Visit my other blog 'Really Sciency' looking at Climate Science and its portrayal, misrepresentation and denial in the media.
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Just a thought
I am always amazed when people go to astrologers and fortune tellers and the reader can always give a person a summary of their personality and traits, but gullibility is never one of them.
Was it a serious question? I would have thought as a unbeliever in such stuff you would have concluded that they were unlikely to say anything that would damage their income.
I also doubt that a true believer in such things would feel belittled because one more person expresses complete scepticism in such a way.
But it is interesting to see that you would not be honest about expressing your views and rather than saying something people might not like you would rather see them fleeced of money.
"I would have thought as a unbeliever in such stuff you would have concluded that they were unlikely to say anything that would damage their income."
Exactly. They wouldn't call their customers gullible because that isn't what their customers want to hear. Likewise they are unlikely to call you smug.
"I also doubt that a true believer in such things would feel belittled because one more person expresses complete scepticism in such a way."
You don't think that calling a person "gullible" belittles them in any way?
"But it is interesting to see that you would not be honest about expressing your views and rather than saying something people might not like you would rather see them fleeced of money." How am I dishonest by not calling someone "gullible"? There are ways of discussing the merits of these things without using the pejorative.
“ They wouldn't call their customers gullible because that isn't what their customers want to hear. Likewise they are unlikely to call you smug.”
So if we both agree the obvious why have you insisted on an answer?
“You don't think that calling a person "gullible" belittles them in any way?”
Perhaps it might with some sensitive souls but sparing feelings by either not voicing my opinion or saying something mealy mouthed instead wouldn’t be honestly conveying my own view which is what you seem to be suggesting.
It is not a case of antagonising someone for the sake of it as it is my opinion that it is in their own interests to see they are being conned.
“There are ways of discussing the merits of these things without using the pejorative.”
The pejorative is honest and accurate. Gullible means easily deceived or cheated. Why use 5 or more words one will do?
What words would use to let them down gently?
By coincidence astrology has made the news in the last few days;
I await with interest to see if you post to such sites berating them for belittling believers in astrology by saying their belief is silly and saying things like; ‘So long as astrologers make vague predictions about people's lives, and there are believers who will pay for these predictions’.
"So if we both agree the obvious why have you insisted on an answer?"
Because I thought it would make you reflect on what you said and on the effect that it might have on those against whom it was directed.
Since you have studiously avoided answering the question I can only assume that I have failed in this regard.
"Perhaps it might with some sensitive souls but sparing feelings by either not voicing my opinion or saying something mealy mouthed instead wouldn’t be honestly conveying my own view"
I see. So being able to fully and stridently express your opinion, regardless of the effect that they may have on others, is more important to you than the feelings of those against whom they are directed. How self-centred.
"Since you have studiously avoided answering the question I can only assume that I have failed in this regard."
Haven't we just agreed that there isn't a real question to answer? We both agree that a fortune-teller or whatever is unlikely to call anyone smug.
"So being able to fully and stridently express your opinion, regardless of the effect that they may have on others, is more important to you than the feelings of those against whom they are directed."
Where have I said any such thing? Are you not honest enough to voice your opinion openly to others when they will disagree?
So when are you going to tell me what someone with your high moral standing and honesty would say?
Have you told the journalist on the Discovery News site that they are belittling people who believe in nonsense yet?
"Haven't we just agreed that there isn't a real question to answer? We both agree that a fortune-teller or whatever is unlikely to call anyone smug."
So your answer is that they are unlikely to call you smug, but only because they would wish to avoid causing offense to a customer, not because this is untrue.
"Where have I said any such thing?"
I have merely paraphrased (note the correct usage) what you said here: "Lazarus said... “You don't think that calling a person "gullible" belittles them in any way?”
Perhaps it might with some sensitive souls but sparing feelings by either not voicing my opinion or saying something mealy mouthed instead wouldn’t be honestly conveying my own view which is what you seem to be suggesting."
