You know what really pisses me off? People who are ignorant and enjoy it.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

A man is in a library' date=' and he picks up a book on physics, he says, "I already know enough about physics", and puts it down. He walks around the library some more, and picks up a book on history, he says "I already know enough about history", and puts it down. This goes on for a while, and finally, one of the workers in the library, who has been watching him doing this says "why are leaving all the books behind? Do you think you know everything?", the man responds, "I don't need to know everything, I just need to know enough".

Chaos Pudding, you seem to be annoyed, if not angry, and those who you deem have no interest in knowledge, but yet, your determinant for interest is an internal motivation to learn more constantly. Not everyone has that, and expecting everyone to is incredibly unrealistic. There are those who know a large amount of information on physics, there are those who know history, but trying to say they are ignorant, without a determinant that takes into account existing knowledge, without taking into account the things a person focuses on, the studies they do in fact take part in, is ignorant in itself.

I would suggest you spend a bit less time caring about other people's intellect, and a bit more time caring about yours.

[/quote']

 

I'm not talking about people who don't learn everything they can, though they should. I'm talking about those people who don't want to learn anything, and pride themselves on that fact. Those people disgust me.

---

While I agree with you Pudding' date=' I think that most people prefer ignorance, because they are "happy."

[/quote']

 

I'd, personally, rather be happy than intelligent.

 

Why does it need to be mutually exclusive? That's what I'm getting at. Why is it that people think we can't be knowledgeable (which isn't the same as intelligent) and happy? There isn't a reason. People are just lazy and make up excuses like, "I'm happier not knowing" rather than take the time to find it out.

 

I'm just saying if the two are exclusive, I would choose happiness.

 

I'll agree that happiness and knowledge have nothing to do with each other, however.

 

That's like saying that you would chose breathing over being able to fly. Totally pointless in the scope of the topic. We aren't talking about stupid hypotheticals, we're talking about the real world, where real people seem to claim that knowledge and happiness are mutually exclusive. And that pisses me off.

 

Seeing as this appears to be aimed at religion (not saying that it necessarily is), I'll go ahead and say that Religion does make these two mutually exclusive in a lot of situations. For example, somebody is a depressed alcoholic, but turns to God to find happiness. Later in life, after God/religion being his only meaning in life, he comes to realize that there is no God and his life has been a complete waste. Along with this, he realizes that whatever he does do with his life is utterly pointless... considering the fact he will just stop existing and everything he's done will be forgotten.

 

In this situation, I would rather be happy believing in God than hopeless believing in nothing.

 

That's all I'm saying.

 

He won't just "stop existing". Everything that he was will live on until the very end of the universe. Every atom that made up him had been used before in countless ways and will be used again in countless ways. A part of him will always live on in the cosmos.

 

As for whatever he does with his life being pointless because he will be forgotten: bull. He would at least be remembered by those that loved him.

 

And in any case, believing in a higher power is not mutually exclusive with seeking knowledge about the world. Why it always has to end up being that way I'll never know, because there isn't anything that makes it so, as long as you're smart and realize that quite a lot of holy books aren't meant to be taken literally.

 

He will stop existing. His life will be over, his brain will be dead, his consciousness will be gone. And his family will also meet this fate.

 

And, to be blunt, Religion is mutually exclusive from certain knowledge about the world. For example, the world could have never flooded over completely because there isn't enough water. The concept of Hell/heaven doesn't make any sense, seeing as God (being omniscient) would have known our fate before our existence, meaning he would have made us just to put us in hell/heaven. etc...

 

All I'm saying is that some people are happier without knowledge. If their lack of knowledge makes them happy, why should they change? Happiness is the point of life. Without happiness, life is pointless.

 

It's all about perspective, isn't it? We can't define what makes us us, either our consciousness or our "soul", so we don't know what will happen to us when we "die". It all matters on how we deal with that fact, that we simply don't know what happens after the end. Some people use religion, which is a perfectly viable option. Others just don't think about it, because they feel that it really doesn't matter what happens after, only that they live a good life now. No matter what your view, it won't contradict science, because science can't go that far.

 

And you missed the part where I said that it isn't mutually exclusive if you understand that many parts of holy works aren't supposed to be taken literally. Not that that stops a whole slew of people from doing so, but that's another topic.

 

Those people that are supposedly happier without knowledge don't know that they would be happier, since one can't unknow something to see how it's like. Therefor, those people are either scared or lazy.

[Willieh]

For the love of Christ... Spoilers!

 

Done. And lol @ awesome66 trying to be intelligent.

