"White Noise": The Guide To The Insulting Deflector.

[CliveStaples]

That is irrelevant. People can live their lives as they see fit and participate here however they want within the rules.

Right. People are free to be stupid. I'm just saying they shouldn't be.

[Shell B]

Why? Because you don't want them to be? Sometimes when I am debating with someone and they go off on a strawman tangent, I try to figure out if they are actually capable of anything more. If not, I try to go easy on them. If I think they are being deliberate or histrionic, I don't. Either way, even as a staff member, I didn't try to herd them into less "stupid" behavior.

[Napoléon]

Right. People are free to be stupid. I'm just saying they shouldn't be.

No one has to conform with your idea of what constitutes constructive discussion.

---

As to the OP, I found the whole thing incredibly patronising if I'm honest.

[Cato]

That is irrelevant. People can live their lives as they see fit and participate here however they want within the rules.

Right. People are free to be stupid. I'm just saying they shouldn't be.

Clive,

How shallow. What is your definition of stupid? People shouldn't be stupid? Who says? You?

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.

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.

[CliveStaples]

No one has to conform with your idea of what constitutes constructive discussion.

Certainly. People have free will; nobody has to do anything (and I never argued that they did). I said that people shouldn't be stupid; there are many things that we are free to do that are nonetheless unwise.

[Shell B]

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.

[CliveStaples]

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.

People shouldn't be stupid? Who says? You?

...uh, yes, I said that. Hence my name and avatar accompanying the post.

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.

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.

---

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.

[Shell B]

Clive, the topic under debate here is how people should behave in this forum. Read the op and the resulting conversation between myself and RD to which you responded, thus presumably responding to that line of debate. If you want people to fully understand your meaning, I would suggest not coming in at the middle of the debate and making assertions outside of that theme without clarifying your stance. Now, speaking of people in general, I would tend to agree that people who are capable of furthering themselves intellectually would be better served by doing so, but I don't think they necessarily should. Perhaps they have other aspirations that are more important to their life goals, if any.

[Chuff]

I like the assertion behind the original post, I think its a nice idea and I'd like to hope I could be that patient(probably not)