Why is everyone else so stupid?

[OlderAndWiser]

Occasionally, I see a post from someone who comments that something in our cuture is entirely stupid and if anyone else had a lick of sense, we would change the way we do things. For example, today, a young person asked why there is a prohibition on college faculty engaging in sexual relationships with students. According to the poster, this is a ridiculous practice that stands in the way of true love and it is totally unnecessary because all parties are adults and there is no problem to be addressed. The rule should be abolished immediately!

The attitude behind these comments was horribly arrogant but I doubt that the poster realized the impression that was being conveyed. "I don't perceive a problem so everyone else must be an idiot and I'm the only one smart enough to see clearly." I was arrogant when I was young; I thought that I was smarter than everyone else. Now I am older and wiser than I was way back then, and I understand the folly of youth. However, young people today seem to believe that my generation was primitive compared to their's, so it would seem that we should expect more from them, right? (Or maybe they are just as primitive as we were.)

When you look at our culture and you see certain practices that have been in place for a long time, you can safely assume that there was a problem at one time, many people contemplated the situation and devised a plan to address the problem, and then it was implemented. The plan effectively eliminated, or at least severely curtailed, the problem and everyone was happy. So, of course, when you look at the situation now, you don't see a problem. But that doesn't mean the plan being implemented is ineffective. Quite the opposite, the plan is working as intended.

College professors solicited sex from students in exchange for the promise of good grades and college students offered sex to professors in exchange for better grades. The integrity of the academic institution was compromised by every such incident that occurred and trust in the academic staff was eroded. A ban on faculty-student relationships was implemented by colleges and adopted as a rule of ethics by teaching organizations. These problems still happen with some frequency on college campuses but at a much lower level because of the regard for the rule which now is treated as a virtual taboo.

The next time that you say to yourself, "I don't see the problem . . ." remember that those words literally mean that you do not perceive the problem; they do not mean that no problem exists. And, on a larger scale, if you don't undertand why a large group of people do something in a particular way, don't begin with the assumption that they are all stupid. If you respond with that assumption, there is only one person acting foolish. Can you guess who?

[legalboxers]

its present day society I think. The dumbing down of the society and a certain news channel which dont make you think

[legalboxers]

Wow. me? MH? Im humble. Thank you

[takumii]

Most people, when they say/imply "Are people stupid?" usually that's not an assumption, but a starting troll statement, to grab attention of the listeners on the statement they are about to say next. It's an old fashioned strategy.
"Hey motherfucker !!! Now, that I have everyone's attention, can someone tell me if they have seen a white poodle roaming around?"

Secondly, The asker of that question does have a valid point, EVERYTHING, I mean Everything , has potential for abuse. There are people who believe, love can happen anywhere anytime. And thus, if it is genuine or just for grades depends on case by case basis, and thus it should be dealt as a case by case basis, and not by putting an absolute ban on something. People now are becoming more lenient on workplace romances for the same reason.
I do not know the point that asker was trying to make, but this argument seems pretty reasonable to me.

On a higher note, Just like you 'think' he 'assumed' people are stupid, you do realize you are 'assuming' that he did not 'think' (or know) about why they were banned in the first place.
So the same words in this particular case, would be also applicable to you , i. e "horribly arrogant" not to mention the hypocrisy.

[OlderAndWiser]

Yes. He said that there was no reason for the ban so I began by explaining the reason. He said that it was a stupid reason which did not justify the rule.

Workplace romances between peers are acceptable. Workplace romance between supervisors and subordinates are prohibited by all employers because of the potential for sexual harassment claims. Romance between a professor and student is much more like a supervisor/subordinate relationship.

[takumii]

I don't know for all places, but the companies where I have been too, mostly workplace romances are not acceptable. Between peers, it have a potential to cause distraction from work, thus they could had implemented an absolute ban on it, infact they did. But it's becoming more lenient now. employer-employee romances is also a part of workplace romances, and they too are quite common nowadays. To see the actual statistics , and the probable solutions suggested in detail i would refer you to check this link,
www.inc.com/.../...-in-the-office-is-it-legal.html
Having said that, my point is, You can put an absolute ban on it, but it is usually not the best solution, because every case is different, and you should not make generalized decisions when every case is different, should be dealt case by case.
And as I said previously most people use "insults" as attention grabbers.. So doesn't exactly make him arrogant. He might be arrogant in person, but these points doesn't quite show any arrogance.

[Anonymous]

People are not rational, or rather they are not rational except under special limited circumstances. Some people are rational more of the time but no one is rational all the time. Put a lot of people together and rationality does not come to the fore. Instead we are dominated by the lowest common irrational impulses.

So there are not always good reasons for traditions, sometimes they are just stupid ideas which appealed emotionally to lots of people. Religion is an excellent example.

[OlderAndWiser]

My Take was addressing rules that have a utilitarian value and that do not focus on traditions or morality, as illustrated by the example I used.

[Opinion Owner]

How do you tell the difference?

[OlderAndWiser]

Are you advocating that an 18 year old should assume that everything they do not understand is based on people acting stupid?

[Opinion Owner]

That is a logical fallacy. I argued nothing about this specific case, only the general difficulty with recognizing when a rule is legitimately and useful and when it is not.

But thank you for making an excellent example of my point.

[Anonymous]

I don't know, ask yourself.