What exactly is white-washing about this? In addition, I wasn't referring to the intellectually disabled.
Why is less intelligence inferior? I know far more unhappy and/or lonely geniuses.
@Smegskull you miss my point entirely. “People never like having a certain trait being called inferior, most especially intelligence”.What that means is, for any given trait (strength, intelligence, wealth, etc), people don’t like their traits being belittled or shown in a lesser light.There’s a difference between saying, “his intelligence is inferior” vs “he has low intelligence, so he is inferior”. The first statement judges his intelligence by measuring it relative to others. The second statement judges his human worth by measuring his intelligence.See the difference?You made a point about the second statement, which I never made.
Your question is very general. It seems my first interpretation was off.I’m afraid I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking, could you elaborate?
Why are you able to respond to him but unable to tell me how my question pertained to white-washing?
I did respond to you. I’m still confused what your question is
My mistake. I was writing that as you were writing yours, apparently. Well, for example, if had a question specifically for unathletic people, I could use the term "unathletic," which isn't very hurtful. "Unintelligent," however, can be particularly hurtful. I'm wondering if anyone knows a way in which the same idea can be conveyed, but in a non-hurtful manner.
No. My point applies to the first statement to. Inferior/superior are value measures less/more are quantitative measures. Calling someone or something less intelligent is an observation not a judgement (of either the person or the intelligence). To be insulted by this observation (which is the premise upon which your point is built) is as irrational as being offended that men on average are taller than women.
I think you may have misunderstood, attacking or hurting anyone is the opposite of what I want to do
Of course, maybe not intentionally, however if you seem to have trouble articulating yourself appropriately, naturally there seems to be a communication issue which can come across as offensive i. e. people think you take them for... well idiots really... thus hurting them. In any case without a clear example it is difficult to give a concise answer to the question. Apologies if it's not really what you were hoping for
No worries, I appreciate the input anyways. But I'm not sure how specific I can get. Let's say I had a question specifically for unathletic people. I could call them precisely that, "to those of you who may consider yourself to be unathletic, *insert question here*." But if I had a question for the intellectually less fortunate, how would I regard that quality in a kind and appropriate way?
Well a general word like 'to all non intellectual people' will come across very insulting for obvious reasons 😂 in this case it's probably better to define for yourself what you deem to be less intellectually fortunate... are you implying people that have no clue about history/are not reading books/don't know a thing about general culture/about science/monolinguals? So for instance if you believe that people who voted for Trump are less intelligent you could just say : To Trump devotees... If you believe that people who adore football may be intellectually less fortunate you could say - to all football lovers... And so on and so forth! There are always exceptions in any generalisation but I guess it gives you a general idea about the answers you will get from people you judge to be intellectually less fortunate according to your criteria
I see. Unfortunately my curiosities aren't that specific, I wanted to hear from people who intellectually struggle in general.
Well then I'm sorry you cannot be helped! Just sit outside somewhere/anywhere... considering the vast majority of the human population is not very bright, I am sure you will hear a lot more than you would have hoped for
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I feel as though we'd all be better off without ad hominem remarks.
Its only ad hominem if it isn't true. Do you know how a rocket engine works in detail? Can you perform brain surgery? Can you recite hamlet and give a synopsis of all its allegory and meaning? Take the sheer scope of human knowledge and honestly set aside what you actually know in detail without having to look it up. Its not much, and the smartest people who've ever lived would say the same. We're all ignorant.
For the record, I haven't said, implied, nor indicated that I consider myself to be vastly intelligent. 2.5 of the three things you mentioned pertain tp education, not fluid intelligence. Knowledge is not equivalent nor synonymous with intelligence. And yes, we are all ignorant. It's inevitable. I haven't expressed any sort of opposition to that notion. That does not refute any notions presented in my question. Perhaps before you want to let your emotions govern your judgement, you should ensure you properly understand what is being presented to you. Einstein was particularly intelligent, do you think he knew the intricacies of seal hunting? No? Do you mean to tell me he was ignorant to that and many other countless factors of life? Does that support the notion that Einstein was averagely intelligent? Of course not. Take your psuedo-wisdom elsewhere.
And for the record, an ad hominem attack is still an ad hominem attack whether it is true or not. I can disregard your stance and say your feet smell, and even if your feet truly do smell, it's an ad hominem attack.
Your question is about how to treat others. If einstein wanted to learn about furniture making , do think he'd treat an illiterate appalachian who makes beautiful furniture any different than any other teacher just because on paper he has a higher iq than him? No. Because change the subject to something you dont know anything about, and you're the student. If humility is "psuedo wisdom" to you than that just shows you think your better than others.
No, you're mistaken. I don't think Einstein would, nor would I. You're assuming I'm asking so that I can verbally classify those who I would supposedly deem intellectually inferior. I'm not. If you read the update or anything of my other responses, you should know that. And even if I hadn't clarified, this would still be an assumption, a faulty one, at that.
And it's not psuedo-wisdom because it's not true, it's psuedo-wisdom because it's common sense.
Even with the update that sounds exactly like what you're doing. If you're trying to get across something else you're doing a terrible job. But ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. As for common sense, wisdom when revealed always hits you like something you feel you knew all along but needed to be reminded of. Aesops fables are all common sense morals. The words of confucius are often terse and simple. They are also profoundly wise, which is why they're common sense in the world today.
Are you familiar with geometric skill graphs, by any chance? Such as: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/203647214378063545/
Didn't you mean "look in the mirror and say 'hi' ?" :) The great Will Rogers once said "Everybody's ignorant, only on different subjects". I know someone builds rocket engines, and I know someone who can INDEED recite Hamlet, but there has never been a human who could approach knowing the scope of all human knowledge. So yes, we're dumb all over, but some... more than others!
It's not fair and it's unfortunate, but Loveslongnails is right.
@loveslongnails lol yes😂 i must have hit one of the autofill things
It happens :) I think the conversation has gone off point, but I appreciate reading the input.
But be careful to not let females select otherwise you end up with dark traits individually with high intelligence fucking over society because there bitter there gonna die
I'd rather not. I don't have an issue with the intellectually less fortunate. At least not that aspect in particular. When paired with confrontational and argumentative inclinations, that's another story.
Then address them by name.
That's doesn't solve the issue. The issue is specifically regarding that aspect/quality. Calling them be their name does not do that.
Because if I have a question specifically for unathletic people, I can't just ask the question to everyone because the information I'd recieve would then be tainted.
I didn't do a great job at articulating myself but I meant when it is of direct relevance.
I see, I apologize for jumping to conclusions I think it is best to not say anything about that kind of thing if possible as it will most likely come off as rude no matter how you put it.
No worries, I entirely understand why it came across that way. And I think you're right, unfortunately.
Of course. Hence why I was hoping to find I way to word it in a way that isn't condescending and is well-recieved. I should have done a better job expressing my thoughts but I didn't mean addressing them randomly, only when it was of direct relevance like if you wanted to ask a question to individuals who feel as though they'd fit that criteria.
Why do you say that?
Because you are not qualified and have never worked in this area.
What area are you referring to?
Im was giving you an example i wasn't actualy saying that
Gotcha, thank you
Ok lol i was so confused like is this guy legit
Well we now have both sides making the same joke. Guess we're not all that different after all.
How many conservatives do you think made a similar joke on a similar post?
Do you feel better, now?
How astute of you
Do you think I'm a bad person?
No, I don't much care for people myself. I'm more of a sarcastic asshole. I was going to start your reply with, I'm trying to figure out how to kindley an appropriate way to address your question.