h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've been informed that calling someone "stupid" is, in fact, a form of argumentation.

I'd like your opinions on this please, as one of the rules of the ODS is that calling someone names is merely a form of logical fallacy. I personally think that calling someone stupid is rather like the pot calling the kettle black, because at that point, you are no longer actually involved in the process of debate, but have devolved into an illogical mishmash.

Anyone?

but isnt that wot makes us human - who wants to be a Vulcan anyway

"I'd like your opinions on this please, as one of the rules of the ODS is that calling someone names is merely a form of logical fallacy. I personally think that calling someone stupid is rather like the pot calling the kettle black, because at that point, you are no longer actually involved in the process of debate, but have devolved into an illogical mishmash."

In my opinion, calling an idea stupid is OK--as long as you justify your point. On the other hand, calling a person stupid is not OK. First of all, in this forum you may not necesarily know the person you are talking to well enough to be sure. Even if you do, though, it is irrelevant.

And I quote from Larry Niven's Laws, as published with his permission at http://www.larryniven.org/stories/nivens_laws_2002.htm :

"16) There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it."

"To prove a point, one may seek out a foolish Socialist, thirteenth century Liberal, Scientologist, High Frontier advocate, Mensa member, science fiction fan, Jim Bakker acolyte, Christian, witch, or fanatical devotee of Special Interest Lib. It doesn't really reflect on the cause itself. Ad hominem argument saves time, but it's still a fallacy."

Even if a person is stupid, that doesn't mean that their point isn't valid. For that matter, even if a person is smart, that doesn't mean that their point is valid.

"but isnt that wot makes us human - who wants to be a Vulcan anyway"

Me. Emotions are a part of the Conspiracy. They must be destroyed.

Trust me you can get to know people well enough to call em names in this type of forum.

e.g. When I suggested to "Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron" that his political stance might well be considered just a wee bit to the right of Genghis Khan, well he liked it so much that he put it on his user page for a fair while

yes, but you didn't call him stupid, you told him he was right of Ghenghis Khan, which, as you point out, he liked!

I have no problems with emotions, or even emotions running amok. What I take umbrage at is the use of name calling as a way to deflect criticism. If I say to someone here, "saying George HW Bush is a genius is stupid," I am referring to what you said, not you as a person. And I would do my best to find evidence to back that claim up (i.e., he can't X, which I consider to be a hallmark of being a genius, therefore he isn't one, ergo your statement was stupid). The point is, I wouldn't say it. I would say something more in keeping with "You said Bush was a genius, but he can't do X, and since I think that is an important part of being a genius, I think you may want to rethink that statement."

What I guess I'm saying is that calling someone stupid, at least to me, means that you a) have no answer, and thus resort to namecalling, or b) think that by calling them stupid, you've somehow scored a major point.

The reason I bring this up is because in more than one conversation, a particular person has called more than one person stupid when asked legitimate questions, and the "stupid" people include two PhD candidates, a resident medical student, a professional artist, one of the italics, and several others who have proven again and again that they are not, in fact, stupid.

I think calling someone "stupid" doesn't really count as argument. I think saying "I find this argument stupid" is OK, but having a go at the person putting forward the argument is a bit, well, Askh2g2.

Thanks to Agnostic Primist for that quote.

An argument has at least one premise, a conclusion, and a way of moving from the premise to the conclusion (deduction, induction etc). Calling someone stupid might be a premise or it might a conclusion, but it's not an argument.

I know the kind of person that Montana Redhead is talking about. I've clashed with a few on H2G2 - one of which told me and another researcher that we weren't qualified to comment on a subject that we had three degrees in between us!

Otto

Generally speaking, from a very full and meaningful existance on this planet may I posit the observation that the word "stupid" is, well, underpowered. It implies a state of non-coordination, of senselesness, and of parochial ignorance.

In fact I have often read on this site of the stupidity of political leaders. On reflection I remember once thinking "How could you assemble so many febrile inebriates on one website?"

Then I reasoned. I reasoned that you had fled, fled from the reality of the free market, the wealth of your education and opportunity. That indeed you were feeling guilty. That most of you were indeed stupid to the fact that you had followed the stupid.

There's something to be said for that, but aren't the people calling the politicos stupid in fact *not* following the stupid? There's an awareness of the stupidity of most poltical leaders, at least!

