 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:58 am Post subject: Calling People Stupid |
 |
|
Sure, I know that it can degenerate into pointless name-calling: “You’re stupid!” “No, you’re stupid!”
I realize that.
But at some point, it seems that some people have to be told that they’re stupid. This shouldn’t be right away. This shouldn’t be when they say something that reveals either colossal ignorance, or an inability to recognize an incoherent argument, or some combination of the two. This point should come after they’ve been given a chance to show that they’re open to hearing new facts, and new points of view, that they can change their minds if the facts warrant it. If they have been given this chance and they don’t use the opportunity, then they are stupid.
Then of course, there are the liars.
Liars don’t care about facts. They don’t care about “the marketplace of ideas.” They’re all about spamming the marketplace of ideas with lies. One fellow during the debate about the appalling failure of the USA federal government in responding to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was inexplicably trying to absolve [p]resident george w. bush of any responsibility for the debacle. Over and over again he pinned the blame solely on the hapless Mayor Nagin of New Orleans. The other participants in the discussion were more than willing to assign Mayor Nagin whatever blame he deserved, but we maintained that bush obviously bore some of the responsibility. The bushlover refused to concede and continued ranting about buses, and Mayor Nagin. Finally, somebody pointed out that bush had signed a statement declaring a State of Emergency in Louisiana, which gave the federal government the power and the responsibility to coordinate all evacuation, relief, and rescue missions. Whatever blame that could have been assigned to Nagin had to be shared by the bush II administration as well. The bushlover’s response was to ignore this crucial point and continue to bloviate about Nagin and the buses. He was asked repeatedly to address this fact and he repeatedly failed to even acknowledge the requests. This is a liar.
Another liar is the current Vice-President of the United States, “Dick” Cheney. A serial liar who has been exposed repeatedly for his crude, clumsy, obvious distortions. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin Jr. was a serial liar, blathering about preserving health care, or his father’s legacy in general, while all the while he did more to dismantle Canada’s social programs than any Prime Minister in history. Stephen Harper is a serial liar. He too claims to respect Canada’s health care system, but he too hopes to destroy it and so be rewarded by the private health businesses who pull his strings. These liars have a very dangerous and destructive agenda. It is the height of foolishness to treat these people’s claims seriously. They are demonstrably false and demonstrably stupid. You will also note that these individuals are motivated by the basest of human instincts, mainly greed, but also pride and cruelty. Base motivations are stupid motivations. While we can treat these people seriously to the degree that they have the power to hurt us, we must never forget that they are also stupid and that others must recognize this fact.
Too many columnists and pundits are either liars, or stupid, or stupid liars. Marcus Gee, Margaret Wente, David Frum, David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan, Ezra Levant, Rondi Adamson, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Tucker Carlson, the list goes ever on. They have been exposed as stupid liars too many times for them to have a shred of legitimacy left. Their continued power to pollute the airwaves and the printed press has more to due with corporate media bias than with any sort of insight or knowledge that they can supposedly offer. There is nothing to do but attack them for the stupid liars that they are, because otherwise people take them seriously, and believe that it is “reasonable” for a complete moron to steal the office of the president, go to war on a tidal wave of lies, and rape a country and its people for three years, stealing another election in the meantime, with no one arresting this oaf, charging him with treason, and putting him on trial for crimes against humanity.
Finally, groups of people who hold stupid beliefs should be denounced as “stupid.” It’s my belief that within this mass of people there are individuals who can be reasoned with, but this takes time and opportunity. In the meantime, they think stupid things and do stupid things. And we have to suffer for it. And the oppressed in all lands continue to suffer for it. And the marginalized in our own lands continue to suffer for it. And the holders of these stupid beliefs, poor babies, they too have to suffer. The nitwits who voted for Ontario Progressive Conservative Premiers Mike Harris and Ernie Eves will have to pay the debts of those thieving governments just the same as we will. They’ll wait far too long in over-crowded hospital emergency rooms the same as us. Their tax-cuts will be devoured by higher municipal taxes and user fees, the same as ours. They have to be made to understand the error of their ways in the starkest possible terms. Calling them stupid is a crucial part of their education. As well, many of these people are stupid liars, who care nothing for the environment, public health care, racism, poverty, needless suffering and death. A lot of these people are the sort of thugs who enjoy nothing more than beating up anti-poverty activists, or decent citizens concerned about genocidal foreign policies. Why should we be polite to these people?
Supposedly, calling other people stupid will lower the tone of the political debate. Supposedly the various manifestations of the “conservative” political movement continue to out-poll the NDP because they must be more polite, and therefore more popular with the great mass of undecided voters. Supposedly, the right-wing never stoops to name-calling against leftists, the poor, the peace movement, the environmental movement, the global justice movement. If only we on the left could emulate the “conservatives,” then it could be us giving the Liberals nightmares! It could have been Jack Layton presiding over a minority government, instead of Stephen Harper!
