# The fight against ignorance gets violent! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 28, 2004, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904 "2004-12-28T06:33:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/21 "2004-12-28T16:34:06Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I don’t know why you have such a penchant for trying to explain things with mathamatical equations Not math. Logic. It’s how you disect an argument into it’s componants. See [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/22 "2004-12-28T17:27:42Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > But you are defining both hurtful and destructive to suit yourself. Bush and the Jew haters do the same thing. Doesn’t _everyone_ define “hurtful and destructive” to suit themselves? Isn’t that a basic part of the process of determining the morality of any given subject or situation? ---
**Author:** ![ArrMatey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/arrmatey/32/3522_2.png) [@ArrMatey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArrMatey)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/23 "2004-12-28T18:28:22Z")
Not to threadjack, but in my role as court jester… > [@Liberal](#): > > Bush and the Jew haters. BAND NAME! ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/24 "2004-12-29T08:32:29Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > Not math. Logic. Having studied both to some degree, I am aware that there is a great ammount of debate as to the primacy of math vs the primacy of logic, or, for that matter, whether the two are really different at all. If, however, you would prefer, I could rephrase it as “I don’t see why you have such a penchant for explaining things with equations.” People don’t ‘speak’ equation unless they’ve been trained. In most cases, plain english is much more useful than “Ah, so we’re discussing issue X. How then do you respond to [A - (B + N)] versux [(B + N) - A] Do you claim they’re the same thing?” > [@NurseCarmen](#): > > It’s how you disect an argument into it’s componants. Funny, I use words. Perhaps there isn’t only one way ‘how you disect an argument into its components.’ ? > [@NurseCarmen](#): > > See [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). Why is this cite included? Honestly, I don’t understand. Please clarify. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/25 "2004-12-29T09:05:30Z")
Sorry to sound completely ignorant here guys, but no Jews were killed? :dubious: This sound completely ambivalent to the attack. If somebody were going to start a rumor, shouldn’t it have been the Muslims were warned to stay away? Or what am I missing here? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/26 "2004-12-29T11:00:25Z")
I think he was trying to say that the Jews were behind the attack on the U.S., and not Al-Qaeda. Incidentally, **Weirddave** - how’s it going with that Baby Bjorn? They aren’t sold in this country, but I’ve head such great things about them that I’m thinking about getting someone to send me one from abroad. Are they as good as people say? ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/27 "2004-12-29T11:01:43Z")
Tinfoil hat answer: Mossad planned and executed it to goad america into “cleaning up” the middle east. You can also extrapolate further conspiracies to include0 the Masons and Bush fascist regime, and the reverse vampires. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/28 "2004-12-29T11:03:25Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Doesn’t _everyone_ define “hurtful and destructive” to suit themselves? Isn’t that a basic part of the process of determining the morality of any given subject or situation? Yes, and that was the point I made. FinnAgain said, “In this case, I think it [the lying] was acceptable.” I responded, “The Jew hater might have thought the same thing. He might have known that Jews were killed, but thought that it was acceptable in this case to lie, just as Bush thought it was acceptable in this case to lie about Iraq. When you open a door, all and sundry may pass through.” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/29 "2004-12-29T11:19:14Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I don’t know why you have such a penchant for trying to explain things with mathamatical equations, but it strikes me as kinda batty. > YMMV of course. Language can be ambiguous, equivocal, and amphibolous. Symbological renderings of statements force us to be precise about what we mean. > [@](#): > > Moreoever, the claim that [(A)] lying to dispell a hurtful and bigoted premise somehow means that [(B)] lying to start a hurtful and bigoted situation is okay? It was merely because you thought that (A) was okay that you presumed my equating it to (B) meant that (B) was okay, when in fact I was saying that neither is okay. Lying is morally neutral. It isn’t a question of morality, but of fighting ignorance (the topic of this thread). Lying, by its very definition, _creates_ ignorance. Facts do not need lies to substantiate them. > [@](#): > > In my mind, that’s the very definition of a ‘slippery slope’ argument. That once the ball starts rolling, the gates of hell come open and anything is cool. The essence of the slippery slope fallacy is that past events do not establish future precedence. I was not talking about one thing leading to another, but about establishing a rules system whereby lying is an acceptable tactic based on a subjective determination of relevance and merit. It’s not to say that if the goose falls in so will the gander, but that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you insist on being allowed to lie, then you have no logical basis upon which to condemn the lies of others. > [@](#): > > Bullshit. > **Any** untrue and hateful system of belief designed to demonize a group of people is hurtful and destructive. Then what exempts you? Other than your own self-serving evaluations, I mean. You are advocating an untrue and hateful system of belief designed to demonize the Jew hater. