How often do people tell you to stop being so cynical, negative and to 'look on the bright side'? It happens to me often when I'm in a protracted political debate with someone who's looking for an 'exit' route. Public transport debates tend to attract such 'escapes' as do religious debates; I guess you could count it as an Ad Hominem attack - a basic logic fallacy - but it also is fairly juvenile. I'd say 'look on the bright side' to someone who was feeling depressed or was being uniformly morose, but it's not appropriate to an argument. I freely admit to being cynical, skeptical and opinionated - but I don't do this without reason. My scathing criticism of religion and public transport (mis)management in Victoria is not unjustified, or so I feel. Your thoughts?
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
Looking on the 'bright side'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I feel that your opinions on transport in Melbourne are justified. I live in Sydney so I have no idea what you're talking about, but you always have a good reason behind your criticisms. There's a difference between simply complaining and actually having an opinion, and you fall into the latter.
And I know how you feel to. I am very critical of pretty much everything, down to the minor detail. A lot of people take it as me being cynical or simply a whiner, but I criticise because I care. You care about the state of the transport in Melbourne, right? Then it's justified! Case closed.
"How often do people tell you to stop being so cynical, negative and to 'look on the bright side'?"
Since I headbutted the last person who told me, not very often these days.
No argument from me.
Totally agree with you, Reuben, with one small addition - it's really not appropriate to tell a suddenly widowed woman to "look on the bright side" as a nursing agency nurse discovered one evening shift with moi ;)
What would you know about ad hominem attacks anyway, you're just a communist. (Is that how they're done?) :o)
Maybe I should be serious for a moment. The criticism is not unjustified, and you do it well. My problem with critics of religion (not of you, you're very logical) is that their arguments often include comments about how stupid religious people are or must be - in fact, the very ad hominem attacks you talk about. Case in point, Richard Dawkins. The South Park episode about him summed him up: "Richard Dawkins discovered that logic and reason by themselves are not enough: You also have to be a dick to people who don't agree with you."
Look on the bright side at least you've still got your left leg.
"Your thoughts?"
That is one cat I would not like to meet in a dark alley. Or a catnip tollbooth when I only brought rosemary.
Thanks, Wendy. Do you think those who accuse you (or me for that matter) of being whiners aren't aware of the fact that we care?
God knows why you headbutted them, Brian.
Excellent Andrew. Now sit still and look pretty.
That's true enough I suppose, Jayne.
That's a good one, Marty. And Dawkins is known as 'Darwin's Rottweiler' for his castigative attacks on religion. Whilst I think it may lower his credibility in the eyes of some, it's important to note that he helped catalyse today's secular movements.
It's still sore, Sam.
Trust me, Aviva. Glossy is about as harmful as one of Martin Ferguson's newsletters.
Yeah, for the most part, I don't think they know we actually care. I know because I get a response through an eye-roll or a plain, "Shut up", or "You seriously need to get a life." Fun, isn't it?
Post a Comment