You've already assumed that anyone who would disagree is behaving illogically. The irony of this assumption is that this assumption itself is a logical fallacy.
When they really have nothing to back up their disagreement they actually are limiting their knowledge base and the actual ability to grow. I have presented my base for the Effect in connection with the actual behaviors.
So what have you presented here? I've already shown we can go in this circle forever. However, it does nothing to refute the actual behavior you guys are showing in advocating the candidates that really show ignorance, thus, you advocate ignorance and cannot realize it because you lack the skill to see such ignorance.
You've gone from begging the question to a nice mixture of hasty generalization and poisoning the well. Your premise is incorrect: I've never supported any of the candidates you mentioned. Now what?
Where did he make that assumption? Was it in what you quoted or somewhere else in the thread or a month ago somewhere? Could you be assuming he made an assumption. You say stuff but how you say it is very vague to me.
How can one judge if there is any irony anywhere when one doesn't know what the hell you are referring to? What assumption is a logical fallacy?
If you put the one thing you said along with the other you get a non sequitur that spins off into vapor ware. Try to argue with that!
Who knows anything about any candidate? Here in Illinois have a big governor race & U.S. Senate race, and all we get from the media is attack ad after attack ad after attack ad. They were having a big debate of the candidates to replace Obama's Senate seat, who watches it? No one. The only ones who care about the debate are the super-partisan hacks looking for sound-bytes to place in their new attack ads.
The whole damn system is so fucked up, and blaming one side over the other, which is what this thread is about, is not right and only compounds the problems.
Yes, it seems I've stumbled across your secret formula for thread diversion. If I post a lot of nonsense without saying anything of substance, or simply divert further and further with each post, I can then make any claim I want and no one can refute it. After all, I learned from the best and should be receiving my Elite Member pin in the mail any day now.
Or, you could simply read the first paragraph of the OP to find your answer for the former, then the post I quoted for the latter. This order was pretty clearly stated in the post you quoted, but again (silly me!) I am assuming literacy.
Attack ads are nothing new. They've been around for 200 years. People accused Jefferson of being a non-Christian. Others accused Jackson of adultery and his wife being a harlot.
What's new is the fact that the right has seen fit to race to the bottom of the barrel and pick the most loonie toons person they can find to run in each race. Instead of picking intelligence, they pick divisiveness. Instead of picking somebody who can get something good done, they pick divisiveness.
You can see it in some of the posts on this forum. People are running around saying "Yeah, I hope it's a Palin/O'Donnel 2012 ticket, that'll really piss the left off".
Really? Do you really want to pick your candidates on the basis of what will be the WORST for 50% of the country and what will piss them off the most?
That indicates a lack of logical skills. What's even more dismaying is that they aren't doing it at their own behest, they are doing it on behalf of the Koch brothers.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
LK, if there's any liquid in your mouth, turn away from the monitor.
ok.
I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. The Republicans have an opportunity here. One they've had before, and fucked up before. They need to be careful. They can't let their hatred for the left get in the way of common sense. If Palin runs and is nominated in 2012, it's proof the GOP has learned nothing, and we're going to be in deep shit again.
ok.
I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. The Republicans have an opportunity here. One they've had before, and fucked up before. They need to be careful. They can't let their hatred for the left get in the way of common sense. If Palin runs and is nominated in 2012, it's proof the GOP has learned nothing, and we're going to be in deep shit again.
And what position am I advocating? You assume much for someone who pretends to reason.
CycloWizard:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
Where did he make that assumption? Was it in what you quoted or somewhere else in the thread or a month ago somewhere? Could you be assuming he made an assumption. You say stuff but how you say it is very vague to me.
How can one judge if there is any irony anywhere when one doesn't know what the hell you are referring to? What assumption is a logical fallacy?
If you put the one thing you said along with the other you get a non sequitur that spins off into vapor ware. Try to argue with that!
CW: Yes, it seems I've stumbled across your secret formula for thread diversion. If I post a lot of nonsense without saying anything of substance, or simply divert further and further with each post, I can then make any claim I want and no one can refute it. After all, I learned from the best and should be receiving my Elite Member pin in the mail any day now.
M: Making noise isn't substantiating ideas but you did agree with LR that folk don't like elites. And if you learned from the best then you certainly didn't learn from me.
