I don't know

[Cyberman]

Would you tell the stupid person that they are wrong, that leaves aren't green, because they are stupid? That would just be very mean of you wouldn't it.

Yes I would tell them they are wrong, or at least inaccurate, if the leaves are brown. It would only be mean if I did it in a demeaning way. I would consider it very mean to let them continue in their mistaken belief and assertions instead of helping them to learn and grow from them. However I wouldn't tell them these things just because I think they're stupid. Stupid isn't not knowing things, or not knowing the avtual nature of things; stupid is not even wanting to learn.

Let me ask you something, who was smarter, the person who created clockwork, or Einstein, who said time was the fourth dimension? I think the person who invented clockwork, Einstein was just sitting around thinking after all, while the person who invented clockwork made something useful. But do you know the person's name who invented clockwork? They did so much for you, worked so hard, were so inventive, but you know Einstein's name instead.

Let me ask you something, who was smarter, the person who invented clockwork or the person who invented the wheel, without which clockwork would be just so much scrap metal? Which is tastier, bacon or pork? Which is more blue, the sky or blue paint?

There is a name for the fallacy of setting up dichotomies to make false comparisons, but it escapes me for the moment... Suffice to say, why are the two options you gave the only ones under consideration, and what's your point anyway?

[Dunno]

I can starve myself to death on purpose if I choose, animals do not do that.

The evidence may be anecdotal in regards to this, but I wouldn't count it out yet.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...715AAGBb3U

---

Just because I'm ignorant and stupid doesn't mean my conclusions are wrong. You are missing the point. Can a stupid person recognize that the leaves on the tree are green? Of course. Just because I came to these conclusions doesn't mean that they took me hours of thought. Would you tell the stupid person that they are wrong, that leaves aren't green, because they are stupid? That would just be very mean of you wouldn't it.

Thanks for proving your ignorance and stupidity.

What I actually said was that since you are - by your own admission - ignorant and stupid, your conclusions are unreliable, can be called into question and can be wrong. I never said that they are wrong simply because of your ignorance and stupidity. And since you have given no justification for your conclusions, it is quite easy to call them into question. My own observations of humanity tell me that you are wrong and I'm not stupid or ignorant.

I'm trying to say that humans have a limited perspective of the world, and that they are full of deceitful lies.

---

We might consume animals but mentally that does not make us animals. I am not talking about genetics either here.

I see many in our race seeking knowledge and not perpetuating ignorance. One must start someplace to grow and I see us doing just that even if slowly. We would not be here discussing this on this electronic computerized forum right now if people had prescribed to what you wrote here.

Don't you hate it when people react to one part of what you've written when it is not even your chief point? That's what I'm doing. I actually think it is essential to remember that we are animals with mammalian brains. Fairly recently our species developed the capacity for using symbolic language and engaging in discursive thought. That makes our mental lives very different than every other animal on the planet so far as we can tell. But the original poster is getting at something when he describes us as "A vicious beast with a vicious nature and to call ourselves righteous is to call the sky the ground. "

Personally I think that is unduly slanted and pessimistic. He is right that we are beasts. However there is also a kind of nobility to beasts, even for carnivores. I wouldn't be as quick to condemn animal nature. Regardless, whatever it is that motivates other animals also animates us. Discursive thought gives us the capacity to consider things abstractly but it never takes away that which motivates our choices. We certainly are animals, just very weird ones. (Aren't you glad to be this kind of weird?)

Thank you, and I'm a girl, for your information. Should I have said that? Whatever. I agree with you. I love and respect nature.

---

Would you tell the stupid person that they are wrong, that leaves aren't green, because they are stupid? That would just be very mean of you wouldn't it.

Yes I would tell them they are wrong, or at least inaccurate, if the leaves are brown. It would only be mean if I did it in a demeaning way. I would consider it very mean to let them continue in their mistaken belief and assertions instead of helping them to learn and grow from them. However I wouldn't tell them these things just because I think they're stupid. Stupid isn't not knowing things, or not knowing the avtual nature of things; stupid is not even wanting to learn.