What rot. The “conservatives” remain a political force because they have significant corporate backing and because the policies of the left have been unjustly maligned for decades. It is high time that we pointed out to Canadians in no uncertain terms, that the neo-liberal regime presented as the only option, is actually just a stupid con-job, foisted on them by liars, opportunists, and morons. People should fear to say out loud that they support the Conservative Party of Canada, or the Liberal Party of Canada, for fear of being called an idiot. They should fear being part of the “looney right” or being seen as having been taken for stupid chumps.
Sometimes the truth hurts.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
edave
Member
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 46
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
_________________
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Ghandi
Last edited by edave on Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Awk! Then why not just have at them?
I actually believe that everybody is stupid in some way. But that humanity can surprise you.
I believe in democracy, because i believe that people are the best judges of their own self-interest when they're given the correct information.
But really stupid behaviour has gotten a free pass for too long.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DefenestratedGrooveMonkey
Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 41
Location: Monkeys live in trees.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the general problem with tossing grade-school insults around is that it gives observers the impression that you're 12 years old, or perhaps are challenged by some sort of mental instability. Once that impression is made, everything you say after that tends to get taken with a very tiny grain of salt. You taint your own well, if you will.
Furthermore, folks may avoid interacting at all because "hey, isn't that the guy who freaks all the time?" Why bother taking part if you know the other party is just going to start screaming abuse if you say something that disturbs his fragile worldview? There are better things to do with one's time than offer oneself up as a target for verbal abuse.
Insults are the tools of people who have little else to say or who suffer from poor impulse control - or they're just trolls looking for a fight.
_________________
"Insert pithy, out-of-context slice of fortune-cookie wisdom here." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, who says you have to scream it, with saliva-foam at the corners of your mouth, your eyes wide with rage?
Let me ask you a question: Is there no one, or no argument, that you would find to be stupid?
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Caissa
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1146
Location: Saint John
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Define "stupid". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DefenestratedGrooveMonkey
Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 41
Location: Monkeys live in trees.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thwap wrote: | | Well, who says you have to scream it, with saliva-foam at the corners of your mouth, your eyes wide with rage? |
As I said, that's the impression you give. I actually have no idea of what that is at the corner of your mouth, but you'd better get it looked at.
| Quote: | | Let me ask you a question: Is there no one, or no argument, that you would find to be stupid? |
There are many. However, I know that if I surrender to my base instincts and call a spade a spade, the natural reaction of the other party will be to get defensive. Their backs get up, their higher reasoning shuts off, or they just give up and walk away because it's too nice a day to deal with a jerk. The debate is over, unresolved, and I've made an enemy where I could have made a friend. In short, I lose. Why shoot yourself in the foot by alienating your audience?
_________________
"Insert pithy, out-of-context slice of fortune-cookie wisdom here." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, it comes from "stupor," which is a dazed condition, when you are unable to process information properly and your responses are slow, seemingly random, incoherent. The condition is called "stupefied."
I like the American Heritage Dictionary's definitions:
| Quote: |
Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.
|
So, "slow to understand," ... people who continue to use the same bogus arguments when confronted with new facts, and when their arguments are repeatedly refuted.
"Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes," Michael Ignatieff et al., and their support for bush II's invasion of Iraq. Despite his education, Ignatieff obviously disregarded decades of leftist anti-imperialist analysis and imagined that the US was sincere in its desire to topple a tyrant and bring democracy to Iraq, from which it would spread to the Middle East.
This was a stupid thing to believe from the very beginning, since if the US was serious about creating a democratic example it could have peacefully leaned on an already allied regime like Saudi Arabia, and ushered it step-by-step towards increased democracy.
No, apparently for Ignatieff and other liberal fools, the best way to bring democracy to the Middle East would be to attack a sovereign state, permit sectarian violence, have US troops humiliate, rape, and kill Arab people ["these things happen in war" is the blithe response of the militarists at every new report of abominable US atrocities, so, presumably, they knew this would happen when they were calling for democracy through invasion and conquest, .... again, "stupid"] and to imagine that the US has absolutely no material interests in Iraq. To say that oil has anything to do with the US's interest in Iraq is lame, leftist conspiracy-theorizing.
What would you call these thought processes?
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Caissa
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1146
Location: Saint John
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If I was engaged in a debate with these individuals I wouldn't call them "stupid." Lowers the tone of the debate irredeemably. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I find you so tiresome, I can't find the words to encompass it ...
| DefenestratedGrooveMonkey wrote: | | thwap wrote: | | Well, who says you have to scream it, with saliva-foam at the corners of your mouth, your eyes wide with rage? |
As I said, that's the impression you give. I actually have no idea of what that is at the corner of your mouth, but you'd better get it looked at.
|
Cute. First of all, if you got the impression that I was ranting and raving while I typed that essay, or that whenever someone types the word "stupid" or says the word "stupid," that they are milliseconds away from becoming totally unhinged, then that's your own inexplicable reaction, and maybe it explains the incoherence of your position.
