06-01-2007, 01:51 PM
06-05-2007, 09:16 AM
how she twists and twirls Wrote:
Louise18 Wrote:
Actually, I agree with the comment. Respect has to be earned. "Human" is just an arbitrary classification. Why should that earn you respect?
I do not think that intelligence ought to be the sole factor on which we decide how "worthy of respect" someone is. Things like loyalty and integrity and perseverance count, too. Furthermore, mentally *** people can't help being mentally ***, but ignorant people (at least in our society, where there is free and easy access to information) are often just too shallow and apathetic to correct their ignorance. I would respect a mentally *** child who did his or her best with the mental faculties s/he had more than a woman who wasn't mentally disabled but was ignorant or insensitive enough to think that using dehumanizing terminology like comparing disabled kids to pet monkeys wasn't going to offend anybody.
Yes, those things do count, but those things are easier to change. It is usually easier to change your personality than your intellect. I don't understand why people think that those traits are more part of the person than intellect. If you do something because you are stupid it is as much your fault as if you do something/fail something if you are lazy. I don't see why one is part of character and the other isn't: they are both part of who you are as a person to the same extent. In fact i would say the latter is more a part of who you are than any individual character traits.
06-05-2007, 09:30 AM
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.
06-10-2007, 10:56 PM
But thats exactly the point I made, ambuend. The species distinction is not an appropriate one. 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 think it was very obvious that I was talking about the sort of braindamage that reduces intellectual functioning not merely to below average but reduces it such that a person cannot earn a living for themselves or justify others' paying for them.
I think it was very obvious that I was talking about the sort of braindamage that reduces intellectual functioning not merely to below average but reduces it such that a person cannot earn a living for themselves or justify others' paying for them.
09-02-2007, 04:30 PM
No I would not say IQ is an accurate measure of contribution. And your argument,she who cant think of a username is fallacious because people who disrespect lowly people may not contribute anything to THEM that does not mean they do not contribute to a society as a whole ie through the advancement of human knowledge.
10-14-2007, 10:46 AM
woman from mars Wrote:
oooops I pressed post instead of review.
I intended to add that Louise 18 doesn't appear at all certain of the Law. since first I was wrong & then "even if you're right.
I intended to add that Louise 18 doesn't appear at all certain of the Law. since first I was wrong & then "even if you're right.
Quote:
In England and Wales criminal actions are considered hate crimes if they are perceived by the victim as being motivated by prejudice and hatred..........threats or insults...............or disability.
The 'Pet Monkeys' are disabled under The Law...........The Disability Discrimination Act
The law is not always certain. Statutes have to be interpreted in the courts and the scope of the words laid out is determined by the case law. The court will balance the intention of parliament in the drafting of the act (by intention I mean what particular cases they intended to fall on which side of the line, and to what extent that qualifies the Human Rights Act right to freedom of speech. If the law was just what the statute said with no conflicts or requirement for definition of scope there would be no reason for a degree in Law. It isn't just learning a set of rules.
10-14-2007, 11:21 AM
rossco Wrote:
Louise18 you have really amused me with your opinions (and let's face it they are just that and not very well thought out ones at that). The fact that you lord your superiority over the people you are discussing this wayward topic with has peaked my interest in debating this with you. For the record I am not an Oxford scholar. I have not got a degree. I am an ex-cleaner at an abattoir, so let's just say I am fair game here for an intellectual heavyweight like yourself.
Now a BIG problem I see with your premise is the understanding you seem to have of a lot of abstract concepts. They are not universal. Indeed words such as "value", "success", "respect", "intelligence" and the like mean different things to different people.
What efforts have you seriously made in defining these terms that are central in espousing your ideologies? It is not the sign of a good critical thinking mind that is not willing (or unable?) to define the parameters of such concepts. It is either saying I am allowing myself at any point to defend myself with "Yes but I didn't mean my argument to be taken or viewed in that light because what you believed I meant is not what I did mean" OR it is the assumption that everyone understands intrinsically that when you say an abstract word that their concept exactly matches your own.
Of course there is great risk in doing this. Whilst it does show you have a mind that allows itself to think about what the hell you are gibbering on about, it does expose your argument. You are unable then to redefine your argument without looking like you are scrambling IF your argument is unable to stand on it's own.
So how about it? Why don't you trawl through this couple of dozen of posts on this thread redefine what on Earth you were really trying to present and restructure and redefine what your argument was/is? Try it out on a "valueless" ex-cleaner. See how you go. It will hardly be a measure of critical thinking or academic fortitude or even intellectual superiority to soundly thrash me verbally on this forum, but.......I really think you are not that clever or that good at having people question you. I think it sounds like fun.
