Higher Edumuncation Leads to l33tness?

[Celvantes]

There is a huge difference between a mental handicap that comes as a result of advanced age/genetics and drug addiction.

That difference is a matter of personal responsibility.

*No one* forces you to smoke, inject, sniff, or swallow illegal drugs. You do it to yourself. As a matter of fact, you have to work hard at circumventing the law in order to do it to yourself. There is a reason certain substances are illegal.

Alcoholism is the one exception to this. Unfortunately, there are people who cannot drink socially or in moderation. Either they don't drink, or they're an alcoholic, and there is no middle ground. Generally, they don't know the which they are until it's too late. That being said, there are many support programs for this problem. Becoming an alcoholic *can* be blameless. Remaining an alcoholic is not.

As far as smoking goes, I put it into the same category as illegal drugs. Yeah, no one's going to stop you from smoking, but at the end of the day, it's *you* who's responsible for the cancer in your lungs, and not your parents, friends, the government, or the tobacco companies.

A loaded gun sitting on a table won't kill *anyone* so long as it's never touched. The same can be said about any drug.

 

[Romper]

I enjoyed it very much. I suppose it just doesn't appeal to your taste. Saying that it's not a challenge to read is puzzling though? What is a challenge to read? If it's challenging to read something, I'd say the author failed in communicating his/her message.



Right on.



Choosing to have kids right out of high school is irresponsible. You need to be financially stable before having kids. Making 10 bucks an hour at the factory is not financially stable. It sucks growing up like that. When I was little, I didn't have anything to play with on Christmas morning unless I woke up with a hard-on. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Having kids on accident right out of high school is equally as ignorant. That just means you learned nothing in SexEd. Congradulations, you are going to be a piece of shit wieghed down by kids you may love but deep down, you resent them. They can deny it all they want, but when your 35 and your kid is about to turn 18, you will be coming to the harsh realization that you wasted the best part of your life because you couldn't stop fucking.

Yeah, it can be difficult, and that's for people that are financially well off.



Do you feel superior to people that have Epilepsy, Palsy, Alzheimer's, or Parkinson's?

Addiction is a neurologically based disease. For many years recovery specialists have compared alcoholism or addictions to a physical disease: like diabetes. In reality addictions are more closely related to a neurological disorder like Tourette's Syndrome than they are to diabetes.

If the problems you suffer stem from severe alcoholism or addiction, you must accept that these problems are not primarily mental or free will issues. Addictions are not about will power. The problems facing addicts, alcoholics, and their families are miserable, disgusting, and infuriating. They are often hopelessly discouraging. But to imagine that an addict "could change if he wanted to" is a serious misunderstanding of the long term dynamic of addictive disorder. The fact is precisely that an addict cannot change in the long run even if he wants to! That is the definition of addiction: "the loss of control over the use of a substance." It is important to understand that this loss of control is manifested not in terms of days or weeks, but in longer term behaviors: terms of months and years.

The reason addicts have lost control is because they have suffered permanent physical neurological changes based in their brains and nervous systems. The disorder manifests in long term obsessive-compulsive behaviors outside the realm of the addicts own control. It is true enough that the use of chemicals begins with chosen behavior. But if alcoholism or addiction develops, the problem has moved outside the realm of free choice. It has developed into a long term mental and physical neurological disorder. All the emotional 'feelings' involved in drug or alcohol seeking are based in neurology. Addiction is based in physical dependency created by altered neurotransmitter balances, and driven by millions upon millions of new living, functioning active neurological pathways which have been established to sustain the condition in the addicts brain. The new neurological pathways are permanently established, and they will not just disappear. The primary neurological disorder is only complicated by physical dependence on the substances. The physical dependence on the substances is secondary! Physical drug withdrawal does not change the underlying neurological addictive disorder. After drug withdrawal, long term overpowering cravings are predictable. These cravings are, in reality, spontaneous nerve impulses. Even in the longer term, overwhelming cravings are outside the addicts control.

So really and truely, feeling "superior" to an addict, just makes you an asshole.

Maybe it was Krakour's story telling that made the book there was no challenge. A challenging read I would say is The Scarlet Letter if you can't get passed the old english otherwise the story was easy to follow. I was just expecting something a little more challenging as I went into the class hoping to read something interesting sadly that didn't happen. I can't remember the two other books for the life of me one was about a person's life in Chicago in the 1930s and hell if I remember what the other book was about.

