Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
Is man inherently stupid?
Yes. 42%
No. 21%
What? 35%

Votes: 14

 The Nature of Stupidity

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Mar 22, 2002
 Comments:
Sometimes, we are present for some of the stupidest moments in history, proving how moronic some homo-sapiens can be. And sometimes, because of these moments, we gain insights into ourselves and the human condition.
At dinner several nights ago, I managed to catch the conclusion to a conversation at the table next to me, which ended with this line: "...people touching my balls...one hundred people touching my balls." I was taken aback by what I had just heard. For several minutes I pondered the potential meaning of such words, what must have been said in this conversation to achieve such a strange conclusion and what the topic might have been. While thinking, I suddenly had an epiphany about the nature of humanity: that stupidity is always its own context. We need not contemplate the how and why, but simply realize the "is" of it all. There is no profundity in "one hundred people touching [his] balls," just that the speaker is stupid. I wouldn't be surprised if these lines had nothing to with the topic of conversation, but that this man had enough intelligence to feed himself. At least some good came out of this dim man's inane comment, I was able to improve myself and learn something, and hopefully instill that knowledge into you.


No, context is everything. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by jvance on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 12:27:27 PM PST
Perhaps the man had somehow deceived one hundred people into touching his balls. In that context, he's fiendishly clever.

--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

I'll give you that... (none / 0) (#11)
by Bad English on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 04:14:44 PM PST
or perhaps he's extremely literate. "To the rejection of imitative poetry, which certainly ought not to be received; as I see far more clearly now that the balls of the soul have been distinguised and touched upon by poets, hundreds of poets touching the balls of the soul." Believe it or not, that's Plato in The Republic.

I have to apologize for my assumption that this man was not learned; he clearly had better knowledge of classical philosophy than I. I'm only sorry that I am more of an Aristotelian than a Platonic. This will not happen again.


I Am Astounded. (none / 0) (#25)
by jvance on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 01:16:01 PM PST
Your comment, sir, is a work of art. Truly it is. Here is your rejection letter from the Republic.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Possibly (none / 0) (#2)
by Right Hand Man on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 12:41:59 PM PST
The man likely owned a company that manufactures various sorts of balls used in sporting events.

Really, I think your diary is more of a commentary on the filth that is allowed to invade the minds of many people. When a person's mind is in the gutter 24 hours a day it isn't suprising that that innocuous comments such as those outlined above are assumed to be of a deviant nature.

Most likely you have 'opened your mind' too much, display some courage and close it down a bit.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Wait... (none / 0) (#7)
by Bad English on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 03:23:53 PM PST
I don't see the assumed "deviant nature" in the comment. Its context doesn't really matter, because even if this young man was talking about his ball making company, it is still an inane statement. There's nothing filthy about the words themselves, just what you feel the statement "people touching my balls" denotes. As clearly seen from my text, I'm not assuming anything other than the inanity of the comment. Perhaps I'm not the one that should close my mind.


 
I don't understand. (none / 0) (#3)
by derek3000 on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 01:04:04 PM PST
Have I been trolled?

What is so stupid about what he said? Maybe he was recalling a dream he had? Did it ever occur to you that there might be more intelligent people than you think? No, because that would somehow defeat your uniqueness, no, because you think of yourself as being different because you are smart (at least in your eyes). Clearly one of the best examples of manipulating reality to fit one's desires.

Go talk to a 'stupid' steelworker, or a McDonald's employee. You might just learn something, you worthless fuckstick.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Are you completely nuts? (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 02:24:38 PM PST
You really must be off your fucking rocker. Why the hell would you the quotations around "stupid" in stupid McDonalds worker? The quotations make it seem like you are defending these slobs. Have you ever actually spoken to one? They are among the dumbest fucks in the galaxy. While you are sitting in the lobby enjoying you Big Mac they are back in the grill ejaculating into the mayonaise and making bongs from the Happy Meal toys. Believe me, I did my time in fried food Hades. I spent a year and a half during high school flipping burgers, and during that time I met some of the skankiest white trash there is. I mean, these people don't even deserve to live in Tonya Harding's trailer park. Please, for a moment, step down off of your liberal pinko commie perch and admit that this country is burdened with an overshare of the utterly stupid (no quotations needed.)


