Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
"Humans are human" + "That (person) is an inhuman monster!" = ?!
not that I know what the point of saying "humans are human" even is
but like
in the case "humans are human" (as opposed to "humans are good" or "humans are evil" since that seems to be the only time I ever see this phrase)
shouldn't someone that says that never call another human a monster
or say that something "doesn't have enough humanity left in it" or even "that human has no humanity"
since well
that doesn't make any sense?
if someone assumes that humans (most or all) are good
then saying someone else is a monster can simply mean that whoever they're talking about isn't a human and instead some demonic existence to be purged by God or some shit like that
if someone assumes that humans (most or all) are evil
then saying someone is an inhuman monster also can mean that it's just another monstorous thing like a human or even that there is a certain monster which is actually pretty awesome, not having those unpleasant human qualities
but like
I can't see it working with "humans are human" at all
Comments
Why do you insist on applying absolutes to idiomatic phrases?
Yeah, idioms like most things do not live in a binary.
factors that make the apparent inconsistent and confusing without needing to be should just go die
x:<
Context is key.
Could you solve this problem by just not saying that anyone is a monster? Sure, some people can and have done some incredibly awful stuff, but I think what you said brings up a good point. I feel like once you start calling people monsters or whatever you are less likely to treat them with the minimum decency that everyone deserves.
Though this may just be how I view things, it seems like a lot of the time the "this person is a monster line" is followed by some description of a cruel and gory punishment that that person supposedly deserves. If not calling people monsters can help decrease that kind of vengeful talk, then I think it is probably worth it.
Yes, not calling someone a monster to start with would solve the problem, for anyone that ever does.
However, this is more of a question as to why anyone that uses the circular reasoning of "Humans are human" ever considers anyone an inhuman monster when it makes no sense whatsoever for their view on humanity. That is, "Why does that person use Y when they think X?" instead of "The fact that people think Y instead of X is an issue that should be fixed."
Unless, of course, they really can see that whoever they're talking about is in fact a disguised devil that walked out of hell instead of a human being or something.
You really overthink the most silly things dude. But like short version, humans are contradictory creatures. Our moods and temperaments and even the personality we affect vary wildly depending on the situation. So it's really easy for a person to say both of these thing, and be sincere each time, assuming in the (likely)scenario that they were in different situations for each statement.
Really, if you except perfect, absolute logic in everything, especially human behavior, you are doing it the wrong way. Humans are semi-rational at best.
If I can't expect things to this level, then I may as well get ready for people that bitch about racism to start supporting neo-nazis unironically.
If there is so little consistency I can expect, then, well, I can't think of how "personality" exists beyond "wildcard"
I can accept something like people making exceptions to relatively minor preferences they have, but if they start contradicting themselves far enough to pretty much discard the core of what they considered to be a view of all humanity, then I don't understand how anyone can do studies on anyone when they're that random and nonsensical. Or trust anyone for that matter.
Well, that said, plenty of studies that blanket people's brains make me want to shout "BULLSHIT!", but i'm not someone that has a say over statistical scientific and social and psychological research and observation by experts no matter how much experience I may have that contradicts their statements.
It's not that difficult to understand. "Inhuman monster" is an idiom which was used and carried over for generations, and people took it as a given. I never noticed the contradiction in the construction until you pointed it out here, and the same is probably true for 99.99% people. Still, most people, myself included, probably wouldn't care about it enough to go anywhere beyond "yeah, like, whatever".
It's not that people are willingly anti-rational and illogical, it's just that they consider an inherent logical contradiction of an idiom to be something far too trivial to give a shit about.
"I thought witchers carried a silver sword, too, one for monsters?"
"They're both for monsters."
/only tangentially related
In other news, when I tell someone that they're barking up the wrong tree, they are generally not doing dog impressions and don't even have to be in close proximity to wood.
once
when i was a kid i literally farted
it stunk so bad, a had to get my best friend over to fart, so that his fart would cover up my fart
Think about what I'm saying to you.
That is just a comparison to some other, similar enough situation, though.
As for why the thing I am talking about in the first post is not simply like that, it would be because of the specific view expressed before being contradicted that far in particular. It is also the same reason why I do not really care when someone that thinks "Humans are generally good" instead of "Humans are human" calls other humans inhuman monsters, as it does not contain circular reasoning which would force it to be incapable of making any sense whatsoever with the statement.
Saying someone is similar to a dog barking at a tree that isn't to be blamed is just a comment on how the situation seems similar, and is even targeted at a situation/action rather than a person, while saying that another human is an inhuman monster while also insisting every human is human (usually an excuse for humanity's failings or relative lack of efficiency) is absolute nonsense.
(yes, I do now realize that most who uses the idiom in it's extreme contradictory nature wouldn't care anyway, but just sayin')
If a silver sword is one, what is the other? (1 + ? = 2?)
Steel.
Kanye West songs.
Obviously.
^^^You kind of missed my point. It's an idiom. Idioms don't really have to be flawlessly logical and accurate so much as they have to convey a meaning.
I don't think it should be used when it is so excessively contradictory by the person saying it, though.
Like how I think someone shouldn't use an insult like "rapist nigger baby-eating psychopathic shit-worth pussyface nazi" even if that were supposed to be some sort of idiom for "kinda bad" and keep doing so even without ignorance of what they just said if they consider themselves to be paragons of virtue that hold every single person in high regard and detest discrimination and needless abuse.
How about this: The reason that people call some other people "inhuman" or "monsters" is because some behaviour is so despicable that one wishes it were not part of the repertoire of human behaviour. It's an enforced distancing effect. Humans are human, and humans can be horrible, but most humans wish that this were not the case. So it stands.
I suppose I could take that as trying to fall to escapism rather than holding onto their views of reality tightly, then. Which would be willful ignorance, but that's a different matter so meh.
It's more metaphorical than escapist per se, but whatever.
This is going around in circles, and wherever it's trying to go, it's going nowhere fast.
Thus why the thread had died off, I'd imagine.
Tableflipper, next time you make one of these threads where you fail to understand idioms or the idea that humans are not 100% consistent in what they say - please just tell people what you want to hear so we don't have to play the guessing game that is figuring out what answer will stop the circle of inane reasoning.
Seeing how what I want to hear is something I don't know to start with beyond some vague category like "an answer that may solve the question and subsequent questions that may result", I don't think that's possible.
And if "what I wanted" was simply "the easy way out" i'd be bitching at teachers for not accepting this:
well, okay, I suppose that I could honestly want teachers to accept that kind of answer as correct, but that's more because school is a pain in the ass about things I rarely give a shit about to start with rather than because I want my easy-way-out answers to be right regardless of the content
Ah.
Complaining about school.
Thems was the days, they was.