Most factory jobs pay over 10 dollars an hour if they're not that is one shitty factory to work at. If the base is 10 dollars you can bet your ass the union you're with has an insurance plan that is pretty damn decent. It's not irresponsible if they can do it while providing for the child. It's also not that they couldn't stop fucking there's people that generally want children with a person they love. I agree it's pretty stupid to start a family right out of high school, but if that family can do it you know what that's fucking awesome. Just because one child has a less than average childhood to parents that had children right after high school that doesn't mean every single one will have the same experience. Did you ever think that maybe those people feel like they've accomplished in life by having their family raising them to the point they're almost out of the house by the time the parents are late 30s/early 40s? You don't necessarily know that those people are miserable.

So an addict can be addicted to lets so crack cocaine, take away the possibility they were born addicted, by just being an alcoholic? I may have misunderstood the last part as it's 4 am. I agree an addict can't just magically change that's a child's dream that will never happen.

 

[Anttaru]

I don't think a higher education makes us less interested in our friends who fool around too much. It's all in the mind set, and when your very close to becoming something else, you know it'd be best, not, to surround yourself with all these pet peeves.

All we need to do is be open in our groups, after that it's very easy to see who has consideration for you, and those who do have consideration for you will not do the things that disgust you in your presence, and will show interest in your goals unlike the others.

What I'm trying to say is, with or without your education, you'd feel the same way.

 

[Uzor]

I don't think a higher education makes us less interested in our friends who fool around too much. It's all in the mind set, and when your very close to becoming something else, you know it'd be best, not, to surround yourself with all these pet peeves.

All we need to do is be open in our groups, after that it's very easy to see who has consideration for you, and those who do have consideration for you will not do the things that disgust you in your presence, and will show interest in your goals unlike the others.

What I'm trying to say is, with or without your education, you'd feel the same way.

I have to disagree. When you have little stuff in common with someone, you tend to not spend time with them. If some people you meet are much less smarter than you, you'll likely feel they bore you as you won't have as much to talk about. I mean, if someone think the government are planting something in the ground when the sprinklers create a rainbow, stating it is unnatural, will you not look down at that person?

If you're less educated, you'll have more in common with people with lesser education. Sure, you can still have some things in common with them, like , for example, sports. However, when I meet people, I expect to be able to to keep a conversation flowing about everything, such as politics, science, history, religion etc. If they can't keep up, I will not spend my time with them.

Personally, I don't give a fuck if they take drugs or are alcoholics or w/e, as long as they still have knowledge about things in life, and an opinion which they can share. I meet more then my fair share of everyday incompetent idiots in my work, I refuse to waste my time on them when I'm not getting paid to do so.

 

[Taurothar]

There is no such thing as a binge drinker that doesn't have a problem with alcohol. By definition, that is having a problem with alcohol.

Not really, there are plenty of frat boys out there who are not alcoholics yet drink three nights out of the week just because it's the thing to do. They're not drinking out of any need to drink, just because they consciously say they want to be drunk.

That's all well and good, I agree with you on that point, but that doesn't have anything to do with addiction. That's what happens when you make bad choices. But that choice is based purely on the interaction between those girls and the losers for which they are staying.

I didn't say that, it was a separate thought entirely. But the same could be said for a girl I went to school with who graduated high in our class ended up getting thrown out of college for not twice but three times getting caught with weed on campus. How she got away with it the first two times, I have no clue. And to say love is not an addiction is to not have been addicted to a person before.

And I agree that you may choose to not hang out with them anymore because you have grown past their usefulness. I have a couple friends, my brothers included, that I'm vastly smarter than. They, on the other hand, are very talented at things that I could never dream to comprehend like rebuilding a car's engine. I don't mean to sound like I *use* them for their talents, but it's why we get along. If we didn't need people for things, we'd all live alone and have no friends. Everybody in our lives serves a use to us, or they're pushed away and ignored. Most friends serve the need for mental stimulation, relationships serve emotional and often physical needs. Some friends are there to provide services in exchange for services. I fix computers for them, they fix my car. We educate each other over the course of our friendship so that we have more in common, or we outlive the usefulness and part ways. I think it's very cynical to put that into words, but I believe it to be the truth.

