Men are better then Women Period.
- Thread starter Ookami
- Start date
Stupid; 1) The lack of will, or resistance to continues growing in the field of knowing. 2) The following of trends set forth by an established order instead of concluding your own idea. These ideals may or may not be similar to someone's but are you're as well. 3) Arrogance without the will to back it up. Example: I'm arrogant but I will always fight for my opinion and back it up. NOTE: If it's my opinion and not just me using a technique to farther my growth in a field of knowledge. 4) Reform to 1; Anyone who believes themselves to be so intelligent that they need not learn anything else. 5) Idiocy; The thought that you think you know without trying to learn more about that which you think you know. You can use many ways to learn more about what you think you know. I like to argue and debate about it to learn more. Some people like to read books. I like this method too. 6) Choosing a Simple Answer just because it's simple 7) Believing that the world can be perfect and full good with no evil, aka Heavenly
EDIT: Geeze, I'm half asleep.
EDIT: Geeze, I'm half asleep.
Last edited:
By that definition, everyone is stupid at some point in their life... even after adolecence.
That's good though, no one should beleve they are immune to stupidity, becasue that too would make them stupid.
*Note that I'm only responding to your posts as replied to me.
Actually, I don’t think it’s a matter of knowing enough about ENTP’s, just knowing a good quality argument when I see one. You speak often about loving to argue and doing it frequently for your enjoyment, so I would assume you would have had enough practice by now to know that throwing statements out there without evidence, historical or otherwise, does not a powerful stance make. What I mean is that, if you’re truly interested in debating this issue, even if you’re a seat of the pants type of arguer, you should be injecting each of your points with reasons for your belief and outlining your logic. It doesn’t take hours of painstaking research to check what you’re saying against a verifiable reality. I think it is entirely possible to assess the win-capacity of a potential argument before you set it down, and anticipate your opponents’ next move with a counter-argument and prepared evidence. Even if it is posited in the heat of a moment.
Honestly, I think you’re going to be hard pressed to come up with some proofs for this one. Care to reformulate? Or are you going to attempt to stick to your guns?
Hmm... are humans all equally flawed? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It depends on a number of variable factors, such as what you consider to be 'flaws.' Some flaws can be culturally defined; what's condoned in one culture might not be celebrated in another. With that in mind, there's also no way of measuring whether or not flaws are equally distributed across the population. A person can be arrogant and stubborn, but as we all know, we can always encounter someone out there even more arrogant and stubborn than them. In this vein, can all flaws be measured equally? Or is a flaw, a flaw?
And I'm anticipating you to say something about balance, in that someone might be more arrogant but make up for it by being less greedy. But are greedy and arrogant be considered on par with one another? Or is one worse than the other?
I don't think we can say this with any sort of relative certainty, because 'flaws' in an individual are chiefly subjective perceptions. One person might be more inclined to tolerate a temper, while another person cannot.
With something subjective and perceptive like the term 'flaw,' I think it would be difficult to qualify as 'equal' across the board.
I believe I already mentioned that in my previous post, which you consented to, and then reformulated with the above reply:
That’s an assumption. Just because there are current structures in place that condone certain thoughts or behaviors, that doesn’t ratify a need for the masses to be told how to think or act. Of course, certain rules and principles must be adhered to if one chooses to belong to a community, but any one of us would still have to capacity to survive on a remote island without societal structures if we wanted to.
Careful with how you word your arguments: ‘need,’ and a conscious choice are two very different things. If something is a ‘need,’ it cannot be helped. It’s a necessary component to survival. If someone is following their ‘needs,’ they’re making a conscious effort toward self-preservation. How is that stupid?
That being said, I think you need to ‘evolve’ your statement again and change that stipulation within your definition to the term ‘require’ or ‘choose.’ Stupidity, as you loosely defined it, is simply not knowing any better. As a close cousin of ignorance, this faintly implies a choice: there's always the option to knowing more. Thus, that leads me to believe that if something is voluntary, if something can be helped, that’s when you can use a qualitative label like ‘stupid.’
But before I put the cart in front of the horse, I’d like you to clarify what you mean by ‘someone else’ telling people how to think and act? Who is this 'someone else'? Are you referring to government? Religion? Family? Cultural and societal expectations and taboos? I wish you'd be more specific; generalizations and sweeping statements can cripple a debate because parties spend too much trying to discern what the other means.
Okay, this argument is a little messy, so let me see if I get this straight. You say that it doesn’t take comparingto another species to know we’re not all powerful and the best species ever. Okay, I’m intrigued by this, and a little disappointed to see that you didn’t deliver with this argument. If we don’t need another species to compare ourselves to, what is another way you'd go about to prove your argument?
Because in the next sentence, you’re doing just that. You’re comparing us to an alien race. Mind you, this is an unverifiable proof. You describe an alien race that’s only possibly super intelligent (your own use of the word ‘probably’ tips me off that you yourself realize you can't state any of this with certainty). But the problem is, at this point in time we do not and cannot know if there is sentient life beyond our planet, let alone if it is "super" intelligent. The universe being so vast and grand, we can only assume so, but that’s the problem: the qualities and conditions of alien existence are only limited by the stretch of our imagination.
So in this vein, if “humans aren’t the most powerful and best species ever,” I’m still curious as to what logical basis you’re positing this on? A human, imaginary, ideal? If that’s the case, than an ideal or the possibility of an imagined species isn’t a good basis for measuring the reality of a statement.
As for ‘evolving’ past our limitations and being able to look back on how far we've come. How do I put this delicately? D’uh! The future model is, presumably, always going to be better than the model before it. If you’re basing your statement on future potential, again, that’s still an ideal, a prediction, an assumption. It hasn’t happened yet. You don’t look at a group of four month old infants and argue that they're stupid because they can’t string together a mathematical equation even though they may one day have the potential to do so. They haven’t even developed that sort of reasoning yet. The only way to verify if this particular group of infants is ‘stupid’ is to compare them to other infants their age. We can measure how they compare to the cognitive development of other four month olds who have tested in the past, but we cannot reasonably predict that future four-month olds are going to be able to do calculus homework. We can estimate how certain cognitive developments might go, based on trends, but even then, it's prediction... not hard evidence.
The same thing can be applied to the idea of the 'still evolving' argument for the human race and the supposed potential we hold.
I may have jumped the gun here, but I'd like to put forth that we should focus on the present. Not what we could be, not what we were, but the state of the human race right now. In the face of something we can reasonably verify, how do “we know we’re not all powerful and the best species ever?” You said it wouldn't take comparisons to know this. What other way, using hard facts or reasoning, would you asses your stance?
Looking foward to what you've got to say
Actually, I don’t think it’s a matter of knowing enough about ENTP’s, just knowing a good quality argument when I see one. You speak often about loving to argue and doing it frequently for your enjoyment, so I would assume you would have had enough practice by now to know that throwing statements out there without evidence, historical or otherwise, does not a powerful stance make. What I mean is that, if you’re truly interested in debating this issue, even if you’re a seat of the pants type of arguer, you should be injecting each of your points with reasons for your belief and outlining your logic. It doesn’t take hours of painstaking research to check what you’re saying against a verifiable reality. I think it is entirely possible to assess the win-capacity of a potential argument before you set it down, and anticipate your opponents’ next move with a counter-argument and prepared evidence. Even if it is posited in the heat of a moment.
Honestly, I think you’re going to be hard pressed to come up with some proofs for this one. Care to reformulate? Or are you going to attempt to stick to your guns?
Hmm... are humans all equally flawed? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It depends on a number of variable factors, such as what you consider to be 'flaws.' Some flaws can be culturally defined; what's condoned in one culture might not be celebrated in another. With that in mind, there's also no way of measuring whether or not flaws are equally distributed across the population. A person can be arrogant and stubborn, but as we all know, we can always encounter someone out there even more arrogant and stubborn than them. In this vein, can all flaws be measured equally? Or is a flaw, a flaw?
And I'm anticipating you to say something about balance, in that someone might be more arrogant but make up for it by being less greedy. But are greedy and arrogant be considered on par with one another? Or is one worse than the other?
I don't think we can say this with any sort of relative certainty, because 'flaws' in an individual are chiefly subjective perceptions. One person might be more inclined to tolerate a temper, while another person cannot.
With something subjective and perceptive like the term 'flaw,' I think it would be difficult to qualify as 'equal' across the board.
I believe I already mentioned that in my previous post, which you consented to, and then reformulated with the above reply:
TheDaringHatTrick said:
That’s an assumption. Just because there are current structures in place that condone certain thoughts or behaviors, that doesn’t ratify a need for the masses to be told how to think or act. Of course, certain rules and principles must be adhered to if one chooses to belong to a community, but any one of us would still have to capacity to survive on a remote island without societal structures if we wanted to.