 

I know I'm not intelligent' date=' I know that I do not know very much. I'm just saying what I think, without regard for what you or anyone else on this site think of me for thinking so. Why would I try to be intelligent for people I will never meet? For all you know, I could be every bit as intelligent as you.

[/quote']

 

What you said would be classified as "Preaching to the Choir". Ie: Holding no value to this discussion.

 

What you said would be classified as "Being a Dick Face." Ie: Having a dick for a face.

[Brushfire]

For the love of Christ... Spoilers!

 

Done. And lol @ awesome66 trying to be intelligent.

 

I know I'm not intelligent' date=' I know that I do not know very much. I'm just saying what I think, without regard for what you or anyone else on this site think of me for thinking so. Why would I try to be intelligent for people I will never meet? For all you know, I could be every bit as intelligent as you.

[/quote']

 

What you said would be classified as "Preaching to the Choir". Ie: Holding no value to this discussion.

 

What you said would be classified as "Being a Dick Face." Ie: Having a dick for a face.

 

What you said would be classified as "Idiotic rebuttal". Ie: A rebuttal that is idiotic and serves no purpose.

[Willieh]

For the love of Christ... Spoilers!

 

Done. And lol @ awesome66 trying to be intelligent.

 

I know I'm not intelligent' date=' I know that I do not know very much. I'm just saying what I think, without regard for what you or anyone else on this site think of me for thinking so. Why would I try to be intelligent for people I will never meet? For all you know, I could be every bit as intelligent as you.

[/quote']

 

What you said would be classified as "Preaching to the Choir". Ie: Holding no value to this discussion.

 

What you said would be classified as "Being a Dick Face." Ie: Having a dick for a face.

 

What you said would be classified as "Idiotic rebuttal". Ie: A rebuttal that is idiotic and serves no purpose.

 

What you said would be classified as "Failure at being witty." Ie: Trying to be witty, but failing miserably.

[Brushfire]

For the love of Christ... Spoilers!

 

Done. And lol @ awesome66 trying to be intelligent.

 

I know I'm not intelligent' date=' I know that I do not know very much. I'm just saying what I think, without regard for what you or anyone else on this site think of me for thinking so. Why would I try to be intelligent for people I will never meet? For all you know, I could be every bit as intelligent as you.

[/quote']

 

What you said would be classified as "Preaching to the Choir". Ie: Holding no value to this discussion.

 

What you said would be classified as "Being a Dick Face." Ie: Having a dick for a face.

 

What you said would be classified as "Idiotic rebuttal". Ie: A rebuttal that is idiotic and serves no purpose.

 

What you said would be classified as "Failure at being witty." Ie: Trying to be witty, but failing miserably.

 

What you said would be classified as "Failure to comprehend or properly understand the post". Ie: What you just did, as that was not what I was trying to do.

[Fenrisúlfr]

@Chaos Pudding:

But why should they disgust you? They don't harm you, they don't decrease the quality of your life, they only exist in a way which you yourself would not exist. It's elitist and narrow minded to expect all people to live up to your standards of self-motivation. There are those people who like the fact that they don't know much, people who do not care to know about metaphysics, epistemology, chemistry, music theory, and the thousands of other topics open for study, that doesn't make them bad people, it doesn't worsen their morality, or anything about them, it just means that they are content to live out their life the way they are.

Having such an issue with it is truly ridiculous, there's no reason to, and the only thing that comes out of it is you yourself sacrificing some of your own happiness in anger against those who have theirs.

[BehindTheMask]

For the love of Christ... Spoilers!

 

Done. And lol @ awesome66 trying to be intelligent.

 

I know I'm not intelligent' date=' I know that I do not know very much. I'm just saying what I think, without regard for what you or anyone else on this site think of me for thinking so. Why would I try to be intelligent for people I will never meet? For all you know, I could be every bit as intelligent as you.

[/quote']

 

What you said would be classified as "Preaching to the Choir". Ie: Holding no value to this discussion.

 

What you said would be classified as "Being a Dick Face." Ie: Having a dick for a face.

 

What you said would be classified as "Idiotic rebuttal". Ie: A rebuttal that is idiotic and serves no purpose.

 

What you said would be classified as "Idiotic rebuttal". Ie: A rebuttal that is idiotic and serves no purpose.

 

On topic:

 

We need to get rid of idiots, regardless of ignorance.

[Brushfire]

What you said would be classified as "Idiotic rebuttal". Ie: A rebuttal that is idiotic and serves no purpose.

 

It wasn't a rebuttal, I was stating that his rebuttal to Icy was as pointless as Icy's was in the first place.

 

On topic: I agree with Ben.

[Willieh]

[spoiler=QUOTES LOLZ]

For the love of Christ... Spoilers!

 

Done. And lol @ awesome66 trying to be intelligent.

 

I know I'm not intelligent' date=' I know that I do not know very much. I'm just saying what I think, without regard for what you or anyone else on this site think of me for thinking so. Why would I try to be intelligent for people I will never meet? For all you know, I could be every bit as intelligent as you.

[/quote']

 

What you said would be classified as "Preaching to the Choir". Ie: Holding no value to this discussion.

 

What you said would be classified as "Being a Dick Face." Ie: Having a dick for a face.

 

What you said would be classified as "Idiotic rebuttal". Ie: A rebuttal that is idiotic and serves no purpose.

 

What you said would be classified as "Failure at being witty." Ie: Trying to be witty, but failing miserably.

 

What you said would be classified as "Failure to comprehend or properly understand the post". Ie: What you just did, as that was not what I was trying to do.

 

 

What were you trying to do then?

 

Enlighten me. Because my "rebuttal" clearly wasn't idiotic, and clearly did serve a purpose.

[Brushfire]

What were you trying to do then?

 

Enlighten me. Because my "rebuttal" clearly wasn't idiotic' date=' and [i']clearly[/i] did serve a purpose.

 

It wasn't a rebuttal' date=' I was stating that his rebuttal to Icy was as pointless as Icy's was in the first place.

[/quote']

 

It was idiotic, as it did nothing but sink to Icy's level on the matter, you could have easily just stayed silent about it. So what was the purpose exactly? To troll Icy?

[Guest JoshIcy]

[spoiler=QUOTES LOLZ]

For the love of Christ... Spoilers!

 

Done. And lol @ awesome66 trying to be intelligent.

 

I know I'm not intelligent' date=' I know that I do not know very much. I'm just saying what I think, without regard for what you or anyone else on this site think of me for thinking so. Why would I try to be intelligent for people I will never meet? For all you know, I could be every bit as intelligent as you.

[/quote']

 

What you said would be classified as "Preaching to the Choir". Ie: Holding no value to this discussion.

 

What you said would be classified as "Being a Dick Face." Ie: Having a dick for a face.

 

What you said would be classified as "Idiotic rebuttal". Ie: A rebuttal that is idiotic and serves no purpose.

 

What you said would be classified as "Failure at being witty." Ie: Trying to be witty, but failing miserably.

 

What you said would be classified as "Failure to comprehend or properly understand the post". Ie: What you just did, as that was not what I was trying to do.

 

 

What were you trying to do then?

 

Enlighten me. Because my "rebuttal" clearly wasn't idiotic, and clearly did serve a purpose.

 

Enough. I understood what you meant. And I get what Brushfire is getting at. I was being a twat and he didn't like your reply. Kay? 'Nuff.

[Willieh]

[spoiler=QUOTES LOLZ]

For the love of Christ... Spoilers!

 

Done. And lol @ awesome66 trying to be intelligent.

 

I know I'm not intelligent' date=' I know that I do not know very much. I'm just saying what I think, without regard for what you or anyone else on this site think of me for thinking so. Why would I try to be intelligent for people I will never meet? For all you know, I could be every bit as intelligent as you.

[/quote']

 

What you said would be classified as "Preaching to the Choir". Ie: Holding no value to this discussion.

 

What you said would be classified as "Being a Dick Face." Ie: Having a dick for a face.

 

What you said would be classified as "Idiotic rebuttal". Ie: A rebuttal that is idiotic and serves no purpose.

 

What you said would be classified as "Failure at being witty." Ie: Trying to be witty, but failing miserably.

 

What you said would be classified as "Failure to comprehend or properly understand the post". Ie: What you just did, as that was not what I was trying to do.

 

 

What were you trying to do then?

 

Enlighten me. Because my "rebuttal" clearly wasn't idiotic, and clearly did serve a purpose.

 

Enough. I understood what you meant. And I get what Brushfire is getting at. I was being a twat and he didn't like your reply. Kay? 'Nuff.

 

Thanks. ^ ^

---

 

What were you trying to do then?

 

Enlighten me. Because my "rebuttal" clearly wasn't idiotic' date=' and [i']clearly[/i] did serve a purpose.

 

It wasn't a rebuttal' date=' I was stating that his rebuttal to Icy was as pointless as Icy's was in the first place.

[/quote']

 

It was idiotic, as it did nothing but sink to Icy's level on the matter, you could have easily just stayed silent about it. So what was the purpose exactly? To troll Icy?

 

See Icy's post.