 

[Anttaru]

I have to disagree. When you have little stuff in common with someone, you tend to not spend time with them.

So your saying Jayce wouldn't be disgusted with the foolish friends, had Jayce not acquired a higher education ?

If some people you meet are much less smarter than you, you'll likely feel they bore you as you won't have as much to talk about. I mean, if someone think the government are planting something in the ground when the sprinklers create a rainbow, stating it is unnatural, will you not look down at that person?

Depends on what you mean by looking down. There is no positive without negative and without dumb people there'd be more work to do in our daily lives, same with smart people. Either way smart and dumb people do one another a service and actually make life easier on the wide scale.

If someone was insisting to me the rainbow from the sprinkler was unnatural, I'd be interested to hear the details before i dismiss them. That doesn't mean I'm going to discredit them to a point where I'll ignore them eternally.

If you're less educated, you'll have more in common with people with lesser education. Sure, you can still have some things in common with them, like , for example, sports. However, when I meet people, I expect to be able to to keep a conversation flowing about everything, such as politics, science, history, religion etc. If they can't keep up, I will not spend my time with them.

Which is kinda contradictory in a sense. I see you responding to dummies every now and then. To say the least you give them a little time.

Personally, I don't give a fuck if they take drugs or are alcoholics or w/e, as long as they still have knowledge about things in life, and an opinion which they can share. I meet more then my fair share of everyday incompetent idiots in my work, I refuse to waste my time on them when I'm not getting paid to do so.

In this day and age, one of the most important assets is the power to cope.

Not saying you should hang out with fools or anything, but when you take the time to demote them, you yourself can become a type of person that is unfavorable to a good lot out there. Do as you will but try not to be too snobby, you might end up alone that way.

 

[Linhjah]

Growing up, I never wanted to get married. I never wanted to have any kids at all. I got pregnant at 18 and had my son when I was 19; the pregnancy was unplanned. I am now 25, I have another son in addition to 3 step children, and I am very happily married.

I partied a lot when I was younger; I believe I got most of out of my system. I don't feel like I'm missing out on much, if anything. (Neither are any of our children.) My husband is my favorite person in the whole world, and I'd much rather spend time with him just sitting around joking with eachother than partying or traveling or mountain climbing or any number of things.

I believe you are the sum of your experiences, and everyone has different experiences. People have different interests, expectations, beliefs, and desires. They don't grow at the same rate mentally or emotionally all the time.

I am not saying that everyone should start mass quantities of humping at 17 so they can start popping out kids early. Starting a family early isn't for everyone, but it is most definately not the end of the world. For many, its the beginning of a new and wonderful world. Just depends on what kind of person you are.

 

[bigbroon]

I disagree with the statement that "higher education", or in fact level of maturity, influence the effect idiocy will have on you. Something which didn't annoy you as a teenager may well annoy you when you became an adult, or something which annoyed you as a teenager may not annoy you as an adult.

I think it varies from person to person. I find it fairly easy to laugh at most of the idiotic things I see...of course, there's a line that, when crossed, you can't help but "what the fuck" to yourself. I don't see how your level of maturity or intelligence would change the effect of this. It's like saying "I didn't find that annoying "before i was educated", because I didn't know it was wrong. Now that I have been educated, i know it's wrong, so it annoys me intensly."

When you look at it like that, you could support the argument that before it was fine, after it was annoying, but that's not a very nice personality trait if you're that easily annoyed by someone else not knowing something. This, of course, is talking about a mild example. As I said before, sometimes, you just stand/sit, and wonder if what you just saw/heard was real - regardless of your maturity/intelligence.

 

[Uzor]

It all depends on what you mean about dumb or idiotic or moronic.

Which is kinda contradictory in a sense. I see you responding to dummies every now and then. To say the least you give them a little time.

Because those people aren't necessarily dummies. Having a wrongful opinion isn't being moronic, as long as there's a reason for it based on their knowledge, morals and views. As long as they can argue their opinion, that's not being dumb, even if their opinion is "wrong" in my eyes. My point is, just because we consider something wrong, doesn't mean it is. Our opinion is just as much wrong in their eyes as theirs is in ours. So really, what exactly do you consider "dumb"?

