Colloquialisms That Grind My Gears

This is my first post that is not intended to be controversial but I fully suspect people will have problems with it regardless. That’s fine. We can discuss. I look forward to the lively conversation. But, rather, this was written for the sheer sake of enjoyment as well as an exercise in creativity. My ultimate goal here is to bring you into thought about what you say and why you say it.

I had a terribly fun time collecting these phrases over the past two weeks. Whenever I heard somebody say one or caught myself uttering one I stopped and wrote it down for further reflection.

Additionally, I must say that each explanation is fairly short for the sole reason of space and time conservation. This is an abbreviated list of phrases, also for the sake of time.


- I’m just a human. (credit to Damian Schmitt)
This phrase, if anything, is an excuse for perfection and is absolutely not a justification for screwing up. I substantiate this with the fact that we all share in a divinely similar spiritual nature and are called to perfection. This is known best in Jesus. He was ‘only’ human (obviously perfectly divine as well) but maintained perfection despite His sharing in humanity and being tempted, having walked through pain, suffering, fear and all other human emotions.
- Out of order.
Nothing is “out of order”. If an elevator, for example, were out of order then the particles would be completely and utterly destroyed. This obviously cannot be possible, for if it were the case, the elevator would be in complete nonexistence. It is not even intelligible for something to be known as being in complete chaos and in an absolute state of out of orderliness. Thus, it is rather more proper to say, “The elevator is dysfunctional,” meaning that it is not adequately or efficiently achieving its goal of transportation or of motion. So those ignorant signs that say “out of order” are completely wrong.
- Gingers have no souls.
Whoever wrote this into the script of South Park clearly doesn’t know what a soul actually is. A body is a soul inhabiting matter. A body cannot exist without a soul. The soul is a unifying principle and the soul informs or animates matter. Red heads or ‘gingers’ have a body, are a unified whole, and are able to carry out motion, tasks, animations, etc. Thus, a ginger does have a soul. Get over it.
- God bless America.
I’m glad we are telling God to bless America. Even if we were to merely ask Him to bless America, it’s as if He were going to forget. Even if we are merely praying for God to bless America, it’s as if He were not going to. This just seems like a strange concept to me.
- Be safe.
My mom is infamous for saying this every time I leave the house. Potentially for good reason, knowing my habits, but it’s still an odd thing to say. It’s like she (or any mother that tells their kid to be safe) assumes that I (or we) are going to go out of our way to be reckless. I’m not going to leave the house and be safe just because she reminded me to be safe. I understand and completely appreciate the sentiments behind saying this but it is still a goofy notion to think about on it’s own.
- Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I couldn’t think of anything further from the truth. This leads us down silly roads of relativism: for one person to claim that Rembrandt’s, Da Vinci’s, Monet’s art pieces are the most beautiful artists of all time and for another to claim that art this art is absolutely atrocious. There is an ultimate form of beauty and good art will best attempt to capture it in oils, marble, pastels, crayons, finger paint, clay, etc. Beauty can be looked at objectively and this common phrase distorts that reality.
- History repeats itself. (credit to Kevin Banich)
If history repeated itself then it seems as though the exact same situations would happen over again. Every situation that has ever happened in all of history is just as much different from each other as every snowflake is different from each other. There may be significant similarities in two histories but there are significant similarities in two completely different snowflakes (i.e. frozen water gathered around a particle of dirt that is heavy enough to fall from the sky or whatever).
- God exists. Or God does not exist. (credit to Eckhart Tolle)
Eckhart Tolle conveys my point adequately in his book called The Power of Now, “The word God has become an empty meaning through thousands of years of misuse. I use it sometimes, but I do so sparingly. By misuse, I mean that people who have never even glimpsed the realm of the sacred, the infinite vastness behind the word, use it with great conviction, as if they knew what they are talking about. Or they argue against it, as if they knew what they are denying.” St. Anselm claims that the atheist is a fool because he does not understand what or who God is. This is the same point that Eckhart Tolle seems to be making in the above quotation, none of us know who God is yet we are constantly trying to prove and deny Him.
- Life is not about imitating. (this phrase was brought to my awareness from a tweet by @jamesbrockmeier aka James Brockmeier (who does not agree with the original statement))
This proclamation is just nonsense. Imitation is the goal of life. To manifest an objective truth of how we are meant to live is imitation and should be sought after. There is no reason why imitation (of Saints, Mary, Christ, and other noble figures) should not be attempted unless aimed at wrong goals (i.e. to change one’s personality, to conform to negative influences, etc).
- Trust your instincts.
Yeah, okay, if you’re only an animal. Basing action off pure instinct and feeling is to reduce your cognitive function of your ability to choose, discriminate between two options, to have preference, to have a will of your own to a mere pain versus pleasure reasoning and basis for action. This is what animals do. Not rational animals.
- Smoking causes cancer. (credit to Professor Bill Pedtke) (also I must confess that I am not a smoker but I stand up for the rights of people who smoke)
This is ludicrous yet people say it all the time. If smoking caused lung cancer then all peoples who smoked would then have lung cancer. But this isn’t true. I can name five people off the top of my head who smoke and do not have lung cancer. I can even name an additional five people that have smoked longer than 20 years and don’t have cancer. Let’s get the facts straight: not all people who smoke have cancer. [The basic explanation of a “cause” is that which something cannot be without. Fire causes smoke. Smoke does not exist without fire.] This is because the lungs and immune system, if strong enough, can handle the extracurricular crap in a cigarette. What do I mean? Well, if the lungs are healthy then they can counteract the tar, carcinogens, etc. Just like not all drinkers (not even all alcoholics) have cirrhosis of the liver. So if the lungs are active (well exercised by physical exercise or singing) and fully mature (the age of 18(?)) when a person begins smoking then cancer is relatively sure not to develop past normal levels.
- He’s a smoker/She’s a Jew/He’s black.
I know several people who smoke, a couple of Jewish people, and many black men. They are not smokers, Jews, or blacks. They are people who smoke, a Jewish woman, and black men. To reduce a person to an action, a faith, or a color/ethnicity is incredibly offensive. Acknowledge their innate personhood.
- Does a bear shit in the woods?
Polar bears do not shit in the woods. So, no, not all. (credit to Ross McCauley)
- A tree falls in the woods and no one is around. Is there any sound made?
The tree that falls and hits the ground transfers energy which results in a sound. Duh. Sound is not contingent upon people hearing it. If everyone were deaf there would still be sounds in the world; they would just be unheard. This is a nonsense question.
- ....for God’s sake.
To say, “Oh, for God’s sake, stop doing that,” is indiscernible. God’s sake is in a state of constant perfection and happiness despite our actions. So it is more proper to say, “Oh, for your own sake, stop doing that,” because your sake is in a constant flux as in unavoidable by our existence within time.

