Troll Kingdom
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Eradicate or segregate stupidity.
- Thread starter Mentalist
- Start date
Eggs Mayonnaise
All In With The Nuts
Eggs Mayonnaise
All In With The Nuts
Back in '03 poor David Letterman got shingles, and a series of guest hosts took over for a couple of weeks.
Elvis, who has been on Dave's show about 20 times and built up a mutual admiration society, hosted one night; the guests were Kim Catrall and Eddie Izzard.
Also the Imposters were there for a good loud rendition of What's So Funny 'Bout Peace Love and Understanding to close things out.
I have the whole show in erm, various formats if you're curious.
Elvis, who has been on Dave's show about 20 times and built up a mutual admiration society, hosted one night; the guests were Kim Catrall and Eddie Izzard.
Also the Imposters were there for a good loud rendition of What's So Funny 'Bout Peace Love and Understanding to close things out.
I have the whole show in erm, various formats if you're curious.
Donovan
beer, I want beer
Presentation needs a little work. Big words for the sake of themselves don't make a successful argument. You do, however, eventually make a valid point. One has to ask: is it worse to be a stupid poster who consistently posts to the best of his or her ability, or a seemingly intelligent poster who repeatedly chooses to post deliberate stupidity?
One could argue that the truly stupid poster, in reaching his or her somewhat limited potential, has become more worthwhile than the intelligent poster who refuses to be anything but a foolish gadfly and buffoon. The latter is disregarding the gifts he or she has been given by God or superior genetics, akin to a fine distance runner who affects a phony limp so he can park in the handicapped slot at the grocery store. Meanwhile, with extremely limited gifts the mental deficient makes the best of his bad lot in life by becoming the very best retard he can be.
Stupidity, and the tolerance thereof, are a matter of perspective.
One could argue that the truly stupid poster, in reaching his or her somewhat limited potential, has become more worthwhile than the intelligent poster who refuses to be anything but a foolish gadfly and buffoon. The latter is disregarding the gifts he or she has been given by God or superior genetics, akin to a fine distance runner who affects a phony limp so he can park in the handicapped slot at the grocery store. Meanwhile, with extremely limited gifts the mental deficient makes the best of his bad lot in life by becoming the very best retard he can be.
Stupidity, and the tolerance thereof, are a matter of perspective.
Why would you say this? Why condesend towards me? My point is clear and consice and exactly how I intended to present it. I don't take kindly to off the cuff remarks like that but perhaps I'm tetchy today since a lot is going down.
I don't agree that trying to aspire to be more stupid than anyone else is something to be proud of just because one doesn't have the god-given gift of a keen mind. And I also believe that this is not an issue of someone who is slightly dim making the best of what they have got. Stupidity is subjective. You can be dim or not very learned from an educational standpoint and still not be "stupid". And someone who is very well read and educated can be a total buffoon as well. But why flaunt and play up percieved stupidity no matter your IQ? Either is equally as reatarded.
I've worked hard to not be an idiot for lack of a better term. I've had a personal drive to better myself. Someone genetically not as smart as another can still have a wish to learn and try and not be just a stupid idiot. And for that they should be appluded for the effort. It's ignorance I can't stand. It's not neccesary and acting like a retard is a stupid thing to do. If you don't have a very broad scope on a multitude of subjects and you can't spell well or use proper grammar (hell, I have major trouble with the latter), yet you still try and have some drive to improve and learn you're not "stupid" in my book.
Donovan
beer, I want beer
If my remark seemed off the cuff, it was only because I assumed you were being halfway facetious and not really expecting a serious critique from anyone. I wasn't trying to be condescending at all; your words came across as tongue in cheek so that's how I replied. But if you really are serious, here's what I meant:
Your idea, though it has a kernel of merit, is winding and hard to track, and at times you get caught up in a writing style commonly called "Pontificating", or using all kinds of flowery phrases and expressions when clarity is called for. Written speech is not the same as spoken word; each word or idea must lead logically to the next without wandering or padding. Your first clear statement: "Stupidity should be segregated or eradicated" should be followed with a clear "and here is why." Instead your next sentence is jumbled and nearly incoherent in attempting to say what should have gone like this "I do not wish to waste any more of my valuable time dealing with the stupidity of others, in any form." More concise and says exactly the same thing.
When presenting an argument in writing, you have to follow a structured format or you lose the reader. You present your thesis statement, then several statements or facts to support that thesis, then perhaps anecdotal support, then a segue to the next fact. Finally, your wrap-up statement, which should reenforce and almost mirror your very first idea.
Your ideas regarding people not wasting our valuable time with duals and petty childish behavior were strong ones, and I agree with them. I simply had a hard time reading what you wrote due to wandering and conflicting arguments within the text. That's why I made the remark about presentation. No insult was intended.