Now a BIG problem I see with your premise is the understanding you seem to have of a lot of abstract concepts. They are not universal. Indeed words such as "value", "success", "respect", "intelligence" and the like mean different things to different people.
What efforts have you seriously made in defining these terms that are central in espousing your ideologies? It is not the sign of a good critical thinking mind that is not willing (or unable?) to define the parameters of such concepts. It is either saying I am allowing myself at any point to defend myself with "Yes but I didn't mean my argument to be taken or viewed in that light because what you believed I meant is not what I did mean" OR it is the assumption that everyone understands intrinsically that when you say an abstract word that their concept exactly matches your own.
Of course there is great risk in doing this. Whilst it does show you have a mind that allows itself to think about what the hell you are gibbering on about, it does expose your argument. You are unable then to redefine your argument without looking like you are scrambling IF your argument is unable to stand on it's own.
So how about it? Why don't you trawl through this couple of dozen of posts on this thread redefine what on Earth you were really trying to present and restructure and redefine what your argument was/is? Try it out on a "valueless" ex-cleaner. See how you go. It will hardly be a measure of critical thinking or academic fortitude or even intellectual superiority to soundly thrash me verbally on this forum, but.......I really think you are not that clever or that good at having people question you. I think it sounds like fun.
Respect: "To feel or show preferential regard for; esteem"
Value: "worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit". Note that the importance of something changes according to its scarcity. If you have a well stocked fridge, food becomes less valuable. If you have a lot of people able to do a job, their work becomes less valuable. Up until now, we are just following dictionary definitions. The last two present more of a problem because the traditional meaning of success has been so greatly distorted, and because intelligence is impossible to define properly.
Success: achievement which is externally recognised, not necessarily at the time which it was achieved, as having contributed something positive to the world.
Intelligence: capacity to understand the world and to create theories or works which apply to it, or to create practical objects based on those theories, or to manipulate incoming information well to one's own advantage.
What I catastrophically failed to convey with "I don't respect people who do merely what they are paid to" is that I don't respect people who do merely what anybody could be paid to do. No matter how much money I was paid, I could not come up with groundbreaking scientific theories or cures for cancer.
A final point about your personal insults. I do not claim to be good. I do not claim to be intelligent or an intellectual heavyweight. That is why I am paying £3,000 a year of (admittedly borrowed money to get people who are clever to teach me. I do not claim to be a valuable member of society- I have thus far contributed nothing to the world and medocre lawyers are not difficult to find.
I look up to and respect an awful lot of people. What I claim to be is not the most valueless person in the entire world. That means that there are going to be some people I look down on. Some people who aren't as good as me. Some people who represent a greater loss to our society than me. I also recognise that people who do jobs that anyone could be paid to do might have contributed elsewhere in their lives-like the blue-ray guy, or might be very clever people that lived in times when opportunities weren't as available as they are now.
My opinions as a 19-year old are going to be influenced by the fact that I live in a generation which has seen better equality of opportunity than ever before across class boundaries, race boundaries, gender and sexuality boundaries. I accept that we do not live in a society of perfectly equal opportunities. I accept also that the comments I make about a person born in 1988 will be unfair on a person born in 1958. My ideological stance only really applies to people of my parents' generation and younger because the world was too different a place before that.
10-15-2007, 12:18 PM
I fail to see why believing you are not the worst person in the world constitutes being egotistical.
10-15-2007, 10:24 PM
I don't know I haven't met everyone in the world. But I have met some people who are worse than me. So its not me. I think making sure you have an internally consistent ideology and that you subject that ideology to the criticism of others to make sure that it is internally consistent has a lot of value in a democratic society. I don't see what who you would want to be with when you were ill has to do with anything.
Erkolos, there is also no reason why we should respect them. Respect is based on the idea that they do someone has done something beyond merely existing. That is why we do not respect rocks. Expecting people to earn respect rather than be automatically given it until they screw up is a fairly standard idea.
Erkolos, there is also no reason why we should respect them. Respect is based on the idea that they do someone has done something beyond merely existing. That is why we do not respect rocks. Expecting people to earn respect rather than be automatically given it until they screw up is a fairly standard idea.
10-15-2007, 10:27 PM
In fact part of the definition of respect is "preferential regard" in order to have preferential regard for someone you have to prefer them over at least someone else. Having preferential regard for people in general is inconsistent with the notion of respect.