Dumb is, generally, lack of intelligence. If someone claims that 1+1 doesn't always equal 2 (I doubt any of you can argue that 1infinity+1infinity would equal a larger infinity) with insufficient arguments and evidence to back it up, he's dumb. If one of your friends doesn't know what Islam and Christianity is, they can be considered dumb. However, believing that God is real isn't being dumb, its an opinion they have based on previous experiences. As long as they are capable of backing up their belief, rather than just saying "Its true because the bible says so!" they're not dumb. They're wrong in my eyes, but not dumb. A different opinion, or an opinion which is wrong in someone elses eyes, isn't dumb or idiotic.

I might argue and discuss and response to people you find "dumb", but that's because I believe your definition of dumb and idiotic is too broad.

 

[Excalibur]

Addiction is a matter of willpower. So-called addictive personalities are simply short on the commodity. Physical addiction in particular is easy to beat, with sufficient willpower. Psychological addiction is, of course, considerably tougher, but again, it's a matter of willpower. There is always a choice in matters of addiction. It may not be an easy choice, but that doesn't change the fact that even an addict is in control of his life.

You beat me to it.

 

[Anttaru]

It all depends on what you mean about dumb or idiotic or moronic.

' '

Because those people aren't necessarily dummies. Having a wrongful opinion isn't being moronic, as long as there's a reason for it based on their knowledge, morals and views. As long as they can argue their opinion, that's not being dumb, even if their opinion is "wrong" in my eyes. My point is, just because we consider something wrong, doesn't mean it is. Our opinion is just as much wrong in their eyes as theirs is in ours.

You just set an example of what you find find dumb, and stated that you'd look down on them, now all of a sudden your singing a different tune that goes somewhere along the lines of acknowledging other people's opinions even under the condition they are wrong. I for one do not ignore people because I think they are dumb Uzor, you do.

So really, what exactly do you consider "dumb"?

Easy question, but it would be unfair for me to answer your questions when you fail to answer mine, wouldn't it ?

Dumb is, generally, lack of intelligence. If someone claims that 1+1 doesn't always equal 2 (I doubt any of you can argue that 1infinity+1infinity would equal a larger infinity) with insufficient arguments and evidence to back it up, he's dumb. If one of your friends doesn't know what Islam and Christianity is, they can be considered dumb. However, believing that God is real isn't being dumb, its an opinion they have based on previous experiences. As long as they are capable of backing up their belief, rather than just saying "Its true because the bible says so!" they're not dumb. They're wrong in my eyes, but not dumb. A different opinion, or an opinion which is wrong in someone elses eyes, isn't dumb or idiotic.

I'm not arguing about opposing opinions. I'm not arguing in general. All I'm saying is, a higher education does not govern how we speculate our old friends. If Jayce never had a higher education, Jayce would most likely feel the same way about the foolish friends, only difference is he'd have less to look forward to. One needed be educated to realize they are surrounded by the wrong type of crowd. This world has people that are very educated and still do all the things that disgust Jayce, even if they are more educated, Jayce would look down on them for what they are about. Not because of their level of education.

I might argue and discuss and response to people you find "dumb", but that's because I believe your definition of dumb and idiotic is too broad.

Are you shitting me ? You have no way of knowing how broad my speculation of others are in terms of who I think is dumb. Just because i said i seen you responding to dummies, gives you the impression I mean a huge number eh ?

To let you know, when i find someone dumb, i treat them with respect, i even respect my enemies who are a royal pain in my ass, so my thoughts on the dumb, and my reaction towards them is more fulfilling than turning into an ignorant prick.

 

[Uzor]

You just set an example of what you find find dumb, and stated that you'd look down on them, now all of a sudden your singing a different tune that goes somewhere along the lines of acknowledging other people's opinions even under the condition they are wrong. I for one do not ignore people because I think they are dumb Uzor, you do.

Um, where exactly am I singing a different tune?

Yes, I do look down on dumb people. No, being wrong is not being dumb, And see, that's what I even said. I hear out another person's opinion, because having a different opinion than me (or you) is not being dumb. So please do show me where I'm suddenly singing a different tune.

Easy question, but it would be unfair for me to answer your questions when you fail to answer mine, wouldn't it ?

Huh?! Are you trying to be fun? If so you make a rather bad effort. It was a rhetorical question.

I'm not arguing about opposing opinions. I'm not arguing in general. All I'm saying is, a higher education does not govern how we speculate our old friends. If Jayce never had a higher education, Jayce would most likely feel the same way about the foolish friends, only difference is he'd have less to look forward to. One needed be educated to realize they are surrounded by the wrong type of crowd. This world has people that are very educated and still do all the things that disgust Jayce, even if they are more educated, Jayce would look down on them for what they are about. Not because of their level of education.

You say you're not arguing in general, and yet you're here arguing. Anyway, you might not thing a higher education does not change the opinion we have about friends, but obviously everyone don't agree. If Jayce used to hang out with some people he thought were cool, and then moved to another city and got a good education, then moved back only to find his old friends still in their old bad habits, I don't think he'll run back to them and pick up the bad habits himself yet again.

For me, I don't like people that can't explain WHY they have the opinion they do. That's something pure knowledge alone can't give either. Sure, you can sit in school all day and learn about second world war or astrophysics, but if you can't make an opinion yourself, or can't explain why you reason the way you do, you're not exactly "smart". You can be knowledgable, but if you only believe in God because someone told you to, and assume its true because that's what someone told you, I won't waste time with you. That's what I consider dumb. I personally have nothing against people who take drugs, drink etc. as long as they can tell me why. If its simply a "Because I'm addicted to it, I can't help it", I might feel sorry for them, and it might be a dumb thing to do, but I won't think they are dumb unless they prove that they are dumb. If they say something like "Because its the cool thing to do" or "Someone told me to do it", then yes, I will think they are dumb, because they don't actually have an opinion of their own.

Are you shitting me ? You have no way of knowing how broad my speculation of others are in terms of who I think is dumb. Just because i said i seen you responding to dummies, gives you the impression I mean a huge number eh ?

Were you tired or drunk when you responded to my post? You seem to have taken offense to everything I said. What I said was that I think your definition of dumb and idiotic is broader than mine, or at least different. Just because you consider someone an idiot or being dumb, doesn't mean I do. You said you've seen me respond to dummies, and I said that I didn't consider those people dumb. Comprende?

To let you know, when i find someone dumb, i treat them with respect, i even respect my enemies who are a royal pain in my ass, so my thoughts on the dumb, and my reaction towards them is more fulfilling than turning into an ignorant prick.

Good for you. But if you've read any posts I've made in the past, you'll know I'm an asshole. I am not, however, ignorant. I don't lack knowledge nor information, nor do I base my opinion on what other people say. I do believe the word you were searching for was "arrogant". That is, "arrogant prick". It really wouldn't surprise me if I come of as arrogant. I even said earlier in this thread (and many times in the past) that I can be quite narcissistic.

 

[Anttaru]

Um, where exactly am I singing a different tune?

Yes, I do look down on dumb people. No, being wrong is not being dumb, And see, that's what I even said. I hear out another person's opinion, because having a different opinion than me (or you) is not being dumb. So please do show me where I'm suddenly singing a different tune.

Here.

If you're less educated, you'll have more in common with people with lesser education. Sure, you can still have some things in common with them, like , for example, sports. However, when I meet people, I expect to be able to to keep a conversation flowing about everything, such as politics, science, history, religion etc. If they can't keep up, I will not spend my time with them.

Then here.

Because those people aren't necessarily dummies. Having a wrongful opinion isn't being moronic, as long as there's a reason for it based on their knowledge, morals and views. As long as they can argue their opinion, that's not being dumb, even if their opinion is "wrong" in my eyes. My point is, just because we consider something wrong, doesn't mean it is. Our opinion is just as much wrong in their eyes as theirs is in ours.

Here we have a Uzor that will not give a person who cannot keep up the time of day, then we have a Uzor who will debate with someone who he feels is wrong. Granted the 2nd you I think has more potential, it is very different than the first.

On a side note I'm not arguing how to react to dumb people, I'm suggesting we do not mark people after we obtain an education. From the time we desired to further extend our education is the time we've made up our mind about others, and it comes to a point where we cannot afford to allow our foolish friends to reflect us.

