Sorry, Erkolos, I meant Louise.
I do not object to being judged. I object to being predicted without request and on such little information.
Now, Louise, you aren't even making logical arguments. You are predicting, on absolutely no information whatever, the value of others without their request.
Your argument is beginning to sound like a teenage tantrum.
No. That is a JUDGEMENT. Not a prediction. I do not predict what they will be worth in the future. That is the job of employers, professors an anyone else intending to financially invest in them. And I make my judgements with more information than you have about me.
Exactly how much information did you have about the people who were slandered by the teacher (in case you have forgotten, the SUBJECT of this thread) that you decided were inferior?
I'm proud to be in the same thread as Erkolos!
I wish I were as fluent in a foreign language!
Louise, you accepted the reported rantings of a bigot as information and made a judgement on THAT ALONE?!!
Gosh, you need to start thinking with that superior brain of yours.
Well no. None of them are perfect it is a scale. And people do not get hierarchical status by birth. They get it through their achievements.
Royalty.
The crime would be in every newspaper. The achievement somewhere in the smallprint.
Louise,
That is after the perpetrator has been caught. Up till then, highly intelligent criminals rely on blinding people with the shining light of their academic achievements.
As you seem to be intent on blinding yourself.
RE: "Like pet monkeys" Page 22
No. That is a JUDGEMENT. Not a prediction. I do not predict what they will be worth in the future. That is the job of employers, professors an anyone else intending to financially invest in them. And I make my judgements with more information than you have about me.
Exactly how much information did you have about the people who were slandered by the teacher (in case you have forgotten, the SUBJECT of this thread) that you decided were inferior?
Sorry, Ian, I keep trying to keep on topic!
Louise, you accepted the reported rantings of a bigot as information and made a judgement on THAT ALONE?!!
Gosh, you need to start thinking with that superior brain of yours.
Ian, the saddest part of all this is: if we are unable to persuade a fellow Aspie that prejudice is inherently wrong, how are we going to persuade the 'curebie militia'?
You set it up as a thought experiment to show that I jump to conclusions. Yes that is probably true.
Gosh, an admission.
Everyone does it all the time.
Errr..... not true, actually. A generalisation with no information.
So what? The fact that I sometimes get the assessment wrong due to lack of information does not establish that the assessment criteria are wrong.
Only sometimes? First, try proving under which circumstances the assessment criteria are RIGHT. That would be the logical and scientific approach. Then you will have proved how much information you need to make an accurate assessment. Then you only apply the assessment criteria to situations where you have adequate information. Otherwise you do not judge.
Anything less is illogical and unintelligent.
Erkolos, I think Louise realises that her position is untenable and is now contradicting people just for the sake of prolonging the argument.
It is far too late at night (twenty past midnight here) for me to carry on this pointless conversation.
But I'll have fun continuing it in the morning if necessary!
Ian, you are probably right. However, my heart is now complaining
and I'll have to go. Look after the fort for me, please?
Good morning Ian!
How are we all today?
Perhaps I may sum up what I have seen as the process of this thread?
1. Luai_lashire starts with a complaint about an incident she witnessed, and was upset by, where a substitute teacher slanders a group of students with special needs in front of her class.
2. Many people come onto the thread to support Luai_lashire.
3. Louise18 comes on to support the substitute teacher.
4. Many people try to convince Louise18 of the error of her position.
5. Louise18 disagrees with everyone by contradicting them with no supporting evidence, accusing them of judging her with no supporting evidence, re-iterating her original stance with no supporting evidence, and bringing in irrelevent and offensive comments.
6. Everyone else decides that the conflict is fun but that we are unlikely to open a stubbornly closed mind.
7. Bedtime.
The criteria works when you aware of all of a person's achievements, and their moral transgressions. No system works without the right information.
So, Louise IS starting to modify her views!
And 'criteria' are plural, 'criterion' is the singular.
As Louise has suggested, I have re-read the whole thread. I suggest she does the same.
WARNING the following compilation should be read whilst holding a barf-bag.
