................

[Penguin88]

Re: ................

well i personally have a good sense of my own knowledge, and in that way i am open minded and i realize there are definite boundaries to my knowledge. I generally don't state something like it's a fact unless i am certain of it, preferably from multiple sources. but sometimes someone will say something that doesn't make sense or that i know is impossible, but because they are a friend i dont correct them unless it would benefit them/the conversation.

most people who are wrong about a small fact aren't hurting anyone by it and it doesn't bother me, i just accept that they are different than i am, maybe more easily impressionable and less inquisitive. when someone is making a point about how they feel or something i'm not going to go on a tangent or even correct them about minor detals because i am focused on feeling what they are feeling and to point out technical inaccuracies wouldnt benefit me. i usually just say "im sorry, i dont know much about that". but of course if someone were to ask me whether i agreed with something and I didn't, i wouldn't hesitate to state my opinion. i find that my opinion is more valued when people have to ask for it than when i offer it often.

as a side note i just accept that nobody is right all the time and that i have been mistaken before, perhaps in delicate scenarios where i would have been grateful that the other party had not pointed out my inaccuracy. say in heavily emotional circumstances, to correct the person is insensitive and not likely helpful.

just my feelings on the matter. you're entitled to conduct your relatonships however you want, of course.

[AnewKINDofFEELING]

Re: ................

i process and retain facts and information pretty well also but i usually don't mention my knowledge about something, even if the person i am talking to made a statement i know to be incorrect, unless it's going to help the conversation. correcting people about unimportant things is usually counterproductive to effective communication and to reinforcing relationships. the only time i correct someone is when they are a facts snob and i catch them when they are wrong about something. legitimately correcting a facts snob feels so right.

See, I think this is where the schism occurs. I would prefer that somebody provide me with clarification over allowing me to continue spewing incorrect information and making myself look like a jackass to everyone who knows the subject being discussed. If you can't handle being corrected, don't posit a statement that you do not know to be 100% factual. Some people just can't handle being wrong and take it personally when they are corrected. If that makes me a know-it-all, so be it, prove me wrong.

[Penguin88]

Re: ................

i think interjecting obscure knowledge into conversation makes you look like a "know-it-all" because chances are, people are focused on the topic and adding in unnecessary information that nobody but you cares about at that time seems selfish. i think the assumption about that person's motive is that merely mentioning the obscure fact is rewarding to the individual and that seems to lead to the impression that the person is bragging or showing off.

i process and retain facts and information pretty well also but i usually don't mention my knowledge about something, even if the person i am talking to made a statement i know to be incorrect, unless it's going to help the conversation. correcting people about unimportant things is usually counterproductive to effective communication and to reinforcing relationships. the only time i correct someone is when they are a facts snob and i catch them when they are wrong about something. legitimately correcting a facts snob feels so right.

and gnomad i was getting at an observation of what i feel to be hypocrisy that i see among a number of younger pseudointellectuals (internets is especially full of these types)

[AnewKINDofFEELING]

Re: ................

how hereditary do you suppose intelligence is? If we go a little nature/nurture neutral on the subject and say at least a range of intelligence to be developed is inherited, isn't insulting or devaluing another person on the basis of intelligence just as "shallow" and baseless, in a sense, as doing so on the basis of physical appearance? i mean in that case, both are, to some extent, hereditary and beyond that person's control, so all the ugly nerdlings out there dissing on unintelligent people are kind of tit for tat.

i mean yeah generally speaking, ones intelligence is usually more beneficial to society than ones looks, but can one party deserve insults and the other not when neither trait has much to do with character and both have more to do with who your parents were?

if this is the case, i cant help but see a classic uppity-hypocrite case here among the aforementioned ugly nerdlings constantly asserting their intellectual superiority.

I'm as sexy as hell and as sharp as a tack. I am condescending to all.
---

then you have people who obsess over learning obscure knowledge so they can feel smarter than everyone else. Those people are asses.

I have to kind of offer an arguing point here. I am one of those people that is full of obscure knowledge. It's not that I seek out obscure knowledge so that I know something that you don't. I just seek out knowledge and I'm lucky enough to absorb and process it very easily. I don't feel guilty about being learned.

My intelligence is my biggest blessing in life. The problem arises when you interject your knowledge into another person's thoughts or conversations. They tend to dislike that and label you a know-it-all.

[Knifeboy]

Re: ................

Even so I don't think there is anything really wrong with pure ignorance

I didn't say anything was wrong with ignorance in itself

The problem is people usually just label those who make assumptions and automatic judgments on things they are ignorant on as simply ignorant, but it's probably better described as "judging despite ignorance"..

