Having a different view = arrogant

[Lachrymose]

real life.

What is this "real life" you speak of?

[Rapscallion]

What is this "real life" you speak of?

I've heard of it. The 3D graphics are outstanding, but the customer support sucks.

Rapscallion

[Rageaholic]

I was once called a "control freak" for having a different view. I'm still trying to make sense of that one. And no, it wasn't on here or any other board where I have any sort of authority. In fact, it wasn't on any board at all. It was in real life.

Let me guess, you dared to argue about being in control of your own life? Meaning by asking others not to interfere, you were telling them what to do? And yes, I've heard that reasoning before. Not on here, but by extremests on other websites.

Here's a good example I found on tvtropes, my new passtime website.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...vilsOfFreeWill

I like the quote at the top.

All these people running around willy-nilly, having their own opinions and making up their own minds! It's hideously chaotic and totally unacceptable!
— Dr Mindbender of GI Joe's action figure file card quote.

[Sage Blackthorn]

Yeah, I can sort of understand the health care thing. The current system is pretty bad, and if you really need healthcare, than I can see where she's coming from. Not saying she was acting rational, just human I suppose.

It just struck me as one of those times when someone was putting words in my mouth (getting angry at things I never said that she apparently imagined I had, or "choosing the stupidest interpretation" to give her an opportunity to verbal beat on someone and take some of her frustrations out for daring to suppose that the proposed healthcare plan MIGHT be just as bad or, heaven forbid, worse than what we've got now). And yeah, I'll admit, it gets rather annoying after all these years when childish, irrational "WTF set them off?!" crap has become the norm in online discussions (or so it seems) rather than the exception.

Though I was mostly talking about instances where your view contradicts what the laws or rules already in place say. Whether these people agree with the laws or not, they're only arguement is that "it's the law!" making any discussion about the law mute. Even if you argue good sound reasons for why the laws make no sense, you're still daring to challenge the laws/rules.

A typical instance of this is challenging a rule that tries to dictate how other people live. I see no reason why any rule or law should dictate the lives of others unless someone would be hurt by the action. I believe it's perfectly healthy to question and if you have a good case, take a stand against the rules/law. This is when those defending the rules/law will accuse others of "only following the rules when you feel like it" or "thinking you're superior" or "special snowflake".

It really peaves me off. It's like "How dare you even try to think for yourself!". As if we can't tell the difference between bringing your cell phone to school and murdering someone. I know it's the established order crap, but it's not always as black and white as people make it out to be. There's henious crimes that hurt people (like rape and murder) then there's lesser crimes like parking violations that while annoying, are not in the same league. It comes down to common sense, but that's non existant when it comes to control freaks.

I actually lost a friend over daring to question just Laws in general. I'd pointed out that societies laws and rules of behaviour aren't real in the same way that the Law Of Gravity is. Invented laws exist only in our minds, and we are free to ignore them and break them if we think we can get away with it or we're willing to accept the consequences.

I'd pointed out that many people have an illusory understanding of what "Laws" are for from my point of view. People will say Laws are suppose to prevent crime or to protect the public. But there have been laws prohibiting theft and murder since the time of Hammurabi and in all that time people have continued to steal and kill. And in fact many laws that would greatly cut down on the occurance of theft and murder have been voted down by the public (usually because the sheeple are easily lead and will believe whatever the TV tells them, but that's another discussion entirely.) I'd pointed out that, in my opinion, what laws REALLY do is generate revenue for the state by describing and prohibiting behaviours (more and more lately) that people are going to do anyway, regardless of whether it's illegal or not. The more things the State makes illegal, the more things people can be fined or jailed for. More fines means more money for the state. More people in jail means more jails to be built, which means hiring construction companies, hiring more guards, hiring more catering services, buying more food....more, more, more...... And people are happy because they think they are getting "more". More "criminals" off the street, more security, more protection.......not realizing that they are sacrificing more and more of their basic freedoms.

All he could say was "But...but....Laws are REAL! They EXIST!" And he'd argue that without "Laws" anyone who was offended by my choice of lifestyle or spirituality could come to my store and kill me. I said "They can do that now, there is absolutely nothing outside of their own minds stopping them making the attempt. There is nothing that is actually, physically restraining a mob of people with torches and pickforks coming from dragging me out into the street and burning me at the stake other than an idea rattling around in their heads." Nothing I said could get him to understand, and he's just stopped talking to me.

Later I found that I'm not so strange in my thinking. In fact Robert Heinlein put forth the idea much more eloquently more than 50 years ago in the book "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress":

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

And many other members on that forum came out in support of what I was saying. Pointing out that the very fact that you CAN ignore the Laws and break them shows that they do not exist outside of our minds, they have no seperate and independant existance that affects us whether we believe in or follow them or not. The example I used was "If I don't believe in the Law of Gravity, that doesn't allow me to jump off a cliff and fly. Ignorance of the Laws of Physics doesn't protect you from them. You fall just like the rock that can't claim ignorance or even awareness. Granted if it's a tall cliff, end up as unaware of the rock at the bottom...."

