Back that up with facts please. I am willing to bet more people have prejudices like that than you'd be willing to admit.Ender Wiggin;689438 wrote:*sigh* O-Trap, you are talking about the minority ...
However, let's assume you're right. How do I know you're not in the minority? Where did I hear that? Do I know you?
The truth is, I don't know you. I have no idea how you act in real life. I don't know what you think on all issues related to prejudicial ignorance. Thus, it would be illogical for me to assume any further than simply taking you at your word.
Since your reading comprehension is a great case against the current educational system, I'll try to keep my answers short and my words small.
Ender, the problem is that it's already so dumb, it makes no sense to anyone intelligent. You can't dumb it down anymore because the statement was already dumb.Ender Wiggin;689438 wrote:I cant dumb that down anymore for you to grasp.
Hmm ... my "argument" was that I shouldn't judge you based on something you haven't said, since I don't know whether you belong in the majority or minority. Which part of that do you seem to be struggling with understanding?Ender Wiggin;689438 wrote:You are reaching, like always. Its common sense to the majority to not judge a group based on a small sample. Just because some dont use common sense doesnt make your argument hold anymore water if any.
Ah, so you don't know what semantics means. I suspected as much.Ender Wiggin;689438 wrote:They are different statement only because you are using....say it with me...semantics.
A semantic argument is, in a nutshell, a statement that is asserted as being more true than a synonymous statement, purely based on the variance in vocabulary.
Or here, let me use the high school version for you, since that seems to be your level of reasoning: When two statements being argued are worded differently, but mean the same thing, it is a semantic argument.
When the two statements are different, it is not a semantic argument.
Glad we cleared that up.
Actually, not being wrong comes pretty easily when it comes in a disagreement with you, because all it takes is pointing out the things you say that make little to no sense ... and whether or not others have, I laid several examples out for you, since you seem to have trouble recognizing them without someone holding your hand.Ender Wiggin;689438 wrote:This goes back to the last point though, you are using anything you can to not be wrong, you are not doing a good job. As usual.
Actually, IQ is a gauge of someone's intelligence (I wouldn't put it past you to not know that the 'I' in 'IQ' stands for 'Intelligence'.).Ender Wiggin;689438 wrote:Having a high IQ =/= not stupid. Inverse follows. The rest of your point there falls apart based on that. I assume I will have to explain that to you in a minute as well sadly.
Guess what is listed as an antonym of "intelligent." Yep. "Stupid."
So, it is logically incongruous to suggest that an intelligent person can be stupid.
No need. Your antagonistic replies, stemming back to the cop-shot-to-death thread, appear to show otherwise.Ender Wiggin;689438 wrote:I dont relish in arguing with people, I dont go out and look for it. IE, look at this topic, I made a topic about an even that happened in the world. Is it my fault people came after me? Ya, ill give you a few minutes to rethink that one and try again.
You can tell me what you profess, but your actions will show me what you really think.
Look, your analogy wasn't an analogy. It was an attempt at an analogy, and it was grossly flawed.Ender Wiggin;689438 wrote:Apples to apples? No, dont try and talk down to someone else because you arent smart enough to understand an analogy.
You have one part right. I don't understand. When people say illogical things, they don't make sense.
Not at all ... well, not sure what you were going for with the monocle comment or mascara. You sound like a teenage boy. Thus, I'll address you as such.Ender Wiggin;689438 wrote:Boy? Hah, now youre getting angry. Youve lost that monocle now. Move along little girl, mascara is running.
Sorry. I don't pay that much attention to Fab. Apparently you do. Who's obsessed, again?Ender Wiggin;689438 wrote:Fab doesnt do anything but troll. I knew this before the site started. Just now noticing?
What color is the sky in your world? You're clearly delusional if you actually believe the above statement.Ender Wiggin;689438 wrote:And people try, and fail, to question my intelligence.
I really don't ever think about myself in those terms. To be honest, it wouldn't take a brilliant person to point out how futile your lack of logic is.Ender Wiggin;689438 wrote:Narcissism? Not quite, look at the topic. Once again, instead of maturely discussion a real world even that is very serious people would rather talk about me. Sort of like how CNN talked about Lindsay Lohan as Breaking News over whats happening in Libya. Remember, people came after me first princess. Not often do you find someone who thinks they are so very smart, elegant, quaint such as yourself.
Cute. You actually made a satisfactory parallel. Good for you. Proud of you. Now try another one.Ender Wiggin;689438 wrote:Its not upsetting at all either, its like finding a dandelion growing out a pile of rhino shit.
Oh, you live out there? Interesting. I was born and raised in Simi Valley, and my uncle is an officer for the LAPD.Ender Wiggin;689438 wrote:Well I do teach 8 classes at UCLA and USC every semester, thank GOD they dont know that im an incoherent rambler. Luckily there are walking logical fallacies like O-Trap to set everyone straight haha.
Given that you're a self-professed computer geek, I'm assuming that if this is true, you teach IT. It's obvious you don't teach anything that requires critical thinking.