Shades of Grey
October 27th, 2006
There are few things in life that can be neatly classified as black or white, yes or no, good or evil. Outside of mathematics and science, I am hard pressed to think of just about any scenario that could be summarily assigned to one camp or the other.
I’m aware that it is human nature for us to try to categorize everything we encounter. It helps our fragile brains make sense of the sensory overload bombarding us. It has helped mankind evolve by learning and adapting to various stimuli and information. These simple classifications help each of us to get through the day. But they also hold us back.
Most people are so accustomed to the categorization model that they fail to realize that most things in life are neither black nor white - they are grey. What is right in one case, may be wrong in another. Good now, evil later. A constant flux.
Don’t get caught in the trap, and more importantly, don’t let others draw you into the game. Adversaries will throw out loaded questions seeking a yes or no answer. Questions like “Do you want the US to win in Iraq?” - how can an intelligent person simply answer yes or no to a question like that? First of all, what does the question even ask? How can you define a “win” in this scenario? It’s not a football game where at the end of the game, the team with the most points wins.
What are the conditions of this “win” - and at what cost does it come? Does it simply mean that we kill more of them than they kill of our troops? Does the democracy we wish for Iraqis come at the cost of 100,000 lives? 200,000? Half a million? Don’t these considerations come into account when postulating an answer?
Refusing to answer such a question with a simple yes or no opens you to criticism and second guessing. Most people simply can’t accept the fact that some questions can not be answered yes or no. They know that they want the US to “win”, without even knowing what the hell that means, and project their simpleminded deductions onto you. When you refuse to accept their flawed arguments, be prepared for ad hominem attacks or other logical fallacies. When you know the game, at least you can be prepared to play.
Update: It would appear that David Letterman shares my philosophy - give him hell Dave. I love his “because I’m thoughtful” - zing.
October 28th, 2006 at 1:05 am
Excellent advice, Greg. While engaging in heated conversation with conservatives at work, I can immediately spot a shift in discussion as the neo-con realizes I have the upper hand and decides to quickly change the subject. I counter this with a forceful shift back to the original argument.
I think they get this tactic from Hannity or Limbaugh or something, but I’ve noticed that most of them try this diversion. The typical fall-back ploy is the “Clinton did this…” argument. I can see it coming from a mile away now.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:55 am
All True. (I feel a rant building)
This is the question I keep reading lately.
Is it OK to torture a suspected terrorist if it will ultimately save American lives? (Yes or No)
Well… I don’t believe it “Save Lives”. It just pisses people off and makes us look like barbarians.
If I was being tortured… I would probably confess to anything you want. Then I would rat on the rest of my family and say whatever I think you want to hear if I thought the torture would stop… And so would you.
The other thing that gets me is the ironically named programs using Orwellian Double Speak strategies.
Clear Skies initiative = Allows more industrial air pollution.
Healthy Forests Initiative = Allows increased logging of protected wilderness.
Are you for or against Clear Skies & Healthy Forrest’s? (Yes or No)
If you vote against these things, it opens you up to attack. The tree hugging Liberal voted against the “Healthy Forrest Initiative”… What a hypocrite.
Same strategy with renaming the “Estate Tax” to the “Death Tax”. This new wording is designed to favor the rich and shift the tax burden onto the poor who are lucky if they can even afford to bury their loved ones much less, worry about the taxes they will pay on the inheritance of a large estate.
We should change the name of “Sales Tax” to “Survival Tax”.
Sales Tax is designed to place the rich and the poor on equal ground. (As If) The rich and poor both pay the same % tax on a gallon of milk. However… The % of total income expended on sales tax at the grocery store is nothing for the rich, compared to the % of total income for the poor.
The same with taxing Gasoline and car registration, etc. Raise the tax on my food, gas and car to compensate for the loss of tax revenue from your multi-million dollar inheritance.
The phrase “Weapons of Mass Destruction” was coined to eliminate the need for being specific. Just about anything can qualify as a WMD so it leaves the door wide open to debate if statements made were truthful and accurate or not.
So Greg… Have you, or have you not, stopped kicking your dog? (Yes or No)
October 29th, 2006 at 10:23 am
Why even botherr trying to speak with Conservatives? Seems to me like an absolute waste of time.
October 30th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
While I would agree speaking with a conservative is a waste of time I don’t see how it’s any more so than speaking with a liberal. Both have chosen sides and will, more than likely, just spout the party line.
As the post is saying, the whole idea of right/wrong, good/evil, liberal/conservative is inherently flawed. Until people see that there is a whole lot of gray area between the sides as well as new ideas beyond them, there can’t really be an intelligent debate.