If you have any that you think are contribute-able, please comment and share those.

B- in Logic

So after being subconsciously inspired by Sarah G. to eat White Castle after a dreadful day of boredom, I am now in the mood to take my pissed-offness out on somebody in the form of a philosophical rant. I will prelude this blog post with an warm thank you to school, and papers, and finals, and laziness for not have given me the desire/ability to post in awhile. For this, I apologize for failing my devoted disciples.

I will also start out by saying that I got a B minus in logic which (by my standards) qualifies me to make logical deductions and assertions. This last sentence may be illogical in itself and if so then we are in quite the philosophical/paradoxical/logical conundrum. Go ahead, ponder away on that one. Anyways, let us progress with my thoughts.

I just started reading Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. I think that it’s important to also say that I’m only 100 pages in so I will try and limit my remarks and refrain from drawing conclusions about the nature of this book. My reasoning for mentioning my current read was to state where my inspiration for this post came from which is in regards to atheism and its typically flawed logic. As I said in the above paragraph, I might not be the best but I’m sufficient in identifying faulty logic, misinformed information, and bullshit* opinions. I also should say that this post is not my attempt to convert the atheists of the world but rather  to enlighten them on how they should approach me when building an argument.

The first step that I take in deciphering someone’s thoughts especially on a  touchy topic is to see if they are respectful. There is a logical fallacy called “Appeal to Ridicule” which is a line of fallacious logic that uses ridicule in order to support a claim that is contrary to the original position on the basis that the original thought is supposedly nonsense. (Example 1: “Josh, God is like a fairy and fairies don’t exist, do they? [the ridicule] Therefore your idea that God exists is preposterous. [the conclusion that is based on the ridicule]”) How does your degrading make my thoughts invalid? If you were to ridicule my position how does that make my position wrong.

Appeal to ridicule is Dick Dawkins’ logical fallacy of choice and should be eliminated from the outset. As he uses ridicule with his philosophy, it is sometimes hard to read with much patience.  If one is to assert a certain claim then he/she must eliminate all fallacies. Even though Dawkins includes in chapter two a section which is titled “Undeserved Respect” where he warns his reader of sarcasm, he still owes a certain level of respect for all philosophical positions that aren’t the same as his if he himself wants respect.

Atheists seem to latch on to the appeal to ridicule (which is quite annoying). So you ask yourself, “Josh, aren’t you guilty of logical fallacy right now by saying that because they are guilty then they don’t present good arguments?” If I were to say that Dawkins isn’t making valid points only because he is unable to communicate respectfully, then yes I would be making a fallacy. But I believe that he does make significant claims that should challenge every reader. This blog post was not intended to disprove those claims or to support my own but rather to inform those who aspire for logical arguments to look out against falling to the transgression of the appeal to ridicule or disrespect.

I think that we can all agree that Thomas Jefferson was a wise man but when Dawkins quotes him saying, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus,” then I think that we can also agree that something is wrong with his logic. Of course the idea of the Trinity cannot be comprehended but I’m not here to argue for faith. Rather, I am here to say how crazy of an assertion it is to say that when you are having a discussion with anybody who doesn’t believe in the same thing that you do then ridicule is the only way to make any sort of progress. I might only be speaking for myself but when I have a conversation with somebody who talks to me like I’m three, I just want to punch them in the throat. If you want to have an intellectual conversation with me or even if you want to have a shot to convert me to Atheism then talk to me like an intellect and do not degrade my knowledge or beliefs by alluding to God as a “Flying Spaghetti Monster”, “Little Green Man”, or “a fairy at the bottom of a garden”. Or to talk on the Trinity and Mary like so, “But it is especially the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity that pushes its recurrent flirtation with polytheism towards runaway inflation. The Trinity is (are?) joined by Mary, ‘Queen of Heaven’, a goddess in all but name, who surely runs God himself a close second as a target of prayers.” (all within 70 pages of The God Delusion) Tell me what was necessary about any of this. And how was this at all intellectual? If you want to convert me then present me with evidence that is stronger than my evidence without sarcasm.

I may not have done very well in my Logic course but the first rule of conversation is to not be disrespectful especially in debate. Richard Dawkins, this goes out to you: I’m sure you have very compelling reasons for atheism, I just pray that I can have the patience to read them.

Anyway, this is a promise to my loyal readers, my next legitimate post will not take 3 months to write.

May God bless you for reading all of this. And if you don’t believe in God then I genuinely pray that you have a wondrous day.



*On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt is an excellent short essay