Second of all, I did not say that I had froth forming in the corners of my mouth. I'm pretty sure that you really don't think that. Instead, I think that instead of using "school-yard insults" you twist people's words to score debating points. I take it you think that calculated dishonesty is a superior form of debate than perhaps rude honesty?
| DefenestratedGrooveMonkey wrote: | | thwap wrote: | | Let me ask you a question: Is there no one, or no argument, that you would find to be stupid? |
There are many. However, I know that if I surrender to my base instincts and call a spade a spade, the natural reaction of the other party will be to get defensive. Their backs get up, their higher reasoning shuts off, or they just give up and walk away because it's too nice a day to deal with a jerk. The debate is over, unresolved, and I've made an enemy where I could have made a friend. In short, I lose. Why shoot yourself in the foot by alienating your audience? |
I see you're not just talking about alienating the undecided, but about debating with the holders of stupid opinions, or the stupid liars also referred to.
I'll restate what I said at the beginning of the essay (I'm starting to doubt you even read it.):
| Quote: | But at some point, it seems that some people have to be told that they’re stupid. This shouldn’t be right away. This shouldn’t be when they say something that reveals either colossal ignorance, or an inability to recognize an incoherent argument, or some combination of the two. This point should come after they’ve been given a chance to show that they’re open to hearing new facts, and new points of view, that they can change their minds if the facts warrant it. If they have been given this chance and they don’t use the opportunity, then they are stupid.
|
Do you understand this now? If you hear someone saying something stupid and racist, sexist, homophobic, or something stupid about how we have to back the Americans in slaughtering Iraqis, because they're our friends and neighbours, I quite clearly said that you should first engage with them politely and seriously, and try to reason with them, so that they change their minds.
If they continue to cling to their retrograde opinions, and outright refuse to listen to reason, then you really have no choice but to consider them stupid.
And, when it comes to people who don't care that you know they're lying, there is absolutely nothing to be gained from attempting to reason with them. It's a con-job, and what they're trying to do is brazen their way through it, even though they've been exposed.
When Mike Harris was going through the process of destroying Ontario's system of maintaining safe drinking water, an MPP of his had been convinced by one of his constituents who was an expert on public safety and health, that there would be a disaster unless proper alternative procedures were put in place. The MPP managed to get the guy into a government meeting where he would have a few minutes to express his concerns to Harris. He was introduced and he clearly and emphatically stated his case, he emphasized how important this was. Harris's response? The big sack of shit stared blankly at the man, and then turned away. And then people died and hundreds were made sick from contaminated water in Walkerton, Ontario.
And the whole reason that Harris went through this process was to privatize the system to reward his "free market" buddies. It was just a scam. It's the same with private US-style health care, private prisons, highway maintenance, etc., etc., . The private alternatives are undeniably less efficient, but it isn't about efficiency, it's about bleeding the taxpayers. It's a scam, and the perpetrators aren't interested in the truth.
Finally, look at bush II. What's to be gained by not pointing out that he's an idiot? He doesn't even have the lies for his own war memorized. At one point he clearly said that the war was due to Saddam's refusal to allow inspectors into Iraq, when Saddam quite clearly did (in a futile desire to maintain his power). bush II is so stupid that this obvious error was blurted out. Fortunately for decorum, the Washington Press Corps let it pass without comment.
We certainly wouldn't want the illegitimate administration of george w. bush to be undermined by insults, would we?
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!
Last edited by thwap on Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Caissa wrote: | | If I was engaged in a debate with these individuals I wouldn't call them "stupid." Lowers the tone of the debate irredeemably. |
Great. Would you mind explaining why you think that?
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Caissa
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1146
Location: Saint John
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No, I wouldn't mind at all. The word "stupid" in almost all cases tends to be used as an insult. If you are debating with someone insults tend to be counterproductive ie. it helps to entrench someone in their position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DefenestratedGrooveMonkey
Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 41
Location: Monkeys live in trees.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thwap wrote: | | Cute. First of all, if you got the impression that I was ranting and raving while I typed that essay, or that whenever someone types the word "stupid" or says the word "stupid," that they are milliseconds away from becoming totally unhinged, then that's your own inexplicable reaction, and maybe it explains the incoherence of your position. |
We all supply our own mental imagery when communicating through print. I don't think of you as borderline unhinged, actually, just lacking in maturity and impulse control.
| Quote: | | I take it you think that calculated dishonesty is a superior form of debate than perhaps rude honesty? |
Nope, I just think it's okay to tweak the noses of people who take themselves too seriously. Tweak, tweak.
| Quote: | | I'll restate what I said at the beginning of the essay (I'm starting to doubt you even read it.): |
You're right about that. It goes back to what I was saying about first impressions. Most of the first posts I read on this site involved you heaping abuse upon other members. I pretty quickly decided that what you have to say can't be worth wading through the vitriol. I'm sure you feel otherwise, but why should I be forced to root through a sewer in order to find a solitary gem? You marginalize yourself quite effectively without any help at all. You tend to write with yourself in mind, you should perhaps think of writing for an audience, instead. Being an angry voice in the wilderness doesn't seem like something worth aspiring to.