"Actually, I agree with the comment. Respect has to be earned. "Human" is just an arbitrary classification. Why should that earn you respect?"
"Respecting something for what it is: monkeys are respected as monkeys and retards are respected as what they are, but I don't see why there is an issue with equating the two."
"My argument is solely an ideological one and it is based on logic."
"I do have love and respect and compassion. I just tend to direct my limited resources at those who have more to contribute to the world."
"That wasn't intended to be boasting: I do not consider my relationship with my friend to involve anything extraordinary or praise-worthy, but your moral dismissal of me and personal comment was unjustified. You don't know me or what I have done in my life."
"Such minor accomplishments may well make them closer to animals than humans if their behaviour is bad enough and their accomplishments small enough. "
"I am not intolerant of those who differ. I am simply unwilling to give the same respect to a *** person as I would do a colleague or tutor."
"No, I do not believe in God. *** people have every right to enjoy whatever life they have with whatever money they earn or which others freely give them. They do not have a right to my respect."
"I have varying degrees of respect for things and people; admiration is something I only possess for people I think are better than me, what I would describe as respect is something I feel for those I consider to be my equals. Everything below that is just tolerance."
"They don't have achievements worthy of respect. They don't contribute anything academically; they don't contribute anything financially. Their "achievements" are often things that others take for granted being able to do."
"The level of respect something/someone deserves should be individual, not automatic because they happen to be human. Thus, if someone has the intellectual capacity of a monkey they should get the same respect as a monkey."
"I don't see what the issue is with describing levels of thinking in relation to other levels. Some creatures and individuals are cleverer than others and this should be reflected in the sliding scale of respect that is given to them. People are not all made equal. Some people are just better than others overall and I don't see anything wrong with reflecting that."
"I am 19 and in one of the two best universities in the UK reading for a law degree. There is nothing naive about my views"
"It is their fault. Your intelligence level is your fault. It is part of you, therefore it is your fault. Its not as fixable as other issues (like laziness), which makes people who have it to start with even more valuable. Yes it is related to the brain, but this is irrelevant."
" I am not going to respond to personal attacks. I believe in fault, and morality and that humans should be held responsible for what they are as well as what they do. The latter is just a product of the former. I fail to see the distinction. Every choice they make is a product of what they are, every thought they think is.
And being a student at distinguished universities is a mark of intellect. As a student of law shows the capacity for logical argument. Either respond to the discussion or don't respond at all. Random insults do nothing to increase your credibility."
"I am an oxonian Law student. I am positively *** at Maths and Science, and consider anyone studying either of these at a good university to be my superior, at least on the scale of what they potentially have to offer society. As far as scientific achievement is concerned, finding out what does not work still increases human knowledge, which is more important than the transient happiness of individuals who will disappear without a mark in history of their existence."
"No, obviously not. I have argued that academic achievement is necessary for an individual to be worth something. Not that it is sufficient."
"And I am an oxonian law student, whether you believe it or not is immaterial to me."
"It is a true economic fact that things become valuable when they are scarce. Unintelligent minions are not rare, therefore they are not valuable."
"Obviously an individual's value has to be individually assessed, but in general more intelligent people are more value than non-intelligent people."
"Cab drivers are not that important, and it does not require any great level of intellect."
"What you appear to be doing to me, is just operating in a visceral way with no coherant belief system whatsoever, which is a ridiculous way to go about things."
"That is entirely the wrong way of going about things. In order to develope a coherant system of ideas you need to rigorously test your core assumptions. You have to start in the abstract. Start with the ideal, and mould the reality to it. And don't be such a condescending prick."
"Age and maturity will not modify my attitudes. My belief system is rigorously throught out and makes sense. I agree that there is no such thing as a single correct philosophy, or rather that there aren't any CORRECT philosophies. There are, however, a finite number of them that are internally consistent and logical. Just because there may be more than one acceptable way of looking at something does not mean that every way of looking at something is acceptable."
"All I have said is that some people are better than others. Some people are worse than me,others are better. And I need a lot of information about them to establish which category they fall into."
"People are inferior if they are less intelligent, or make less of a contribution to society than I do"