Finally, re: my answering comment. I was asking you for clarification on your stance, not countering your argument. There are many forms of stupidity in the world, and you're painting with a broad brush here. Which sort of stupidity is intolerable to you? For example, a MR person who is stupid through no fault of his own is prone to stupid decisions, but cannot be blamed for his lack of intellect. Should he be segregated or eradicated with the brilliant mind who chooses to act stupid in order to fit in with his peers socially? Or the pretty blond who acts dim to protect the fragile egos of the guys she dates? Or the smart but absentminded person who remember complex theorems but forgets to put on pants every day? Or the Cambodian doctor who pretended to be an illiterate farmer to escape the Khmer Rouge killing fields?
Using your online focus: If I don't have any clue who is a dual and who belongs to whom, does that make me more ignorant than someone like Jack, who knows many of the secret identities including his own but chooses to talk to them and himself as different people? Or Messenger, who is so intent on making a point long since lost, that he rants with half a dozen different names until even his supporters have to back away from the display? As I stated, and you said in your response, stupidity is very subjective. One cannot simply 'rope it all off' without first defining what "it" consists of...
Your idea, though it has a kernel of merit, is winding and hard to track, and at times you get caught up in a writing style commonly called "Pontificating", or using all kinds of flowery phrases and expressions when clarity is called for. Written speech is not the same as spoken word; each word or idea must lead logically to the next without wandering or padding. Your first clear statement: "Stupidity should be segregated or eradicated" should be followed with a clear "and here is why." Instead your next sentence is jumbled and nearly incoherent in attempting to say what should have gone like this "I do not wish to waste any more of my valuable time dealing with the stupidity of others, in any form." More concise and says exactly the same thing.
When presenting an argument in writing, you have to follow a structured format or you lose the reader. You present your thesis statement, then several statements or facts to support that thesis, then perhaps anecdotal support, then a segue to the next fact. Finally, your wrap-up statement, which should reenforce and almost mirror your very first idea.
Your ideas regarding people not wasting our valuable time with duals and petty childish behavior were strong ones, and I agree with them. I simply had a hard time reading what you wrote due to wandering and conflicting arguments within the text. That's why I made the remark about presentation. No insult was intended.
Finally, re: my answering comment. I was asking you for clarification on your stance, not countering your argument. There are many forms of stupidity in the world, and you're painting with a broad brush here. Which sort of stupidity is intolerable to you? For example, a MR person who is stupid through no fault of his own is prone to stupid decisions, but cannot be blamed for his lack of intellect. Should he be segregated or eradicated with the brilliant mind who chooses to act stupid in order to fit in with his peers socially? Or the pretty blond who acts dim to protect the fragile egos of the guys she dates? Or the smart but absentminded person who remember complex theorems but forgets to put on pants every day? Or the Cambodian doctor who pretended to be an illiterate farmer to escape the Khmer Rouge killing fields?
Using your online focus: If I don't have any clue who is a dual and who belongs to whom, does that make me more ignorant than someone like Jack, who knows many of the secret identities including his own but chooses to talk to them and himself as different people? Or Messenger, who is so intent on making a point long since lost, that he rants with half a dozen different names until even his supporters have to back away from the display? As I stated, and you said in your response, stupidity is very subjective. One cannot simply 'rope it all off' without first defining what "it" consists of...
Donovan said:
I don't doubt that it didn't run cleanly in correct essay form, though I was ranting somewhat and singling out a type of behavior on this board while simultaneously introducing a broader statement on the effect and social prevalence of "stupidity" in society. No doubt this is why it was hard to read since I tend to just stream a bunch of ideas - of which some of them like in the original post above are only tenuously connected by the original theme - and throw them at the screen.
You were correct that the post wasn't really aimed as a piece for discussion as much as it was a ranting statement. (Though I more than welcome discussion on the clearer points). The idea of segregating and eradicating stupidity is unworkable and more of a wish than an applicable statement. One must define stupidity as you pointed out, and I think that's a philosophical question at it's heart. I guess if I was to attack one aspect of what I was referencing that gets to me the most is society being too accepting of those who choose not to 'learn'. Whether it be by climbing a mountain and meditating, looking through a telescope, picking up a book or just giving thought to an opposite opinion. There seems to be an almost trendiness in ignorance that is prevalent in society. Certainly where I was raised this is true.
It should be less acceptable to be ignorant and close minded. You would think it would be; though from my experience it isn't and it doesn't even seem to have that much of an effect on material success.
When I spoke about the steady stream of dumb character duals (which no matter the posters original native intelligence I can't believe are not designed to be as stupid and as annoying because of that trait as possible) it was because of a disdain of the culture of thinking that it is funny and amusing behavior as opposed to embarrassing and simple.
I don't understand why society is like this.
Grammour Boy
Rebel
i don't see the point of this paragraph. what were you trying to say? word of advice: write like you talk, boy!Mentalist said:
Grammour Boy
Rebel
at least my prose is concise and eloquentMentalist said:
