• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

The Random Thread of Random Randomness

c9c23f184a38083181004159ba3b0837.gif

That feeling when you finally finish putting on your cosplay outfit.
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
It counts if you acknowledge some other people's opinions as stupid as well - then you are effectively acknowledging their opinions as you would someone else :D

I do agree with you (and people say Pagans like me are old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds - at least we still believe the Earth is a round planetoid), just saying we should still repsect their opinions with tolerance, even if they are incredibly outdated.
Click to expand...


Bad ideas need to be challenged and I don't believe that we have to respect poor ideas. Not every idea is good and many are downright awful. You can still aim to respect the person with the idea, but not necessarily the idea itself (and even then that only goes so far, there are such horrible ideas out there that it is impossible to respect even the owner of the idea).

Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting that we don't respect ideas simply because they differ from our own. I just don't like society's view that everyone's ideas have merit. I can easily respect an idea that is in direct opposition to my own as long as it is well thought out and supported with reason, logic and/or evidence.

If we're too lenient on poor ideas, then you create an environment where they are allowed to spread and thrive. Something like the flat earth theory must not only be opposed, but ridiculed as well (not in an attempt to convert those holding those views, but to prevent others from following down that path).

That's just the way I look at it though.
D5.jpg
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
Bad ideas need to be challenged and I don't believe that we have to respect poor ideas. Not every idea is good and many are downright awful. You can still aim to respect the person with the idea, but not necessarily the idea itself (and even then that only goes so far, there are such horrible ideas out there that it is impossible to respect even the owner of the idea).

Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting that we don't respect ideas simply because they differ from our own. I just don't like society's view that everyone's ideas have merit. I can easily respect an idea that is in direct opposition to my own as long as it is well thought out and supported with reason, logic and/or evidence.

If we're too lenient on poor ideas, then you create an environment where they are allowed to spread and thrive. Something like the flat earth theory must not only be opposed, but ridiculed as well (not in an attempt to convert those holding those views, but to prevent others from following down that path).

That's just the way I look at it though.
View attachment 51418
Click to expand...
I would agree with this when it comes to scientific matters and things that are clear cut ‘facts’. People going round saying ‘2+2=5’, ‘the earth is flat’ and ‘climate change isn’t real’ need to be corrected, and if they refuse to listen to reason then they deserve the ridicule that will be directed at them. However when it comes to more subjective things, like who is your favourite Star Wars character, I think as long as someone thinks something, they are entitled to feel that way without any major ridicule, unless they enjoy it. You may want to sway someone to your way of thinking, in which case a well argued and backed up case will work better, but even if you present the best argument in the world, on a subjective matter the recipient is perfectly entitled to say they disagree. One way to view it is this. Your favourite movie composer could be anyone, but in terms of the ‘greatest film composer’ - something that can be measured with cultural impact, effect on others and what they’ve produced, I think everyone would have to agree it’s John Williams. That doesn’t mean he has to be your favourite, but you’d be hard pressed to come up with an argument against it. To say Jar Jar Binks is the most popular Star Wars character is a bit silly, and I think you have a bit of ridicule coming your way if you do. But to say he’s your favourite - others might disagree with you, but ultimately, although they might try to persuade you otherwise, you are 100% entitled to that opinion no matter what.
 
ravagekitteh said:
I would agree with this when it comes to scientific matters and things that are clear cut ‘facts’. People going round saying ‘2+2=5’, ‘the earth is flat’ and ‘climate change isn’t real’ need to be corrected, and if they refuse to listen to reason then they deserve the ridicule that will be directed at them
Click to expand...
I agree.
ravagekitteh said:
However when it comes to more subjective things, like who is your favourite Star Wars character, I think as long as someone thinks something, they are entitled to feel that way without any major ridicule, unless they enjoy it. You may want to sway someone to your way of thinking, in which case a well argued and backed up case will work better, but even if you present the best argument in the world, on a subjective matter the recipient is perfectly entitled to say they disagree. One way to view it is this. Your favourite movie composer could be anyone, but in terms of the ‘greatest film composer’ - something that can be measured with cultural impact, effect on others and what they’ve produced, I think everyone would have to agree it’s John Williams. That doesn’t mean he has to be your favourite, but you’d be hard pressed to come up with an argument against it. To say Jar Jar Binks is the most popular Star Wars character is a bit silly, and I think you have a bit of ridicule coming your way if you do. But to say he’s your favourite - others might disagree with you, but ultimately, although they might try to persuade you otherwise, you are 100% entitled to that opinion no matter what.
Click to expand...
I also (largely) agree with this.

To use your example:


Saying Jar Jar is the most successful Star Wars character is factually incorrect. A great amount of opposing evidence can be brought against that statement and there is no evidence to support it. Consequently, ridicule is fair game.


Saying Jar Jar is your (in a general sense, not you specifically) favourite Star Wars character is actually factually correct. Everyone is entitled to their own personal opinion, just as you state. I would refrain from ridiculing that person for it. I will adamantly try to provide evidence against the character, but at the end of the day the heart wants what the heart wants.

However, if someone says that it would be a grand idea for Rian Johnson to create a new trilogy around Jar Jar, the Ewoks, Rose and L3 and have it revolve around the theme of the Star Wars Holiday special, THAT IS DESERVING OF SUBSTANTIAL RIDICULE!


So on a personal level I think we are in agreement. On a societal level humour and comedy can be very powerful tools. Sometimes the best way to get rid of bad ideas is to ridicule them out of existence. Especially when dealing with policies, laws and ideas that effect large numbers of people. Even simple and more innocuous things are fair game, but tact and common sense must be applied. I might ridicule Rose Tico on the forum or in conversations with my friends, but wouldn't do so to the actress who played her. These are more of grey areas and must be approached on a case by case basis.



LizardWizard said:
Things got deep guys.
Click to expand...
It's random I suppose... so it fits! Anything goes on the thread :p. It's good friendly conversation!

The watermelon pug is cute!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top