[BehindTheMask]

What you said would be classified as "Idiotic rebuttal". Ie: A rebuttal that is idiotic and serves no purpose.

 

It wasn't a rebuttal' date=' I was stating that his rebuttal to Icy was as pointless as Icy's was in the first place.

 

On topic: I agree with Ben.

[/quote']

 

Oh, here I was thinking that, you know, quoting someone and telling them they are an idiot would be sufficient as a rebuttal, but doing so would point out the repliers idiocy.

 

My bad, I was...oh wait, I wasn't wrong.

 

Stop trying to save face. :P

 

Before this post turns to haterade, I will say

 

@Fenrisúlfr: its called bettering humanity. Not being ignorant allows people to make more educated choices, and therefore, make better decisions.

[Brushfire]

Oh' date=' here I was thinking that, you know, quoting someone and telling them they are an idiot would be sufficient as a rebuttal, but doing so would point out the repliers idiocy.

 

My bad, I was...oh wait, I wasn't wrong.

 

Stop trying to save face. :P

[/quote']

 

Haha, although I got pwned I love this. =] I guess my post was a rebuttal, but it wasn't intended as a direct one, I should've just posted that he was stupid to act just as Icy did if he was annoyed about Icy doing it. =P

[Fenrisúlfr]

What you said would be classified as "Idiotic rebuttal". Ie: A rebuttal that is idiotic and serves no purpose.

 

It wasn't a rebuttal' date=' I was stating that his rebuttal to Icy was as pointless as Icy's was in the first place.

 

On topic: I agree with Ben.

[/quote']

 

Oh, here I was thinking that, you know, quoting someone and telling them they are an idiot would be sufficient as a rebuttal, but doing so would point out the repliers idiocy.

 

My bad, I was...oh wait, I wasn't wrong.

 

Stop trying to save face. :P

 

Before this post turns to haterade, I will say

 

@Fenrisúlfr: its called bettering humanity. Not being ignorant allows people to make more educated choices, and therefore, make better decisions.

 

And therefore, all people who don't want to become more intelligent are bad people? It's called eugenics, it's a form of social Darwinism, and it's inherently unethical, as any decisions made on whether or not someone is interested in bettering humanity are subjective, based on the person making the decision. Any determination made by a single human, or even a group of humans, as to the worth of another human is biased, and therefore, cannot be justified by a logical person, who would, by the definition given, be interested in bettering humanity.

[CrabHelmet]

And therefore' date=' all people who don't want to become more intelligent are bad people? It's called eugenics

[/quote']

 

No, it isn't.

[Fenrisúlfr]

And therefore' date=' all people who don't want to become more intelligent are bad people? It's called eugenics

[/quote']

 

No, it isn't.

 

If you read the rest of the post, the first statement is explained, but good job with the short attention span.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

@Chaos Pudding:

But why should they disgust you? They don't harm you' date=' they don't decrease the quality of your life, they only exist in a way which you yourself would not exist. It's elitist and narrow minded to expect all people to live up to your standards of self-motivation. There are those people who like the fact that they don't know much, people who do not care to know about metaphysics, epistemology, chemistry, music theory, and the thousands of other topics open for study, that doesn't make them bad people, it doesn't worsen their morality, or anything about them, it just means that they are content to live out their life the way they are.

Having such an issue with it is truly ridiculous, there's no reason to, and the only thing that comes out of it is you yourself sacrificing some of your own happiness in anger against those who have theirs.

[/quote']

 

I don't care for people who don't try to better themselves, no matter what the avenue. However, I don't get legitimately upset until they start bragging about how they don't know this or that, or try to enter a legitimate conversation about a topic and start spewing off uninformed bull****, thereby cheapening the discussion as a whole. Technically, "pissed" isn't the proper word for it, but I can't post the proper word, so yeah. It's more the death of the intellectual age. I'm scared to death of superstition and what it does to people, how it influences them to make illogical choices. The only cure for superstition is knowledge, yet these people don't seek it, even when they literally have the world's supply of knowledge right at their fingertips. It deeply saddens and angers me that they would rather sit in the darkness, jumping at imagined ghosts and daemons, than bask in the light of knowledge, knowing that there is an order in this chaos, and we can know it.

 

And I'm not sure if I made this distinction clear or not, but I don't hate people who are ignorant, because we all are in one way or another. I hate people who pride themselves on their ignorance, and make no gesture to learn even a little bit about the pressing topics of our times, such as global warming or the current political discussions about the proposed health care bill.

[CrabHelmet]

And therefore' date=' all people who don't want to become more intelligent are bad people? It's called eugenics

[/quote']

 

No, it isn't.