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure if you’re suggesting I only feel that way because there are Jews involved, but if you are, you’re dead wrong. I have no idea where that came from. I have been perfectly precise with what I mean. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/30 "2004-12-29T16:03:30Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Incidentally, **Weirddave** - how’s it going with that Baby Bjorn? They aren’t sold in this country, but I’ve head such great things about them that I’m thinking about getting someone to send me one from abroad. Are they as good as people say? Oh, I love it. I wouldn’t want to run a marathon in it, but it’s a handy way to carry baby, he snuggles right in and sleeps against my chest which is _wonderful_ from a father/son bonding standpoint, and it’s generally pretty comfortable. After an hour or so my lower back does start to ache a little, but I am somewhat out of shape. I imagine it would get to be real work after a couple of hours if you had to stand that whole time, but sitting takes the pressure right off. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/31 "2004-12-29T18:02:46Z")
Okay, this really pisses me off. I’m Roman Catholic and therefore give a hearty chunk of the Pundits’ annual Gross Domestic Product to the Mother Church. Not ONCE have I received a warning from the Secret Catholic International Emergency Broadcast System warning me of _anything_. Why just last week we were hit with 14 inches of snow here in Cincinnati. What warning did I get? Nada. No phone call, no telegram, no freaking e-mail. Meanwhile I’ll bet all the Jews were notified via some intricate Jew Network that the blizzard was coming and thus were able to clear Home Depot out of their salt and snow shovels hours ahead of the rest of us slobs. Bastids. \*\* WierdDave, I admire you for your passion, but agree that you had no hope of changing the guys’ mind. In this ever changing world in which we live in, sometimes we just have to live and let die. ---
**Author:** ![Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tyrrell_mcallister/32/16772_2.png) [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tyrrell_McAllister)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/32 "2004-12-29T22:44:19Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > The Jew hater might have thought the same thing. He might have known that Jews were killed, but thought that it was acceptable in this case to lie, just as Bush thought it was acceptable in this case to lie about Iraq. When you open a door, all and sundry may pass through. > [@Liberal](#): > > It was not a slippery slope argument. Slippery slope is of the form, ((A & B) -\> C) -\> ((A -\> C) V (B -\> C)). **Liberal** , your definition of a slippery slope argument is idiosyncratic. From the Wikipedia link **NurseCarmen** posted: > [@](#): > > The slippery slope as fallacy > > The slippery slope argument may or may not involve a fallacy (-- see the discussion on the two interpretative paradigms below: the momentum paradigm and the inductive paradigm). However, the slippery slope claim requires independent justification to connect the inevitability of B to an occurrence of A. Otherwise the slippery slope scheme merely serves as a device of sophistry. > > Often proponents of a “slippery slope” contention propose a long series of intermediate events as the mechanism of connection leading from A to B. The “camel’s nose” provides one example of this: once a camel has managed to place its nose within a tent, the rest of the camel will inevitably follow. In this sense the slippery slope resembles the genetic fallacy, but in reverse. > > Arguers also often link the slippery slope fallacy to the straw man fallacy in order to attack the initial position: > > A has occurred (or will or might occur); therefore > > B will inevitably happen. (slippery slope) > > B is wrong; therefore > > A is wrong. (straw man) > > This form of argument often provides evaluative judgements on social change: **once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule.** (bolding added) In terms of classical logic, a fallacious slippery slope is simply an invocation of modus ponens in which the major premise is false. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/33 "2004-12-30T06:39:07Z")
> [@SHAKES](#): > > Sorry to sound completely ignorant here guys, but no Jews were killed? :dubious: > > This sound completely **ambivalent** to the attack. > > If somebody were going to start a rumor, shouldn’t it have been the Muslims were warned to stay away? > > Or what am I missing here? {bolding mine} I don’t think that word means what you think it means (from Merriam-Webster online): > [@](#): > > 1 : simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action > 2 a : continual fluctuation (as between one thing and its opposite) b : uncertainty as to which approach to follow Thanks for the definition, **Tyrrell**. I have never been completely sure what a slippery slope or strawman argument was. **Ginger** , your parents must have felt like my sister and I felt when we were taking a bus in Los Angeles, and the passengers started fighting with each other en route. We knew right then we were a long way from home (to paraphrase). ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/34 "2004-12-30T07:35:46Z")