_________________
"Insert pithy, out-of-context slice of fortune-cookie wisdom here." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No, I wouldn't mind at all. The word "stupid" in almost all cases tends to be used as an insult. If you are debating with someone insults tend to be counterproductive ie. it helps to entrench someone in their position. |
But what if they're already evidently entrenched in their positions?
And what if you're trying to embarrass obviously obviously stupid individuals, in order to make uncommitted people think twice about joining them.
[This is after you have demonstrated that your opponents are clearly stupid.]
And, as I asked in my essay, doesn't it seem to be the case that leftists have been insulted and denigrated for decades and it appears to have worked to successfully marginalized us? It certainly seems to have had no ill-effects on the fortunes of the people swinging the insults.
Finally, I think you can sometimes shame someone into silence and later contrition, if you get them to sputter all of their inane, incoherent beliefs out in a debate, and first using facts, and then, while keeping your tone of voice restrained, blasting away at each of their broken hobby-horses in a stirring crescendo of insults.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steve
Grand Techno God
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: Northern BC
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thwap's cartoon is showing up now. One of these days thwap and I will figure out how to post his cartoons, I promise.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elmateo
sleepy.
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 4978
Location: socialist corner, ottawa
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think everyone should be concerned how stupidity gets passed around as "Common Sense". Maybe there are 'tactful' ways of pointing it out, but at the end of the if it's stupid, it's stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DefenestratedGrooveMonkey wrote: | | thwap wrote: | | Cute. First of all, if you got the impression that I was ranting and raving while I typed that essay, or that whenever someone types the word "stupid" or says the word "stupid," that they are milliseconds away from becoming totally unhinged, then that's your own inexplicable reaction, and maybe it explains the incoherence of your position. |
We all supply our own mental imagery when communicating through print. I don't think of you as borderline unhinged, actually, just lacking in maturity and impulse control. |
Well, to each their own.
| DefenestratedGrooveMonkey wrote: | | thwap wrote: | | I take it you think that calculated dishonesty is a superior form of debate than perhaps rude honesty? |
Nope, I just think it's okay to tweak the noses of people who take themselves too seriously. Tweak, tweak.
|
Well, in all sincerity, I don't take myself all that seriously. I take the issues that I think are important quite seriously. I take the impact of inhuman policies seriously.
And, still, it remains a fact that your "nose tweaking" remains a substandard debating tactic, revealing an inability to address the actual issues at hand. You've said nothing of substance here, besides the fact that you disagree. You're "nose-tweaking" hasn't convinced me of anything, probably because it isn't accompanied by a genuine argument that your "tweaking" is supposed to be backing up had you anything of importance to say.
| DefenestratedGrooveMonkey wrote: | | thwap wrote: | | I'll restate what I said at the beginning of the essay (I'm starting to doubt you even read it.): |
You're right about that. It goes back to what I was saying about first impressions. Most of the first posts I read on this site involved you heaping abuse upon other members. I pretty quickly decided that what you have to say can't be worth wading through the vitriol. I'm sure you feel otherwise, but why should I be forced to root through a sewer in order to find a solitary gem? You marginalize yourself quite effectively without any help at all. You tend to write with yourself in mind, you should perhaps think of writing for an audience, instead. Being an angry voice in the wilderness doesn't seem like something worth aspiring to. |
Well, if all you have to offer is such boring pomposity, there's little point in my continuing to try to have a discussion with you beyond this post. Why you felt compelled to offer a knee-jerk reaction to an essay you didn't even bother to read is beyond me. Especially since you seem so concerned that we rise above name-calling to engage in genuine debate. It's quite laughable actually, you typing this empty twaddle about "debate" without even bothering to address any points.
For the record, I'll admit to being abrasive to some people, and expressing a desire that some people be banned. In the three or four years I've spent enjoying these discussion boards, I occassionally come upon people who troll these boards with mindless talking-points, and who have no intention of engaging in the genuine debate they claim to be so hungry for. (I mentioned one such person in the essay. If you'd bothered to read it, you'd know that.) While they're parroting their meaningless talking-points, they also feel free to spew insults at myself and others here.
- we love terrorists
-we don't care about Saddam's victims
-we don't care about crime victims
-we're "the looney left"
-we hate Israel and desire another Holocaust
-we "hate America"
etc., etc.,
One could ignore them, and I often do. But either it's the case that other members of this board don't ignore them, or they post their hateful bile repeatedly, regardless, and it annoys me.
For example, I took exception to "Bobolink's" disgusting accusations of Nazi anti-semetism and asked for him to be banned. And I was rude to him. And he/she/it deserved it, because he/she/it's arguments were boring, stilted, clumsy, and stupid. Supposedly, stating one's criticism of the massive bombardment of civilian areas makes one a Nazi? What am I supposed to do with that?
| Quote: | At least you have now come clean with your anti-semitism. Just think, if Heydrich and Eichmann hadn't screwed up, you wouldn't have a "Jewish Problem" today.
|
You know, what are we supposed to do with such puerile garbage?
Cling mightily to your beliefs Mr. Monkey. I honestly don't care. But do me a favour? Don't bother posting asinine visceral responses to articles or artworks of mine that you can't even be bothered to read. Regardless of what you might think, I have all the time in the world for a genuine clash of ideas. But talking past each other (however politely it is done) is utterly pointless.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NWOntarian
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 531
Location: Out in the wilderness
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| elmateo wrote: | | I think everyone should be concerned how stupidity gets passed around as "Common Sense". |
That's more ignorance than stupidity. Stupidity, to me, is more someone who is wilfully obtuse, i.e. someone who is aware of the facts but jumps to a false conclusion anyway. 'Common sense' tends to be more drawing conclusions from only partial facts, or heavily relying on assumptions.
A good example of 'common sense' were Harper and Howard's responses that National Post story about Iran forcing Jews to wear the Star of David. IIRC, they both said something to the effect of, "Well, I haven't heard of that story, but it sounds like something they would do." Something of dubious reality is made credible because it sounds like something that could be true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elmateo
sleepy.
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 4978
Location: socialist corner, ottawa
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You were in Ontario during the "Common Sense Revolution". That wasn't ignorance, it was stupidity that lead people down that garden path. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clog-boy
Lucid Dreamer
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1524
Location: Arnhem, the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Momma said stupid is what stupid does....
_________________
But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| elmateo wrote: | | You were in Ontario during the "Common Sense Revolution". That wasn't ignorance, it was stupidity that lead people down that garden path. |
I have to agree. Every person who voted Progressive Conservative in the 1999 and 2004 Ontario elections were stupid. They had seen what was being done to our province and voted for another four years of it.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sky Marshall
*BANNED*
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 127
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TS. wrote: | | I have to agree. Every person who voted Progressive Conservative in the 1999 and 2004 Ontario elections were stupid. They had seen what was being done to our province and voted for another four years of it. |
There was no provincial election in Ontario in 2004. You're being stupid. Not really, just playing along the lines of this thread. Hope you can take a joke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HAHL
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1075
Location: St.Jean, Terre-Neuve
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sky Marshall wrote: | | TS. wrote: | | I have to agree. Every person who voted Progressive Conservative in the 1999 and 2004 Ontario elections were stupid. They had seen what was being done to our province and voted for another four years of it. |
There was no provincial election in Ontario in 2004. You're being stupid. Not really, just playing along the lines of this thread. Hope you can take a joke |
Didn't you disappear on a trip to California? Or was that just a deceitful way of ending a discussion wherein all your assumptions/opinions were being countered by a factual reasoned argument?
Last edited by HAHL on Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sky Marshall
*BANNED*
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 127
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I am in California. Riverside Calif. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HAHL
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1075
Location: St.Jean, Terre-Neuve
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sky Marshall wrote: | | I am in California. Riverside Calif. |
Then why the abrupt termination of the aforementioned discussion with a: "Well I'm off to California with my parents for holiday before school starts. Bye" statement?
Last edited by HAHL on Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17641
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obviously, HAHL, we're irresistable in our wit, analysis and all round sexiness.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HAHL
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1075
Location: St.Jean, Terre-Neuve
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tehanu wrote: | | Obviously, HAHL, we're irresistable in our wit, analysis and all round sexiness. |
Speak for yourself. I am neither round nor do I proffer great resistance! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know that I said continuing a discussion was pointless, but it's something in the previous response that struck me after I'd logged-off for a bit.
Supposedly, we shouldn't be insulting people we want to bring over to our way of seeing things. We shouldn't call them "stupid." That's an insult and it's off-putting.
It's cool though, to call someone immature, self-important, and to call their writings and their ideas "a sewer" in which any isolated gems that might exist are lost. This is an example of how to reach out to a person and get them to see that we're all brothers and sisters, all striving for the truth. Just don't use the bad word "stupid" and everything is rosey.
Okay, sarcasm off. I make no claims to being a sweetheart all the time. So it's rather difficult to accuse me of inconsistency, hypocrisy, and overall incoherence in this case.
Sky Marshall,
Normally I'd ignore you, but your appearance in this thread is very apropos.
You are right, there was no Ontario election in 2004. It was in 2003. But this is a case where the person who made that mistake isn't "stupid" but "incorrect." If, however, the person who made the error persisted in stating that there had been a 2004 Ontario election, even after being shown the records of the 2003 vote, that person would be behaving stupidly, if not insanely. In this case, I'm pretty sure that TS. just remembered the date wrong. You should read the essay at least once in order to get a sense of when I think it's proper for someone to be called "stupid."
Take, for example, your statement on the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon:
| Quote: | | Israel must survive. Imagine what would happen if Hezbollah defeated Israel and gained control of its nuclear weapons. That would be very bad. |
"Israel must survive" - is, I assume, inspired by the strange belief that Israel's very existence was threatened by Hezbollah's 6,000 militiamen and their rocket-launchers. Israel, which is one of the world's strongest nuclear powers, which has an active army of over 100,000, and also one of the world's most up-to-date airforces, is, in your worldview, threatened to the very core of its existence by Hezbollah. More specifically, you seem to believe that Israel's existence has been threatened by the capture of two IDF soldiers by Hezbollah. Sober analysts see this capture as part of a process between Israel and Hezbollah, with Hezbollah being more interested in exchanging their prisoners for some of the hundreds of Hezbollah and other Lebanese who had been captured by the Israelis during their long occupation of Lebanon from 1982-2000. You on the other hand, seem to feel that the capture of the two IDF soldiers was part of a concerted effort by Hezbollah to bring Israel to its knees and then capitulate.
Now, as I've said, your position can either be explained by colossal ignorance or a failure to apply rudimentary logic to the subject. Either way, should you persist in thinking such extravagantly nonsensical ideas, there would be no recourse but to identify you as "stupid."
"Imagine what would happen if Hezbollah defeated Israel."
I could do that, but I assume you're not asking us to engage in pointless random thought associations. You're asking us to consider this as a serious possibility. You should first explain for us how it's at all possible that Hezbollah could defeat Israel.
"and gained control of its nuclear weapons. That would be very bad."
Yes it would be. It would also be very bad if I were to start growing and be unable to stop! Soon I would be so heavy that I would push the Earth out of its orbit, sending it careening off into the void of space, while all life on the planet would be wiped out by the stripping away of the atmosphere and the titanic earthquakes and tidal waves caused by the forces that I'd set in motion. I of course, would collapse and die under my own weight, well before I had grown past the reaches of breathable oxygen to be exposed to the frigid temperatures, and so on and so forth.
The thing is though, that both scenarios are impossible, and smart people wouldn't trouble themselves with such things. If you were to persist in fearing such things, even after the absurdity of them has been clearly pointed out to you, you would be stupid.
But you're not stupid, are you?
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NWOntarian
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 531
Location: Out in the wilderness
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| elmateo wrote: | | You were in Ontario during the "Common Sense Revolution". That wasn't ignorance, it was stupidity that lead people down that garden path. |
Depends on which side you look at it from. If you're looking at the Harrisites specifically, then that was stupidity -- it was an intentional program inspite of facts that were readily available to them. But the voters who put the Harrisites in power demonstrated some truly breathtaking ignorance (or "common sense") -- "Yeah, welfare bums ARE living high on the hog at my expense!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elmateo
sleepy.
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 4978
Location: socialist corner, ottawa
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well I don't think stupidity ever goes too fair without its friend ignorance, so we shall agree they both were hard at work causing trouble. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sky Marshall
*BANNED*
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 127
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's something stupid
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Lay...
Carjack suspect rushing to parole meeting
Aug. 24, 2006. 03:24 PM
CURTIS RUSH
STAFF REPORTER THESTAR.COM
The man accused of going on a wild car-jacking spree that led to mayhem on Highway 401 Wednesday morning was rushing to make an appointment with his parole officer in Kingston, police confirmed today.
That's pretty stupid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ephemeral
Radical Sock-Mismatcher
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Under a bridge with a laptop
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's not stupid. That's risky behaviour for being tardy. 
I tend to agree whole-heartedy with thwap. I started a similar thread on BnR a long time ago called Personal Insults Are Fair Game, but I didn't go into as much detail as thwap has here. I wasn't so much talking about stupid people as racist and/or sexist morons. I try not to call people stupid, cause well... that's just mean. The thread I started didn't get very far... lots of people were opposed to it because it lowers the tone of debate. One person said it is fair as long as you explain why you think the person deserves those insults. I think that's fair.
I think a lot of the stupid people mentioned in thwap's posts are racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, imperialist bastards.
After debating through pages and pages in a thread, if someone still can't see that s/he has no business telling Muslims how they should improve and what Arabs should change about their culture to make him/her happy, I can only conclude that that person is a contemptible racist. And I think the person rightly deserves to be told so by this point when it is clear that civil debate and facts are not going to get much further with this person, and obviously the person is too stupid to reflect within him/herself to ponder if s/he could possibly be too pompous, ignorant and imperialistic.. So, would calling the person a contemptible racist lower the tone of debate? I don't think so. It is the truth, and at the very least, it serves the purpose of venting in which I think there is considerable value.
Would calling someone a contemptible racist be against the AUP? I believe it is. I can't remember what I said during the AUP drafting days. I might have stupidly argued in favour of civil debates with no name-calling. Sigh. 
Besides which, there are numerous ways to insult someone without name-calling. Ways that hurt far more than any playground insults. Ooh, I can't think of any right now... something like... errr....
"You're about as intellectually bankrupt as a mosquito's crotch".
