Kamille Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 So Kamille, was my response to you so unworthy that you can't even acknowledge it? No, I'm sorry. I thought my reply to MrLonelyOne encompassed the reply to your response, which explained the belief in more nuanced, easier to understand tones. For that I thank you. I guess I failed to recognize that I had the power to alienate anyone on the thread. Apologies. The OP, didn't just speak of having intelliegence, he spoke of having a high standard of ethics. From that perspective, isn't it even a possibility that a person who would commit acts of cruelty for their own amusement, be defined as a lesser human. From this definition it would be impossible to round up all cruel people and kill them, because in the process you would become a cruel person, and therefore need to be rounded up and killed. I do not believe anyone but sociopaths kill for amusement. People kill because of their beliefs, and those beliefs generally center around the belief that another segment of humanity is "lesser" than their own selves. Wars, genocide, social marginalization and poverty kill a great many more people than sociopaths do. The difference is that Wars, genocide, social marginalization and poverty are socially sanctioned.
Happy Finally Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Adams was good friends with Thomas Jefferson who wrote the declaration of independence. “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” --Thomas Jefferson Adams presided over a country that not only had slaves but in most states suffrage, for those of you in Rio Linda that means voting rights, were only for those white males who owned property and could read. He wasn't for Joe Schmoe by any means. But then you should know that since you are so damm smart right? And since you brought up Jefferson and Adams you would know that they were complete opposites right?. I mean, a genius like you should know that Jefferson was a big opponent of Alexander Hamilton (he wrote the Federalists Papers and favored a strong Central Government) and was a major influence on President Adams and his presidency. You see Adams supported state rights but also believed as Hamilton, that the Central government needed more power. I think you have Adams and James Madison (Thomas Jefferson's good friend and political side kick) mixed up.
Mrlonelyone Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Im pretty sure Hitler and Stalin and Ghenghis Kahn .... etc all fit the definition of being sociopaths.
Mrlonelyone Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Happy What does what you are doing have to do with the price of tea in China. I related that quote to the topic. Your off on a tangent.
Happy Finally Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 If you are inferring from said quote above, that he meant they are lower due solely to their intellectual capacity, i could read said quote to mean they are lower, because they don't behave in an ethical evolved way. My point is that he refers to those people who differ from him, whether it be intellectually or ethically, are lower mammals. Which stance you take is irrelevant because either way he still calls other lower mammals.
Kamille Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Im pretty sure Hitler and Stalin and Ghenghis Kahn .... etc all fit the definition of being sociopaths. That is actually a matter of debate in political theory. It is easy to call them sociopaths, and "se laver les mains de tout ce sang" (Wash our hands of all that blood). What is harder is understanding the social processes whereby these people came to be in power, and how entire nations felt justified in deporting, marginalizing, excluding and killing segments of population. That's precisely where the theory of "lesser people" fails. It doesn't explain anything. It justifies it: since humans are and will always be unequal, than there would be no hope for peace.
Happy Finally Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Happy What does what you are doing have to do with the price of tea in China. I related that quote to the topic. Your off on a tangent . Was it not you that brought John Adams into the conversation? It surely wasn't me. I just pointed out how you may have John mixed up with James Monroe..I mean both of their first names begin with J.
Mrlonelyone Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 That's not what he said at all Happy. You misinterpreted him because he communicated in quite simple language a concept that you just can't or won't understand. Let me break it down for you.... Have you seen the movie Planet of the Apes? Sure you have. Would you if trapped on the planet try to be like the other Apes? Of course not. You would try to get back to Earth until you saw that the planet of the Apes was Earth... Now I am not calling the average person an "ape". Neither is the OP. What we are both getting at now.. is that there are some people who conduct themselves based purely on instinct, expediency, and emotion with no higher thought. In other words they react like lower mammals. An alarming number of those people male and female are in the dating world. I ask again Let me ask you all this. If you accept that there exist people who are mentally deficient then why deny that it's possible for people to exist who are just as much mentally advanced?