Not to take anything away from your holy defense of the TRUTH at all costs, I’ve already said that in principle I would agree with you, but does the revelation that my lie was only about the nature of the relationship I had with the person in question and not the basic facts of the matter change your mind about how wrong I was to lie at all? I’m curious as to your answer. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/35 "2004-12-30T07:53:36Z")
There are such things as lies that do not hurt people. But at least, if you’re going about your everyday social intercourse, try not to lie too obviously as that makes the rest of the human race less likely to trust me, **Ludovic**. And don’t lie to personal acquaintances of any shape or form too much or they won’t trust you. But any sort of theoretical break in the space-time continuum brought on by simply uttering something whose truth value is false will simply not happen. (Anyway, no one jumped in with a _Tu Quoque_ in response to the master of the Noble Come-On?) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/36 "2004-12-30T10:31:55Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Not to take anything away from your holy defense of the TRUTH at all costs, I’ve already said that in principle I would agree with you, but does the revelation that my lie was only about the nature of the relationship I had with the person in question and not the basic facts of the matter change your mind about how wrong I was to lie at all? I’m curious as to your answer. Let me repeat that lying is morally neutral. It is “wrong” only in the sense that it is… well… wrong — i.e., inaccurate, imprecise, errorful. It therefore is definitively impossible to fight ignorance with a lie. Lies _create_ ignorance. That is my only point with respect to that. My other point (with FinnAgain) is that if you want to make your own rules based on your own subjective criteria, then you cannot logically deny others the same thing unless you are in some position of authority over them. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/37 "2004-12-30T10:46:50Z")
> [@Tyrrell McAllister](#): > > **Liberal** , your definition of a slippery slope argument is idiosyncratic. From the Wikipedia link **NurseCarmen** posted: > > This form of argument often provides evaluative judgements on social change: **once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule**. > > (bolding added) I’ve said nothing about more egregious exceptions; I have said something about **the exact same exceptions**. As I already explained, I’m not talking about anything getting worse; I’m talking about the universal application of rules. > [@](#): > > In terms of classical logic, a fallacious slippery slope is simply an invocation of modus ponens in which the major premise is false. That’s not what the Wikipedia entry is saying. As I explained before, the essence of a slippery slope fallacy is that past events predict future ones. That’s what Wikipedia means when it says: “A has occurred (or will or might occur); therefore B will inevitably happen. (slippery slope)”. That is a slippery slope. Put more precisely, it is ((A & B) -\> C) -\> ((A -\> C) V (B -\> C)). The extra Wikipedia comment is about how a strawman is often tied into a slippery slope. That is, a person argues that because the future event cannot happen, the past event did not happen. (Incidentally, that is a modus tollens, not a modus ponens.) But a strawman and a slippery slope are not the same From the formula I gave, the tie-in would be ~((A -\> C) V (B -\> C)) -\> ~((A & B -\> C)). And by the way, a slippery slope is not always a fallacy. If ((A & B) \<-\> (A V B)), then ((A -\> C) V (B -\> C)) is true. ---
**Author:** ![Man\_from\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Man\_from\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Man_from_Mars)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904/38 "2004-12-31T06:10:22Z")
Weirddave, I had a similar reaction to an uncle who said the same nonsense. “That’s bullshit!” I can’t remember what I said after that, only saying loudly and emphatically: BULLSHIT. It was like an out of body experience. My brain just took over after that. I felt bad for yelling at my uncle, but after years of listening to his condemnations of this group of people that first kill Jesus, now won’t even accept him. And top of that, they run the world. . . So, I snapped. I felt bad for mouthing off to an elder but not for the fact that he shut the fuck up the rest of the night. But it still bothers me that this guy, these guys, still believe such nonsense. And not because they’ve weighed all the elements, done intelligent mental calculations, and come to an honest conclusion. But because it’s easy to blame others, in this case Jews. The guy’s a prick. Anyone who says “there were no Jews” that died is a moron. And I’m not using that word merely as a pejorative. I mean the guy is clinically a moron, someone with a hockey score IQ. Anyone who believes that contacting “4,000” people of any identity and coordinating a work stoppage for that one right day when a major terrorist operation is planned to go off and actually believes that there is evidence, actual freakin’ proof that shows that there were no Jews, is a moron. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fight-against-ignorance-gets-violent/281904.md?page=1)