 

If you read the rest of the post, the first statement is explained, but good job with the short attention span.

 

No, it just isn't called "eugenics". "Eugenics" refers to something different and specific, and the remainder of your post does not in any way equate the actual topic at hand to eugenics.

[Fenrisúlfr]

But, if these people had knowledge, would they use it correctly?

And would you appreciate the knowledge others have without those of ignorance to measure it against?

It's shortsighted to become angry at those who do not have knowledge, for those who do not thirst for the absolute right and the absolute wrong.

But, since this thread is truly your rant thread, I can see that attempting to convince you of this will invariably come to naught. I am sorry to know that, but it is what it is. The discontents you hold are those beyond reason and calm, they fester inside of a mind plagued against ignorance, in a perverted "el principe" against the dumb. I hope that one day you may see the futility of fighting against this by complaint. Pragmatism must be the watchword, it is something that must be taken to heart. You cannot change something by merely acknowledging the problem, but by actively working against it.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

And therefore' date=' all people who don't want to become more intelligent are bad people? It's called eugenics, it's a form of social Darwinism, and it's inherently unethical, as any decisions made on whether or not someone is interested in bettering humanity are subjective, based on the person making the decision. Any determination made by a single human, or even a group of humans, as to the worth of another human is biased, and therefore, cannot be justified by a logical person, who would, by the definition given, be interested in bettering humanity.

[/quote']

 

No, it isn't eugenics. We aren't talking about the gene pool here (unless you prescribe to the ridiculous notion that our innate intelligence is decided by our genes), we're talking about bettering ourselves and humanity through the pursuit of knowledge.

 

Social Darwinism isn't inherently unethical. It's how we chose to apply it that ethics enter the equation.

 

I won't argue with you on that point, because it's true. However, I'm not talking about the worth of a person. I'm talking about being disappointed and angry about a person not reaching their full potential. I'm a big believer in making your own destiny, and it's just a basic fact that the more you know the farther you'll go (on average, of course).

[Brushfire]

And therefore' date=' all people who don't want to become more intelligent are bad people? It's called eugenics

[/quote']

 

No, it isn't.

 

If you read the rest of the post, the first statement is explained, but good job with the short attention span.

 

No, it just isn't called "eugenics". "Eugenics" refers to something different and specific, and the remainder of your post does not in any way equate the actual topic at hand to eugenics.

 

So instead of debating the rest of the post, you nit-pick on one word?

[Fenrisúlfr]

First of all, let me say that obviously, I myself care about education. I think all people should strive to learn more, to better themselves. But at the same time, I am a pragmatist, and I see that telling someone to learn more, or complaining that they won't, is a waste of time.

You have to be proactive, you have to get out there, and provide the resources for people to learn, and to attempt to make them better than they currently are.

You can be angry, that's fine, but it's pointless unless you channel that anger into something more productive than a rant.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

But' date=' if these people had knowledge, would they use it correctly?

And would you appreciate the knowledge others have without those of ignorance to measure it against?

It's shortsighted to become angry at those who do not have knowledge, for those who do not thirst for the absolute right and the absolute wrong.

But, since this thread is truly your rant thread, I can see that attempting to convince you of this will invariably come to naught. I am sorry to know that, but it is what it is. The discontents you hold are those beyond reason and calm, they fester inside of a mind plagued against ignorance, in a perverted "el principe" against the dumb. I hope that one day you may see the futility of fighting against this by complaint. Pragmatism must be the watchword, it is something that must be taken to heart. You cannot change something by merely acknowledging the problem, but by actively working against it.

[/quote']

 

I care not how they use the knowledge, only that they have it, or have the means to have it.

 

Why is it that one side has to convince another side? I thought we were having a good discussion. I don't care if I convince you or not, only that my views are heard. I know that complaining doesn't often solve the problem, so I guess it's a good thing that that's not all I'm doing, huh?

[CrabHelmet]

And therefore' date=' all people who don't want to become more intelligent are bad people? It's called eugenics

[/quote']

 

No, it isn't.

 

If you read the rest of the post, the first statement is explained, but good job with the short attention span.

 

No, it just isn't called "eugenics". "Eugenics" refers to something different and specific, and the remainder of your post does not in any way equate the actual topic at hand to eugenics.

 

So instead of debating the rest of the post, you nit-pick on one word?

 

I am far too lazy to read through this whole topic, and I would hate to enter the debate without doing so. Hence, I simply challenge what is obviously a completely nonsensical statement that comes dangerously close to invoking Godwin's Law.