"Are you not honest enough to voice your opinion openly to others when they will disagree?"
Yes, but I try to do so in a way that is not belittling or likely to cause avoidable offense. It is quite possible to point out the the shortcomings of soothsayers to someone without accusing them of being "gullible".
"Have you told the journalist on the Discovery News site that they are belittling people who believe in nonsense yet?"
Have they accused people who consult astrologers of being "gullible" then?
"So your answer is that they are unlikely to call you smug, but only because they would wish to avoid causing offense to a customer, not because this is untrue."
Why do you keep adding things I haven't said to what I say? What someone thinks about me will be their own personal interpretation which in any case you suggest shouldn't be spoken about if there is a chance I will feel belittled.
"I have merely paraphrased "
Incorrectly. If you have to change the meaning to make a point, how valid should someone take that point?
"It is quite possible to point out the the shortcomings of soothsayers to someone without accusing them of being "gullible."
The shortcomings? So they have some merit then as long as you are aware of their shortcomings? What would those merits be?
I'm still waiting for how you claim to be able to tell people like it is without hurting their feelings. And what, for the second time of asking is wrong with using the correct word as a description?
Have they accused people who consult astrologers of being "gullible" then?
So instead of using 'gullible' when pointing out the shortcomings of fortune-tellers would you just call them silly, that such beliefs have non-existent foundations and in reality might actually be a load of rubbish?
Would you think they would feel less belittled than actually saying they were gullible i.e. - easily deceived or cheated?
So are you really saying that I should have said; "I am always amazed when people go to astrologers and fortune tellers and the reader can always give a person a summary of their personality and traits, but believing in silly things that have no foundations and might be a load of rubbish is never among them."?
Do you think they will feel less belittled? If not then I'm still waiting on your posts on the news sites that said similar things.
If you went to a fortune teller would you expect them to include "smug" amongst your personality traits?
ReplyDeleteDo you believe in that nonsense too?
ReplyDeleteNo. However I feel no need to belittle those that do.
ReplyDeleteCan you answer the question now?
Was it a serious question? I would have thought as a unbeliever in such stuff you would have concluded that they were unlikely to say anything that would damage their income.
ReplyDeleteI also doubt that a true believer in such things would feel belittled because one more person expresses complete scepticism in such a way.
But it is interesting to see that you would not be honest about expressing your views and rather than saying something people might not like you would rather see them fleeced of money.
"I would have thought as a unbeliever in such stuff you would have concluded that they were unlikely to say anything that would damage their income."
ReplyDeleteExactly. They wouldn't call their customers gullible because that isn't what their customers want to hear. Likewise they are unlikely to call you smug.
"I also doubt that a true believer in such things would feel belittled because one more person expresses complete scepticism in such a way."
You don't think that calling a person "gullible" belittles them in any way?
"But it is interesting to see that you would not be honest about expressing your views and rather than saying something people might not like you would rather see them fleeced of money."
How am I dishonest by not calling someone "gullible"? There are ways of discussing the merits of these things without using the pejorative.
“ They wouldn't call their customers gullible because that isn't what their customers want to hear. Likewise they are unlikely to call you smug.”
ReplyDeleteSo if we both agree the obvious why have you insisted on an answer?
“You don't think that calling a person "gullible" belittles them in any way?”
Perhaps it might with some sensitive souls but sparing feelings by either not voicing my opinion or saying something mealy mouthed instead wouldn’t be honestly conveying my own view which is what you seem to be suggesting.
It is not a case of antagonising someone for the sake of it as it is my opinion that it is in their own interests to see they are being conned.
“There are ways of discussing the merits of these things without using the pejorative.”
The pejorative is honest and accurate. Gullible means easily deceived or cheated. Why use 5 or more words one will do?
What words would use to let them down gently?