Okay, that wouldn't hurt someone so much. This here is a perfect example:
| thwap wrote: | "and gained control of its nuclear weapons. That would be very bad."
Yes it would be. It would also be very bad if I were to start growing and be unable to stop! Soon I would be so heavy that I would push the Earth out of its orbit, sending it careening off into the void of space, while all life on the planet would be wiped out by the stripping away of the atmosphere and the titanic earthquakes and tidal waves caused by the forces that I'd set in motion. I of course, would collapse and die under my own weight, well before I had grown past the reaches of breathable oxygen to be exposed to the frigid temperatures, and so on and so forth. |
No name-calling here, but I would be feeling pretty insulted and hurt if someone made fun of something I said like that.
There comes a point during the debate when it just makes sense to stop wasting time with tact and diplomacy, and spit out the truth like it is.
_________________
and on that note... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen Gordon
Dismal scientist
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 449
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What if you're mistaken? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wee Mousie
thereby hangs a tail
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2295
Location: 'twixt cinder block and drywall.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I begin from something I learned from my grandfather: “There are none so blind as those whose head is up their arse.”
From there on, it is either a matter of ignorance or animus.
Ignorance is correctable. Animus is usually unassailable in a virtual context.
For that reason, there is little point in trying to change the mind of someone who is arguing from manipulated data to prove their preconceived conclusion.
The only reason to oppose such voices are so that their voices are not the only ones to be heard.
I arguing one's case -- especially when providing sources for all one's facts and data -- one may convince others who are not participating, but are, none-the-less, learning from the debate.
Resorting to school yard ephitephs are -- I agree -- occasionally satisfying, but tend to impair one's status as an authority to any ouside observers who is trying to learn.
A guide that I try to follow is to never -- if I can help it -- call anybody stupid, but I am not the least bit hesitant about identify bullshit when I encounter it. 
_________________
Relieve The Troops — Bring Them Home Now! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Gordon wrote: | | What if you're mistaken? |
Geez Stephen! Don't you try to evaluate arguments each and every day? Can't you recognize if something's stupid?
Have you ever trashed anybody? Yes, you obviously have. You've done so on your blog. What if you were mistaken?
Why such reticence about saying the big, bad word "stupid'?
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wee Mousie,
Did you choose your signature specifically for this thread?
| Quote: | | "No one can have a higher opinion of him than I have, and I think he's a dirty little beast." - W. S. Gilbert (1836 - 1911) |
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!
Last edited by thwap on Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edave
Member
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 46
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
_________________
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Ghandi
Last edited by edave on Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen Gordon
Dismal scientist
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 449
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thwap wrote: | | Stephen Gordon wrote: | | What if you're mistaken? |
Geez Stephen! Don't you try to evaluate arguments each and every day? Can't you recognize if something's stupid?
Have you ever trashed anybody? Yes, you obviously have. You've done so on your blog. What if you were mistaken?
Why such reticence about saying the big, bad word "stupid'? |
About arguments, not so much - especially if its weaknesses are well-known and glaring. If I'm wrong, someone will explain it to me, and then I'll just look stupid without anyone having to point it out.
Once you've made it personal, you've given up the chance that one or the other (and perhaps both) will change their mind. And that's what learning is: changing your mind. For example, in your cartoon, your characterisation of the effects of NAFTA on wages and inequality is - from what I'm given to understand from the literature - incorrect. But I don't see what purpose would be served by us calling each other 'stupid'. No-one could learn anything from such an exchange.
Of course, this doesn't really apply to really fundamental disagreements about values, such as dealing with a homophobic fundie's views on SSM. But you'd probably want to use another adjective there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
leftcoastguy
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5977
Location: Leftcoast
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with the points made here by Stephen Gordon, Wee Mousie & DGM.
I agree that the right has been effective using this kind of tactic of labelng people stupid however who wants to sink to their level of discourse. 
_________________
Thinking is so overrated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stephen,
| Quote: | | For example, in your cartoon, your characterisation of the effects of NAFTA on wages and inequality is - from what I'm given to understand from the literature - incorrect. But I don't see what purpose would be served by us calling each other 'stupid'. |
Ah, you know, I was wondering if that part of the cartoon would attract you back to EnMasse. (You've been away for awhile haven't you?) Sorta like it would set off your "sixth-sense" and draw you from your blog across the internet.
I won't debate whether its correlation or causation here. You tend not to say stupid things. We don't tend to call each other stupid. There's a reason for that. Regardless of our disagreements, I don't think either of us thinks that the other is generally stupid. For example, in your writings, your characterisation of the effects of protectionism and free trade are - from what I'm given to understand from historical reality - incorrect. But you've got enough going on upstairs, and enough sophisticated rationalizations with which to defend your counter-factual beliefs, that I won't call it "stupid."
It's part of knowing who deserves the appellation.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| leftcoastguy wrote: | I agree with the points made here by Stephen Gordon, Wee Mousie & DGM.