10-16-2007, 07:39 AM
LOL. You run out of ideas for arguments?
10-16-2007, 11:08 AM
I didn't say that not respecting them was a contribution to society but neither is it a detriment to society. Respecting them is not a detriment to society either, provided we do not waste resources that would have been better spent eslewhere. The idea of respect is that it motivates talented people to put their talents to good use and to be rewarded with the respect and status that goes with such achievements. To think it should apply to everyone is a misunderstanding of the notion of respect.
Oxford students tend to have their own ideas tenacious. It is an insult both to the university and the students to suggest either that the university seeks to influence them or that the students can be easily influenced. The University itself remains neutral on most political topics. Obviously they value academic contributions, but they remain silent about those who do not make academic contributions.
Oxford students tend to have their own ideas tenacious. It is an insult both to the university and the students to suggest either that the university seeks to influence them or that the students can be easily influenced. The University itself remains neutral on most political topics. Obviously they value academic contributions, but they remain silent about those who do not make academic contributions.
10-16-2007, 01:38 PM
I don't actually give a *** what anyone on this forum thinks of me. I would just appreciate people sticking to the point. I do not aim to be liked. What my intellectual level or achievement is is irrelevant to the question at hand. I am not interested in arguing about whether or not I am worth anything. I don't think I fit the criteria for being worth something. Not many 19 year olds do. Time will tell if I have anything to offer. I do genuinely believe that a lot of people are better than me. I also believe a lot of people, or at least some are worse. I don't see that as particularly egotistical.
10-16-2007, 02:17 PM
To address your point a little more directly. It is perfectly possible that I am trying to manipulate people into coming onto my side by agreeing that I am valueless. The only thing I can say in my defence is that I have not employed any other tactic to endear myself to anyone on this forum, and I have no reason to start now. I believe in what I believe in, and there is no evidence anywhere that I have modified my comments to get the favour of other people.
Furthermore, notwithstanding your point, it would not help my case to do so. It merely means that people like Batman tell me I'd be happier believing in their ideology, and convinces them they'd be less happy and have less self esteem believing in mine, so it gives them no reason to want to change their views to mine.
Anyway, as I have already said, the question of my worth is irrelevant. It is irrelevant what i think of my worth, that isnt what I am trying to convince people of. What I am trying to convince people of is that some people are better than others, and that more intelligent people have a greater potential to better than less intelligent people. Where I fit in on that spectrum doesn't matter. I am simply trying to argue that there is such a spectrum, and that intelligence influences ones place on it.
Furthermore, notwithstanding your point, it would not help my case to do so. It merely means that people like Batman tell me I'd be happier believing in their ideology, and convinces them they'd be less happy and have less self esteem believing in mine, so it gives them no reason to want to change their views to mine.
Anyway, as I have already said, the question of my worth is irrelevant. It is irrelevant what i think of my worth, that isnt what I am trying to convince people of. What I am trying to convince people of is that some people are better than others, and that more intelligent people have a greater potential to better than less intelligent people. Where I fit in on that spectrum doesn't matter. I am simply trying to argue that there is such a spectrum, and that intelligence influences ones place on it.
10-16-2007, 05:06 PM
erkolos Wrote:
You have chosen your belief, and you have to take responsibility of your actions.
"More worthier" members of society should not have the "privilige" to make others feel bad, because it is to damage people who many of them want to do a contribution to others themselves, many do which is great even though they might need some help and many of them are being loved by others for who they are.
If you insult a defenseless man, both verbally and physically, you are simply being rude. And if his family were to watch, you would be in deep trouble.
Visualize.
"More worthier" members of society should not have the "privilige" to make others feel bad, because it is to damage people who many of them want to do a contribution to others themselves, many do which is great even though they might need some help and many of them are being loved by others for who they are.
If you insult a defenseless man, both verbally and physically, you are simply being rude. And if his family were to watch, you would be in deep trouble.
Visualize.
I don't see what this has to do with my argument. I am not interested in your advice about what will happen to me at the hands of other people if I stand up for my views. I have a moral right to do that and I will not allow others recourse to violent methods to inhibit my free speech.
My argument is not that such people contribute nothing to society. It is that they contribute less than they cost. And all members of society should have the privelige to hold and espouse whatever beliefs they like about others. I accept that my actions, thoughts, achievements and failings will induce certain opinions of me in others, and others actions, thoughts, achievements and failings will influence my own opinions of the,.