Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 13:03:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 13:32:58 GMT -5
Don't most of those states (including the federal government) already outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation? And if that is so, isn't it disingenuous to take the tone this article does? There is no federal protection for gays and lesbians regarding commerce, housing or employment. Twenty-two states have state laws protecting the rights of gays and lesbians regarding employment. Only several states have laws protecting gays and lesbians in the areas of commerce as in the wedding cake, florist and photographer cases (Colorado, Oregon and New Mexico). So if they already don't have protection, how does the RFRA take protection away that they already don't have?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 13:33:53 GMT -5
I beg to differ. At least for me, "Equal treatment under the law" is the ONLY issue. You do not think for me. I think for me. Thank you. or anyone else, if you are so inclined. tyia.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Apr 6, 2015 13:36:59 GMT -5
I beg to differ. At least for me, "Equal treatment under the law" is the ONLY issue. You do not think for me. I think for me. Thank you. or anyone else, if you are so inclined. tyia. I read you loud and clear, dj. I just hope the admonition is taken to heart.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 13:37:25 GMT -5
that is because the homosexual teen is an obvious victim of a real crime. i am not seeing the pizza store owner in the same light. if you do, then fine- defend away. however, please don't think that we are unsympathetic hypocrites for NOT seeing that argument. sometimes we just don't see things the same way. you, of all people should understand that. i don't appreciate being called a bigot for that failing, Virgil. it is totally unfair and uncalled for. if the pizza store owner is an actual victim of REAL BULLYING on the part of individuals in her community, she has my sympathies- though not $842,000 worth. nobody should be bullied. my problem is that i don't think that most of that (or perhaps ANY) money came from people who actually feel that same sympathy. and THAT is why i "liked" that post. for the record, i would never have used the word stupid. it is just not a word i use. What can I say? If we accept your stated premises that the store owner isn't really a victim, the donors are opening their wallets for sake of bigotry rather than sympathy or solidarity, and people are stupid for thinking otherwise, then the conclusion seems pretty airtight. Incidentally (and you'll have to forgive this 'gotcha'), run a search for the word "stupid" in your comment history. Eliminate the posts where the word appears only in a comment you're responding to, and you're left with at least fifty posts that don't even take us as far back as the beginning of the year. I can respect that you wouldn't use the word "stupid" in this particular situation, but you do use it quite liberally. It's a noble goal to want to use it less. P.S. I won't mention this to Richard as new evidence in the ongoing "DJ sometimes pulls things out of his hat" trial. i didn't ask for your acceptance. i simply stated it as I SAW IT, and ask that you refrain from calling me a bigot. mmkay? and i corrected what i said about STUPID BEFORE i did any searching (see post 75). i have often said that certain IDEAS are stupid. i have NEVER claimed, to the best of my memory that PEOPLE ARE STUPID. if you find otherwise, feel free to gotcha me again, and i will go correct those posts so as to comply with my firmly held belief that people are not stupid, but they sometimes do and SAY stupid things. present company included.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 13:44:38 GMT -5
Yet you chide people here for being against donating to bigotry. As to the unbolded rest of the post... No one is demanding that "everyone accept as moral and right"... anything. They are demanding equal treatment under the law. People are free to BELIEVE whatever they want. They can freely believe that sex is only moral if it's done for procreation, on Sundays, with the lights out, in a specific position, by married people of opposite gender... if that's what floats their boat. What they can't do is discriminate against others because others have a different belief. And no, I don't think that threats or other lawlesness (the hacking you mentioned, for example), are a legitimate, reasonable or justifiable response. Never have I ever said otherwise. You can claim it's about equal treatment until you're blue in the face. Based on the content of the many threads we've seen, it obviously isn't true for the majority of posters. This just happens to be the most convenient justification for the underlying desire to punish "bigotry". If a discrimination issue not related to race or LGBT comes up at some point in the future and the raging left goes after the perpetrator(s) like sharks on a sea lion, I'll rethink my position, but I'm not holding my breath. You've already tripped over yourselves with "frosting a cake is different from baking a cake", "'NO GAYS' on a cake is hate speech", and other absurd rationalizations when the door swings the other way. All I need to do to prove my thesis is wait for a controversial discrimination case where you aren't sympathetic to the discriminatee, put my feet up, and watch you trip over yourselves (again) in your haste to explain why "equal treatment under the law" really doesn't apply. what you see as "absurd rationalizations", i see as "complying with the law". funny, that. this actually reminds me of an earlier conversation about being open and honest about your bigotry -vs- lying about it to save you legal trouble. i suggested the latter. you, being the person you are, found that unconscionable. and that is fine. everyone has the choice to live with the consequences of their thoughts and feelings and actions, to suppress them, or to change them. nobody seems to want to change them, so that makes the choice a lot more black and white.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 13:03:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 13:44:56 GMT -5
The whole discrimination narrative is another false story from the leftists. Not one single case of discrimination has ever been won using this law in more than 20 years. It is being used either to rile the base-"hands up don't shoot" or to marginalize Christians. I'm done with the phony story and will just wait to comment on the next one.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 13:46:07 GMT -5
Yes Virgil is discriminating against the rest of us, Just because Virgil is so much smarter than me I don't think that it is fair. Yes, we need laws to protect us from Virgil. Yea, that's the ticket. his discrimination has no impact on me, therefore no laws are required.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 13:50:10 GMT -5
The whole discrimination narrative is another false story from the leftists. Not one single case of discrimination has ever been won using this law in more than 20 years. It is being used either to rile the base-"hands up don't shoot" or to marginalize Christians. I'm done with the phony story and will just wait to comment on the next one.