Happy Finally Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 That is actually a matter of debate in political theory. It is easy to call them sociopaths, and "se laver les mains de tout ce sang" (Wash our hands of all that blood). What is harder is understanding the social processes whereby these people came to be in power, and how entire nations felt justified in deporting, marginalizing, excluding and killing segments of population. That's precisely where the theory of "lesser people" fails. It doesn't explain anything. It justifies it: since humans are and will always be unequal, than there would be no hope for peace. Also comparing those individuals (different segments in history, different morals encompassed the spectrum of man at those different times) is just misguided and similar to comparing apples to oranges. The mental make up of man has evolved over the centuries, as well as ethics, morals and what is acceptable to keep you bloodline going. When GK was alive...it was common for herds of nomads to wonder the lands and engulf people who were weaker than themselves. This was how they spread their seed. GK wasn't the only one doing it at the time, he was just the best at it. There were multiple nomadic herds moving about the land doing the same thing. Humans still lived by the survival of the fittest mentality. Man has come along way by the time Hitler took power and those methods were unacceptable. It's called evolution. And I think Kamile is 100% spot on.
Kamille Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 That's not what he said at all Happy. You misinterpreted him because he communicated in quite simple language a concept that you just can't or won't understand. Let me break it down for you.... Have you seen the movie Planet of the Apes? Sure you have. Would you if trapped on the planet try to be like the other Apes? Of course not. You would try to get back to Earth until you saw that the planet of the Apes was Earth... Now I am not calling the average person an "ape". Neither is the OP. What we are both getting at now.. is that there are some people who conduct themselves based purely on instinct, expediency, and emotion with no higher thought. In other words they react like lower mammals. An alarming number of those people male and female are in the dating world. I ask again Let me ask you all this. If you accept that there exist people who are mentally deficient then why deny that it's possible for people to exist who are just as much mentally advanced? Who's going to decide who are those mentally advanced people? FYI, there's a whole field of study dedicated to ability studies, where a mental ability isn't based on a normative understanding of intelligence, the one you and CP believe in. And I notice, Mr Lonelyone, that you have consistently tried to use a form of rhetoric, where you imply that your interlocutor is either "not smart enough" to understand or "reacting too emotionally" to understand the finesse of your argument. Such disqualifying strategies make for cyclical debates and poor dialogue. So tell me this: are you here to win the argument or for an exchange of ideas?
Disillusioned Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Experienced daters of lower IQ need not respond. Well, just by posting that, you're slamming the door on 95% potential respondents. Low IQ = more pleasure from casual sex. You're 35... and you still believe geniuses exist? Brother, there are no such things. There are only people who want to learn and people who don't. BTW I'm 43 and am told my IQ is 124... or at least until my Alzheimer's kicks it.
Mrlonelyone Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Kamille So let me ask you ... Objectively is someone like Forrest Gump as smart as Stephen Hawking? I am not talking about who's the better human being... just raw brain power who's smarter? As for what I seem to imply about you not getting what the OP meant. Can you understand that you took him the wrong way and accept that I had to simplify it for you? Or has your education and job made you too good to listen to a mere student?
Happy Finally Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 That's not what he said at all Happy. You misinterpreted him because he communicated in quite simple language a concept that you just can't or won't understand. You are correct. Being a lower mammal my brain just can't comprehend the simple language he used. If I was a genius I would extrapolate the true meaning of his words from thin air. I would give them meaning, other than what they really mean by the way he uses them. Because all geniuses mean something other than what they are really writing. And your example of the Planet of the Apes is a bad one because the Apes were the humans equals when it came to everything. So it hold no relevant basis to back up what CPF says...his words are pretty clear and self evident. You just try to read into them because you, yourself consider yourself more intelligent than "lower mammals".
Eeyore79 Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Right, and I guess my core question (to the intended audience) was twofold: - Have you met any women who aren't like this, and to what extent, i.e. what's the best-case scenario I can hope for - How have you personally dealt with "lowering yourself" to conform to this base standard of behavior just to get what you want I'm an intelligent woman, and I'm also shy and quiet, don't have casual sex or ONS, don't drink heavily, or behave in a loud and obnoxious manner. I realize that the majority of people differ from me on one or more of those counts, but unlike you I don't condemn them or think less of them for it. Live and let live, I say. I just choose to date people who are similar to me, and while they're in the minority there are nevertheless a good few of them around. To answer your questions: Yes, there are some women of the type you seek, but they're in the minority and tend to be found in intellectual occupations. No, I haven't "lowered" myself to find love; I date within the minority who match my intellectual and ethical ideals. A lot of people don't care about the things I find important, and instead they place more weight on other factors which I personally don't care about. That's fine; each to his own. Finally: You can't go around feeling superior and condemning people for being less smart than you. My mom always said I was lucky to be gifted and I should try to help others who hadn't received the same gift, not look down on them. Also I fully realize that other people have gifts I don't have (e.g. art, music, sports) and having a different gift doesn't make me better or worse than them. It's ok to want to date a similar type of person who has stuff in common and understands you, but you can't look down on people just because their strengths are different to yours.
Mrlonelyone Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 @ happy If I was like you I would avoid the simple question If you belive that it's possible for mentally defficent people to exist. People who have the mental functioning of a 7 year old for their whole lives.... Then why isn't it equally possible for people who are simply more endowed with sheer brain power to exist? Not better people...just people who can pull together the disparate strings of information.... What thin air did Special Relativity come from? Such is the power of the brain.
Happy Finally Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Who's going to decide who are those mentally advanced people? FYI, there's a whole field of study dedicated to ability studies, where a mental ability isn't based on a normative understanding of intelligence, the one you and CP believe in. And I notice, Mr Lonelyone, that you have consistently tried to use a form of rhetoric, where you imply that your interlocutor is either "not smart enough" to understand or "reacting too emotionally" to understand the finesse of your argument. Such disqualifying strategies make for cyclical debates and poor dialogue. So tell me this: are you here to win the argument or for an exchange of ideas? Kamile, I noticed the same thing but the beer is kicking in. You know us lower mammals indulge ourselves with hops and barley because our two brain cells need a kick start.
Kamille Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Kamille So let me ask you ... Objectively is someone like Forrest Gump as smart as Stephen Hawking? I am not a specialist of ability studies, but the creative capacities of one in now way diminish the dignity of the other. Hawking is smarter because as a society we believe in his form of intelligence. But there intelligence isn't a biological construct - it's social capital. And there is no reason to think that intelligence and morality are linked. High IQ people can have poor ethics, while people who's scores are average can be quite ethical. As for what I seem to imply about you not getting what the OP meant. Can you understand that you took him the wrong way and accept that I had to simplify it for you? No, I do not accept it, and it has nothing to do with my being arrogant because of whatever title I might have. You did not have to simplify anything for me. You, the OP and I are having a conversation because we view the world differently. Because of this difference in point of view, we are engaging in a dialogue about conflicting ideas. I have raised a few objections to the idea that there are lesser people, none of which you have actually engaged with, other than to tell me I don't understand. I have asked you questions to try and understand what you felt I did not understand, and often time, they went unanswered. When you did answer, I countered your arguments. Generally, you ignored my counter-arguments. So tell me. If we admit that some people are more mentally advance than others, what criteria are we going to use to decide who those people are? And since we should separate intelligence and ethics, the question is the same on that front: If we admit that some people have a higher grasp of ethics than others. what criteria are we going to use to decide who those people are?
Happy Finally Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 @ happy If I was like you I would avoid the simple question If you belive that it's possible for mentally defficent people to exist. People who have the mental functioning of a 7 year old for their whole lives.... Then why isn't it equally possible for people who are simply more endowed with sheer brain power to exist? Not better people...just people who can pull together the disparate strings of information.... What thin air did Special Relativity come from? Such is the power of the brain. The problem....there were no disparate pieces of information. There was only a comment made by a man who put himself above other because he feels his supposed intellect makes him so. Relativity and believing you can not find your equivalent among lower mammals because your intellect is so high are two completely different items. In person people like you look down upon me because I have muscles, tats and don't dress like a nerd. You would see me and make judgments on those observations (most people do, it's only human). The difference between you and a non genius; the non genius at least admits they are discriminating. You on the other hand would come up with an faux intellectual excuse, mainly stating your vast intelligence gives you the right to judge people in that manner.
Kamille Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Kamile, I noticed the same thing but the beer is kicking in. You know us lower mammals indulge ourselves with hops and barley because our two brain cells need a kick start. Good idea. Off to pour myself a glass of wine!
Scottdmw Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Right, and I guess my core question (to the intended audience) was twofold: - Have you met any women who aren't like this, and to what extent, i.e. what's the best-case scenario I can hope for - How have you personally dealt with "lowering yourself" to conform to this base standard of behavior just to get what you want In your case you seem to be saying "all women are like this" and that you have chosen to participate in this base behavior to get what you want, and apparently that you find it to have been worth it. I don't feel like I've had to “lower myself”. Several points on this. There are women who are different. I've met and dated a few. The thing is, for me, there is often a difference between the kind of woman I would want to have an intellectual conversation with and the kind of woman I'm attracted to. It's not that I don't like intelligence, but I'm honestly just not sure it makes me feel attracted to a woman, at least not that much. I tried it for a year dating one particular woman who was extremely bright, intellectual, worked as an electrical engineer, liked anime, lots of interests in common, etc., but by the end of the year I realized I just didn't really have a compelling desire to be with her. For myself I've just accepted the fact that I'm also attracted to what I'm attracted to. So, for me, dating a woman that I'm attracted to and who is attracted to me for what you might describe as “base” reasons is not anything bad. I look at it as simply accepting reality the way it is. Yes, in an ideal world we could wish it was different. We could imagine a world where people are attracted to each other for their intelligence a lot more than anything else. But, if the real world isn't that way does it help to rage against it? If you however truly are attracted to a woman based on intelligence, and you want a woman who will want you for the same reason, I think there are a few out there probably. Whether you can find one that you will click with I can't say. Your best bet would probably be specific interest groups, or better yet get into a profession that attracts that kind of woman. A lot of them aren't found very often outside of home, school, and job. Another thing you might try is a woman from another culture. Sometimes just because the other culture is enough different than ours it can help certain guys get past their blocks. I have for example dated a woman from Japan, and my impression was that she was refreshingly free of a lot of the games people play in the US. I do find it worth it dating women of average intelligence. They may not say anything very profound, but if I want profound I can go talk to someone else. If you've never been in a relationship it's hard to explain how fulfilling it can be. The sex is only one part of that. I”ve found showing a woman a good time to be more emotionally fulfilling than just about anything else. Remember that much as we all might like to be beings of pure intellect or something like that, the reality is that we are in essentially animal bodies. We are programmed by our DNA to want certain things, and again I'm not just talking about sex but about the whole male-female relationship (and the parent-child relationship for that matter). You can choose to not do those things, but it's kind of analogous to spending your life never eating foods with sweet flavors. You have receptors on your tongue that are specifically designed to taste those flavors. If you don't eat those foods you'll never know what that's like.
Mrlonelyone Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Kamile your not dealing honestly. Let me make it plainer for you. Is everyone alive now smarter than say.... Homo Erectus was? Or do we only think we are because of our society? :roll:
Happy Finally Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Kamile your not dealing honestly. Let me make it plainer for you. Is everyone alive now smarter than say.... Homo Erectus was? Or do we only think we are because of our society? :roll: Kamile, He is making it even simpler for your feeble mind. :laugh:
Mrlonelyone Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 She's complicating it with a bunch of new age sounding mumbo jumbo where there exist a society where Stephen Hawking and people like him would be considered dumber than Forrest Gump. Give me a ****ing break.
Happy Finally Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Kamile your not dealing honestly. Let me make it plainer for you. Is everyone alive now smarter than say.... Homo Erectus was? Or do we only think we are because of our society? :roll: Now isn't that a relative question? People inject themselves with heroin until they die. Would homo eructus do that? Probably not. So your question is relative.
Kamille Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Kamile your not dealing honestly. Let me make it plainer for you. Is everyone alive now smarter than say.... Homo Erectus was? Or do we only think we are because of our society? :roll: I fail to see how I am engaging in a dishonest way. I will grant you the benefit of the doubt. Could you explain how I am not dealing honestly? The answer to that last question is quite easy for me: we only think we are smarter than homo erectus because of our society. Are you smarter than a lion?
Recommended Posts