One thing I've noticed recently – a new meme or something – is that when people affecting to be rationlist denigrate the beliefs of others in an aggressive way, they often do so by accusing them of believing in "sky fairies".
Godwin's Law states that: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Many, however, give as Godwin's Law the following: that in any online discussion, whoever tries to support their case by making a comparison to the Nazis or Hitler has automatically lost the argument.
I feel like proposing a law like this involving the phrase "sky fairies", that anyone who uses it to support their argument against, let us say, supernatural belief (including religion) has automatically lost.
The law is valid on at least two counts:
1) The phrase is obviously a knee-jerk mantra that involves no thought at all; it is merely the repetition of someone else's thought, and not especially incisive thought to begin with. In short, it is name-calling.
2) Who wouldn't want to be on the side of sky fairies?
Although I'm not a particular subscriber to any theist belief system, when I hear such systems described by their detractors in terms of sky fairies, I wonder what I've been missing out on, and stroke my chin, and think of joining up.
The above law would be known as 'Quentin's Law' (because 'Crisp's Law' is a bit too formal, I feel). However, I'm not really sure I want to encourage people to invoke it, since this might lead to a backlash, which would be the last thing I want. Nonetheless, the phantasmal existence of such a law should at least be mentioned somewhere, I think.
Similarly, I think that those accused of believing in sky fairies should embrace the term and claim it as their own, in the manner that the Stuckists, for instance, embraced Tracey Emin's criticism of Billy Childish as "stuck, stuck, stuck".
Then again, I'm not sure that anyone should really claim sky fairies as their own. Perhaps, after all, they should be allowed to roam their natural habitat, the sky, freely and wildly, without human interference.
TC writes:People usually do this because they say that a particular belief is dangerous. They forget that their name calling will have little effect on the radical believers who are usually the dangerous ones. All that they really seem to be trying to do is snuffing out happiness around them.
Alexandra writes:I quite like the term sky fairies and would not be upset at all if anybody accused me of supporting them. Long live the sky fairies, I say! Although I do agree that they should not be subjected to too much human interference, so I support them in my intentions only.Why are there so many reasons to be annoyed by people?!
TC writes:Then I brought up your comments and the person didn’t seem to understand.
Hello Alexandra.Hello TC. I hope you did take the opportunity to invoke Quentin’s Law at least this once. I don’t doubt you’ll have other opportunities, anyway. People seem to be pretty het up about sky fairies these days. I shall answer other comments later.
Anonymous writes:I was just in a mock debate and long story short “sky Fairies” was used. HA HA
And what, pray tell, is wrong with “Sky Fairies”?They were good enough for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of the world’s greatest detective, so they are good enough for me!And to mention them in the same breath as the Nazis…well! Dr. Josef Goebbels offered up support for a film adaptation of Puss in Boots”. Puss at film’s end is greeted as a hero by crowds of people, eyes bright with adulation, as they hysterically cry “Heil Puss in Boots!”.See here if you will:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/7594061/Nazi-fairy-tales-paint-Hitler-as-Little-Red-Riding-Hoods-saviour.htmlThe Nazis turned the fairy tale upside down. Consequently individuals who should know better treat these sublime little beings as “fictions” – when in fact the actions of Fairies (sky or otherwise) reverberate through all our adult lives!Belittle them at your peril!
Anonymous writes:Is it even possible to win an argument? How do you know if you won? When the other person admits defeat? Well that never happens!
Originally posted by anonymous:Is it even possible to win an argument? How do you know if you won? When the other person admits defeat? Well that never happens!No, it happens when someone uses “sky fairies” with the intention of being derogatory. They lose, the other person wins.Seriously, though, I do think going into a discussion with the idea that it’s a fight that you have to win is ridiculous. Not that I’ve never done it, but it is ridiculous. If you have the patience, or if you’re waiting for a phone call from someone you’re splitting up with and you need something to numb your mind or something, you could watch this as an example of what you apparently already know:http://vimeo.com/3113598Originally posted by peedeel:Belittle them at your peril!Personally, I never do, that I’m aware of. I know somebody who does, though. Yes, indeed. But maybe I shouldn’t tell.Anyway, I’ll probably write more later.
Anonymous writes:But why only sky fairies? Shouldn’t it be the first one to use any ad hominem loses?Or why not just stick to all of the logical fallacies as an indicator for who loses the argument? The first one to use a logical fallacy loses.Some might think this would be unfair to the religious, but it would actually be equally unfair to them both. The negative proof fallacy goes both ways – just because a premise hasn’t been proven false, doesn’t mean it’s true and just because it hasn’t been proven true, doesn’t mean it’s false.So the agnostic would win.
Originally posted by anonymous:But why only sky fairies? As one judge said to another – so William Burroughs tells us – “Be just. And if you can’t be just, be arbitrary.”Also, where would the world be without ad hominem attacks? Conservatives wouldn’t be able to dismiss something on the grounds that it’s liberal, and liberals wouldn’t be able to dismiss something on the grounds that it’s conservative, for a start. People would have to actually think about their positions instead of just following their peer group and their arbitrary political allies. It would be terrible!!Also, if we’re going to be that sensible, then Godwin’s Law would have to be something like, “Don’t make stupid, exaggerated comparisons”, which isn’t quite as catchy as his actual law. Originally posted by anonymous:So the agnostic would win.Yes, you’re quite right here, and this might not be a bad thing. I never understand how it is that people claim to know this or that. I was thinking, just the other day, in relation to the old tale ‘Zhaungzi dreams of a butterfly’ about someone who said to me, “Yeah, but butterflies don’t dream.” To which I replied, “How do you know?” To which he replied, “I think we know that butterflies don’t dream.” To which I replied, “Do we?” To which he replied, “Yeah, we do.”Do we?How in Sredni Vashtar’s name do we know that?Having said that, complete and thorough agnosticism might be intolerable to humans. They always want to go around knowing something.