first of all, what law are you referring to? secondly, the prosecutorial success or failing of a law is no indication of whether it is "working" or not. it may be that the law is so effective that nobody violates it. it could be that the law is set so far outside of social norms that it is rarely violated. or it could be that people are generally way more tolerant of bigotry than members of this board. all three cases would result in no prosecutions.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 6, 2015 14:03:06 GMT -5
What can I say? If we accept your stated premises that the store owner isn't really a victim, the donors are opening their wallets for sake of bigotry rather than sympathy or solidarity, and people are stupid for thinking otherwise, then the conclusion seems pretty airtight. Incidentally (and you'll have to forgive this 'gotcha'), run a search for the word "stupid" in your comment history. Eliminate the posts where the word appears only in a comment you're responding to, and you're left with at least fifty posts that don't even take us as far back as the beginning of the year. I can respect that you wouldn't use the word "stupid" in this particular situation, but you do use it quite liberally. It's a noble goal to want to use it less. P.S. I won't mention this to Richard as new evidence in the ongoing "DJ sometimes pulls things out of his hat" trial. i didn't ask for your acceptance. i simply stated it as I SAW IT, and ask that you refrain from calling me a bigot. mmkay? and i corrected what i said about STUPID BEFORE i did any searching. i have often said that certain IDEAS are stupid. i have NEVER claimed, to the best of my memory that PEOPLE ARE STUPID. if you find otherwise, feel free to gotcha me again, and i will go correct those posts so as to comply with my firmly held belief that people are not stupid, but they sometimes do and SAY stupid things. present company included. I don't consider you a bigot. You have lousy priorities when it comes to balancing individual and collective freedoms for this particular issue, and you use the word "bigotry" too liberally, but that would be the extent of my criticism. As for your use of the word "stupid", i) I no longer care enough about the issue to dive into your post record again; ii) it's not apparent that even Icelandic Woman was using the word to describe people rather than ideas; and iii) regarding the adjective 'stupid' in particular, I humbly suggest that it matters very little whether we apply it directly to people or else to their deeply held beliefs.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,472
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 6, 2015 15:02:15 GMT -5
There is no federal protection for gays and lesbians regarding commerce, housing or employment. Twenty-two states have state laws protecting the rights of gays and lesbians regarding employment. Only several states have laws protecting gays and lesbians in the areas of commerce as in the wedding cake, florist and photographer cases (Colorado, Oregon and New Mexico). So if they already don't have protection, how does the RFRA take protection away that they already don't have? The RFRF is to build protection from 'them', aka 'the gays'. You apparently did not bother to read my reply to you in post #63 about Eric Miller.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,472
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 6, 2015 15:05:53 GMT -5
The whole discrimination narrative is another false story from the leftists. Not one single case of discrimination has ever been won using this law in more than 20 years. It is being used either to rile the base-"hands up don't shoot" or to marginalize Christians. I'm done with the phony story and will just wait to comment on the next one.
