First of all, I'm feeling a bit insecure about this post. I hope what I am writing isn't just plain common sense and that it's actually teaching some people a thing or two. I worry that I'm just writing a lot of stuff that people already have got figured out. I hope I am helping at least a good chunk of whoever is reading!!
Hope I haven't made any promises of more regular future blogs on here because those have clearly been foiled. My apologies if I have and I'll try not to do it in the future. Regularity on these isn't a feasible thing for me at this current point in time. Maybe now that I've said that, I'll post more? That's usually how it goes with me. I try to do this for enjoyment and I think lately I have been so focused on other things that adding blogs in as a requirement to prevent negligence would have just been stressful for me...so well, they got neglected. I still am happy to have and write in these, so pardon the irregularity. Hope it just adds to the charm? Enough about that!!
TO THE ENTRY:
I've learned that often I over think common sense things. I'll try to delve into something simple and come up with reasons why it is basic knowledge. In actuality, these simple things are what they are, and are, in fact, nothing to argue against, but should be used as reasons for doing other things. To come up with a reason for these things, would be hyper-analyzing and over-complicating matters. I think when you get down to the nitty-gritty, sometimes something IS WHAT IT IS. And saying absolutely anything else about it would be over-doing it and trying to add depth to something where depth does not exist. Getting a little too creative/a little too close to being obsessive compulsive. I've found often in my life that sometimes just saying a certain phrase with confidence is much better to sway people with than also giving them the reasons. Because, now, giving reasons, you give people more room for objection. If something is what it is, well, there's no debating it, is there? But reasons make things more complicated, and easier to argue against, sometimes necessarily, and sometimes not.
You can totally abuse this, and I fear a bit at handing out the info I put in the paragraph above, but I think enough people have figured it out, regardless. There are times when you NEED reasons and there are times when something is actually so simple that you do not.
For instance, if you are late for something. You can simply say, I am late. And that stands strong on it's own, albeit causing the person who you are telling you are late to wonder. But once you come up with reasons for it--they become excuses. Excuses the latter party can actually argue against. We all know how this debate works, it's one of the debates that, no doubt, all of humankind experiences, quite a few times in their lifetime. Whether the person you are late to seeing deserves an excuse is at your discretion. I would hope you would know when it's rude to not give your excuse and when it isn't, but a lot of people unfortunately don't, and I'm not delving into that right now, plus I think it's a little different for everyone. There's a balanced approach and an approach that comes from nonsense, whether that's egoism, or other strange, fantastical values.
There's a totally irresponsible way to clarify thoughts that I fear this entry could start the seed in, in irrational or young minds. And that is, to just make a short statement on some radical belief, for instance, "Stars are alive." (pathetic example, but nevertheless) and then not have an answer because you act as if this statement is a given when it's absolutely not. Do we believe stars are alive? Is that a common thought? The person who says it may act like EVERYBODY thinks stars are alive, but that doesn't mean they are!!! You better give some good, viable reasons if you are going to make a statement like that and are expecting sane, balanced, mature people to believe you. [I add the three adjectives sane, balanced, and mature because I think without three out of three, you could probably get a couple of people who only has two out of three to believe you without much trying. And some people value that--usually people who are dumb and/or just plain nasty and manipulative...They'll get a large enough number of stupid people to believe them until the number is so high that the smart ones start questioning whether they are right or not, even though when you look at the facts, they are wrong.]
There are people who absolutely WILL make statements like "Stars are alive," and will completely expect you to side with them, with absolutely no reason, simply because, point-blank, these people are vain, egotistical, and idiotic. They need you to appeal to their ego--it gives them a rush, and satisfies their need for acceptance and their insecure need to have followers. Honestly, I don't really get it, and it's taking me a hellish time to figure out why the hell they do it, as I would be insulted by people who are only liking me because I sound powerful and not because I sound logical. It's not a valid reason to be worshiped--and on the off-side, I don't want to be worshiped because I don't consider myself or anyone else, above anyone else. I want to be respected, because I make sense and help my surroundings, myself, and the people around me become better. Not because I make random, crazy statements, that may or may not be true, and have people follow them because I can because I am powerful. That's not real trust. That's not kind. That's not true or valid. It's not real validation. It's sheer stupidity, to be quite honest. I don't respect it or support it and I hope you won't either.
Statements along this line that make me cringe.
Ew, why are you wearing pink, that is so last season. (why? did someone get hurt?)
I bought this because ___ bought it. (um, okay, what's the reason?)
Everyone loves _driving_. (Fill in the blank with anything, you still better give some reasons for such a broad statement).
People with brown hair like ____.
People with ____ are like ____. (why?)
Married men/women are ___.
People without children are sad.
People with children are sad.
People who are single are ___.
People who hate my favorite type of music are horrible.
People who hate my favorite food are horrible.
People who ____ are emotionally unbalanced.
People who are __race or religion goes here_ are stupid. (these last two are doozies)
People who are __sexuality preference__ are bad people. (granted, a lot of "reasons" are given for this, they're just always illogical and hateful because they marginalize a large group of people whose intentions are all different, as they're all different human beings just like you and me and our sexualities do not define our moral compass...there's simply no relation...It's laughable to me that it's even still a debate, honestly, because it makes no sense. Does the fact that I prefer wine over cheese make me a bad person too? Or the fact that I prefer art over math? Why is preferring boys over girls or girls over boys different? You can't come up with a good argument and it's because there isn't one.)
You aren't supposed to do that. (why? Parents especially--give your children reasons for why they shouldn't do things. Let them share their opinions on why they disagree. Don't just tell them not to because you are boss. Teach them to be thinkers, for goodness sake.)
I do it this way because I've always done it this way. (that's never been a good reason for anything, especially in the work place where efficiency is valued and there's almost always a better way to do something. Give some more explanation than that, please.)
I can never get better. (why not? Logic can help you overcome depression and at least sadness, did you know that? It can help you gain confidence because it causes you think of ways to come out of it on your own. That's a whole other subject of discussion though.)
It will never get better. (why not?)
Oh look, even though the whole direction of the article clearly meant this, this one sentence here metaphorically meant something else, so I think that is what the writer really meant. (that's an example of using very poor evidence and poor analytical skills to make a point.)
These types of phrases, I think due to their confidence, have actually driven a lot of people to believe what's being said--but without good reasoning, these phrases are in absolutely no way valid and should not be trusted whatsoever.
So when is making a general statement and not giving any reason behind it acceptable?
When you share a preference:
I like the color blue.
I like writing.
I like boys.
I love to dance and sing.
I love people who are open-minded and true to themselves.
I enjoy math.
I prefer stained clothes over worrying about being perfect all the time.
I prefer spaghetti.
I think that's pretty much a given. You can explain why you like something, but you don't have to, because the truth is, for whatever reason, you just enjoy it. Am I right?
When you are declaring an action:
I did this.
I made this.
I will do this.
I won't do this.
It may or may not be true, but you don't have to give a reason because generally there's no argument against actions, as they are what they are.
When you do have to give a reason for what you are saying, is typically when you are expressing a belief. Not something matter-of-fact. But I think that a lot of people have a hard time separating what is matter-of-fact, between what is opinion. And while it seems trivial, it's one of the most important skills you can have in life, not only to express yourself, but to protect yourself and the ones around you from being manipulated and used by people with poor intentions. It also helps prevent you from over-explaining your preferences to people who are truly just being judgmental for no good reason (something I to this day struggle with, and I think it's what inspired this entry!).
I hope I've helped. :) I don't think a redundant conclusion paragraph is necessary, so adios. I'd love to answer questions on this.