HE understood that rules live only in our minds, and it's only our acceptance, or tolerance, of them....in affect our agreement with them and not the rules themselves......that prevents us from taking certain actions. If we disgree with them strongly enough, either intellectually or due to necessity (stealing food when you are broke and hungry for example) then the rules hold no power to stop us.

But Jason would hear none of it, and after the others came out wouldn't even discuss it anymore. For him, writing something down on a peice of paper and having it stamped with an official seal makes it solidly real. I still feel bad that he places such faith in an idea to protect him from being harmed by others. I think on some level he KNOWS that just because murder is illegal, that there is a tremendous, terrifying punishment that goes with doing it, that won't stop anyone from killing him if they are truely angry enough.......and I think that thought, that the security he feels is an illussion.....is more terrifying to him than anything. I mean we're both on a Wilderness Survival and Emergency Preparedness discussion forum for crying out loud. If we actually believed that laws STOPPED people from doing things, then the world would be paradise and no one would have to worry. Just writing down "It is unlawful for one human being to kill another" would put an end to murder, wars, suicide, crimes of passion where the husband discovers his wife cheating with the poolboy or the wife finds the husband banging the secretary......But it doesn't. People still kill one another. Realizing that "The Law" won't protect you, and that each and every one of us is ultimately responsible for our own health, safety, and well-being probably unnerved him more than a little.

I could be that people who jump on yer case for arguing against a stupid, or ineffective, or flat out unconstitutional law have bought into the idea that it's the laws themselves that really protect them....and not the cadre of law-enforcement professionals who cannot be everywhere and protect everyone all the time.....that questioning it is like questioning their Faith. And we ALL know how pissed people get when you question their religion. In the same way, pointing out all the little things that make it blatantly clear their view of the world isn't so pisses them off even more (because then yer essentially calling them foolish for not realizing it themselves, and much like an archeaologist who's based their entire career on incorrect interpretation of the evidence, and who's prestige and recognition hangs on them being "correct".....it's an ego thing for some). Ever since I read it, I've been fond of something that Paul Graham said "The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed. I suspect the statements that make people maddest are those they worry might be true." When you base your entire reality on a concept then someone says it's incorrect, well then your reality shatters when they finally convince you that your foundation idea is wrong.

[HYHYBT]

Let me guess, you dared to argue about being in control of your own life? Meaning by asking others not to interfere, you were telling them what to do? And yes, I've heard that reasoning before. Not on here, but by extremests on other websites.

Substitute "intolerant" for "control freak," and that one sounds very familiar. (i.e. you're being intolerant of my beliefs by saying I shouldn't control who you can marry.)

[Rageaholic]

And many other members on that forum came out in support of what I was saying. Pointing out that the very fact that you CAN ignore the Laws and break them shows that they do not exist outside of our minds, they have no seperate and independant existance that affects us whether we believe in or follow them or not. The example I used was "If I don't believe in the Law of Gravity, that doesn't allow me to jump off a cliff and fly. Ignorance of the Laws of Physics doesn't protect you from them. You fall just like the rock that can't claim ignorance or even awareness. Granted if it's a tall cliff, end up as unaware of the rock at the bottom...."

HE understood that rules live only in our minds, and it's only our acceptance, or tolerance, of them....in affect our agreement with them and not the rules themselves......that prevents us from taking certain actions. If we disgree with them strongly enough, either intellectually or due to necessity (stealing food when you are broke and hungry for example) then the rules hold no power to stop us.

But Jason would hear none of it, and after the others came out wouldn't even discuss it anymore. For him, writing something down on a peice of paper and having it stamped with an official seal makes it solidly real. I still feel bad that he places such faith in an idea to protect him from being harmed by others. I think on some level he KNOWS that just because murder is illegal, that there is a tremendous, terrifying punishment that goes with doing it, that won't stop anyone from killing him if they are truely angry enough.......and I think that thought, that the security he feels is an illussion.....is more terrifying to him than anything. I mean we're both on a Wilderness Survival and Emergency Preparedness discussion forum for crying out loud. If we actually believed that laws STOPPED people from doing things, then the world would be paradise and no one would have to worry. Just writing down "It is unlawful for one human being to kill another" would put an end to murder, wars, suicide, crimes of passion where the husband discovers his wife cheating with the poolboy or the wife finds the husband banging the secretary......But it doesn't. People still kill one another. Realizing that "The Law" won't protect you, and that each and every one of us is ultimately responsible for our own health, safety, and well-being probably unnerved him more than a little.

It's pretty scary to think about isn't it? I mean, I think most of us have the common sense not to kill one another or not steal. It's beyond a law, it's common survival. The world would not be a good place to live if everyone did those things. I think laws are necessary for punishing those who harm or cheat others, and in that way, it does protect us by making it less desirable to do those things. But there has to come a point where the people say "This law is bullshit". Look at the legalized discrimination pre 60s. Blacks were treated like second class human beings and if they dared to challenge that notion, they would go to jail. Eventually, enough people said "screw it" realizing that the laws had no point what so ever. As a result, these laws got changed.

