Submit your own Neatorama post and vote for others' posts to earn NeatoPoints that you can redeem for T-shirts, hoodies and more over at the NeatoShop!


This Twaggie was illustrated by a Tweet from @DamienFahey, who apparently a frustrated Whole Foods customer. See a new Twaggie every day at GoComics. Link

IMHO, people generally have destructive methods for determining what is true. I used the term destructive to convey not only wrong methods but the harmful conclusions that follow. Truth has become a matter of "right to have an opinion" and preference of opinion. People "take sides" on issues they barely understand. But if one thinks carefully about it, truth is not a matter of preference and having that attitude toward truth can have some pretty serious consequences.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I think the point is that people need higher standards of knowledge. Just because your friend told you something doesn't make it true. Just because some dude is ranting and raving about some long chemical name doesn't mean you should sign his petition. If you don't know, you don't know. No one is requiring you to take a position on something you don't know. However, a citizen with a vested interest in his society may want to consider acquiring adequate knowledge in order to make an informed decision. It is unfortunate however that the weight of informed opinions may not be enough to compensate for haughty mobs of the ill-informed.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
More generally: if you want to teach something to somebody, you don't do it by talking gibberish that nobody understands. ;)

If you want to accomplish something: make them UNDERSTAND.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Yes, but with the wrong means. Not all "chemicals" are harmless and you can't expect the general public to know the chemical names of common substances.

This just causes confusion.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
It shows how easy it is to rally a bunch of ignorant people behind a self-destructive cause. It also shows the efficacy of a higher standard for belief and the possible harm that arises from weak epistemic methodology.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

Funny, but I don't really see what it accomplishes.
Some "chemicals" are harmless. Some are not. The public at large are not chemists.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 8 comments

Email This Post to a Friend

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.


Success! Your email has been sent!

close window

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More