I tried for a bit to be on the "What's Wrong with Americans?" thread, but got tired of the namecalling and sniping. Yes, we have a president whom I consider illegally in office who is doing his best to dominate the world. I don't like him, I don't like his policies, and I don't like the fact that he is the president of the country I live in. That said, the very idea that being American makes one stupid is something that cannot be proven with facts, and ergo, is an invalid argument.

Although I would posit that most education systems in the world no longer require students to learn argumentation and proper rhetorical form. Or at least that's what I've seen in my college freshmen's papers. Most of them wouldn't know what a thesis statement was if it came up and introduced itself.

I think that "stupid" is used to mean at least four concepts - "limited reasoning capacity", "under-informed", "ignorant", and "wrong". And only "limited reasoning capacity" really means "stupid."

Under-informed is what everyone is on some subjects. I don't know much about particle physics, or the history of the New York Yankees, so I can't have a meaningful conversation about these subjects. But that's not to say that I couldn't acquire this information.

Ignorant is someone who is uninformed and either doesn't know it or won't acknowledge it.

Wrong is an interesting one. I think it's possible to be wrong and not be stupid if the errors that are made are sufficiently complicated ones.

Otto

Montana (a wonderful name by the way) why don't we, as a community, devise our own IQ test? In fact I'm sure we have the talent on this site to devise all sorts of questionaires and tests. Now I know some of us might call this eliteism, one-up-man-ship etc. and they may be right, but it would be such fun. Many of you probably have access to this sort of stuff..well nick it and post it up ..the BBC will pay the lawyers.To react specifically to your comments may I opine the following: I like the current US administration because the commit, they engage and I believe the aims and objectives they seek are too abstract to be grasped by most of the members of our community here.
The name calling etc. is why I call many of the members "inebriate".
My age and ability means the education system I benefitted from no longer exists in 85% of the UK. It survives in our "public" schools which are in fact private. I call it educational apartheid. That is the way it is and it sucks.

This is equivalent to calling most of the members of our community here "stupid" in at least one of the ways delineated by Otto.

Perhaps you could give us some examples of these "too abstract objectives"? What, for instance is the too abstract objective involved in rich people in government cutting the taxes of rich people? What is the too abstract objective involved in these rich people telling poor people that it's for their own good, and they're anti-American if they protest?

Noggin

Your shortsighted not stupid.

Objective one: to reduce global dependence on fossil fuel...
two: to maintain global political stability
three: to keep the rich in the North and West (globally)
four: to educate the protestors about the social risks
involved without giving them premature heart attacks
QED OETZ (copyright)

I didn't know you were in the The Three Degrees !

I thought they were all girls ?

If you follow any subject or area to an infinite level, you become a specialist. In that one area you may well be one of the top thinkers, outside of it you will have, probably, neglected certain areas of development.

I work for a Global company (American/French) that has people they call HIPOTS - these high potential people are given 2 years in a business sector, to achieve some pre-conceived goal.

They also employ people to follow them around and ensure they don't fix the cat by connecting it to the mains.

Whenever I'm doing tours for whichever company has bought us out, or is going into partnership with us this month - I stress that I am a generalist. I know something about all the systems in the building, even if its only how serious it is if it breaks and who to call to fix it. On some I know enough to diagnose and fix most problems, but I am not an expert on anything.

Actually I'm longsighted; I'm told it's normal at my age.

Objective 1 : que? US policy is nothing of the kind. Which of course has nothing to do with Bush being an oil man.

Objectives 2 and 3. To maintain the stability of a system by which the people in charge benefit the most. If the system was more just, and more stable, it wouldn't need to maintain the world's largest, by a long way, military capability to enforce stability.

Objective 4 People *should* be able to exercise their democratic right of dissent without putting themselves at risk.

Sorry, seem to have gone off topic here.

Noggin

I pride myself in working in 5 degrees. That's why my contributions are so precious. But because you guy's get yourselves in such tangles, like any sailor, I throw you a rope every now and again.

i. There are energy programmes that are not made public.
ii. and iii. The system is inherently unstable. Don't take my word for it. Read the news.
iv. Yes that is why the last century was full of murder and war. People who seek and publish truth are, were, and always will be at risk.

But I *still* don't see any too abstract objective here. Just greed and hubris.

Noggin

Well perhaps the leaders themselves do not have a concrete model of what the recent stuggle is about. What I do believe is that the Administration does. I certainly have vivid mental images of what the alternatives to democracy and capitalism were.

There have been many public protests today, but who knows how many private unpublised, meet with exclusion, violence or death?