By coincidence astrology has made the news in the last few days;
http://news.discovery.com/space/your-star-sign-just-got-rumbled.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0113/New-zodiac-signs-2011-Why-astrology-is-even-sillier-than-we-thought
I await with interest to see if you post to such sites berating them for belittling believers in astrology by saying their belief is silly and saying things like; ‘So long as astrologers make vague predictions about people's lives, and there are believers who will pay for these predictions’.
"So if we both agree the obvious why have you insisted on an answer?"
ReplyDeleteBecause I thought it would make you reflect on what you said and on the effect that it might have on those against whom it was directed.
Since you have studiously avoided answering the question I can only assume that I have failed in this regard.
"Perhaps it might with some sensitive souls but sparing feelings by either not voicing my opinion or saying something mealy mouthed instead wouldn’t be honestly conveying my own view"
I see. So being able to fully and stridently express your opinion, regardless of the effect that they may have on others, is more important to you than the feelings of those against whom they are directed. How self-centred.
"Since you have studiously avoided answering the question I can only assume that I have failed in this regard."
ReplyDeleteHaven't we just agreed that there isn't a real question to answer? We both agree that a fortune-teller or whatever is unlikely to call anyone smug.
"So being able to fully and stridently express your opinion, regardless of the effect that they may have on others, is more important to you than the feelings of those against whom they are directed."
Where have I said any such thing?
Are you not honest enough to voice your opinion openly to others when they will disagree?
So when are you going to tell me what someone with your high moral standing and honesty would say?
Have you told the journalist on the Discovery News site that they are belittling people who believe in nonsense yet?
"Haven't we just agreed that there isn't a real question to answer? We both agree that a fortune-teller or whatever is unlikely to call anyone smug."
ReplyDeleteSo your answer is that they are unlikely to call you smug, but only because they would wish to avoid causing offense to a customer, not because this is untrue.
"Where have I said any such thing?"
I have merely paraphrased (note the correct usage) what you said here: "Lazarus said...
“You don't think that calling a person "gullible" belittles them in any way?”
Perhaps it might with some sensitive souls but sparing feelings by either not voicing my opinion or saying something mealy mouthed instead wouldn’t be honestly conveying my own view which is what you seem to be suggesting."
"Are you not honest enough to voice your opinion openly to others when they will disagree?"
Yes, but I try to do so in a way that is not belittling or likely to cause avoidable offense. It is quite possible to point out the the shortcomings of soothsayers to someone without accusing them of being "gullible".
"Have you told the journalist on the Discovery News site that they are belittling people who believe in nonsense yet?"
Have they accused people who consult astrologers of being "gullible" then?
"So your answer is that they are unlikely to call you smug, but only because they would wish to avoid causing offense to a customer, not because this is untrue."
ReplyDeleteWhy do you keep adding things I haven't said to what I say? What someone thinks about me will be their own personal interpretation which in any case you suggest shouldn't be spoken about if there is a chance I will feel belittled.
"I have merely paraphrased "
Incorrectly. If you have to change the meaning to make a point, how valid should someone take that point?
"It is quite possible to point out the the shortcomings of soothsayers to someone without accusing them of being "gullible."
The shortcomings? So they have some merit then as long as you are aware of their shortcomings? What would those merits be?
I'm still waiting for how you claim to be able to tell people like it is without hurting their feelings. And what, for the second time of asking is wrong with using the correct word as a description?
Have they accused people who consult astrologers of being "gullible" then?
So instead of using 'gullible' when pointing out the shortcomings of fortune-tellers would you just call them silly, that such beliefs have non-existent foundations and in reality might actually be a load of rubbish?
Would you think they would feel less belittled than actually saying they were gullible i.e. - easily deceived or cheated?
So are you really saying that I should have said; "I am always amazed when people go to astrologers and fortune tellers and the reader can always give a person a summary of their personality and traits, but believing in silly things that have no foundations and might be a load of rubbish is never among them."?
Do you think they will feel less belittled? If not then I'm still waiting on your posts on the news sites that said similar things.