1
   

"I disagree" vs "That's intellectually bankrupt"

 
 
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 01:18 pm
While doing some boring-ass maintenance work on A2K I came across an old thread that reminded me of something I'd wanted to talk about.

Doing so so late probably makes no sense but I won't let that stop me.

It was about a complaint of my use of "intellectually bankrupt" when "I disagree" was deemed more appropriate.

Well, I disagree.

When one arrives at a position through reasonable means I disagree. When one arrives at a conclusion based on shoddy thinking and fallacy it is intellectually bankrupt.

For example, I disagree with this complaint. I do not think it intellectually bankrupt because it is simply a matter of stated preference. One could make the case that using "I disagree" instead of "intellectually bankrupt" is more palatable to the person being disagreed with.

With that I'll certainly agree, leaving the option for reasonable persons to disagree on what is and is not appropriate decorum.

But insofar as equating the two as interchangeable terms I disagree. There is a decided difference between a reasonable difference of opinion and an unreasonable and intellectually bankrupt position.

Examples:

1) Reasonable disagreement

"I think Michael Jordan is a better player than Wilt Chamberlain despite having less impressive statistics. Michael Jordan played in an era in which Wilt's statistics are impossible, and he played against highly evolved defenses."

"I disagree, I think there's no way to be sure that Wilt's statistics are beyond reach in today's game vs. Wilt's statistics being attainable only to a player of Wilt's caliber. Something I argue has not been seen since Wilt."

2) Intellectual Bankrupcy

"I think John Gudlukin is the most skilled basketball player of all time. He has a great smile and fantastically shaped buttocks."

"That is an intellectually bankrupt argument. Gudlukin's looks have no correlation to his skill and ability."


Of course there is wide variance about what is and is not intellectually bankrupt thinking as this is a subjective descriptor.

The point of this thread is only to make the case that there is a qualitative difference between mere disagreement (which can be between two reasonable people making reasonable arguments while holding reasonable positions) and intellectually bankrupt positions that employ glaring fallacies and deficiencies in cognition.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 8,084 • Replies: 65
No top replies

 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 01:34 pm
Poor bankrupt heart--Juliet

Sorry, Craven. I know you wanted something more profound. Sound familiar?

As for the "disagree" situation, I think the overused expression, "Agree to disagree" may be a viable alternative.

from Letty
0 Replies
 
SealPoet
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 01:39 pm
Itellectually bankrupt implies that you owe more intellect than you have.

The example given is closer to itellectually lazy.

Although, if someone writes a disagreement, and expects me to read it, then I am owed some intellect.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 01:40 pm
Letty wrote:

As for the "disagree" situation, I think the overused expression, "Agree to disagree" may be a viable alternative.


I disagree. ;-)

I think that there is a qualitative difference between mere disagreement and disagreement because of intellectually bankrupt positions.

For example:

1) Mere disagreement

"I do not feel that homosexuals should be allowed to marry because I think it is too devisive an issue right now."

"I disagree."

2)

"I do not think homosexuals should be allowed to live because their behavior is an abomination to nature and this can only lead to societal ruin."

"I disagree with that intellectually bankrupt position. Your argument employs only two fallacious premises with a naturalistic fallacy and a fallacious slippery slope argument."


In those examples someone might think that both positions are intellectually bakrupt. For example one might think teh first position is "stupid".

But ultimately there is a decided difference between teh two positions.

One is devoid of any substance and employs two logical fallacies to support the position. The other does not employ any fallacies.

So while I might disagree with the merits of the former it is a disagreement with an argument that is not intellectually bankrupt.

The second position is intellectually bankrupt.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 01:43 pm
Hmmm...I think you have too much time on your hands.

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 01:46 pm
One man's meat is another man's poison caprice. I think you spend more time on your posts than I do on mine.

While you might consider mine a waste of time you probably fail to consider that I might think the same of yours. <shrugs>

Personally I think it's a waste of time to enter topics just to tell people that you think they have too much time.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 01:47 pm
Sometimes, Craven and Seal. I think it's simply easier to fake it...vamp til ready, so to speak. Don't you both agree?

And, Caprice. I think I should get time on my side. It's not.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 01:48 pm
Letty wrote:
Sometimes, Craven and Seal. I think it's simply easier to fake it...vamp til ready, so to speak. Don't you both agree?