CW: Or, you could simply read the first paragraph of the OP to find your answer for the former,
M: This is the first paragraph of the OP:
LK: "This seems to be a very real problem. Too many on the right are too stupid to understand what their own intellectual shortfalls are. You see it on this forum every day. You see it in candidates such as Palin, O'Donnel, Angle...etc. You see these idiots shout from the rooftops without any logic, reason, or basis. They do it because they cannot understand they are stupid."
From this, according to you, we are supposed to see this:
"CW: You've already assumed that anyone who would disagree is behaving illogically."
Now I ask again, where in the first paragraph quote do we see this assumption. Isn't this a result of your literacy problem, the fact that you don't read? He wasn't referring to folk who disagree with him but folk who shout from the rooftops. Do you know what that means? It means folk who shout out of emotional excitement. Emotional excitement isn't logical and there was no logical fallacy.
CW: then the post I quoted for the latter. This order was pretty clearly stated in the post you quoted, but again (silly me!) I am assuming literacy. [/quote]
M: Not a good idea to assume what you can't deliver. Here, for example, what the hell are you referring to by the latter. Which of the several questions I asked after the first are you referring to. Why can't you just say what you are talking about? What is clear to you doesn't mean a damn thing. You don't seem to grasp simple communication. I tell you this and others have too. When you hear all the time you have a red nose you might give up on telling folk they need glasses and realize you're a clown.
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
Where did he make that assumption? Was it in what you quoted or somewhere else in the thread or a month ago somewhere? Could you be assuming he made an assumption. You say stuff but how you say it is very vague to me.
How can one judge if there is any irony anywhere when one doesn't know what the hell you are referring to? What assumption is a logical fallacy?
If you put the one thing you said along with the other you get a non sequitur that spins off into vapor ware. Try to argue with that!
CW: Yes, it seems I've stumbled across your secret formula for thread diversion. If I post a lot of nonsense without saying anything of substance, or simply divert further and further with each post, I can then make any claim I want and no one can refute it. After all, I learned from the best and should be receiving my Elite Member pin in the mail any day now.
M: Making noise isn't substantiating ideas but you did agree with LR that folk don't like elites. And if you learned from the best then you certainly didn't learn from me.
CW: Or, you could simply read the first paragraph of the OP to find your answer for the former,
M: This is the first paragraph of the OP:
LK: "This seems to be a very real problem. Too many on the right are too stupid to understand what their own intellectual shortfalls are. You see it on this forum every day. You see it in candidates such as Palin, O'Donnel, Angle...etc. You see these idiots shout from the rooftops without any logic, reason, or basis. They do it because they cannot understand they are stupid."
From this, according to you, we are supposed to see this:
"CW: You've already assumed that anyone who would disagree is behaving illogically."
Now I ask again, where in the first paragraph quote do we see this assumption. Isn't this a result of your literacy problem, the fact that you don't read? He wasn't referring to folk who disagree with him but folk who shout from the rooftops. Do you know what that means? It means folk who shout out of emotional excitement. Emotional excitement isn't logical and there was no logical fallacy.
CW: then the post I quoted for the latter. This order was pretty clearly stated in the post you quoted, but again (silly me!) I am assuming literacy. [/quote]
M: Not a good idea to assume what you can't deliver. Here, for example, what the hell are you referring to by the latter. Which of the several questions I asked after the first are you referring to. Why can't you just say what you are talking about? What is clear to you doesn't mean a damn thing. You don't seem to grasp simple communication. I tell you this and others have too. When you hear all the time you have a red nose you might give up on telling folk they need glasses and realize you're a clown.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
OUR position is unreasonable? Are we the ones dogmatically declaring with arrogant certainty that only idiotic fools could possibly be ideologically opposed to us?
Are you listening to yourself? Bigotry is an inability to imagine how you could possibly be wrong. I claim that you are this, to which you respond that only the truly stupid think you are bigoted.
You sound like a leftist on here who once said they were bigoted against bigotry. Any person claiming to be even remotely intellectual would see the idiotic contradiction in this statement.
Last edited:
Who the hell are you and what have you accomplished? You are just some nobody who posts on an obscure forum that reaches about .000000001 percent of surfers.
CrackRabbit
Lifer
- Mar 30, 2001
- 16,642
- 62
- 91
No need to wait for 2012. The Senate and House nominees now, along with their asinine "Pledge to America", show that the Republican party has learned nothing.
PricklyPete
Lifer
- Sep 17, 2002
- 14,582
- 162
- 106
While I agree to some extent, I find it funny that you think it is just a "right" thing. There are just as many stupid "lefties".
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
~Dunning and Kruger state that the cause of the effect is that incompetence at a certain skill also robs one of the ability to make an accurate judgement concerning that skill. ~
This stimulus is going to be a boom to the world,,,or something like that....
I am just guessing here, but I would say that the only thing that you know about the subject matter in the op is what you learned in the op.
This stimulus is going to be a boom to the world,,,or something like that....
I am just guessing here, but I would say that the only thing that you know about the subject matter in the op is what you learned in the op.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
For any party to be successful, it must have much appeal to average and stupid people because such people are a very large slice of the voting pie. In a democracy, you can't win without a lot of votes.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Liberals must be really, really smart to figure out that the group of people unable to provide for their own health care, income, education, child care, etc. are actually the smart ones. Yup, no way THAT could be selfish stupidity, clearly the party that demands that "someone else" provide all things for them are so super intelligent that they've evolved beyond self-sufficiency and competency to focus on recognizing intelligence. Soon liberals will be so smart that they'll have to have people to change their diapers.
Run, Forrest. Run! You're a smart Gump!
Dumbass.
Run, Forrest. Run! You're a smart Gump!
Dumbass.
Ohh come on now. There aren't nearly as many stupid "lefties". For fucks sake, the right has been on a suicide mission in the last 10 years to pick the most manipulatible, moronic, and extreme fucktards as possible to run the country. The brilliance the righties have shown in the likes of McCain (crash test pilot, coat-tale rider, adulterer, amoral asshole, rich prick), Palin (communications major, failed governor, quitter, failed family mother, hypocrite), Bachmann (straight up fucking whacko), and O'Donnell (I will stop you from having sex!).
Sure, Reid and Pelosi are two big morons and deserve to be fired, but they aren't straight-up fucking losers or whackos like the right has been able to assemble. Political monsters, yes, moronic monsters, no.
I appreciate that bamacre, we can disagree on nearly everything, but at least we can both see the horribly bad direction the right is going. They do have an awesome opportunity. If they showed me a great candidate, somebody that doesn't give two-fucks about wedge issues and really wants to right this ship, I'll leap for him/her. However, the fucking loonies they are forwarding are a travesty to intelligent government.
Please, the contextual validity of that statement should be made. I *HATE* TARP, I hated it from the beginning. Not because its goal, but because of its need. It should never have happened and I've said that for more than 7 years. In 2003 I was railing against the housing bubble and I continued to do so.
However, I will still say that the bailout will be a boon to the world, only because it aided in the stability of the capital markets and kept them open to clients. I saw, on the inside, how bad it got. I also saw how stable the markets started to get once the government intervened. I can tell you that companies, and the economy, would absolutely be in a far worse position now. We would have at least double the unemployment and would still have massively negative GDP.
Why? Because when the worst was happening, all banks would have gone out of business. This isn't some "hey, cool" thing. It's serious shit. Companies depend on the capital markets every fucking day to finance stuff, not because they need the financing, but because it's the most efficient. Had those credit lines been pulled, those bonds not been sold, that equity not been raised, there would have been a massive pullback. Not because there needed to be, but because they would not have had an option, because NOBODY was buying, not because they were bad credits, but because people would have lost faith.
For everything the capital markets are, it's really just faith that things tomorrow won't collapse. Remove that belief and you remove the entire system.
Ignoring that is actually the dunning kruger effect. This is why people like you fall victim to it, because you really don't know what you don't know. You lack the intelligence or skill of logic to look beyond the first or second order of effect.
What's laughable is that you and your ilk, think that you can invoke the Effect on me, thinking your smart for it. However, at every point in this thread I've shown you how stupid you are. Yet you throw it back on me, saying how my own lack of logic evidences the effect, my hubris does.
But when it comes down to it, your posts are self-evident. They are half-baked and moronic, they lack the needed analysis to know that you are wrong.
I've been wrong many times and have admitted it on here. However, with this, I am not. Instead of listening to somebody obviously your superior in this, you ignore me. This is the Dunning Kruger Effect.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter