originally posted in:Secular Sevens
"They are bad people" is too easy a conclusion to arrive at. Instead of dismissing them as evil, why don't we try to understand why they make the decisions they do? Otherwise, we'll never accomplish anything but more of the same situation we're in now; two sides who disagree yelling past each other while the country crumbles around them.
In any situation where disagreement engenders such vitriol as this, someone has to suck it up and "be the bigger man" as it were. Otherwise the situation will never be resolved.
English
-
Edited by Bestinthewesthd : 9/13/2014 5:30:30 PM
-
That would require that OP and his ilk actually engage their brains rather than regurgitate childish insults and generalizations. Much easier just to claim the moral high ground react with disdain to the expression of ideas that are contrary to their own belief.
-
Edited by New Radical: 5/1/2013 7:05:39 PMI don't have an obligation to convince irrational people to act ethically. This isn't an "expression of ideas contrary to [my] own belief." This is demonstrable action (part of a larger pattern of similar action) that has adverse effects on me and the Earth as a whole. Those who show blatant aversion (not just indifference, mind you, but actual aversion) to environmentalism when everything else is held the same are detestable and irrational, and I have no qualms about insulting them. I love this tendency of people to think that my words are somehow more important than the dumbasses in the study who are averse to environmentalism. You have -blam!-ed priorities.
-
[quote] This is demonstrable action (part of a larger pattern of similar action)[u] that has adverse effects on me [/u]and the Earth as a whole.[/quote]What gets mentioned first here is rather telling. I am reminded of Carlin's take on environmentalists, because you've illustrated it perfectly. But that's a tangent. You assume irrationality and that is your first mistake and indeed what Ric_Abdur pointed out from the start. You've not at all sought to understand and then inform, only to ridicule. That makes you an asshole. Maybe people have an aversion to environmentalism because they associate it (due to a series of encounters like this very one) with assholes like yourself? You can be a douche if you want, free country and all. But if you actually care about your cause and want to make a difference (which you should, because preserving the environment [i]is[/i] important), you're going about it the completely wrong way.
-
[quote]Maybe people have an aversion to environmentalism because they associate it (due to a series of encounters like this very one) with assholes like yourself? [/quote] Yeah, that would be irrational.
-
Edited by RighteousTyrant: 5/2/2013 12:49:59 PMNope, logical. "This item is associated with ___ thing I don't like, ergo I will not buy this item and will choose an alternative that does not suffer the same association." Perfectly logical. Unless you think that boycotting companies who support policies or ideas that you oppose is irrational? Gay rights folks boycotting Chik-fil-a was irrational?
-
If you think those two are equivalent actions, you're not being very rational yourself.
-
Perhaps you could explain why they're not?
-
Because one is refusing to support an organisation that actively pursues goals you disagree with, while the other is refusing to even incidentally support a cause just because you don't like some of the people that do.
-
Seems rational to me. Why would I support a group of people I dislike? THAT would be irrational.
-
It's not supporting a group, it's supporting a cause.
-
A cause is not a cause without a group of people pushing it. Separate things, sure, but inextricably linked.
-
They're obviously linked, but you're not supporting the people in any way except that you happened to incidentally support the same cause as them. If anybody really thinks that's a good reason not to buy a CFL lightbulb, then they're being irrational. Get your head around that or don't, but I'm not going to argue about it with you further.
-
It's w/e. The cause is clearly important to you, so I'm baffled as to why you and OP are content to simply call these folks irrational and malevolent rather than seek to understand the cause for their actions. Doing the former does nothing to help the cause you care about, and in fact will turn people off to it. Doing the latter would help to educate yourself, your fellow environmentalists, and if those reasons can be addressed, will help further your cause by bringing previous opponents into your fold. It's an obvious win-win. Or, you can continue to circle the wagons and insult others. It's your prerogative.
-
I think the cause seems pretty simple.
