Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sigh. It looks like the inanely cynical perversion of the term "common sense" will continue rationalizing egoistic and antisocial behaviors for many years to come, and that care and compassion for each other will have to take a back seat to self-motivated conduct.
I was not weighing in on the original post, but only on yours. That's why I quoted yours and not the original post. It is a logical fallacy to imply that my judgment of your post as pompous, holier-than-thou moralizing means that I am not in favor, and do not in fact practice, care and compassion for others.
Two people can start from the same point, namely advocacy of care and compassion for others, but arrive at different tones of expression which provoke different reactions in a reader. An extreme moralizing tone is normally a turn-off.
I, too agree with ER and LS35a about bUUs holier than thou post. The OP was a truthful humor bemoaning the loss of adult responsibility to themselves, their children and society and bUU posts about how we really need more PC bullcrap?? Who becomes the judge of what is caring and best for everyone? If that's not what you meant your post to mean, then sorry,mbut it sure didn't come off that way. It just cam off as more far left wing rhetoric.
I have a sister who believes deeply that she is the paragon of common sense. If you do not agree with her you are an idiot. One of her favorite lines is "you're not listening to me," as if to say you are not listening to common sense. There are people out there like that. Common sense is in the eye of the beholder, and many behold themselves to be the epitome of it. Which is to say, all opinions are subjective.
1. FAULTY CAUSE: (post hoc ergo propter hoc) mistakes correlation or association for causation, by assuming that because one thing follows another it was caused by the other.
example: The introduction of sex education courses at the high school level has resulted in increased promiscuity among teens. A recent study revealed that the number of reported cases of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) was significantly higher for high schools that offered courses in sex education than for high schools that did not.
2. SWEEPING GENERALIZATION: (dicto simpliciter) assumes that what is true of the whole will also be true of the part, or that what is true in most instances will be true in all instances.
example: I'd like to hire you, but you're an ex-felon and statistics show that 80% of ex-felons recidivate.
3. HASTY GENERALIZATION: bases an inference on too small a sample, or on an unrepresentative sample. Often, a single example or instance is used as the basis for a broader generalization.
example: Pit Bulls are actually gentle, sweet dogs. My next door neighbor has one and his dog loves to romp and play with all the kids in the neighborhood!
4. FAULTY ANALOGY: (can be literal or figurative) assumes that because two things, events, or situations are alike in some known respects, that they are alike in other unknown respects.
example: What's the big deal about the early pioneers killing a few Indians in order to settle the West? After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
5. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: (argumentum ad ignorantiam) attempts to use an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the validity of the conclusion, i.e. "You can't prove I'm wrong, so I must be right."
example: We can safely conclude that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, because thus far no one has been able to prove that there is not.
I, too agree with ER and LS35a about bUUs holier than thou post. The OP was a truthful humor bemoaning the loss of adult responsibility to themselves, their children and society and bUU posts about how we really need more PC bullcrap?? ... It just cam off as more far left wing rhetoric.
As I get older I worry about complaints about "political correctness" as much as I worry about claims about "common sense". The charge of political correctness is often just a way of avoiding one's preferred forms of callousness. I wouldn't want people rationalizing institutionalized callousness directed toward the elderly, or retirees in general, so I don't want to see it directed toward anyone. I see no merit in attacks on the ethic of care and compassion for each other and I am sorry to see such fervent efforts to besmirch calls for consideration for those less vulnerable.
Regardless, I wasn't aware that the left wing had a monopoly on humane conduct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverBird
I have a sister who believes deeply that she is the paragon of common sense. If you do not agree with her you are an idiot. One of her favorite lines is "you're not listening to me," as if to say you are not listening to common sense. There are people out there like that.
Precisely. We aren't carbon copies of each other. We're each individuals with our own personal "sense", unique from each other. Even "senses" that are diametrically opposed from each other can still each just as legitimate as the other.
And the OP didn't come off as far-right wing rhetoric???
As the OP, I'm actually libertarian not far right wing.
My intent was primarily to make people smile at something I thought most of us would agree with. I never thought it would offend people the way it apparently has. I need to go find an obituary for a sense of humor too.
The lefties here have proved the point that common sense is indeed dead. There is an objective reality in which some things are clearly right and wrong. For example, standing in front of a fast moving train and engaging in unprotected sex with an AIDS-infected hooker are likely to lead to unpleasant consequences. Someone will probably disagree with this too. Oh well!
I found this obituary the other day.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Yes, I remember this case and was quite puzzled and disappointed that the women won the case. Although our judicial jury system is not perfect, it's hard to believe that not a single juror had what this chain email called 'common sense'.
I did read more into the case and understood the reason for the verdict.
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.
Quote:
..the reason I've read McDonald's kept the coffee so dangerously hot: a marketing policy of optimizing coffee aroma in the restaurant in order to generate greater sales.
It's sad to see that this lawsuit is still being used as the 'poster child' for frivolous lawsuits!!
I do believe in trying to exercise more common sense. However, my common sense is that the coin has two sides and one has to gather all the facts before jumping to conclusions or succumbing to 'propaganda' from either the right or left wings!
There are some 'truths' in both the OP and bUU's posts but IMO, BOTH positions are a bit far off from where I stand. BOTH contain some common reasoning fallacies and are quite preachy in tone!!!
Yes, I remember this case and was quite puzzled and disappointed that the women won the case. Although our judicial jury system is not perfect, it's hard to believe that not a single juror had what this chain email called 'common sense'.
I did read more into the case and understood the reason for the verdict.
It's sad to see that this lawsuit is still being used as the 'poster child' for frivolous lawsuits!!
I do believe in trying to exercise more common sense. However, my common sense is that the coin has two sides and one has to gather all the facts before jumping to conclusions or succumbing to 'propaganda' from either the right or left wings!
There are some 'truths' in both the OP and bUU's posts but IMO, BOTH positions are far off from where I stand. BOTH contain some common reasoning fallacies and are quite preachy in tone!!!
I'm glad someone brought this up. I saw pictures of her burns - horrible. And yes, they had already paid people off before this happened.
As the OP, I'm actually libertarian not far right wing.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopHillers
My intent was primarily to make people smile at something I thought most of us would agree with.
And please know that the responses weren't directed at you personally, but rather solely at the kernel of spoilage that lives at the core of the humorous piece.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopHillers
I need to go find an obituary for a sense of humor too.
That's just the point though: There's loads of things that are humorous without having the baggage that the OP had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopHillers
The lefties here have proved the point that common sense is indeed dead.
Reveling in callousness is no way to make libertarianism sound noble. However, this is a forum about life in retirement not politics, so we should probably just leave it there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopHillers
There is an objective reality in which some things are clearly right and wrong. For example, standing in front of a fast moving train and engaging in unprotected sex with an AIDS-infected hooker are likely to lead to unpleasant consequences.
Who's disagreeing with that? Just because there are things that are universal doesn't mean that everything is universal. The insinuation you're making is a logical fallacy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
