aerasio

consider this

Meritocracy
mer·i·toc·ra·cy (mr-tkr-s)
1. an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth.
2. a system in which such persons are rewarded and advanced: The dean believes the educational system should be a meritocracy.
3. leadership by able and talented persons.

Elitism
e‧lit‧ism (i-lee-tiz-uhm)
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.
3. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

Whine
whine (wy-nn)
1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.
2. To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
3. To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch: jet engines whining.

Condescending
con·de·scend (knd-snd)
1. To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself. See Synonyms at stoop1.
2. To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.



As a philosopher of ancient greece noted, an argument comes in three different forms: Ethos, Pathos and Logos. These can be descrbied as morality, emotion and logic respectively. In other words, when you want to convince someone of your argument, you will appeal to
a: his/her sense of morals (this is the right thing to do, so do it)
b: his/her emotions (the victims of hurricane katrina are so pitiful, so we should help them!)
and finally
c: his/her logical mind, or where you attempt to rationalize or convince logically (if b=c, and a=c, therefore b=a)

Consequently, when confronted with arguments of these varying types, people (if they disagree with the argument) will often attempt to refute them on similar grounds.

In the case of a moral argument, the keystone of the argument is the character of the person articulating the argument (basically he's saying, "trust me, i'm trustworthy so I know what is the right thing to do. e.g. Jesus was perfect, hence what he says is true) Thus, if one disagreed with such a moral argument, he would attack the character of the person instead of its logic (look he dines with sinners, therefore he is not to be trusted!).

When the argument is based on logic (apple = fruit, pear = fruit, therefore apple = pear), the dissenter disagrees on logical grounds (apples and pears are really subsets of fruit and...).

When an argument appeals to your emotions, things get trickier. Often such arguments are met, not so much by a clear response, but by apathy and a simple negative (I'm sorry, I just don't really care).


It follows then, in the case of Wee Shu Min that her statement, following not the lines of an emotional or logical argument, was one based on ethical lines. Hence the subsequent attacks on her character and physical attributes as opposed to the logic of her statement.


Of course there are always discerning individuals, like those highlighted on IS, who respond to the logic of the argument rather than the flawed ethics of it; or better yet, see that it isn't really an argument at all, but a symptom of a most disagreeable state of mind on Ms Wee's part. In any case, all I wanted to say is, if you feel the need to respond, bear these words and definitions in mind before spouting anything that might make you look stupid.

So said Aerasio at 12:16