RE: "White Noise": The Guide To The Insulting Deflector.
July 30, 2012 at 3:40 am
(This post was last modified: July 30, 2012 at 3:43 am by CliveStaples.)
(July 29, 2012 at 10:30 pm)cato123 Wrote: Clive,
How shallow. What is your definition of stupid?
Well, I don't think I could give a complete definition, but I would consider someone who willfully ignores logic and reason to be acting "stupidly" insofar as they were ignoring logic and reason.
Quote:People shouldn't be stupid? Who says? You?
...uh, yes, I said that. Hence my name and avatar accompanying the post.
Quote:Perhaps I am stupid according to your undeclared definition. Perhaps some in this world have to consider their next meal so much that they don't have the luxury of considering things that would gain them 'non-stupid' status. Of course, I cannot know since you still have yet to provide what you think is stupid.
Not according to my definition. Someone who is pursuing their next meal who does so by, say, drowning himself in a river is acting stupidly.
Quote:If I dropped you in the Amazon and asked you to survive, wouild you then call the indigent tribes stupid, even though you would have to rely on people that could give fuck all about Shakespeare for the sake of your next meal or next sip of fresh water?
Consider this and tell me what your special definition of 'stupid' is.
...? Shakespeare? What are you talking about?
If I wanted to survive but refused to eat, then I'd be stupid. If the tribes were looking for clean sources of water but intentionally poisoned all the water sources they found, then I'd say that they're stupid.
Knowing Shakespeare--which apparently you think that I think is required in order not to be "stupid"--has nothing to do with it.
(July 30, 2012 at 3:11 am)Shell B Wrote: A person is only as intelligent as nature predisposes them to be, in a great many instances. At any rate, it is still irrelevant. This forum is not a place only for the intellectual elite or for structured debate. Who would choose who could stay and who would moderate? I wouldn't visit such a place anyway.
...? Who said it would have to be enforced--let alone how? Who said anything about 'only' allowing these kinds of discussions?
The debate and intellectual climate is determined by the actions of individuals; I'm just saying that things would probably be better if more people were interested in having thoughtful, reasoned discussions on topics like the existence of God, justification of beliefs, epistemology, the philosophy of science, and so forth--assuming that this community actually values things like science, knowledge, understanding, critical thinking, and examining one's own assumptions.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