Neither the Federal or other state RFRAs prior to Arizona trying to implement their own version (which the governor vetoed) were anything like the RFRAs Indiana and Arkansas tried to pass. Same sex marriage across the country didn't appear to be a foregone conclusion until this past October.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 15:58:59 GMT -5
i didn't ask for your acceptance. i simply stated it as I SAW IT, and ask that you refrain from calling me a bigot. mmkay? and i corrected what i said about STUPID BEFORE i did any searching. i have often said that certain IDEAS are stupid. i have NEVER claimed, to the best of my memory that PEOPLE ARE STUPID. if you find otherwise, feel free to gotcha me again, and i will go correct those posts so as to comply with my firmly held belief that people are not stupid, but they sometimes do and SAY stupid things. present company included. I don't consider you a bigot. You have lousy priorities when it comes to balancing individual and collective freedoms for this particular issue, and you use the word "bigotry" too liberally, but that would be the extent of my criticism. As for your use of the word "stupid", i) I no longer care enough about the issue to dive into your post record again; ii) it's not apparent that even Icelandic Woman was using the word to describe people rather than ideas; and iii) regarding the adjective 'stupid' in particular, I humbly suggest that it matters very little whether we apply it directly to people or else to their deeply held beliefs. i accept that in your opinion i have lousy priorities. that makes perfect sense to me. thanks for retracting the bigot remark. i thought that IW was using the term to describe people, or i would not have made the remark i did. i fervently disagree that it does not matter, however. a stupid person saying stupid things is totally natural, and therefore unoffensive and excusable. an intelligent person saying stupid things is offensive and inexcusable. people have a responsibility to overcome their prejudices and ignorance and say intelligent things in a free society, not parrot the failed ideas of past ignorance.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 13:03:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 17:56:56 GMT -5
Not only is that a bit out there, Virgil Showlion, but who the hell do you think you are to tell me what I'm thinking? I've had just about enough of that rot. You keep your little fingertips to yourself as far as I'm concerned. Keep my name off of them. Enough! I can only assess what you say. If your claims about what you think are true, then what you think is not the slightest bit consistent with what you say on this particular issue. We can plainly make this determination by comparing the two. That was the point of the examples. Virgil I'm not sure if I should be impressed or worried for you that you are trying to formalize your bias on how you perceive other people are thinking. Coming up with formulas and scores based on what you believe, not what the target population believes just is an attempt to herd them into a framework you believe is true. The formula is bit of satire for a particular audience. Rest assured that I don't actually expect anyone to compute their "moral issue" index. As for what I believe and "what the target population believes", I refer you to my comments to mmhmm. What we can readily observe is what people have said and liked, and determine whether what they actually say and like matches up with what they claim to believe. In this case, mmhmm has claimed re her thoughts: "'Equal treatment under the law' is the ONLY issue." What's she's said and liked is excerpted above. We see fawning anecdotes, moralizing, condemnation of discrimination as "loathsome", numerous attempts to establish the goodness and normalcy of homosexuality, etc. that are plainly moralistic in nature and have no relevance to equal treatment of the law. Ergo we must conclude that a disconnect occurs somewhere--either between what is thought and what is said/liked, or between what is thought/said/liked and what is claimed (i.e. "'Equal treatment under the law' is the ONLY issue.").
Seeking equality and an end to discrimination has nothing to do with "attempts to establish the goodness and normalcy of homosexuality". Personally I think sex between two men is icky and frankly gross... but that's only if I am personally involved in the act. If it's between two men that are into that... great for them. I hope they enjoy themselves. It could even happen in the same room as I'm in (if I was attending an orgy, for example). They probably think what I (or any straight man) want to do with women is disgusting and gross. It's not about anyone trying to make anyone else LIKE it. It's about making other people accept that people shouldn't be discriminated against because they are different than the person that wants to discriminate.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 6, 2015 18:03:26 GMT -5
I don't consider you a bigot. You have lousy priorities when it comes to balancing individual and collective freedoms for this particular issue, and you use the word "bigotry" too liberally, but that would be the extent of my criticism. As for your use of the word "stupid", i) I no longer care enough about the issue to dive into your post record again; ii) it's not apparent that even Icelandic Woman was using the word to describe people rather than ideas; and iii) regarding the adjective 'stupid' in particular, I humbly suggest that it matters very little whether we apply it directly to people or else to their deeply held beliefs. i accept that in your opinion i have lousy priorities. that makes perfect sense to me. thanks for retracting the bigot remark. i thought that IW was using the term to describe people, or i would not have made the remark i did. i fervently disagree that it does not matter, however. a stupid person saying stupid things is totally natural, and therefore unoffensive and excusable. an intelligent person saying stupid things is offensive and inexcusable. people have a responsibility to overcome their prejudices and ignorance and say intelligent things in a free society, not parrot the failed ideas of past ignorance. ...or laud the failed ideas of present and future ignorance. I'm curious. To me, stupid is as stupid says/does. You apparently divorce the person from the words/actions. What constitutes a stupid person in your view?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Apr 6, 2015 18:08:09 GMT -5
Virgil, do you realize that what you think Mmhmm is saying and thinking is not what I or other posters see? That perhaps we get Mmhmm and you just don't?
