blogs_blog_1597

XD Have fun with that.

ugh! how DARE they expect you to objectively learn about views and ideas that differ from your own! disgusting!

When I took philosophy we read and evaluated many articles supporting various worldviews. You need to equally assess both your views and the views of others in order to be a proper philosopher.

Doom = reading stuff you don't agree with?

Oh boy, Zaryna you might want to change the wording in the entry a little because I think I hear some people grabbing their pitchforks.

 

Haven't read Richard Dawkins (don't want to anyway XP) but I see where you'd disagree with him. So in my opinion you have a right to "throw up" over it as long you're not in class doing this. Though would you kindly elaborate a little on why there is impending doom on reading Richard Dawkins, that would help a lot.

Reading something you don't agree with doesn't qualify as doom. If I read a book for school by someone who's views were the polar opposite of mine, it wouldn't be the end of the world. It would just be that I was reading a book by someone who's views were different than mine in school.

 

It's important to accept that there are other views you will hear about. If you only wanted to read things that reinforced your own beliefs, you might as well live in the woods and write letters to yourself (this is simply a joke, not an attack on you).

Sorry Zar, I guess you can't use hyperbole in blog entries any more.

 

You guys do realize it's okay to dislike something that you study, right? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you're not going to read it.

I've read plenty of things that I haven't liked. It's school. I tend to use expressions that signify my distaste with the work. If I recall, I remember saying that Romeo and Juliet was the stupidest thing ever and I couldn't believe that the teacher was treating it like Shakespeare's greatest work. There have also been times in a worldview class where I have looked at other works (although I took on an attitude that reading a disagreeing philosophy usually helped me to support my own).

 

The point is, why shouldn't someone express that he or she dislikes a source material? I understand that Zarayna's wording is hyperbolic, and I myself am not a huge fan of the phrase "throw up" (people have evoked the idea of puking to many of my own ideas to assault my character, and it hurts me if anyone says that about anything, period), but there's nothing inherently wrong with that and the feelings he has, except in some ways he lacks tact and elegance in his phrasing. He hardly needs mockeries brought to his door.

 

Now I am aware that to some extent this pushes the issues of BZPower etiquette by evoking ideas of religious conflict. If he had said this in a different setting, I wouldn't have thought twice about his statement and, even if I disagreed with his sentiments, I think we have to just pull off an Atticus Finch and accept that "it's just his way."

 

24601

Oh no. How dare they expect you to broaden your horizons and learn something else and about how different people think.

 

Wouldn't want to become tolerant now would you? Those fiends. Those evil fiends.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

 

Reading Dawkins isn't going to kill you any more than reading Descartes would kill an atheist.

Oh come on you guys.

In my defense, I don't get a whole lot of opportunity to quote Aristotle, what with me disagreeing with him on just about everything but that quote, the scientific method, and his disagreement with Platonic metaphysics.

I keep misreading the "rn" in the title as "m"

In my defense....uh...

 

My inner viking told me to. And he had a large axe. Would you disagree with a man who had a large axe?

Yes, all the time. Usually regarding the size of the axe, and whether he has a Freudian reason for carrying it (oddly, I'm the one saying he doesn't, because Freud was a twit).

 

NOTE: I read Freud's work before saying that.

I don't see what there is to defend, honestly

 

people's just speakin' the truth

It's called "covering one's rear end in case this goes wrong".

 

Tis a delicate art.

But why do you have to bother him about reading something he obviously doesn't want to?

Because. Just because someone doesn't want to do something doesn't mean they shouldn't. That's growing up.

 

I don't want to type out roughly two essays a week. I do it. I don't want to put up with certain people, but I do. I'd like to read more by Mr. Dawkins daily. But I don't have the time.

 

Complaining about it helps no one and in this case, reveals something of a narrow mind.

Why do I have to bother anyone about anything? Indeed, for that matter, why did he have to bother making a blog post about it*? We could question motives all day, or we could make civil conversation about a topic he chose to bring up.

 

*(rhetorical question, I don't actually find much amusement in questioning motives for minor acts)

But I mean, he's just saying he doesn't want to. There's no reason to start talking about becoming tolerant and open-minded and everything.

Here's the connection.

 

Zar here has made no secret of his rather strong opinions on a certain subject banned here. Dawkins has the opposite viewpoint and Zar refusing to read through it objectively, or rather, saying the very idea of doing so makes him want to throw up, reveals a mind unable to cope with contesting viewpoints. A narrow mind. Judging solely from this blog post at least.

 

The logic does seem to flow doesn't it?

Well, if his blog entry had read 'Have to read Dawkins for school. Don't really want to,' there would have probably been less of a kerfuffle about it (side note: I love that word). It's got more to do with the open contempt displayed for someone whose works he apparently hasn't read yet.

But there's no harm in saying you don't want to read something! Did Zar say he wasn't going to?

Is there any harm in me responding to the blog post?