Unfortunately, too many follow the example of what not to do. Lack of criticial thinking is largely behind why people do things like buy into Jack Chick tracts.
Speaking of fighting ignorance:
“One should worry about their own ignorance…”
Should be “One should worry about his own ignorance…”
“But if each person fights their own ignorance first…”
Should be “But if each person fights his own ignorance first…”
“If you can prove someone has been harmed by their beliefs…”
Should be “If you can prove someone has been harmed by his beliefs…”
One may substitute “her” or “his or her” for “his” in the above examples. But “their” is a plural pronoun, and “one,” “each person,” “someone,” and “you” are all singular antecedents. A pronoun must agree in number with its antecedent.
It would be nice if English had a neutral pronoun instead of requiring us to choose a gender or use the clumsy “his or her” construction. But it doesn’t. “Their” ain’t it.
And yes, this is one of my pet peeves.
So you see, I believe there are times when one has a moral obligation to counter ignorance.
I disagree. Rigid rules such as the one you are outlining are supported neither by common usage nor by precedent, and are based upon a mistaken understanding of the English language.
If you want some examples of famous authors since the 16th century who have used “their” with a singular antecedant, check out this link
Actually, sooner than that.
Guilty as charged! I put my foot right on the Freudian banana peel. (Try not to let it go to your head! :)) Hopefully everybody figured out at least in general what I was trying to say.
Actually, I would say, that a pet peeve is a poor reason to combat ignorance.
What about if you think that a person’s ignorance will be bad for them, like if going to hell might be bad for someone. How hard should you push in such a situation? Harder than if they’re merely going to blow themself up? Should you ever take no for an answer?
I think that willfull ignorance, the most dangerous form of ignorance, is extremely hard to combat. Many will refuse to change what they believe no matter how much evidence to the contrary you show them.
I think X hit the nail on the head with this: If someone is ignorant, but has an open mind, you can dispel that ignorance and everyone will benefit from that. After all, it’s always good to learn a new thing.
But on the other hand, it’s nearly impossible to topple other people’s opinion on core issues. A selective memory and the sad fact that evidence can be twisted to support anything people want it to support, doesn’t really help the matter.
So, I think there is a moral obligation to fight ignorance, if it’s in an education kind of manner. Heated debates about other people’s believes are needed sometimes, but I don’t really see those working out. Neither are they a duty in my opinion.
You can say “‘their’ ain’t it” all you want. “Their” is it, as far as I’m concerned. It’s not a mistake, and it’s not ignorance. It’s my prefered method, and I’m not letting it go in favor of some misguided ideal of what proper English is.
I don’t mean to upset you here, but one of my pet peeves is when the Guardians of Language try to kill useful innovations in language. So my request to you is: Let this one go.
And, on topic now, I believe that it’s worth it to make your point known. If a conversation ensues that will lead to less ignorance in the world, so much the better. If you hit a wall, then it’s generally better to give it up.
I’ve come up with a name for this attitude.
I call it Smartasse Oblige
As I demonstrated before in the thread with my link, it isn’t even an innovation, it’s been in common usage for hundreds of years!
Basically, what passes as “post modernism” to the young and hip. All about cultural relativism and throwing in a whole lot of psuedoscientific terms to make it seem more intellectual.
I don’t know how a Creationist could physically harm another person due to his or her Creationist beliefs, but Creationists are certainly doing their damndest to harm the U.S. public school system by disguising their beliefs as science and foisting them onto impressionable young minds.
I’m a “no harm, no foul” kind of guy, for the most part. But I draw the line at blatent attempts at dumbing down the public school system with Crationism disguised as science. Then I most certainly do cry “foul” and let 'er rip.
I still would like to see some examples. Is it the professors or the students which are causing the problem?
Are you asserting that the examination of multiple viewpoints and the reduction of absolutism is a sign of ignorance? Or, are you stating that you witness young students trying to pretend like they’re intelligent by using the convoluted language of many post-modernists to project meaningless ideas?