It happens. There are some posters I don't really read as they are intending and I just keep that in mind when I read or reply to their posts.
Thanks, Opti. It's nice to know there are those who do understand what I'm actually saying and refrain from interpreting my words to fit what they want to believe I'm saying. It's also great to know not everyone believes they know more about what I think than I do.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 6, 2015 18:08:58 GMT -5
... What constitutes a stupid person in your view? I am a fan of multiple intelligences.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 18:15:26 GMT -5
i accept that in your opinion i have lousy priorities. that makes perfect sense to me. thanks for retracting the bigot remark. i thought that IW was using the term to describe people, or i would not have made the remark i did. i fervently disagree that it does not matter, however. a stupid person saying stupid things is totally natural, and therefore unoffensive and excusable. an intelligent person saying stupid things is offensive and inexcusable. people have a responsibility to overcome their prejudices and ignorance and say intelligent things in a free society, not parrot the failed ideas of past ignorance. ...or laud the failed ideas of present and future ignorance. I'm curious. To me, stupid is as stupid says/does. You apparently divorce the person from the words/actions. What constitutes a stupid person in your view? i like your selective reading. it is super hilarious. but i DID, in fact say ignorance OR prejudice. in this case it should be quite clear which of the two i would conclude was the problem. to me stupid is NOT as stupid does. smart people can do some incredibly stupid things. i often read tales of really intelligent people who are very trusting of people who turn out to be crooks. this is the emotional component of people- that they might do things that are not especially rational because their FEELINGS are guiding them. or the opposite can be true. a not so bright person could do something incredibly smart because of good advice. a stupid person is a person who cannot communicate, cannot comprehend, or cannot act in an intelligent way due to some sort of natural or nurtured stupidity. i have never encountered such a person on the board for obvious reasons.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 18:21:22 GMT -5
Virgil, do you realize that what you think Mmhmm is saying and thinking is not what I or other posters see? That perhaps we get Mmhmm and you just don't?
It happens. There are some posters I don't really read as they are intending and I just keep that in mind when I read or reply to their posts.
that is what i call "serial respect" for other people: giving them the benefit of the doubt. if it APPEARS that a person is utterly lacking a moral compass, i generally ASSUME that I (me, the person observing) am NOT UNDERSTANDING THEM, rather than ASSUMING that my interpretation is always correct, and that they are, indeed, immoral bastards. i find that not only does this way of interacting result in BETTER INTERACTIONS, it makes me feel better about mankind- especially when i cannot gather enough information to garner a meaningfully solid conclusion. in other words, i assume that people TRY to behave in a moral and consistent way, and that i just don't get it. problem = me.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 6, 2015 18:22:13 GMT -5
...or laud the failed ideas of present and future ignorance. I'm curious. To me, stupid is as stupid says/does. You apparently divorce the person from the words/actions. What constitutes a stupid person in your view? i like your selective reading. it is super hilarious. but i DID, in fact say ignorance OR prejudice. in this case it should be quite clear which of the two i would conclude was the problem. to me stupid is NOT as stupid does. smart people can do some incredibly stupid things. i often read tales of really intelligent people who are very trusting of people who turn out to be crooks. this is the emotional component of people- that they might do things that are not especially rational because their FEELINGS are guiding them. or the opposite can be true. a not so bright person could do something incredibly smart because of good advice. a stupid person is a person who cannot communicate, cannot comprehend, or cannot act in an intelligent way due to some sort of natural or nurtured stupidity. i have never encountered such a person on the board for obvious reasons. One dimension of "intelligent" is inadequate: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 6, 2015 18:28:14 GMT -5
...or laud the failed ideas of present and future ignorance. I'm curious. To me, stupid is as stupid says/does. You apparently divorce the person from the words/actions. What constitutes a stupid person in your view? i like your selective reading. it is super hilarious. but i DID, in fact say ignorance OR prejudice. in this case it should be quite clear which of the two i would conclude was the problem. to me stupid is NOT as stupid does. smart people can do some incredibly stupid things. i often read tales of really intelligent people who are very trusting of people who turn out to be crooks. this is the emotional component of people- that they might do things that are not especially rational because their FEELINGS are guiding them. or the opposite can be true. a not so bright person could do something incredibly smart because of good advice. a stupid person is a person who cannot communicate, cannot comprehend, or cannot act in an intelligent way due to some sort of natural or nurtured stupidity. i have never encountered such a person on the board for obvious reasons. So would a mentally retarded individual qualify as stupid for being generally much less able to communicate, comprehend, and act in an intelligent way due to his/her natural condition? Incidentally, I'm doing my best to avoid sounding prosecutorial with these questions, so don't blow up at me if it takes a while for me to hone in on your viewpoint.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 18:29:03 GMT -5
