There are an amazing number of people in the world.

This number borders on infinity. (FYI: Every increasing number borders on infinity. Although there is an end to human population in sight--if nothing drastic and no event-seemingly-subtle-but-having-severe-eventual-consequences happens to interrupt the future, then presumably the burning out of the sun, it is not fair to limit the growth of numbers. After all, we can calculate how quickly HIV spreads throughout the body, and while unfortunately, most people die from a resulting sickness, no one argues that if left undisturbed by medicines or death, HIV would continue to infect cells until there was no where left to go. Infinity is infinity, and it is no fair to the number 6 billion to say, "Six Billion, excuse me, but you are further from infinity than you THINK! Yes-sir-eee! I, Twelve Billion am twice as far as you!" We use numbers, but numbers are numbers and they know where they stand (except, oddly, for Twelve Billion). Six Billion is not embarrased by Twelve Billion's teasing, but he is also not proud of his own standing in regards to infinity. The crux is this: Infinity minus any number is infinity. Six Billion knows that Twelve Billion is no closer to infinity, they both have infinity to go. That is why I don't believe in enlightenment for mortals. And what I beieve in even LESS, no, what I despise, is that anyone should consider himself closer to enlightenment than anyone else.

Alright, ENOUGH. You get my point. But I have TWO, so stay tuned in!
What I just did is NOT FAIR, that is, if my intent was to convince the average person.
FIRST POINT:
Someone who does not care for math would read that and get bored or what they might think is "confused." Or maybe they'd get annoyed. I wrote that, and sometimes write things like that, as a joke, because I like books that are witty, like Hitchhikers or Flatland, and involve math. The truth (and the reason I want to make it clear to people that I am at heart trying to be funny and not pompous) is that this kind of thing really could come off as pompous. When you have knowledge, you have power, and when you have knowledge of philosophy, math, science, etc. you happen to be someone with an analytical mind and sometimes think you are smart. While we are arguing about philosophy and designing our war machines, there are people with other kind of knowledge. Maybe our side-interests of "forward-thinking" will change the future. But I want to consider the other people with power: nurses, good parents or other caretakers, emergency workers, etc. These are people who have just as much knowledge and power, but in a different area, and in an area possibly crucial to people-like-us's survival. I'd really hate to be bleeding to death and have several "forward-thinkers" sitting around contemplating where my soul was headed.
I appreciate JZ's new blog christianheresy.blogspot.com because although Jason loves to think lofty thoughts, he writes so that everyone can understand. He even includes some definitions, not to prove that his vocab is bigger than the lay-person's, but because he really thought that word could help get the point across. He's saying, "Here, Everyman, you're the same as me."

The reason my infinity argument is not fair is that it is over many readers' heads (not in intelligence, just in subject matter), but it is used to argue a point that everyone should be able to respond to ("enlightenment"). It may or may not sound convincing, but the bad thing about it is that it's so specific to a certain subject matter, in this case, math, that probably a good amount of people wouldn't know enough about it to grasp what's going on, so they can't really respond or participate in the discussion. The truth is I just made it up as I was typing, and then I made it sound technical, putting some truths in there, so that it would sound somewhat credible. And the grand finale, the woeful deed: I used it to get my "point" across. Now if someone doesn't know math, they can't argue with it, all they can say is, "It doesn't make sense." And then me, having been forced to understand math, can use that to my advantage and say, "Well it's true, you just don't understand. You must be stupid." And here comes the saddest part of this un/non-literal, unspoken argument...The non-math person has some possible responses. And they are these:
"I must be stupid since I don't understand, I don't belong here."
"I don't understand, but I know it doesn't make sense, so I'm frustrated, I don't belong here, and I am not going to participate."
Maybe there are more choices, I don't like to ultra-analyze.
The point is that you just alienated that person and possibly made them feel stupid, which is not true or nice, or you just annoyed them and now you and they will never be able to grow together or learn from one another.

SECOND POINT:
I actually was able to act like I had a point at the end of my argument, saying that I don't believe in mortal enlightenment. And I could use that point to support my FIRST POINT that people shouldn't write above everyone's heads, but my logic would really start to get screwy since I just explained that my argument didn't make sense and wasn't fair. But ironically/coincidentally (i'm not sure which should be used here) that statement does apply to my FIRST POINT. No one should act more enlightened, because we all have infinity more to learn.
To summarize:
Can we please speak/write so that everyone can understand? I mean, if you know the audience is potentially anyone? I had a couple philosophy classes, and it really made me feel smart to know and understand St. Augustine and Euripides, and blablablatcetera. I felt like now I could hold my ground against friends who argued philosophy, but looking back, I'm just annoyed with myself and embarrassed (not about what I said, but just how smart I assumed I was). I mean, when I hear people talking/writing all deep and confusing, I don't get mad or annoyed. I just think there are easier ways to say things so that everyone can participate. Really, you know everything that those old philosophers said (OK, maybe not everything), mostly they teach you to THINK-which is good. You don't necessarily have to make everything as hard to understand as they did (some people equate hard-to-understand with cleverness). It's tedious when you have to re-read someone's argument 3 times so that you know exactly what they're saying, and THEN make a counterargument.

Let's say what we mean.
One more thing. Sometimes out of fear of not being open-minded enough, I'll make vague arguments or preface statements with stuff like "in my opinion" or "i believe" so that I don't offend people. I do this all the time. I'm not going to use, "I think" or "I believe," quite as much as I do now. I'm just going to state what I currently believe, and that's obviously my opinion since I said it and not you! Of course I'm not forcing you to believe it, and I'm not saying "your opinion is impossible because mine is different." If anyone participates in philosophical discussions or claims to be a "forward-thinker" anyway, then why should I worry that they'll be offended? So I've made up my mind to say what I think! And if I change my mind I'll start saying something else! WHO'S WITH ME?!!!! GARRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!