Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

[Sidhe]

I first became active on the OT to try to give pointers on debating, and failed miserably.

it's like Sysiphus in CFC form.

 

[Perfection]

it's like Sysiphus in CFC form.

Nah, this is like Sysyphus in CFC form.

 

[Hygro]

No. A small subset of people on CFC are intellectuals. Most people in CFC are idiots.

Idiots and intellectuals are not mutually exclusive. I would go so far as to say that the likelyhood of idiocy increases with intellecutallism. Intellecualism and intelligence are not closely connected.

QUICK! How many more ways can I mispell intellectualism?

 

[Rossiya]

No, not everyone on here are intellectuals, as some people are stupid.

 

[Sidhe]

Idiots and intellectuals are not mutually exclusive. I would go so far as to say that the likelyhood of idiocy increases with intellecutallism. Intellecualism and intelligence are not closely connected.

QUICK! How many more ways can I mispell intellectualism?

15^26 - 2

 

[Hygro]

15^26 - 3

I'd give rep if the system were in place

 

[brennan]

I first became active on the OT to try to give pointers on debating, and failed miserably.

What are you saying? That we endlessly squabble over minor points and never reach a conclusion? I couldn't disagree more...

15^26 - 2

That would include aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa as a spelling of intellectualism. Let's say you can have 13 letters right and two substitutions. That gives 13!.(26^2) I think.

 

[Sidhe]

What are you saying? That we endlessly squabble over minor points and never reach a conclusion? I couldn't disagree more...

That would include aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa as a spelling of intellectualism. Let's say you can have 13 letters right and two substitutions. That gives 13!.(26^2) I think.

He never said any spellings were invalid just how many ways can you mispell it, your placing extra conditions in the equation

If we look at it logically how many ways can you mispell intellectualism assuming spellings such as aaaaaaaaaaaa are duibious, was not the question.

In honesty if you use any number of letters too, then the answer is as many as you can write in your lifetime or infinite if you live forever. so technically I was wrong but I assumed he meant with 15 letters.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I love the fact that this is even being discussed. Of course, you are assuming the same number of leter every time, which I don't accept as a condition.

Of course, "intellectualism" as a concept implies that it is not common, therefore we can expect most people not to be intellectual.

 

[CartesianFart]

No. A small subset of people on CFC are intellectuals. Most people in CFC are idiots.

Really?Does it take an idiot to know an idiot person?Or is it the case that you can know and differentiate who is an idiot and who is not by placing one's self in the shoe of idiocy and not idiocy?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Come on, dude! I need names!

Suffice to say you're on the dumbass list.

 

[Sidhe]

I love the fact that this is even being discussed. Of course, you are assuming the same number of leter every time, which I don't accept as a condition.

Of course, "intellectualism" as a concept implies that it is not common, therefore we can expect most people not to be intellectual.

Only an intelectual or a philosopher or an idiot or maybe a linguistics expert would be this pedantic about a post, when I figure out what category I fit into I'll let you know

 

[aneeshm]

The only think I know for sure is that I am an intellectual. I also know for almost certain that the percentage of intellectuals on CFC is huge when compared to the percentage in real life.

 

[Bill3000]

What are you saying? That we endlessly squabble over minor points and never reach a conclusion? I couldn't disagree more...

On the contrary, that's what most threads are like. Theist-atheist threads are quintessential examples of this. Let's ignore the logical fallacies people do in the first place. In most threads, there's often a completely different set of premises for each person, with an inability to care about the other side. People are rude to the other sides despite the fact that in a proper debate, you are supposed to debate the points, not deride them for the sake of having their points.

It's not a matter of people being stupid for having particular opinions. It's a matter of lacking respect for the other side for having an opinion in the first place, and that prevents debates from being civil. People on CFC simply lack empathy, or the ability to apply the principle of charity.

Yes, there's also the traditional issues of logical fallacies, stubbornness and the like, but once again, I'm talking about a fundamental inability to be civil.

 

[brennan]

On the contrary, that's what most threads are like.

I'll just at you again shall I...

 

[Masquerouge]

We're Transylvanian intellectuals.
(Cue Robert Curry)

 

[Mirc]

Hey I'm 1/8 Transylvanian.

 

[brennan]

We're Transylvanian intellectuals.
(Cue Robert Curry)

I suspect you mean Tim Curry?

 

[CartesianFart]

Let's ignore the logical fallacies people do in the first place.

I disagree.In order to have reason instill as the backbone in any civil discussion then nonsense will not arise in debates;which in fact causes people to bicker at one another.Conversations that uses the language that are traditionally known to be deeply intellectual must be handle with care or confusion will be the consequences(whether the person indeed intended to befuddle another
or just plain ignorant of the meanings some of the words that are applied).

Yes, there's also the traditional issues of logical fallacies, stubbornness and the like, but once again, I'm talking about a fundamental inability to be civil.

I find logic as not discrimatory but have found people inability to be civil based on roughshodding scrutiny.Logic precedes the ability to be civil is what i say.

 

[MobBoss]

I have too much common sense to be an intellectual.