Nope. ;-)

I think agreement is overrated and that people should not be so timid about intellectual disagreement.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 01:58 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
One man's meat is another man's poison caprice. I think you spend more time on your posts than I do on mine.

While you might consider mine a waste of time you probably fail to consider that I might think the same of yours. <shrugs>

Personally I think it's a waste of time to enter topics just to tell people that you think they have too much time.


Can't handle a jest, can you?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 02:03 pm
Sure I can. That doesn't mean I will comment on it in a way that is palatable for you.

It's as fair to ask you if you can handle disagreement.

You've used two common tactics here.

The "too much time" and the "no humor" cards.

What I am asserting is that in life it takes all types. I spent no more time on this post than you might in a more frivolous one.

If tea is not your cup of tea that's fine. It takes all types and one man's meat is another man's poison.

Personally I think you are barking up the wrong tree, derision of people who use too many chich├ęs is a better way to spend your time.

In short you are putting the cart before the horse.

If you don't get this I get to play the "no humor" card.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 02:04 pm
Craven: I realized I'd open myself up to some comment from you about how much time I spend on here, but I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised to see the sort of response you posted to me. Your snide comments are really offensive.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 02:06 pm
Ah yes, once again you are right and I'm wrong.

Rolling Eyes

Last post for me here. I don't need your arrogant ramblings.

[Edited to activate emoticon. Smile]
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 02:06 pm
You know, folks. It has always been, and will ever be very difficult for me to butt horns. I think perhaps it's my tragic flaw.

Later. I need to nurse my wounded ego.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 02:09 pm
caprice wrote:
Craven: I realized I'd open myself up to some comment from you about how much time I spend on here, but I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised to see the sort of response you posted to me. Your snide comments are really offensive.


I disagree. I think you are oversensitive to civil disagreement.

I think you are wrong to think your comments about other's time must be taken in jest while at the same time bristling at the jest offered in return.

It takes all types, caprice. That is said as a motto, not a slur. It should not be taken as an insult that I have different criteria for the worth of my time. Just like I do not take it as an insult that you think my time is wasted.

Ultimately, it's my time and I don't care what others think about what I do with it unless they are paying me for my time.

Likewise what you do with your time should be what you want to do with your time and whether I find it your pursuits worthwhile or not should not make a difference to you.

So you might think my hobby of counting stars is a waste of time and I might think your hobby of collecting scalps is a waste of time.

Such is life, disagreement is not the end of the world.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 02:14 pm
caprice wrote:

Last post for me here. I don't need your arrogant ramblings.

[Edited to activate emoticon. Smile]


I think you are off-put by intellectual rigor and like to describe it as "arrogant". This is not a problem for me, heck I think I am arrogant and come across as arrogant even more often.

So I am fully prepared to agree with you. You do not need my "arrogant ramblings".

This would suggest that you'd not bother reading them but the fact that you do, and that you respond makes me speculate that it's a "sour grapes" rejoinder. I posit that the "ramblings" are depicted as "arrogant" as a way to invoke elitism instead of employing the intellectual honesty to address said "ramblings".

But I also have thick skin. I don't mind disagreement and I don't get as excited as you do about it.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 02:22 pm
Letty wrote:
You know, folks. It has always been, and will ever be very difficult for me to butt horns. I think perhaps it's my tragic flaw.

Later. I need to nurse my wounded ego.


Letty, what inflicted the wound?

I don't see disagreement as "butting heads"I see it as "putting heads together in a way that can be fricticious".
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 02:29 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
You've used two common tactics here.

The "too much time" and the "no humor" cards.

Geez, Craven, sounds like you really need to get laid.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 02:32 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
You've used two common tactics here.

The "too much time" and the "no humor" cards.

Geez, Craven, sounds like you really need to get laid.


LOL Joe, tell us all the name of that card.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 02:42 pm
Craven: I have identified it elsewhere as an argumentum ad connubium: a fallacy where one's lack of sexual satisfaction is regarded as a logical flaw.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 02:43 pm
Craven, Just problems on the home front. I hate being the one to make all the decisions.

And Caprice was just jokin' with 'ya, my young friend.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "I disagree" vs "That's intellectually bankrupt"
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2021 at 12:29:54