A friend of mine took me to task. Calling me “Dogmatic” in my arguments. (Dogmatic - Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.) I guess it could be viewed that way. The perception from my postion is that I am not that bright of a bulb. Many of the concepts I discuss are strictly “Rational” aka “Logical”. They are ideas that I assume by 6th grade most of us have been exposed to and had to have passed a test on things like basic math and social studies. I guess if I am in fact dogmatic, it’s due to my naivety. I have a belief that everybody can use a calculator, do simple multiplication, and understand simple psychology.
It turns out “Dogmatic” is a relative term. For example I can walk up to one of our resident mentally handicapped janitorial personal and say “water is made up of 3 atoms, of which 2 are hydrogen and one is oxygen.” Dogmatic. To him this would be unproven and seem awfully arrogant and authoritative. The average person over the age of 14 would think I was stupid for even feeling the need to make such and assertion. A few, might have even taken chemistry and adequately had it proven to them. Just as I can say, “John McCain or Sarah Palin are complete morons with no more skills for a community leadership role then one of our mentally challenged janitors. Further, Obama is not a Muslim.” To some that would be “dogmatic”. To others this would be obvious with out questions. To a few there might be some valid research to come to this conclusion. All that matters is that there are more voting representatives from the later groups then mentally handicapped group. If not, then a movement to either educate members who find it difficult to see past easy marketing scare tactics or discouragement or bar them from having a vote. (Discouragement. You have to take a simple test proving your ability to understand components of government work. Maybe basic rational skills.)
I guess what frustrates me is it should be profound, “feel” authoritative, or be unproven that continuing out activities with out regard to consequences is destructive and unsustainable. It shouldn’t be an “assertion” to a listener that ignorance begets more ignorance. I shouldn’t take a renowned physics professor to point out that the US has become a gluttonous, self centered, external blind society who collectively have no concern for the future.
I am not running for public office. My sphere of influence goes not further who will suffer to listen to me rant. Occasionally, somebody reads this blog. But other then that, I am just a person, a man, a father with fears and anxieties about the future for his offspring. My attempt to change the world one set of ears at a time is a futile task. But it at least makes me feel like I am trying, not just sitting on my hands because I fear social backlash.
It turns out “Dogmatic” is a relative term. For example I can walk up to one of our resident mentally handicapped janitorial personal and say “water is made up of 3 atoms, of which 2 are hydrogen and one is oxygen.” Dogmatic. To him this would be unproven and seem awfully arrogant and authoritative. The average person over the age of 14 would think I was stupid for even feeling the need to make such and assertion. A few, might have even taken chemistry and adequately had it proven to them. Just as I can say, “John McCain or Sarah Palin are complete morons with no more skills for a community leadership role then one of our mentally challenged janitors. Further, Obama is not a Muslim.” To some that would be “dogmatic”. To others this would be obvious with out questions. To a few there might be some valid research to come to this conclusion. All that matters is that there are more voting representatives from the later groups then mentally handicapped group. If not, then a movement to either educate members who find it difficult to see past easy marketing scare tactics or discouragement or bar them from having a vote. (Discouragement. You have to take a simple test proving your ability to understand components of government work. Maybe basic rational skills.)
I guess what frustrates me is it should be profound, “feel” authoritative, or be unproven that continuing out activities with out regard to consequences is destructive and unsustainable. It shouldn’t be an “assertion” to a listener that ignorance begets more ignorance. I shouldn’t take a renowned physics professor to point out that the US has become a gluttonous, self centered, external blind society who collectively have no concern for the future.
I am not running for public office. My sphere of influence goes not further who will suffer to listen to me rant. Occasionally, somebody reads this blog. But other then that, I am just a person, a man, a father with fears and anxieties about the future for his offspring. My attempt to change the world one set of ears at a time is a futile task. But it at least makes me feel like I am trying, not just sitting on my hands because I fear social backlash.
Comments