Careful with how you word your arguments: ‘need,’ and a conscious choice are two very different things. If something is a ‘need,’ it cannot be helped. It’s a necessary component to survival. If someone is following their ‘needs,’ they’re making a conscious effort toward self-preservation. How is that stupid?
That being said, I think you need to ‘evolve’ your statement again and change that stipulation within your definition to the term ‘require’ or ‘choose.’ Stupidity, as you loosely defined it, is simply not knowing any better. As a close cousin of ignorance, this faintly implies a choice: there's always the option to knowing more. Thus, that leads me to believe that if something is voluntary, if something can be helped, that’s when you can use a qualitative label like ‘stupid.’
But before I put the cart in front of the horse, I’d like you to clarify what you mean by ‘someone else’ telling people how to think and act? Who is this 'someone else'? Are you referring to government? Religion? Family? Cultural and societal expectations and taboos? I wish you'd be more specific; generalizations and sweeping statements can cripple a debate because parties spend too much trying to discern what the other means.
Okay, this argument is a little messy, so let me see if I get this straight. You say that it doesn’t take comparingto another species to know we’re not all powerful and the best species ever. Okay, I’m intrigued by this, and a little disappointed to see that you didn’t deliver with this argument. If we don’t need another species to compare ourselves to, what is another way you'd go about to prove your argument?
Because in the next sentence, you’re doing just that. You’re comparing us to an alien race. Mind you, this is an unverifiable proof. You describe an alien race that’s only possibly super intelligent (your own use of the word ‘probably’ tips me off that you yourself realize you can't state any of this with certainty). But the problem is, at this point in time we do not and cannot know if there is sentient life beyond our planet, let alone if it is "super" intelligent. The universe being so vast and grand, we can only assume so, but that’s the problem: the qualities and conditions of alien existence are only limited by the stretch of our imagination.
So in this vein, if “humans aren’t the most powerful and best species ever,” I’m still curious as to what logical basis you’re positing this on? A human, imaginary, ideal? If that’s the case, than an ideal or the possibility of an imagined species isn’t a good basis for measuring the reality of a statement.
As for ‘evolving’ past our limitations and being able to look back on how far we've come. How do I put this delicately? D’uh! The future model is, presumably, always going to be better than the model before it. If you’re basing your statement on future potential, again, that’s still an ideal, a prediction, an assumption. It hasn’t happened yet. You don’t look at a group of four month old infants and argue that they're stupid because they can’t string together a mathematical equation even though they may one day have the potential to do so. They haven’t even developed that sort of reasoning yet. The only way to verify if this particular group of infants is ‘stupid’ is to compare them to other infants their age. We can measure how they compare to the cognitive development of other four month olds who have tested in the past, but we cannot reasonably predict that future four-month olds are going to be able to do calculus homework. We can estimate how certain cognitive developments might go, based on trends, but even then, it's prediction... not hard evidence.
The same thing can be applied to the idea of the 'still evolving' argument for the human race and the supposed potential we hold.
I may have jumped the gun here, but I'd like to put forth that we should focus on the present. Not what we could be, not what we were, but the state of the human race right now. In the face of something we can reasonably verify, how do “we know we’re not all powerful and the best species ever?” You said it wouldn't take comparisons to know this. What other way, using hard facts or reasoning, would you asses your stance?
Looking foward to what you've got to say
Last edited:
Dumb and stupid are two different things, one having to do with intelligence the other with character. The world is full of excepionally bright people who are brought down by their own stupidity. The world is filled with people of average intelligence who make major contributions to this planet. There isn't much point in comparing males and females.
Did you answer my questions because I didn't see them answered, and I'd like to become a part of this debate, but I can't unless you answer them. The shower comment was attempting to 'beat around the bush' thinking that you'd logically understand that you did not respond to my questions.
1) I provided a reference in my post to TheDaringHatTrick
2) Male - Believe Males are better, Female - Females are better, Equal - Neither is better Already stated this too, so this is short and to the point.
3)No, I argue feminist points against the Male Chauvinist, and Chauvinist points against the feminist, and then not argue against the equalist. Sometimes I'll switch it up and argue equality against both sides Already answered this too
2) Male - Believe Males are better, Female - Females are better, Equal - Neither is better
Already stated this too, so this is short and to the point.3)No, I argue feminist points against the Male Chauvinist, and Chauvinist points against the feminist, and then not argue against the equalist. Sometimes I'll switch it up and argue equality against both sides
Already answered this too
Okay, I enjoyed the historical tidbit, but sorry to tell you that it’s useless here anyway.
How do you figure that this one historical anecdote could somehow suffice to support the sweeping span of male/female power struggles in history that you’ve described in your original argument?
The nature of this statement requires you to give me several examples from history to render your statement true.
I notice you like to talk about yourself a lot. Quite honestly, I don’t find this very relevant. You’ll forgive me if I skip over this.
I’m confused. I never said that people didn't have flaws; I’m refuting your clause wherein you stated that humans are equally flawed. That is, everyone has some inner, perfect balance of flaws vs. virtues. That one person is not more flawed than the other, etc.
But over all, I don’t understand what you’re trying to state here. Please explain in grammatical English.
I don’t understand what your point/argument here is. Is there one? Please clarify.
Again, you have failed to explain to me what you consider to be a flaw. The seven deadly sins? A mental or physical disorder? The last statement about the mental hospital/outside world also made no sense.
LOL Thank goodness for this bolded footnote. I would have never reached such a profound conclusion all by my onesies. *wink*
Are you just commenting or do you have a point here? You’re just restating my point that flaws are subjective.I thought so too, but you never know all of people's flaws. Everyone will always hide something from you. So you may be going 'he has a short temper' that's his flaw'. When maybe he's also indecisive (that would be one of my Flaws that I haven't came to grips with yet
”TheDaringHatTrick” said:
”Ookami” said:
I don’t see how my use of the term ‘stupid’ is incorrect or out of sorts with what you’ve stated before. Or even if this is what you're trying to imply here; I guess I'm scratching my head and wondering why you felt the need to copy and paste its definition from dictionary.com Are you going to further elaborate on or something?
True, that’s why you started this scintillating debate with myself. I’d like to see us both learn something from one another, but I feel like you’re holding back on me somehow. In the future, when you make a statement, I’d like to see what your line of reasoning is. It’ll reduce the likelihood of me misinterpreting what you’re trying to say.
I never said you wrote that. I was clarifying your misuse of the word ‘need’. It had to do with me elaborating on your incorrect choice of words. The voluntary choice comments were tying in your point about ‘people refusing to learn.’ Which is, essentially, stupidity by choice = your definition in a nut shell. Or am I wrong?
Re-read this statement carefully. Please tell me you see your own contradiction here.
You’re right, I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. I also don’t see how this applies to the argument you’re supposed to be refuting.
Yes, thank you, I am aware. It’s another word for an ‘unverifiable condition’ which I’ve described in my post. But it still does not change the fact that this has no basis in what you’re trying to argue. Your statement is present tense and conclusive. ‘That the human race IS stupid; that we ARE not the best there is.’ But the way you’re using ‘possibles’ and ‘probables’ and ‘could be’s’ to argue that something that you’ve already stated as IS, is the logical fallacy.
It’s good that your mind is going a mile a minute, and I would honestly like to see how that thought process of yours works, but it seems like you are having some trouble putting this all on paper/screen. I would advise you to look at the way you argue for yourself as an ENTP. Your posts are more coherent and logical whenever you’re discussing ENTP related topics because you follow the cardinal formula: statement, proof, explanation. But strangely enough, they suffer when you’re thrown into debate like this. I don’t think it’s a lack of knowledge. If may be so bold, and truly, I do not mean to be chafing or insulting in any manner, but you need to practice thinking more on your feet and focus on breaking down the other person’s arguments instead of talking about your thought process (but not, strangely enough, demonstrating it). You’re a smart cookie, Ookami; there’s just some brushing up you need to do with the way you communicate your ideas.
I’d like to think that we’re not boxed in by one type of thinking or another all the time. MBTI classify by patterns you’re more inclined to demonstrate most of the time, but you’re certainly not limited to them.
Anyway, I too, clarified why I made this stipulation above.
Uh, interesting, but again, not entirely relevant. I will take it as just fluffy commentary, your general opinion.
That's okay. I wrote my argument the first thing in the morning today too, forty minutes before I went to the libs. I had to go back and edit some grammatical errors afterwards.
But anyway, it was an interesting insight into your brain, Ookami. Like I mentioned above, however, we might need to work on the way you present your arguments so that everyone understands the point you’re trying to get across.
Last edited: