A good answer; I would posit that being "intellectually lazy" is correctly the problem, but is that not simply another term for "stupid?" I put them in the same category. If willful ignorance isn't stupidity, what is?
"Stupid" - stupidity is something different despite the common root of the words - suggests an incapacity, either physical or psychological, to reason. Lazy suggests an unwillingness, either habitual or deliberate, to work or act. They are very different things.What you tend to see is laziness, perhaps reinforced by the technologies which have been, after all, developed to make things easier and save time. Suffice to say, the misuse of a tool can often make a problem it was meant to cure worse instead of better.In short, no, there is not an equivalence. Though perhaps there may appear to be a certain superficial similarity in effect.
P. S. Thank you for your kind compliment.
Sure but then the underlying suggestion-- a *literal inability to learn,* or at least to learn as much as some other individuals-- is that the term "stupid" should only be reserved then for people who are learning disabled, mentally retarded, heavily autistic, etc. Is that fair? I think not.
No, that is why you should not call a mentally disabled person stupid. There are extraneous factors at work that define the condition and negate the definition. Though it is worth noting that, once upon a time, the mentally and physically disabled were referred to as - as a medical matter - "idiots," or "stupid."It was only as the term came to be seen as an epithet that it was withdrawn from application to the mentally challenged. The medical application actually came before the common usage and common usage changed it.
Right, but what I'm saying is that you are arguing that a literal inability to learn should be the only way we classify the term, as opposed to willful ignorance.
Sorry for the delayed reply.Here is the problem: See the following headline: thesaleshunter.com/.../This was just picked at random and I could have shown other examples. The problem with your equivalence is that if "stupid" and "lazy" are equivalent, then any sentence that uses that combination of words is merely repeating itself. It would be like writing "Why being stupid and stupid makes me so smart." Alternatively "why being lazy and lazy makes me so smart." There is a distinction - nuanced perhaps - that your usage failed to take into account.Hope that helps and again, sorry for the delayed reply.
Yeah... I feel hard-pressed to see how other countries could compare at all to the stupidity present in America. And we tell ourselves that we're the greatest country in the world.
Yeah. We proved we were pretty stupid when we elected Obama. I don't blame you for thinking that.Glad we are over that now.
@GigiMary I hope you voted for "pretty stupid." It only seems fair, based on your comment.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
If everyone is smart then no one is. If everyone is stupid, no one is.
I understand what you're saying here, and it isn't true. Intelligence isn't about comparisons to other people. If everyone is dumb, everyone is dumb; the Dark Ages were called so for a reason, mostly because almost everyone was dumb and meaningful scientific discovery was eschewed as heresy or whatever.In other contexts that are about winning and losing, yes, someone being a winner means by definition that someone else has to be a loser, but in my opinion it doesn't make sense to look at learning and intelligence as a zero-sum game.
That's true. It's just that the question could be seen different ways.
I suppose so.
Awww what a nice answer, SM.
@AmandaYVR Cheers! Well, I don't like to hold a monopoly on what "smart" means. I think that view prevents us from recognizing competence in the widest range of individuals. Even if we define it as related to learning capacity, even an athlete who is borderline illiterate might be able to learn motions and how to move their bodies very quickly in a way that makes the brightest scientist seem mentally handicapped in comparison when it comes to learning to develop the same athletic capabilities. So I prefer to keep the notion of "smart" as broad and as widely-encompassing as possible. I find a whole lot more to admire in individuals that way.
Indeed, the way questions are asked matters greatly.
I wrote that with a comment from the moron @BeMuse in mind, which I have since removed because he decided to block me. Blocking someone who disagrees with you means you're stupid.
Oh, I'm only too familiar with these bigots. I block them too. They're subhumans, who shouldn't be cared about.
I would encourage you to not block anyone who isn't actually spamming or whatever; it makes us no better or different than they are. Though I certainly understand the impulse.
I meant i block subhumans, who blocked me first. Especially if it happens after a disagreement.Or those morons, who throw insults around without being helpful - those are blocked too.
True story: There's Aphrodite here, who asked me to answer her question about why men make women to become gold diggers. I gave her my honest and respectful thoughts in detail. I attempted to help her.She didn't like it, Called me names, blocked me and removed my opinion.So i blocked her right back.Whatever. She's a misogynistic bitch anyway.
Yeah she's pretty stupid.
Also a reason to block degenerates like her, so i won't even see her opinion in my questions. She and her opinions do not matter to me.
I would argue that despite those tragic two individuals, there are other more qualitative measures. But yes... it's clear that without most people in those countries being stupid, they wouldn't be where they are.
... Yes... I know that I used the word "pretty."... is English not your first language? Serious question.
That was a joke. I know what the question is.
Um... not compared to anything. I dunno what you mean.
Common sense isn't common to the majority
Is who me.
The dude in your pic?
Nope. Just some Internet rando that I look similar to.