Huh?! Are you trying to be fun? If so you make a rather bad effort. It was a rhetorical question.

No i was being literal. The question was, would Jayce not feel disgusted with his foolish friends if he never got himself a higher education.

You say you're not arguing in general, and yet you're here arguing. Anyway, you might not thing a higher education does not change the opinion we have about friends, but obviously everyone don't agree. If Jayce used to hang out with some people he thought were cool, and then moved to another city and got a good education, then moved back only to find his old friends still in their old bad habits, I don't think he'll run back to them and pick up the bad habits himself yet again.

I'm under the impression Jayce was never under the influence of their bad habits to begin with. Jayce never changed his mind about how they were, it's more like he had enough, and is ready to move on. Him obtaining his education never made his friends the way they are, and at a point where he must make decisions that supports his efforts, he'll let go those who did not make a change for the better.

For me, I don't like people that can't explain WHY they have the opinion they do. That's something pure knowledge alone can't give either. Sure, you can sit in school all day and learn about second world war or astrophysics, but if you can't make an opinion yourself, or can't explain why you reason the way you do, you're not exactly "smart". You can be knowledgable, but if you only believe in God because someone told you to, and assume its true because that's what someone told you, I won't waste time with you. That's what I consider dumb. I personally have nothing against people who take drugs, drink etc. as long as they can tell me why. If its simply a "Because I'm addicted to it, I can't help it", I might feel sorry for them, and it might be a dumb thing to do, but I won't think they are dumb unless they prove that they are dumb. If they say something like "Because its the cool thing to do" or "Someone told me to do it", then yes, I will think they are dumb, because they don't actually have an opinion of their own.

I won't critique how you cope with others you feel are mentally inferior to you, so no need for examples. But if it's worth anything i think what you wrote is fine, but a little far off from the OP.

Were you tired or drunk when you responded to my post? You seem to have taken offense to everything I said. What I said was that I think your definition of dumb and idiotic is broader than mine, or at least different.

I took no offense to anything you wrote Uzor, if you "think" so, it's not exactly the best coarse of action to add to that by asking me if i was drunk or tired when i responded to your post, while i was being literal. So again, me saying i seen you spend time with dummies doesn't mean you can automatically know how broad my views on the matter is. I'm not out to mention any names or anything, for flame baiting purposes, but you couldn't even tell me what individuals or what time line I'm referring to.

Just because you consider someone an idiot or being dumb, doesn't mean I do. You said you've seen me respond to dummies, and I said that I didn't consider those people dumb. Comprende?

Oh yeah that's right, you ignore all the dummies. Or you haven't seen any here ? You like to talk about religion or the topic of believing in God. How many people here actually have a logical reason for believing in what they do other than saying the Bible says so ? Or do you boast you like to talk about religion with other atheists who on the most part don't give a damn about the topic.

Good for you. But if you've read any posts I've made in the past, you'll know I'm an asshole. I am not, however, ignorant. I don't lack knowledge nor information, nor do I base my opinion on what other people say. I do believe the word you were searching for was "arrogant". That is, "arrogant prick". It really wouldn't surprise me if I come of as arrogant. I even said earlier in this thread (and many times in the past) that I can be quite narcissistic.

I never said you were ignorant (or not this time anyway). When I in return tell you what I'm about, it's not me comparing myself to you or anyone else. When i say I'd rather be open to others as opposed to being ignorant, that doesn't mean as opposed to being like Uzor, you get me ? I've read several dozen of your posts, and i don't see you as an asshole, i see you as a "Mr. Know it all" who has his own opinions. Any fool that reads what you write will not mark you as an asshole over that. Arrogant you have been, and for some time you've made it clear that your not out to learn anything from anyone here, as you always think you know better than the others.

You have no motivation to speculate what I said about the OP, when all you need to do is look back on your own experiences with others when you were growing up. Instead this has escalated to "Uzor's way" and it's gone from, "Does Higher Education lead to Leetness" to "Uzor disagrees with Anttaru about the OP and Beyond".