Let me ask you something, who was smarter, the person who created clockwork, or Einstein, who said time was the fourth dimension? I think the person who invented clockwork, Einstein was just sitting around thinking after all, while the person who invented clockwork made something useful. But do you know the person's name who invented clockwork? They did so much for you, worked so hard, were so inventive, but you know Einstein's name instead.

Let me ask you something, who was smarter, the person who invented clockwork or the person who invented the wheel, without which clockwork would be just so much scrap metal? Which is tastier, bacon or pork? Which is more blue, the sky or blue paint?

There is a name for the fallacy of setting up dichotomies to make false comparisons, but it escapes me for the moment... Suffice to say, why are the two options you gave the only ones under consideration, and what's your point anyway?

There's no reason to disagree with everything I say because of one thing that I said about humans being stupid, ignorant, and gullible. That doesn't mean that everything I said is wrong. This is the philosophy section, aren't you supposed to analyze and think about what I said like a "civilized" creature, if I may use the human term for large groups?

[Rahul]

Let me ask you something, who was smarter, the person who invented clockwork or the person who invented the wheel, without which clockwork would be just so much scrap metal?

Clockwork. More complicated by far.

Which is tastier, bacon or pork?

BACON!!!

Which is more blue, the sky or blue paint?

Blue paint.

[Cyberman]

There's no reason to disagree with everything I say because of one thing that I said about humans being stupid, ignorant, and gullible.

There's no reason to agree with it either. It's called having a discussion. And I didn't disagree with everything you said, I simply focussed on the points I felt warranted a response from me. Are you going to respond to the points I addressed, or shall we play another round of ad homs?

That doesn't mean that everything I said is wrong.

Doesn't automatically mean it's right either.

This is the philosophy section, aren't you supposed to analyze and think about what I said like a "civilized" creature, if I may use the human term for large groups?

If you read my post without your knees jerking, you'll see that I did.

By the way, there's no need to quote a person's whole post in full just to make a general response or to respond to only one or two points within it. Try to break it up like I've done here. Also if you're going to quote posts at all, please format them properly. Saves me a job.

Edit: it's just become apparent to me that the quote formatting I just had to fix was as a result of my own sloppy formatting. Let that stand as a lesson to hit that preview button.

[Angrboda]

Let me ask you something, who was smarter, the person who invented clockwork or the person who invented the wheel, without which clockwork would be just so much scrap metal?

Clockwork. More complicated by far.

Which is tastier, bacon or pork?

BACON!!!

Which is more blue, the sky or blue paint?

Blue paint.

Antarctica.


(Sorry, I panicked.)

[bennyboy]

Can someone tell me what this thread is about?

[Cyberman]

I don't know.

[genkaus]

I'm trying to say that humans have a limited perspective of the world, and that they are full of deceitful lies.

And since you are a human yourself, this statement applies to you as well. Therefore, you have a limited perspective of the world and you are full of deceitful lies. Which means I have a very good reason to view your statements about humanity with a great deal of skepticism.

[Whateverist]

Thank you, and I'm a girl, for your information. Should I have said that? Whatever. I agree with you. I love and respect nature.

You're welcome. Sorry but I had no way to know you're a girl. (Almost no one puts any detail into their bio so I've pretty much stopped checking.) I guess it was just the ease with which you spewed out your own unsupported opinions that made me mistake you for one of us.

Do you understand the criticism you're getting? By saying people are stupid -and we assume you are human- that pretty much undercuts whatever comes out of your mouth next. If what you say about our poor position to judge anything is true, then you might just as well start with your assessment of our species' intelligence, no?

Any how, do you have favorite philosophic topics? Did you take a class or two at university? I confess I devoted my undergraduate major to it. But that doesn't mean I'm any expert. I'm just strongly opinionated .. and male.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Antarctica.


(Sorry, I panicked.)

Tch. When one panics, one is supposed to say 'Burma'.

Boru