The world is not black and white.

It is neither a sphere of evil nor a plateau of ideals. The world cannot exist without a healthy balance of both. In this case, evil is defined as furthering one's self-interest at the cost of another being's.

There are generally two sides to an argument because a hint of truth can be found in both. To define one side as black and the other as white--evil and just--is ignorance at best. There are always exceptions, wherein a great evil or justice may persevere, yet to perceive the world through the precedence of such only leads to dismal misconceptions and bias. One must grasp the complexities of life and the situation at hand before they are able to competently and objectively judge both sides of an argument.

A few popular topics have recently come to my attention and caused me to bring forth this notion. The one I would like to talk about is the much more subtle topic of a six-year-old girl's peanut allergy and the protesting of her schoolmates' parents on the subsequent restrictions that were enforced (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=204051).

The case is pretty cut and dry: parents (both parties) are attempting to give their child(ren) the best possible environment at school. I can tell you my very first reaction after I read the article: my eyes welled up with tears as I sympathized for the little girl who may never have a normal life and is now the center of tension brought upon by adults (both parties) that may have caused a big(ger) rift between her and her schoolmates. Yet, as I scrolled down the thread, I witnessed that most of the responses were directed towards who was right and who was wrong.

In this situation, it is quite ignorant to label a side as right or wrong. In fact, as mentioned before, both sides are adorned with justice, and both sides are also in the wrong. On one hand, you have one party inconveniencing a number of kids who may not be able to abide by the rules for a better life for their child; on the other, the second party wishes to deny a little girl's inherent right to an opportunity for a public education and a (more) normal (though I do hate myself for using the word "normal," you know what I mean) life for the sake of comfort for their children. The small inconvenience of a large number of people versus the great sacrifice of one individual is a philosophical topic that may be debated, but by no means is one side "black" and the other side "white."

Although you can speculate that the girl should be home-schooled because it may be too dangerous for her at school, it is just speculation and does not hold actual weight in an argument. Likewise, one can speculate that the kids are not missing out on much through these restrictions. You can also speculate the opposite of both. In the end, speculation is what it is: pure, unproven speculation. Or, as I'd like to call it, ignorance; you do not know the definite outcome, therefore you are ignorant.

Speculation is one of the unfortunate consequences of not only ignorance but also, for a great deal of arguments, seeing the world in black and white. Many speculators deem opposing opinions as "naive," and in some cases that may be true, but the same could be said of them.

Through dictionary.com, naive is defined as:

1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.

2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:

I think in one case, if I remember correctly, someone accused the U.S.A. of being the mastermind of all wars. Others accuse the U.S.A. of being interested in nothing but oil. Anyone who opposed these speculations was deemed "naive," yet going by the definitions presented above, are the speculators themselves not the ones who are truly naive?

I could go on and on about speculation and the incredibly high amount one can witness through browsing through some of the threads in the General Forum, of which I often visit for awesome reliable news presented by amazing members of this community (shoutout to {CC}StealthBlue); however, the rant would be endless and this blog would turn into a (bigger) disaster, so I'll stop here. Nowadays I tend to ignore any such uninformed speculation, and I advise everyone else to do the same.

The world is not black and white. Situations are often more complex than bystanders can fathom. Just keep that in mind before you *cringe* speculate.

jodogohoo

Canada2533 Posts

March 30 2011 07:40 GMT

Terrakin

United States1440 Posts

March 30 2011 08:01 GMT

Tons of people have no opinion, yet still want their voice heard.

Anxiety

United States650 Posts

March 30 2011 08:06 GMT

Am I the only one who thought this was going to be on Pokemon?

Nice write-up anyway

RushWifDietCoke

United States488 Posts

March 30 2011 08:08 GMT

I guess one's speculation on a topic is influenced by their definition of "right" and "wrong". I agree with what you were saying on how there is no set standard of right and wrong that is absolute and every person in the world can agree upon. Right and wrong seem to be concepts we created and that we alter over time to fit societies current needs. Although, I don't really see it as ignorant to speculate on the topic of the young girls education because right and wrong are not concepts of science but rather just a matter of opinion. Although yes one could look at the specifics and influences of every minor detail but it will come down to what people interpret as right or wrong. I suppose though your example of the USA being accused as the mastermind of all wars could be scientifically looked at and examined, considering there have been wars before the USA was around I would have to say that statement is either fallacious or poorly detailed. Some topics more of us can agree on as being right or wrong, and others are split down the middle. In the end I think what really determines what is considered right and wrong is just peoples speculation by using the language and knowledge they have been given to interpret the world around them.

Deleted User 45971

533 Posts

March 30 2011 08:18 GMT

Almost everyone I've seen debating politics on the internet and in person usually call people who don't share similar beliefs to themselves naive/childish/conspiracy theorist or some other insult.

I imagine people do this because it moves the conversation from discussing facts and veracity of sources etc (since there are a million of them for everything) to making people defend themselves and throw counter insults. It occurs when people care more about "winning" the argument or not accepting that they might have been wrong instead of caring about being right and adjusting their views accordingly.

And so many people always fall for these tricks when others use them, it's just so convenient to start arguing bullshit instead of searching for good sources and researching which takes time. I do this myself because of laziness sometimes.

I remember in school when we went into a chapter about arguments and we had some pretend arguments about various stuff, we only learned about how to present arguments and rhetoric etc.

Nothing about making logically coherent arguments where we research and present facts to support our opinions and more importantly where we challenge and demand others to do the same instead of accepting bullshit.

Souma

2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts

March 30 2011 17:24 GMT

On March 30 2011 17:18 Potatisodlaren wrote:
Almost everyone I've seen debating politics on the internet and in person usually call people who don't share similar beliefs to themselves naive/childish/conspiracy theorist or some other insult.

I imagine people do this because it moves the conversation from discussing facts and veracity of sources etc (since there are a million of them for everything) to making people defend themselves and throw counter insults. It occurs when people care more about "winning" the argument or not accepting that they might have been wrong instead of caring about being right and adjusting their views accordingly.

And so many people always fall for these tricks when others use them, it's just so convenient to start arguing bullshit instead of searching for good sources and researching which takes time. I do this myself because of laziness sometimes.

I remember in school when we went into a chapter about arguments and we had some pretend arguments about various stuff, we only learned about how to present arguments and rhetoric etc.

Nothing about making logically coherent arguments where we research and present facts to support our opinions and more importantly where we challenge and demand others to do the same instead of accepting bullshit.

Hm, I think what you are talking about is more along the lines of people who flame bait/troll, though I get what you're saying about being too lazy to research, which is a huge problem. I'm mainly referring to people who actually believe that their speculation is fact with no credible sources to base it upon, though it seems they really are not lazy, and as you said, try hard to "win" the argument.