the original argument in hopes to unbalance the conversation.

    It’s called a “non-sequitir” response. What you stated is exactly right. One feels he is losing the argument, therefore he must challenge your intellect and/or credentials. We see this from the Left everyday in this form: “you’re a racist!” A racist being anyone winning an argument with a liberal…

    Some folks think a person is smarter if they went to a prestigious university a thousand miles from their home as opposed to a person that stayed at home and went to a local university. Does that make the former any better? No. They may gain more life experiences by moving away from say Iowa to live in the big apple, but does that mean they are any smarter?

    Intelligence is ones ability to learn, being smart is how much they know. These are two different things. One with a high IQ has the ability to learn more and hold on to this information by being able to more quickly process what they read, see, etc. Some people are smart, but not intelligent.

    Some people test better than others, point blank. Put them both on Jeopardy and see what unfolds. The point I’m trying to make is, everyone wants to be right, and some will go to great lengths to not have to say, “you’re right.” Why is this? Is the conversation/argument not important enough to admit you are wrong about what you believed at the beginning of the discussion? And sure there are times when you just know you are right and the person is blowing smoke to try to sound smart, but in those cases, the best thing to do is to simply say, “You have any facts to back that up?” This will either cause a Copperfield moment or a “not with me but I’m right” moment. Either way, it’s not worth your time at that point to continue the conversation.

    Human nature says we don’t like to be wrong about stuff. It makes us feel stupid to be wrong, and we would rather stick with our original wrong idea than admit we were wrong in the first place. Another piece to this is that it’s difficult to persuade people to your view because they have long-held beliefs. Facts don’t matter. I’m reminded of Jenny McCarthy. After giving birth to a child with autism, she got on the “immunizations cause autism!!!”, which has been debunked over and over again and the man who did the study, the ONE study that showed this “link”, has had his license revoked. Even after PROVING that there is NO evidence suggesting autism is caused, or can be caused, by certain immunizations, she has stuck by and still advocates for people to not immunize their child. Why? Because she cannot bring herself to admit she was wrong, and STUPID for believing BS in the first place.

    It’s human nature to challenge one’s stance on an issue, but sometimes you can’t change a person’s belief. Point blank, you have to have faith in what you believe until someone brings the facts that challenge it enough to bend your view.

    For example, I firmly believe that there is a God that created this universe. Coincidence is just too impossible of a reality given my personal experiences in life and that of so many others around me. For a person to challenge my belief with science only interests me since we have no proof of God other than what we see and experience daily all around us. His fingerprint on everything we encounter. So yeah, bring your ruckus to my table, I welcome it, but this kind of argument can go nowhere eventually since we don’t have PROOF or FACTS to back up, only faith. Sure science can prove how things came about, but something had to have created those things in order to happen.

    To Progressives today, no dumber human exists than he who believes in a higher power, yet they fall for global warming hook, line and sinker. Liberals/Progressives adhere to the religion of political correctness with more fervor than any traditional religious person. They call you “ignorant”, “racist”, etc, when you disagree with them. That’s modern day heresy; secular heresy.

    Everyone has been guilty of what you say and that with which I’ve rebutted. It’s human nature. The trick is to listen to your foe’s argument and rebut respectfully, until they start dropping names on you for disagreeing, then you go in… In a perfect world we could disagree respectfully, but we live in an age of the internet, where EVERYONE thinks they are a genius because they quickly Wikipedia something.

    • girolahozz says:

      very true. Good response here. Unless you are on talk radio and instead of arguing you cut the person off and repeat the same memorized argument like a certain chap from Fox news likes to do… I argued with my cat once. He was right, but I’m his boss, so I made sure he ate pudding for the rest of the week for making me think I was dumber than him. Stupid cat.

Please comment with a name other than "Anonymous", lest a Grizzly fall on your noggin.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s