?

Log in

No account? Create an account
curiosity

October 2017

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
reject reality

smug and condescending

Recently I stumbled upon an article about how our solar system might have originally been part of another galaxy that collided with the Milk Way is still being torn apart. I just went looking for it again and found a statement saying that this assertion about our solar system is false. Yes the Sagittarius galaxy is being torn apart by the Milky Way galaxy and we are currently passing through "debris" from the Sagittarius galaxy but we were most likely not from the Sagittarius galaxy. The original astronomers who made the announcement about the Sagittarius galaxy made no claims about our solar system being from there.

The problem is that the blogger who debunked the the claim was so smug and condescending that I just wanted to punch him in the face. He points out that you should consider the sources you get your information from and I feel that if an author needs to insult people who disagree with him when explaining his position then he is probably not as confident of his facts as he claims to be. I certainly don't want to read his blog. He may have won the battle but he lost the war, at least with me.

I am trying to be careful in how I talk about this because I do believe what I said, but I can see how other people might feel that I am smug and condescending to people who disagree with me. I recently got into a political argument with a FOAF and I came away thinking that she was a totally idiot and I had wasted my time trying to reason with her. I think I am making a distinction between when my goal is to express my anger at people who are advocating a path I find personally harmful and when my goal is to inform others about what my path is and what I think their path is. If I am trying to convey that I think you are a bad person and you need to be stopped then that is a personal attack and is intended as such. Attacking someone's character is not a fallacy when it is the point under discussion. "He's wrong about the economy because he is a bad person" is a bad argument. "He's a bad person because he wants to cut food subsidies to the poor" is not a bad argument, it is right on point. (He is also wrong about the economy, but that is a different point.)

That blogger just couldn't keep his utter contempt for anyone who didn't know what he knows out of his tone in his article. I can see how that is tough. I will have to watch for that in my own writing.

Comments

I have this problem.

I'm so against monogamy, since I never see it work, that I can't help but have issues with anybody who tries to tell me that it can. After reading "What Do Women Want", it really hit home for me why there are so many women who just don't want sex after being married for many years. Yet they bought the kool-aid about commitment in marriage, so despite not wanting sex with husband anymore, he should not want to see anybody else! Sure monogamy can work in the short term, but I just don't see it panning out throughout the course of even 20 years, let alone a lifetime.