Syllogism (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by jvance on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 03:01:52 PM PST
I People who work in fast food are stupid
II You worked in fast food for over a year

Therefore...
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Ahh Modus Tollens (none / 0) (#8)
by Shinkansen on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 04:03:06 PM PST
Ahh good ole' formal logic. It would have been very impressive if you had gotten a complex argument with modus tollens and modus ponens over this one. well played Jvance well played! Shinkansen!!



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

It would appear... (none / 0) (#9)
by Shinkansen on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 04:08:22 PM PST
that I worked in fast food for some length of time, by looking at my previous post's subject. Let me change tollens to ponens. Because you obviously didn't use modus tollens... Nice move shinkansen, nice move... .



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

 
Therefore... (none / 0) (#10)
by shamus82 on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 04:11:27 PM PST
Therefore what?


You unintentionally answered your question. n/t (none / 0) (#12)
by derek3000 on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 05:34:56 PM PST



----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
Therefore... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by jvance on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 06:07:50 PM PST
..."'If we have kippers it will not rain,' or 'Trout live in trees,' or 'You don't love me anymore.'"
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

well... (none / 0) (#15)
by Shinkansen on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 08:14:44 PM PST
What about the "therefore... one of its legs are both the same?" Shinkansen!!



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

 
nerd joke (none / 0) (#18)
by nathan on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 09:13:05 AM PST
Given the proposition that 1 = 2, prove that I am the pope.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Well its obvious (none / 0) (#19)
by Shinkansen on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 09:22:09 AM PST
See Nathan, It is entirely possible to prove that you are the pope, but if I did, would you want to live with that for the rest of your life?

Shinkansen!!



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

duh (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by nathan on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 10:05:44 AM PST
There is a well-known proof of a very similar proposition which you, a philosophy student, ought to be expected to know.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Unfortunately (none / 0) (#21)
by Shinkansen on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 10:21:05 AM PST
I have not had logic yet. The logic I have looked at is elementary. Please, explain Nathan, fo it would be good to know.

Shinkansen!!



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

 
unless (none / 0) (#22)
by Shinkansen on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 10:27:33 AM PST
You could do it in a few ways;
1>

1=2
If 1=2, then Nathan is the pope
therefore nathan is the pope

2>

A.)1=2
b.)if 1=2 then there are things in this world we don't understand.
c.)if there are things in this world that we don't understand, a god or gods could explain them.
d.)if a god or gods can explain them, a pope or head religious figure could translate the word of god because normal people wouldn't understand.
e.)Therefore, if 1=2, then the pope translates the word of god.
f.)Nathan translates stuff i don't understand, some of them very well could be the word of god.
g.)therefore nathan is the pope.

thats worth a shot!

shinkansen!!



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

hint: (none / 0) (#23)
by nathan on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 10:56:38 AM PST
A valid syllogism does not prove the validity of its premises.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Sorry,, (none / 0) (#24)
by Shinkansen on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 11:36:25 AM PST
my logic skills just aren't that hot...


Shinkansen!!



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

Proof (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by jvance on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 09:10:37 AM PST
I'm no damned good at formal proofs, but I think it goes something like this:

If 1 = 1, and 1 + 1 = 1 then any real number = 1 by induction. Apply this to a discrete set of objects - people. Everyone is the same person (there are x number of people, therefore there is only one person), so Nathan is the Pope. He's also Dame Edna, but we won't go there.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

that's pretty good. (none / 0) (#31)
by nathan on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 11:58:29 AM PST
Russel skipped the induction step.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Thanks! (none / 0) (#32)
by Shinkansen on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 12:53:48 PM PST
Hey, that does make sense. All I have had right now is Modern philosophers, Ancient Greek Philosophers, Philosophy of Language, and General Ethics. I'm taking logic in a couple semesters. Russell leaves all sorts of stuff out, if you know any language he ran into a few problems.

Shinkansen!!



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

a correct argument (none / 0) (#34)
by nathan on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 01:14:01 PM PST
Russell leaves all sorts of stuff out, if you know any language he ran into a few problems.

Having admitted that it is my place to instruct you in philosophy, and not yours mine;
Having moreover been instructed by me in matters of Logic coming from Russell;
Concluding from the above two premises that I am better informed than are you on matters of Logic and, especially, the work of Russell in the field of Logic;

Why do you presume to inform me about Russell's supposed shortcomings, given that my knowledge of them and familiarity with them ought, by rights, to utterly eclipse yours?

I await your rebuttal.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Woah there! (none / 0) (#35)
by Shinkansen on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 02:41:54 PM PST
Well, I am obviously aware that you are more knowledgable in philosophy than my self. There is no need to get angry at me, i'm not flaming here. I'm simply stating his theory of language lacks a few things. Frege also has some brilliant ideas when it comes to language. I am sure you have looked at Fregeian logic too. It is pretty different notation compared to Russell's. Now, regardless if you "eclipse my knowledge" or not, I was comfirming that Russell runs into some grey areas in his ideas of acquaintence and has a little problems with logically proper names. These are shown with Kripke's arguments for the Descriptivist Theory. Now, Nathan, I have made my reply. I would rather that you not get hostile over this; for I am not saying, in any way, that I know more about logic then you do or about philosophy. After all, didn't I ask you for help? keee-rist man!

Shinkansen!!



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

 
also (none / 0) (#36)
by Shinkansen on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 05:22:22 PM PST
If you have any good philosophical sites you could send me, my e-mail is on my user info.



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

 
Uh? (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 01:08:56 PM PST
If 1=2 Then doesn't 1+1=4


 
Pope Nathan (none / 0) (#26)
by walwyn on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 02:29:21 PM PST
Your certificate awaits.


 
Therefore... (none / 0) (#27)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 03:06:14 PM PST
I People who work in fast food are stupid
II You worked in fast food for over a year

Therefore...


...he was stupid for over an year?


 
At least this! (none / 0) (#5)
by Shinkansen on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 02:37:30 PM PST
Regardless if this is an inane post or not, I am happy that the following words/phrases were used:

"worthless fuckstick"
"liberal pinko commie perch"
"ejaculating into the mayo..."

I would like to say that two of these three statemens are flames. Isn't this a non-troll, non-flame newsgroup?

Please, let's at least keep the flames in our minds. (you stupid "fucks")

Shinkansen!!



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

Shinkansen, (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by derek3000 on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 10:00:04 AM PST
with all due respect, I was saving "fuckstick" for a special occasion. This seemed to be the right time.

Thank you, and please watch my posts for an upcoming "fuckknuckle". ...
...

Oh, shit.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

I've always wanted (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by because it isnt on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 03:02:50 AM PST
to call someone a knobgobbler, but I've never had the chance. Yourself?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

I guess (none / 0) (#38)
by Shinkansen on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 04:40:46 AM PST
I have always enjoyed calling someone "a member of the ass brigade"

this or any criticism dealing with looking like "janet reno"



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

 
The Nature of Stupidity (none / 0) (#14)
by Slubberdegullion on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 07:23:05 PM PST
Scientists long ago determined that stupidity is related to cranial capacity. This is proven with comparisons between races and people that any moron can do--although the liberal quacks currently in control of much of the scientific community refuse to.


Scientists ? (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 02:26:02 AM PST
They first established a conclusion, then they did their cooking, keeping the results accordingly with their conclusion.
Was it clever ? Their "work" has been totally invalidated by other, and much more respected, scientists.

But as goes the saying: there is nothing you can't prove if you're stubborn enough.
So go on, keep your opinions, they will evidently help you consider yourself more than a zero.


 
Of course! (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 07:49:17 AM PST
As you say, "stupidity is related to cranial capacity..." and so it is self-evident that intelligence must also be governed by the same parameters. Hence the well known intellectual superiority of elephants and whales over all other mammals. It also explains why limited cranial capacity, such as that of birds, small dogs, and rats make it impossible to teach them to mimic sounds, jump through hoops of burning fire or push down a lever and be rewarded with pellets of rat cake. Thank you, God, for the imbeciles you have put here for our entertainment.


 
Any Moron (none / 0) (#28)
by jvance on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 03:11:27 PM PST
This is proven with comparisons between races and people that any moron can do

And apparently that's exactly who did the comparisons.

Here's another syllogism for you.

I Stupidity is related to cranial capacity: the smaller the capacity, the greater the stupidity.
II Neanderthals had greater cranial capacity than fully modern humans
III You are a fully modern human.
Therefore you are dumber than a Neanderthal.

But then, that was evident by inspection.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.