Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The one raging at the moment is, "Are transgenders mentally ill?" Well, there are "expert" opinions to be had in both camps, so there is no way to actually dispute the belief either way. Either could call the other a "dummy," and prove it.
That there is a cogent argument on either side of an issue indicates to me that folks who accept one or the other can't rightly be called dummies based on their acceptance of the credible and cogent arguments on either side. In that situation, what'd be dumb to do is call the individuals on either side dummies.
On the other hand, if one has little or no awareness of the credible and cogent arguments on both sides of an issue, that person can be legitimately be called ignorant. If in their ignorance a person proceeds to vehemently "argue" or stand on their position, well, that too would a dumb thing to do.
It's safe to say that only dummies say/do dumb things. The only question then is whether the individual is a "momentary dummy" or a "consistent and persistent dummy."
In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It's not cool to not know what you're talking about.
-- Barack Obama, Rutgers University Commencement Address, 2016
The teacher in me is screeching right now. Can you hear me? Unless you're talking to a provocative troll who has insulted you up one side and down the other, please don't call them dummies, people. Please.I would never call someone who had different values from me "dumb", we are all entitled to our opinions and values. We're not entitled to our own facts. We're all ignorant to some degree but to willfully refuse to accept facts because they don't support our ideology is dumb.Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?
INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own
Opening question:
Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?
Not when what the "dummy" believes can be shown objectively to be false, inductively to be in contravention with the preponderance of facts, or inductively to be without material merit. It's also not intolerant when the "dummy" believes something and it can be shown that they don't have a (or several) cogent reason for believing whatever it is they believe. There are surely other dimensions and circumstances wherein calling another person a "dummy" isn't intolerant, but all of them accrue from the "dummy's" actually displaying willful or nominal ignorance.
None of us is entitled to our opinion even as everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. Nobody is entitled to be ignorant. Similarly, none of us is obliged to tolerate ignorance.
When is calling someone a "dummy" an indication of the "caller" being intolerant? It's intolerant when the caller makes the assertion without presenting his/her own cogent case showing the ignorance of the "dummy" whom they aspersed.
Red:
Well, if as I noted, the person's opinion derives from their own facts, they would be exhibiting, among other things, their stupidity and/or ignorance. Showing that the person's opinion does indeed flow from "their own facts" and calling them dumb in the aftermath of having so shown is hardly intolerant. It's not intolerant to state the truth regardless of how distasteful or undesired be the truth one tells.
I appreciate the general egalitarianism and magnanimity that underlies your remarks. I bid you not to let your willingness and preference for politeness not to obfuscate your ability to recognize that there are indeed dumb people -- momentarily dump, perpetually and inveterately dumb, or something in between -- in the world. There's absolutely nothing wrong with accepting there are such folks. There's nothing wrong with being able to tell who is and who isn't dumb and when; indeed it's critical that one be able to discern accurately that trait in others. Thus there's nothing intolerant about calling someone dumb when in fact they are or have been in a given situation and one can and does show as much. The "and does" part is essential to ensuring a person who calls another a dummy is not being intolerant. It's not enough to merely be able to show so; one must also actually do so if one is to be rightly seen as stoic.
Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?
INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own
Opening question:
Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?
That's much kinder. Thanks.The teacher in me is screeching right now. Can you hear me? Unless you're talking to a provocative troll who has insulted you up one side and down the other, please don't call them dummies, people. Please.I would never call someone who had different values from me "dumb", we are all entitled to our opinions and values. We're not entitled to our own facts. We're all ignorant to some degree but to willfully refuse to accept facts because they don't support our ideology is dumb.Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?
INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own
Opening question:
Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?
Not when what the "dummy" believes can be shown objectively to be false, inductively to be in contravention with the preponderance of facts, or inductively to be without material merit. It's also not intolerant when the "dummy" believes something and it can be shown that they don't have a (or several) cogent reason for believing whatever it is they believe. There are surely other dimensions and circumstances wherein calling another person a "dummy" isn't intolerant, but all of them accrue from the "dummy's" actually displaying willful or nominal ignorance.
None of us is entitled to our opinion even as everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. Nobody is entitled to be ignorant. Similarly, none of us is obliged to tolerate ignorance.
When is calling someone a "dummy" an indication of the "caller" being intolerant? It's intolerant when the caller makes the assertion without presenting his/her own cogent case showing the ignorance of the "dummy" whom they aspersed.
Red:
Well, if as I noted, the person's opinion derives from their own facts, they would be exhibiting, among other things, their stupidity and/or ignorance. Showing that the person's opinion does indeed flow from "their own facts" and calling them dumb in the aftermath of having so shown is hardly intolerant. It's not intolerant to state the truth regardless of how distasteful or undesired be the truth one tells.
I appreciate the general egalitarianism and magnanimity that underlies your remarks. I bid you not to let your willingness and preference for politeness not to obfuscate your ability to recognize that there are indeed dumb people -- momentarily dump, perpetually and inveterately dumb, or something in between -- in the world. There's absolutely nothing wrong with accepting there are such folks. There's nothing wrong with being able to tell who is and who isn't dumb and when; indeed it's critical that one be able to discern accurately that trait in others. Thus there's nothing intolerant about calling someone dumb when in fact they are or have been in a given situation and one can and does show as much. The "and does" part is essential to ensuring a person who calls another a dummy is not being intolerant. It's not enough to merely be able to show so; one must also actually do so if one is to be rightly seen as stoic.
Well, in an effort to abate your "screeching teacher" sensibilities, I can offer that I'm more likely to merely ignore than castigate idiomatically one whom I've decided is frequently a dummy.
Good lord, that's like a zen koan.Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?
INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own
Opening question:
Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?
If someone tells you that the moon is made of green cheese, are they dumb, or are you intolerant for telling them that it is made of rocks?
YW. I'm thrilled it was so easy to assuage your indignation.That's much kinder. Thanks.The teacher in me is screeching right now. Can you hear me? Unless you're talking to a provocative troll who has insulted you up one side and down the other, please don't call them dummies, people. Please.I would never call someone who had different values from me "dumb", we are all entitled to our opinions and values. We're not entitled to our own facts. We're all ignorant to some degree but to willfully refuse to accept facts because they don't support our ideology is dumb.Not when what the "dummy" believes can be shown objectively to be false, inductively to be in contravention with the preponderance of facts, or inductively to be without material merit. It's also not intolerant when the "dummy" believes something and it can be shown that they don't have a (or several) cogent reason for believing whatever it is they believe. There are surely other dimensions and circumstances wherein calling another person a "dummy" isn't intolerant, but all of them accrue from the "dummy's" actually displaying willful or nominal ignorance.
None of us is entitled to our opinion even as everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. Nobody is entitled to be ignorant. Similarly, none of us is obliged to tolerate ignorance.
When is calling someone a "dummy" an indication of the "caller" being intolerant? It's intolerant when the caller makes the assertion without presenting his/her own cogent case showing the ignorance of the "dummy" whom they aspersed.
Red:
Well, if as I noted, the person's opinion derives from their own facts, they would be exhibiting, among other things, their stupidity and/or ignorance. Showing that the person's opinion does indeed flow from "their own facts" and calling them dumb in the aftermath of having so shown is hardly intolerant. It's not intolerant to state the truth regardless of how distasteful or undesired be the truth one tells.
I appreciate the general egalitarianism and magnanimity that underlies your remarks. I bid you not to let your willingness and preference for politeness not to obfuscate your ability to recognize that there are indeed dumb people -- momentarily dump, perpetually and inveterately dumb, or something in between -- in the world. There's absolutely nothing wrong with accepting there are such folks. There's nothing wrong with being able to tell who is and who isn't dumb and when; indeed it's critical that one be able to discern accurately that trait in others. Thus there's nothing intolerant about calling someone dumb when in fact they are or have been in a given situation and one can and does show as much. The "and does" part is essential to ensuring a person who calls another a dummy is not being intolerant. It's not enough to merely be able to show so; one must also actually do so if one is to be rightly seen as stoic.
Well, in an effort to abate your "screeching teacher" sensibilities, I can offer that I'm more likely to merely ignore than castigate idiomatically one whom I've decided is frequently a dummy.
Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?
INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own
Opening question:
Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?
If someone tells you that the moon is made of green cheese, are they dumb, or are you intolerant for telling them that it is made of rocks?
Are you saying one who is intolerant is always being unkind in their intolerance? Kindness is a very different animal from tolerance. Kindness is a matter of manners, a way of couching our opinions or handling our interactions. Tolerance is something different, although I can't for the life of me think of the right word. Tolerance can be expressed with kindness, or not. Can you help me out by taking this further?Can you be unkind and tolerant at the same time?
It seems to me that people confuse the 2. No?
Why is Pillars' question off topic? I frequently pray for concrete examples in some of these threads. Examples aren't off topic, imo.Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?
INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own
Opening question:
Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?
If someone tells you that the moon is made of green cheese, are they dumb, or are you intolerant for telling them that it is made of rocks?
Off Topic:
You realize, of course that:
In light of those things being so, the strongest case (albeit not a strong one) for who of the two hypothesized speakers is the dummy is found in showing the dumbness/ignorance of person drawing either conclusion you've proposed.
- The alternatives you've offered are not mutually exclusive.
- There are other things that either speaker (from your example) may be along with or instead of dumb and intolerant, for example, jejune (literally or figuratively) and instructive, respectively
- It's quite a leap to go from either individual's making the noted statements to either of their being dumb or intolerant based solely on those two data points.
True. Many people believe tolerating abortion is not a virtue, for example. This thread is quickly heading into a deep philosophical hole I'm not adequately prepared to argue one way or the other. You have a point that to folks who disagree, tolerance is not a virtue at all. At all.Why is tolerance a virtue? Some beliefs are inaccurate.
You may believe that something is true, but evidence suggests it isn't.
To me, neither of your examples are a matter of intolerance, as I understand it. It's just name calling silliness. But I'm no expert here.I'm brainstorming this myself, thinking out loud.
Since this is a political board, if you say "You're an idiot and no one should listen to you since you support Trump" -
Would you consider that an "intolerant" statement?
vs.
"You're an idiot to support Trump."
.... or is the intolerance just refusing to be around people to interact with them because they support Trump?