Judging despite ignorance is pretty bad tbh especially if you don't acknowledge it

[Gnomad]

Re: ................

I don't know anyone like that. I'm not really sure what you're getting at, either.

[Penguin88]

Re: ................

I was referring to intelligence not really knowledge. Even so I don't think there is anything really wrong with pure ignorance- everyone has topics they are ignorant on i'm sure. The problem is people usually just label those who make assumptions and automatic judgments on things they are ignorant on as simply ignorant, but it's probably better described as "judging despite ignorance".

then you have people who obsess over learning obscure knowledge so they can feel smarter than everyone else. Those people are asses.

[Knifeboy]

Re: ................

There's a difference between unintelligence and willful ignorance/refusal to learn.

The first one is fine. The latter is condemnable regardless of intelligence level


Especially if you take pride in how little you know about a subject. Like some religious people do about evolution, some musicians do about not knowing theory, general publics pride in not knowing science/not being a geek etc

[Penguin88]

Re: ................

how hereditary do you suppose intelligence is? If we go a little nature/nurture neutral on the subject and say at least a range of intelligence to be developed is inherited, isn't insulting or devaluing another person on the basis of intelligence just as "shallow" and baseless, in a sense, as doing so on the basis of physical appearance? i mean in that case, both are, to some extent, hereditary and beyond that person's control, so all the ugly nerdlings out there dissing on unintelligent people are kind of tit for tat.

i mean yeah generally speaking, ones intelligence is usually more beneficial to society than ones looks, but can one party deserve insults and the other not when neither trait has much to do with character and both have more to do with who your parents were?

if this is the case, i cant help but see a classic uppity-hypocrite case here among the aforementioned ugly nerdlings constantly asserting their intellectual superiority.

[cribble]

Re: ................

No more hippie viking

Just 100% Viking now.

[noclevername]

Re: ................

Thank god. I was sitting here wondering about that.

[Knifeboy]

Re: ................

I finally got a haircut.. No more hippie viking

[Knifeboy]

Re: ................

I don't think it'd be possible to ride a horse without any sort of consent from the animal. Rodeo aside.

I don't think it'd be possible to fuck a horse without it kicking you in the head if it felt like it was being harmed

Fucking an animal is like sexually taking advantage of a retard. I have a point I'm trying to make I promise. I mean its not fair or moral for one intellectual and self aware being to engage in sexual activities with something on a whole lower prong on the ladder. Anyway, is it legal to fuck retards? Are thy able to give consent? They are often said to have the mind of a child...

If you want to take that stance, then the act of buying a pet is morally wrong.
And training a pet to do anything would be slavery

Also a woman in jail said dogs can do things with their dicks no human men can. Yuckkkkk

... Man that's creepy

Some people TRAIN animals to fuck them. Rarely do animals attempt to engage in actual sexual activity with other species. There's a difference between having sex and showing dominance. Though, dolphins are notorious for trying to have sex with other species, so it's obviously not the same for all animals.

Animals are trained to do a lot of things with no consent.

Maybe dolphins are smart enough to give sexual consent.

I doubt it..... But maybe whales are

After thinking about it, and this definitely promises the loss on this debate for me, I can't actually ethically justify eating an animal as completely OK, but then turn around and say "Fucking that cow is wrong." So, end of discussion, for me at least. It disgusts me, but I'm not in a position to condemn.

That's a good point. Although it's taking a step further than what I was arguing. I'm just saying that there are probably animals that you can have sex with without hurting them mentally or physically (there have been studies done on this... That I'd feel creepy googling for), so therefore I can't see why that should be illegal.

[Gnomad]

Re: ................

But that's not a sexual thing with dogs, that's a dominance thing. There is a difference.
---
After thinking about it, and this definitely promises the loss on this debate for me, I can't actually ethically justify eating an animal as completely OK, but then turn around and say "Fucking that cow is wrong." So, end of discussion, for me at least. It disgusts me, but I'm not in a position to condemn.

[Penguin88]

Re: ................

My female dog humps peoples legs. She does it when she's otherwise being playful and I read that its not necessarily an outright sexual thing for them. Puppies do it during play and then yes there's the dominance displays. It bothers people though, including me lol, so I discourage her from doing it.
---

Some people TRAIN animals to fuck them. Rarely do animals attempt to engage in actual sexual activity with other species. There's a difference between having sex and showing dominance. Though, dolphins are notorious for trying to have sex with other species, so it's obviously not the same for all animals.

Maybe dolphins are smart enough to give sexual consent. Anyone remember dolphinsex.org or whatever the url was