-
Sad and funny at the same time. Do continue to think that those who oppose you politically do so because they are stupid, or irrational, or unenlightened, or whatever. This kind of thinking definitely doesn't contribute to the polarization that has broken our political system. You're right, they're wrong. Keep saying it often and loud, maybe eventually it'll be true (probably not). Or maybe one day you'll grow up and realize this isn't how to influence people to join your cause. I won't hold my breath for either, though.
-
[quote]Sad and funny at the same time. Do continue to think that those who oppose you politically do so because they are stupid, or irrational, or unenlightened, or whatever. [/quote] Well, I obviously think my 'political opponents' are wrong, so to a certain extent that would imply that they're 'unenlightened'. Not that the point matters: we all are. [quote] This kind of thinking definitely doesn't contribute to the polarization that has broken our political system. You're right, they're wrong. Keep saying it often and loud, maybe eventually it'll be true (probably not). Or maybe one day you'll grow up and realize this isn't how to influence people to join your cause. [/quote] You realise you're doing exactly what you're criticising me for, right?
-
[quote]You realise you're doing exactly what you're criticising me for, right?[/quote]Except, I'm not. I've suggested that there may be rational reasons for conservatives to make the purchasing decisions they made in the study. For that, I was called irrational myself. I continued to try to explain, and you reverted to "I think it seems simple" i.e., back to square one, they're irrational. And here's the kicker -- I buy CFLs all the time (okay, not all the time, but whenever I need a bulb, it's a CFL). In terms of environmentalism, at least in the limited scope of this study, I'm on your side. So I'm trying to help you help the cause that clearly you and OP care about more than I do. For that, I am labeled irrational. Trying to help you reach out to your opposition so we can all have a cleaner planet; -blam!- me, right?
-
[quote]Except, I'm not. I've suggested that there may be rational reasons for conservatives to make the purchasing decisions they made in the study. For that, I was called irrational myself.[/quote] No, I said you were being irrational for equating an aversion to environmentalism on the basis of not liking some environmentalists with boycotting a corporation that actively pursues goals you disagree with. You've made more assumptions about me than I ever did about the conservatives with an aversion to environmentalism. [quote]I continued to try to explain, and you reverted to "I think it seems simple" i.e., back to square one, they're irrational. [/quote] Yes, they're being irrational, because it's an irrational thing to do, but that's not what I was saying.
-
Kind of like how it's irrational to label an entire political ideology and everyone who adheres to it an evil asshole.
-
Edited by New Radical: 5/2/2013 8:07:03 PMSo now I can't characterize National Socialists, Stalinists, white supremacists, or fascists as evil? Okay. Secondly, I did not "label an entire political ideology and everyone who adheres to it an evil asshole." I said that conservatives are (in general) malevolent, meaning productive of harm. This study shows that conservatives are averse to buying products that are labelled as "environmentally friendly," which is productive of harm to our planet. So I don't really see the problem. I didn't say all conservatives were like this, nor did I say that they were evil. I said that they were doing harm, which is evidenced by this study and the behavior of conservative politicians and voters every day. You should really consider for a second what it says about yourself that you've spent your entire time in this thread nit-picking my words rather than worrying about the implications of this study. Even if my words were wrong, in the end, which is more harmful? Which is more worthy of your time?
-
Not every [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url] or white supremacist is evil. And yeah, you kind of did. When you say: "Lol at conservatives. Malevolent pricks." you've just called every conservative a malevolent prick. It's the same as if I said "Lol at black people. Lazy assholes." then, when accused of saying something clearly racist, I responded by saying that I didn't mean [i]all[/i] black people. Just that, since more black people are unemployed, that blacks are, in general, lazy, meaning a lack of productivity. It's an argument that falls flat on its face. The way you are using "malevolent" is incongruent with its definition. You're hardly justified in lecturing me in failing to consider all the implications of this study when you yourself haven't done the same.
-
Edited by New Radical: 5/1/2013 4:42:12 PMNever mind. Wrong post.
-
Never mind. That wasn't supposed to be directed at you.
-
This response is incredibly confusing...