i like your selective reading. it is super hilarious. but i DID, in fact say ignorance OR prejudice. in this case it should be quite clear which of the two i would conclude was the problem. to me stupid is NOT as stupid does. smart people can do some incredibly stupid things. i often read tales of really intelligent people who are very trusting of people who turn out to be crooks. this is the emotional component of people- that they might do things that are not especially rational because their FEELINGS are guiding them. or the opposite can be true. a not so bright person could do something incredibly smart because of good advice. a stupid person is a person who cannot communicate, cannot comprehend, or cannot act in an intelligent way due to some sort of natural or nurtured stupidity. i have never encountered such a person on the board for obvious reasons. One dimension of "intelligent" is inadequate: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligencesi can give you my "defining moment". it happened in 1989. i was on a service call to a grain mill. it was in rural Arkansas. while i was in the waiting room which resembled a shotgun shack (gaps in the floorboards, cobwebs on the windows, etc), one of the workers came in to take his break. "dumb hick", i thought, in my newly minted suit obtained by my gainful engineering employment for a F500 company. he sat down next to me. a mouse scurried out across the room. we both stared at it. in one swift move, he unsheathed his bucknife and tossed it down to the floor and killed that mouse. i thought to myself how much elegance, composure, calm, practice, and control that took, and i realized that human beings of all kinds are really damned intelligent, they just show it in different ways. i have observed this many other times in life. my way of thinking would probably seem utterly stupid to that guy. it probably seems utterly stupid to many people here. but i would never, ever use that word again to describe another person. everyone that i have taken the time to know has a special genius that they were born to give to the world. the only "stupid" out there is the stupid that makes us judge people for their weaknesses rather than their strengths. i would suggest that those of you who have not seen Temple Grandin (HBO), see it. if her mother hand not had faith in her genius, she would have been institutionalized at age 5. instead, she has literally changed the world.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 18:30:01 GMT -5
i like your selective reading. it is super hilarious. but i DID, in fact say ignorance OR prejudice. in this case it should be quite clear which of the two i would conclude was the problem. to me stupid is NOT as stupid does. smart people can do some incredibly stupid things. i often read tales of really intelligent people who are very trusting of people who turn out to be crooks. this is the emotional component of people- that they might do things that are not especially rational because their FEELINGS are guiding them. or the opposite can be true. a not so bright person could do something incredibly smart because of good advice. a stupid person is a person who cannot communicate, cannot comprehend, or cannot act in an intelligent way due to some sort of natural or nurtured stupidity. i have never encountered such a person on the board for obvious reasons. So would a mentally retarded individual qualify as stupid for being generally much less able to communicate, comprehend, and act in an intelligent way due to his/her natural condition? Incidentally, I'm doing my best to avoid sounding prosecutorial with these questions, so don't blow up at me if it takes a while for me to hone in on your viewpoint. i don't generally blow up, but thanks for the heads up. i think i said it about as well as i intend to say in the post just submitted.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 6, 2015 18:37:48 GMT -5
... So would a mentally retarded individual qualify as stupid for being generally much less able to communicate, comprehend, and act in an intelligent way due to his/her natural condition? ... I will speak for myself on this issue. I am borderline mentally retarded on tests that look at nature or naturalistic intelligence. I have no problem owning "stupid" when it involves this area of the world. EDIT: I am dumb as a rock in that area. Just don't ask me what type of rock it is.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 18:40:19 GMT -5