I guess what I'm saying is that laws should revolve around what's right, not the other way around. The fact that something is a law does not mean it's automatically right. It may be better to follow depending on the demand the law has in order to avoid consequences, but in the end, the laws are merely man made, and are not infalible.

Since laws can be changed, if someone can give a good reason why the law is useless, then why should they be considered arrogant? It's not like they are arguing all out anarchy. Besides if they were, they could easily be refuted couldn't they? That's when those defending stupid laws will resort to falacies, comparing those who break any law to serial killers. And that's just insane.

Substitute "intolerant" for "control freak," and that one sounds very familiar. (i.e. you're being intolerant of my beliefs by saying I shouldn't control who you can marry.)

Yeah, that's the more common arguement, though they both carry the same implications. I mean how hard is it to let others live the way they want (as long as they aren't interfering with their rights)?

[Sage Blackthorn]

It's pretty scary to think about isn't it? I mean, I think most of us have the common sense not to kill one another or not steal. It's beyond a law, it's common survival. The world would not be a good place to live if everyone did those things. I think laws are necessary for punishing those who harm or cheat others, and in that way, it does protect us by making it less desirable to do those things. But there has to come a point where the people say "This law is bullshit". Look at the legalized discrimination pre 60s. Blacks were treated like second class human beings and if they dared to challenge that notion, they would go to jail. Eventually, enough people said "screw it" realizing that the laws had no point what so ever. As a result, these laws got changed.

I guess what I'm saying is that laws should revolve around what's right, not the other way around. The fact that something is a law does not mean it's automatically right. It may be better to follow depending on the demand the law has in order to avoid consequences, but in the end, the laws are merely man made, and are not infalible.

Since laws can be changed, if someone can give a good reason why the law is useless, then why should they be considered arrogant? It's not like they are arguing all out anarchy. Besides if they were, they could easily be refuted couldn't they? That's when those defending stupid laws will resort to falacies, comparing those who break any law to serial killers. And that's just insane.

I've been called "arrogant" many times for disagreeing with people. I think that it's helpful to remember that anyone who calls you "arrogant" is making a value-judgement based on how they view the world. Anytime anyone calls you anything, they are making a value-judgement like that, because you aren't conforming with their view of how people should act. Heck, one person called me a "racist" solely because I'm considered to be "white". they said "Only white people can be racists. Yer White, so yer a racist". Now first off, the irony of that statement was so great that I was quite shocked. I mean really, saying someone is "racists" solely because of the the color of their skin? When I told some of my "ethnic" friends, their eyes got wide, their jaws dropped and they said "You?! Yer the most Politically Correct person I know." At which point I had to say "Gee, thanks. You know how much I hate the Political Correctness movement." And they laughed, and explained that they meant I never treated someone differently based on the color of their skin. I'd never used racial slurs. That they'd never seen or heard of me doing anything they'd consider "racist". They were just absolutely taken aback that anyone would call me racist.

And then I remembered what Paul Graham said about being called a "Heretic" in that essay he wrote (which is actually chapter 3 in his book "Hackers and Painters: Big Ideas From The Computer Age"). When someone can't debate an issue with facts and logic and reason and common sense, they will resort to attacking the character of their oppoenent to win when they know they don't have a leg to stand on. I think Mr. Graham's example makes a lot of sense:

"Suppose in the future there is a movement to ban the color yellow. Proposals to paint anything yellow are denounced as "yellowist", as is anyone suspected of liking the color. People who like orange are tolerated but viewed with suspicion. Suppose you realize there is nothing wrong with yellow. If you go around saying this, you'll be denounced as a yellowist too, and you'll find yourself having a lot of arguments with anti-yellowists. If your aim in life is to rehabilitate the color yellow, that may be what you want. But if you're mostly interested in other questions, being labelled as a yellowist will just be a distraction. Argue with idiots, and you become an idiot."

Now most of the time, I don't assume that those I'm arguing with are "idiots", I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. But once it becomes apparent they are idiots, such as when they start using those "Rules For Internet Debates" that I mentioned earlier, then it also becomes readily apparent that it's pointless to continue discussing anything with them, since it's only going to raise my blood pressure. And likewise when I realize I'M being an idiot about something, it's time for me to step back and re-examine my beliefs on a subject.

[Mytical]

Hmm then I must be one of the most arrogant people on the planet. Seeing as my ideas on things is so far off mainstream that it might as well be on a different planet.

I see the views of both sides normally in a debate. Regardless if it is abortion, religion, or what. I have my own opinions, of course, but sometimes I am not the best at expressing them. Well that and I suffer from Shiny Things Syndrome .

In fact, I am a very opinionated person, but I like to discuss and understand where the other person is coming from. WHY they believe what they believe, and HOW they come to believe it. Because I believe it is the duty of every person to understand as much as they can, and closing one's mind to anything will just leave you ignorant. There I go off on a tangent again..think this is where I leave it, before I really confuse people.