Will this return to answering the original question ? Or do i have to continue to stand by and watch you pick yourself apart in order to make a point ? If we're going to return to the original question, then lets start with "Would Jayce have not felt disgusted with his friends if he never got a higher education"

 

[Uzor]

Here.



Then here.



Here we have a Uzor that will not give a person who cannot keep up the time of day, then we have a Uzor who will debate with someone who he feels is wrong. Granted the 2nd you I think has more potential, it is very different than the first.

Going to bed, so I will not respond to more then this until later.

What you quoted is not me singing 2 different tunes.

If you'd have read what I said, I said I will not argue with dumb people. I also said I don't consider having an opinion which is different from me (that is, "wrong") is not dumb. I also said that when I meet people, I expect them to be able to have a flowing conversation, and if they can't, THEN they are dumb. And thus, I will not waste my time on them.

AS you can see, nowhere am I singing 2 different tunes.

Since you don't seem to understand my point as you keep saying I contradict myself (that is, singing 2 different tunes); If they have a different opinion from me, I can still have a conversation with them. Having an opinion that differs from the one you have yourself is not being dumb, even if you consider them wrong, as you're not the center of the world, and your opinion is not law and the only right. You can be wrong on the other person right, hence why I don't like to say arguing with someone that is wrong (hence why I say different opinion or view), and hence one of the reasons I've said, multiple times, that being wrong (that is, having a different opinion from you) is not dumb.

When I say they can't keep up, I mean just that. Someone who actually know WHY they believe the way they do, can defend their own opinion. That is why they are not dumb. If they can't defend their own opinion, or explain their reasoning, they have an opinion based on what someone else told them. That is something I consider dumb, as they don't have the knowledge BEHIND their opinion.

If I consider them wrong, but they can argue their point, they have knowledge about the subject, and have a reason for their opinion and views.

So please, do show me again where I sing 2 different tunes, or where I contradict myself. Because the two quotes you took from me are in no way contradicting each other.

And btw, discussing is my way of learning. I've found it much more productive to discuss topics with others, as it gives you critique on your opinions, and lets you see other's views on the matter from different angles. It also lets you reflect upon your own knowledge and opinions in order to respond to others and defend your own opinion. That is why I love discussing and arguing so much, because it is one of my favorite methods of learning things. It just so happens that I have a reason behind almost of my opinions, and stand strong behind what I believe to be correct. As for religion, almost all of the religious people I've talked to have been far from dummies. They all have excellent arguments for why they believe in God or whatever religion they might have. Why, just the other day I lost rather hard in a discussion through PM's. But I'll be damned if I didn't learn anything.

/moreofftopicthanwealreadyare
I don't consider myself a source of infinite knowledge. As a matter of fact, I strive to learn new things all the time, hence why I throw myself in to various discussions all the time. Sometimes, due to me always discussing things, I throw myself in to discussions with little actual meaning, like this one.
/attempttogetmoreontopic

That is why I don't like discussing things with dummies. They have nothing to give me. And that is why I think most educated people (At least the OP) have noticed a low tolerance level to uneducated people. People of the same mindset tend to stick together. Equal exchange, you know. I just take it to extremes.

 

[Jayce]

Wow, I've gotten more of a response from this than I thought I would have initially. I haven’t had the time to read through all of the posts quite yet, I’ve even stayed away from looking just to see how things develop, all I can ask is that no one uses this thread to attack anyone individually. I just posed a question and wanted to get some feedback on me being a pretentious fuck stick .

I did realize why I’m not a huge fan of the Twilight Series the other day while looking for a few new books to read over my break between classes and came up with a pretty decent theory. I don’t have a problem with the people that read the book, nor the stereotypical class that leans toward that style. I have a problem with the author, she’s a professor from Brigham Young University (the same campus I was asked to leave because I had a cup of coffee... also the same one that fired their librarian because she wouldnt get rid of her coffee maker), that in its self shouldn’t bias me toward a writer but I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s probably a ‘safe’ vampire book, all of the normal reading with none of the gore, sex, and intrigue that usually attracts a lot of the vampire readers. Almost like the book offers just the basics without challenging the mind. Meh, I’ll have to pick up the book so I feel better about bashing it

I’m going to compile the responses at work and read over them when I get home from work if I get the time, sorry for my neglect on the post but this last week has been horrible for life outside of the forums >.<