... So would a mentally retarded individual qualify as stupid for being generally much less able to communicate, comprehend, and act in an intelligent way due to his/her natural condition? ... I will speak for myself on this issue. I am borderline mentally retarded on tests that look at nature or naturalistic intelligence. I have no problem owning "stupid" when it involves this area of the world. i think that stupid, as it is generally used, is a BLANKET statement about a person. it is a way of dismissing them- as if they had nothing important to offer. not to be nice to you or anything, but i think you have a lot to offer, bills.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Apr 6, 2015 18:43:56 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is stupid. I think people sometimes do stupid things, or say stupid things, but I don't believe the person is stupid. If I really think about it, I don't like the word "stupid" applied to people. It's degrading. Anyone can qualify at one time, or another.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 6, 2015 18:44:37 GMT -5
I will speak for myself on this issue. I am borderline mentally retarded on tests that look at nature or naturalistic intelligence. I have no problem owning "stupid" when it involves this area of the world. i think that stupid, as it is generally used, is a BLANKET statement about a person. it is a way of dismissing them- as if they had nothing important to offer. not to be nice to you or anything, but i think you have a lot to offer, bills. Of course I have a lot to offer on this forum. My Logical–mathematical intelligence is a nice high number when measured on standard IQ tests. Just don't expect much from me on the climate change or dating (interpersonal intelligence) threads.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 6, 2015 18:49:24 GMT -5
... So would a mentally retarded individual qualify as stupid for being generally much less able to communicate, comprehend, and act in an intelligent way due to his/her natural condition? ... I will speak for myself on this issue. I am borderline mentally retarded on tests that look at nature or naturalistic intelligence. I have no problem owning "stupid" when it involves this area of the world. What exactly does "mentally retarded" look like in the context of naturalistic intelligence? For instance, can you give us some examples of tasks that most people could accomplish using such intelligence, but you aren't able to?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 6, 2015 18:58:53 GMT -5
I will speak for myself on this issue. I am borderline mentally retarded on tests that look at nature or naturalistic intelligence. I have no problem owning "stupid" when it involves this area of the world. What exactly does "mentally retarded" look like in the context of naturalistic intelligence? For instance, can you give us some examples of tasks that most people could accomplish using such intelligence, but you aren't able to? Student "What kind of tree is that?" Bill leading a nature hike, "A big one. Not as big as that one, but still bigger than most of them around here." I have pieces of bark in my office that I review right before I go out with the names of the trees on them. I have to review them every time before I go out. Twice in a day if I am leading one morning and afternoon. I can not retain them. I also don't sort and categorize. My hiking partner and I would do ridge trails. He would wonder aloud, "I wonder what peak that is?". I would have to focus really hard to see that there was a peak and not just a range of mountains on the horizon.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 6, 2015 19:03:22 GMT -5
What exactly does "mentally retarded" look like in the context of naturalistic intelligence? For instance, can you give us some examples of tasks that most people could accomplish using such intelligence, but you aren't able to? Student "What kind of tree is that?" Bill leading a nature hike, "A big one. Not as big as that one, but still bigger than most of them around here." I have pieces of bark in my office that I review right before I go out with the names of the trees on them. I have to review them every time before I go out. Twice in a day if I am leading one morning and afternoon. I can not retain them. I also don't sort and categorize. My hiking partner and I would do ridge trails. He would wonder aloud, "I wonder what peak that is?". I would have to focus really hard to see that there was a peak and not just a range of mountains on the horizon. And these kinds of issues aren't persistent in other contexts? For example, would you have trouble picking your vehicle out of a busy parking lot? Or if you left two chocolate bars on your desk and somebody asked you half a day later "What chocolate bars did you leave on your desk?", would you typically have trouble answering?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 6, 2015 19:16:43 GMT -5
Student "What kind of tree is that?" Bill leading a nature hike, "A big one. Not as big as that one, but still bigger than most of them around here." I have pieces of bark in my office that I review right before I go out with the names of the trees on them. I have to review them every time before I go out. Twice in a day if I am leading one morning and afternoon. I can not retain them. I also don't sort and categorize. My hiking partner and I would do ridge trails. He would wonder aloud, "I wonder what peak that is?". I would have to focus really hard to see that there was a peak and not just a range of mountains on the horizon. And these kinds of issues aren't persistent in other contexts? For example, would you have trouble picking your vehicle out of a busy parking lot? Or if you left two chocolate bars on your desk and somebody asked you half a day later "What chocolate bars did you leave on your desk?", would you typically have trouble answering? It is really only in the natural world that I struggle. Man made objects are much easier for me.
|
|