I agree that the right has been effective using this kind of tactic of labelng people stupid however who wants to sink to their level of discourse. |
Well, me, I guess. I just see a reasonable, sober, wonderful human being of a social justice person, trying to calmly let the facts speak for themselves, while the Rush Limbaugh types, the right-wing blowhards mock, laugh, and make up fake answers on the spot, and intimidate, ... and for my money, the audience (over the last few decades) has sided with the bully. The leftist has meekly finished off with something like:
"Well, you certainly know where you stand, even if the facts don't support you."
And the right-winger has finished off with a contemptuous:
"Yeah, well, whatever pal."
And Canadian voters see us as weak-minded, hippy airheads, and wimps. I'm saying politeness hasn't worked.
Obviously, most of the people who have bothered to respond here disagree. But for those (the silent majority I'm sure  ) who agree with me, ... one of my favourite blogs is:
http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com
Because I very much enjoy the way he cruelly savages the racist, right-wing hypocrites in the manner that they deserve.
Here's an excellent example.
If you think that this all "lowers the tone of political discourse" you don't have to click on the link.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arborman
Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's time we stop trying to appease the right by playing nice when they don't. Many of the right's ideas are, at their root, hopelessly oversimplified. In some contexts, that is legitimately defined as stupid.
Certainly going to war on pretexts that anyone with a 10th grade social studies education could see through qualifies as fundamentally stupid.
It's time to stop playing nice with the right - they don't with us. They spend a lot of time and energy making sure the left, and especially the nice thoughtful considerate left, are marginalized.
It's time to start marginalizing the right instead. They have a very powerful victim narrative, let's help them out by making it actually true (and therefore less stupid).
If you are the only one pulling punches, eventually you will lose. We've lost, in case nobody's noticed. It's time to start fighting like we mean it again.
_________________
Cheese & Biscuits |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Amen brother! Testify!
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tommy Shanks
obviously, blatantly, shirking
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 444
Location: Tranna
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An oldie but goodie:
| Quote: | Boy, you try to help people out, but sometimes they can just be so sensitive. Especially over a little thing like being called stupid.
The other day, I was depositing my paycheck at the bank, and the teller asked me, "Do you want this in checking?" Now, that's a pretty stupid question, seeing as I had closed out my savings account a month before and now only have a checking account. I couldn't believe her stupidity.
But, you know, I try to be tolerant and helpful when dealing with people who aren't all that swift. So, to give her a clue, I said, "Yeah, put it all in checking, stupid." No big speech, no insulting dissection of her dumb question. I just politely answered her and tacked on a little "hint." ...
It's like the silly brouhaha that erupted when a cop pulled me over last week. It was almost 10 p.m., and I was racing to get to the Builder's Square across town before they closed so I could get the wood screws I needed for my basement shelving project. Out of nowhere, Smokey swoops down on me, apparently preferring that I get to the store after it closes.
The first sign of trouble from this state-supported moron comes when he asks, "Do you know how fast you were going, sir?" Boy, did I ever! Ninety-three! So I say to him, "I've got a question for you, officer: If you've got a radar gun right there in your cop car, why do you have to ask? What are you, stupid?"
Next thing I know, I'm in court. I end up in front of a judge, and I think to myself, "Finally! A sensible pillar of the community who'll respond to reason!"
Well, guess what Judge Chucklehead has the gall to ask? "How do you wish to plead to the charges, Mr. Turpin?" Ye gods, was I in the Twilight Zone? What kind of question is that? I was dying to say to him, "Yeah, I think I'll plead guilty to first-degree trying to finish my shelves! May I see my loved ones one more time before you shoot me?"
But I held back, because I try to show respect to people in positions of authority, even if they don't deserve it. So, instead of responding in a condescending manner, I answered plainly, "How do I wish to plead? What do you think, stupid?" |
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33464 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tommy,
This isn't supposed to be relevant to the discussion is it? It's supposed to be a joke, right?
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tommy Shanks
obviously, blatantly, shirking
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 444
Location: Tranna
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*shrug*.
Perhaps. It's a rather ham-handed riff on the title of this thread, though it does speak to this:
| Quote: | | I'm saying politeness hasn't worked. |
And this qualifier:
| Quote: | | It's part of knowing who deserves the appellation. |
Finding out about B to decide if A makes sense would surely take more time then just saying what needs to be said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Tommy Shanks]Finding out about B to decide if A makes sense would surely take more time then just saying what needs to be said.[/quote]
Marcus Gee = Stupid
Still believing Saddam had weapons of mass destruction = stupid
We're not talking "debatable" here, we're talking "stupid."
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
transplant
Starting Over Again
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1710
Location: somewhere between here and there
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thwap wrote: | Still believing Saddam had weapons of mass destruction = stupid
We're not talking "debatable" here, we're talking "stupid." |
Oh, I think gullible and ignorant can cover that in many cases, given how many times it has been repeated and reported in the msm.
But believing that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, or that any of the perps came from Iraq, now that is stupid. As in rock hard stupid. As in believing that Elvis still walks on Earth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics