Being Smart Means Believing in Nothing

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
this is somewhat uncharacteristic of you. you usually don't get so worked up.

I am not worked up at all. Put it down to the medium of internet posts not expressing emotion very well.

you constructed a strawman.
No, I constructed an analogy.

the link doesn't show a mob of people lynching someone. it shows a mob of people quietly and peacefully moving towards a place of worship. it contrasts that to a mob of people quietly and peacefully (hopefully) moving towards a place of worship (the footbal stadium). it draws attention to how we are worried by the first, and not bothered by the second.
Nevertheless, you seem to be arguing that we should not fear one crowd for any reason because there exists another crowd that we don't fear. This is fundamentally flawed logic and I am amazed that you cannot see it even after I pointed it out to you and gave an analogy to demonstrate the logical error.
And you are in fact mistaken if you think all football fans are harmless. I believe British football fans are banned from going to some places.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not worked up at all. Put it down to the medium of internet posts not expressing emotion very well.

[b]you constructed a strawman.
No, I constructed an analogy.

the link doesn't show a mob of people lynching someone. it shows a mob of people quietly and peacefully moving towards a place of worship. it contrasts that to a mob of peopl ...[text shortened]... ootball fans are harmless. I believe British football fans are banned from going to some places.

you seem to be arguing that we should not fear one crowd for any reason because there exists another crowd that we don't fear. This is fundamentally flawed logic and I am amazed that you cannot see it even after I pointed it out to you and gave an analogy to demonstrate the logical error.

it is kind of flawed debating to acknowledge the possibility that what you base your arguing on is not what i am saying at all and then continue with your argument as if i am really saying that. instead of asking me for clarification. and constructing a strawman which your analogy is. which you admitted it might be possible.



so no, that is not what i am saying at all. i am going to continue assuming that you read the link, and not just the excerpts i posted. the problem i try to submit is that we get worked up about one group of people being passionate about something, but not about another group of people expressing passion. the author of the link suggests this may be because we dismiss passions that have no meaning. a mob watching a footbal game is not discussed much. but a mob going on a pilgrimage to something they consider a holy place is to be feared. we worry that some are brainwashed, we worry that some will blow themselves up. we worry their wives are oppressed.

i am not arguing that we should not fear one crowd because there is another crowd we don't fear. i feel my mind is aching just for writing that.
i am arguing that, when given just these photos, separately, and with no connection to one another, they illicit different responses.

why is that?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thats interesting for it appears to me that what you are talking about is simply assimilating ideas from other people rather than originating ones own ideas.

i am not talking about that at all. knowledge comes from others. you absorb it, filter it, and maybe we give something back, thus enriching others.


you are not absorbing much besides your daisies. daisies that have been passed on by your parents, or pastor. daisies that you refuse to change, even a little. you fill your garden with daisies until there is no more room left. and having too many daisies, you come on this forum selling us some.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
instead of asking me for clarification. and constructing a strawman which your analogy is. which you admitted it might be possible.

This is what I said in my first response to your OP:

So whats your point? Please spell it out rather than being vague. Are you arguing that it is foolish to fear an angry mob of people because another mob of people is celebrating a birthday party? Or did you not think through your post?

How is that not asking for clarification? Do you not see the question marks? Do you not see me saying 'please spell it out'?
Did you try to clarify? Did you answer my questions? No, you said I was getting worked up and accused me of creating a strawman.

so no, that is not what i am saying at all. i am going to continue assuming that you read the link, and not just the excerpts i posted.
Not a good assumption. I did not read the link.

the problem i try to submit is that we get worked up about one group of people being passionate about something, but not about another group of people expressing passion.
And there are reasons why we get worked up about one group and not the other and it has nothing to do with passion - hence my analogy which you admit demonstrates the flawed logic.

the author of the link suggests this may be because we dismiss passions that have no meaning. a mob watching a footbal game is not discussed much. but a mob going on a pilgrimage to something they consider a holy place is to be feared. we worry that some are brainwashed, we worry that some will blow themselves up. we worry their wives are oppressed.
So he agrees with me that there are reasons other than passion or crowds.

i am not arguing that we should not fear one crowd because there is another crowd we don't fear. i feel my mind is aching just for writing that.
Well that sure looked like what you were trying to write in your OP, hence my request for clarification.

i am arguing that, when given just these photos, separately, and with no connection to one another, they illicit different responses.

why is that?
Now I am confused. I thought you said the Author of the article had already answered that question. Isn't it obvious? Its because we read more into the crowds/passion than you see in the photo. Its because we know what the crowds are capable of or not capable of. And my earlier analogy demonstrated the point, yet you seem to be intent on ignoring it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is what I said in my first response to your OP:

So whats your point? Please spell it out rather than being vague. Are you arguing that it is foolish to fear an angry mob of people because another mob of people is celebrating a birthday party? Or did you not think through your post?

How is that not asking for clarification? Do you not ...[text shortened]... ble of. And my earlier analogy demonstrated the point, yet you seem to be intent on ignoring it.

Not a good assumption. I did not read the link.

yet you argue on the subject. maybe that is why you construct strawmen? maybe you are missing some points?

"Do you not see me saying 'please spell it out'?"
yet you do not wait for clarification. you continue assuming that your worst interpretation of my position is correct.

"Did you try to clarify?"
yes, reread my posts.

"And there are reasons why we get worked up about one group and not the other and it has nothing to do with passion"
that is the point. it is linked with passion. one is passionate about god. the other is passionate about manchester united. sonhouse is passionate about atheism. one is not nearly as feared as the other. there have been numerous incidents concerning footbal fans devastating cities. beating people. people go to mecca to pray and enrich themselves spiritually. some people go to footbal matches to enjoy themselves peacefully. some people going to mecca are terrorists. we assume the worst about one group and we aren't concerned about another.

"hence my analogy which you admit demonstrates the flawed logic."
your analogy misrepresented my position. hence me calling it a strawman.
you did post a question mark after your analogy, that should make it ok then?



but, for the sake of starting fresh, no, the photos aren't related. one doesn't get a reaction on one based on the other. we study the two different reactions to what is basically a mob being passionate about something. when looking at the procession of people going to mecca, some tend to panic. way fewer people panic on the footbal crowd. this is the point the link is trying to make (spoilers for when you do read it). that we only accept passion about frivolous things.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
but, for the sake of starting fresh, no, the photos aren't related.

Of course they are related, or you wouldn't be mentioning them. They are both photos of passionate crowds.

one doesn't get a reaction on one based on the other.
Agreed.

..... what is basically a mob being passionate about something.
No, it isn't. That is where your logic is flawed. You assume the most important thing about the photos is the 'mob' and the 'passionate about something' and assume all viewers will focus on that and ignore everything else then you are amazed that people have different reactions.

this is the point the link is trying to make (spoilers for when you do read it). that we only accept passion about frivolous things.
Well then the link is wrong. I would look at mobs of passionate people who are passionate about really important things like politics or climate change without getting the same emotions as I would with regards to a crowd of Muslims. In fact, I get a totally different reaction when I see a crowd of passionate Catholics than a crowd of passionate Muslims.

Let me try another analogy which you will find harder to call a strawman:
You are walking through the jungle and you come to a river. There is a deer taking a drink from the stream. You walk a bit further, and find a tiger taking a drink from a stream. They are both basically just animals taking a drink. Why is your reaction to the two so different?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
I want to share a link i found just now.
Full link here: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-popular-beliefs-that-are-holding-humanity-back/


Number 1 on this list is the title of the thread. Something to chew on.

"Hey, remember the Double Rainbow guy? The guy who made that YouTube video where he got so excited about a pair of rainbows that most of us th ...[text shortened]... llege football fans is harmless:
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/4/1/1/208411_v1.jpg"

I don't know if I would want to base my religious dogma on something I saw on cracked.com.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
when looking at the procession of people going to mecca, some tend to panic.

I think I must note here that I am not particularly alarmed by scenes of Mecca, or scenes of the Pope celebrating Easter, or, in fact most religious gatherings that I encounter in daily life, and I do steer clear of stadiums with large crowds around them. But then I live in a City that has as many Muslims as Christians but most of the violence is either criminal activity or related to politics, and even in politics, race and wealth differences are more important than religious differences.
I also work with Muslims and have Muslim friends.

I do get concerned however whenever I see someone religious in a position of power. If I see a national leader or politician on tv and he is wearing overtly religious attire, it bothers me a lot.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Did you blame it presence on Mr Obama?

No, but now that you mention it.....

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think I must note here that I am not particularly alarmed by scenes of Mecca, or scenes of the Pope celebrating Easter, or, in fact most religious gatherings that I encounter in daily life, and I do steer clear of stadiums with large crowds around them. But then I live in a City that has as many Muslims as Christians but most of the violence is either c ...[text shortened]... onal leader or politician on tv and he is wearing overtly religious attire, it bothers me a lot.

sure, this we can agree on.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I don't know if I would want to base my religious dogma on something I saw on cracked.com.

why? because if information is presented in a humorous manner (in this case, not even that, just presented on a humorous site) it can't possibly be good? must information come from "sanctioned" sources?

how about you read the article, browse the links it provides as backup for the points it's making and decide if the opinion the author is offering has merits and /or if you agree or not. you don't even have to agree with it as a whole maybe only some of the points presented appeal to you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
plants flowers and you get flowers, plant nothing and you get weeds.

One mans weed is anothers tobacco

Originally posted by karoly aczel
One mans weed is anothers tobacco

haha, thats quite profound karoly, watch out for Hessian boxershorts

Originally posted by Pudgenik
I would be lying to myself if i were to believe in nothing.

I'm with you . I cant say I dont believe in anything but I dont go around repeating it ( "i believe in god" )

Also "smart" is a bit of a misleading word to use here because in the past it has been accosiciated with high level left brain, number crunching type activities.

I'm assuming Zalhanzi is meaning "spiritually smart"

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
haha, thats quite profound karoly

thnx Rob.
Best wishes