# Need logical thinkers!!! Help solve this puzzle!



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

I think it's a form of lashing out. Some people lash out by swearing, others...tear people down?


----------



## zwanglos (Jan 13, 2010)

My take on it:

~ Some people who deem themselves superior or in a superior position will act harshly to those 'beneath' them because they view such behavior as their God-given right. (Think "Divine Right of Kings", third-generation-wealth talking down to their servants, etc.) 

~ Some will flaunt their credentials and knowledge in a harsh and vindictive way so that they may shame their opponents into silence - usually when it is their own argument that is faltering. 

~ Some will do so as a matter of self-defense. A bully will pick on a nerd, but sometimes the nerd's response is: "you're an idiot, a worm! One day you'll be my underling! [etc]". As vain as such an attempt may be, they're trying to make the bully aware of how superior they [think they] are, in order to get said bully to back down, think twice before dunking them in the toilet, etc.

~ Some do it for amusement, or to feel better about themselves. They may view tearing a person down as a game or some sort of sport, much like hunting a fox.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Coffee Grinder said:


> You should have not have included the word "criticise" then. Because there is nothing inherently mean about criticism.
> 
> Obviously these people that consider themselves "superior" have insecurities about themselves to they seek to bring people down.



Criticisms if done unnecessarily harshly or done unnecessarily at all is mean. So are you saying these kind of people consider themselves "superior"but in reality they are just insecure and not really "superior"?


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Drake said:


> Typically, somone who considers themself to be superior then others is far from superior themselves.



Yes, that is the some conclusion I came too. But wanted to be sure I was not missing a piece of the logic puzzle. So for no one has given any real good reason why a truly superior person would have a need to put others down.


----------



## zwanglos (Jan 13, 2010)

If you're in a superior position, perhaps your primary interest is in maintaining your superiority - tearing potential opponents down is a possible means to this end.

Even God didn't want mankind to become as smart as him.


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Hurting said:


> Criticisms if done unnecessarily harshly or done unnecessarily at all is mean.


I agree, but that's not what I said really. I said criticism isn't *inherently* mean or harsh. And my original post wanted to point out that some people mistakenly take honest and well meaning criticism to be unnecessary or mean. There are always two sides to the story, the intentions of the person giving the criticism and the person receiving such criticism.



> So are you saying these kind of people consider themselves "superior"but in reality they are just insecure and not really "superior"?


They may not be "superior" in the areas of emotional security. They may not have self-assurance in themselves.
They may be superior in that certain area, say someone states something like "Quantum physics is about turtles flying backwards" and then a quantum physicist comes along and is unnecessarily mean and haughty in their response. This is to show two things, that the quantum physicist is obviously superior in terms of expertise on the topic at hand yet may not be superior emotionally.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

zwanglos said:


> If you're in a superior position, perhaps your primary interest is in maintaining your superiority - tearing potential opponents down is a possible means to this end.
> 
> Even God didn't want mankind to become as smart as him.



God already knows we can never be as smart as him. Nether does God push us around and demand that we obey him. Instead he has given us free will to choose to obey or not obey. So he has no reason to prove he is superior by being mean to people.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Coffee Grinder said:


> I agree, but that's not what I said really. I said criticism isn't *inherently* mean or harsh. And my original post wanted to point out that some people mistakenly take honest and well meaning criticism to be unnecessary or mean. There are always two sides to the story, the intentions of the person giving the criticism and the person receiving such criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> They may not be "superior" in the areas of emotional security. They may not have self-assurance in themselves.



Granted that some people don't take well meaning criticisms very well but that is not the issue I am wanting to discuss. And never am I discussing the people that criticize that has good intentions. What I want to discuss is people that are mean and cruel to others that they see that are beneath them. Why would a truly superior person have a need to be that way to someone that is less than them?


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Hurting said:


> Granted that some people don't take well meaning criticisms very well but that is not the issue I am wanting to discuss. And never am I discussing the people that criticize that has good intentions. What I want to discuss is people that are mean and cruel to others that they see that are beneath them. Why would a truly superior person have a need to be that way to someone that is less than them?


maybe they are superior in that certain area of knowledge yet are emotionally insecure?


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

Hurting said:


> I have noticed a lot in real life and on these forums that people tend to think they are better than others but then proceed to use energy to tear down those they think are less. Why is that? Logically thinking this through would indicate that if one is truly superior then they would have no need to be mean to others. In fact would not a truly superior person want to assist others that are not as good as them? Maybe some of the people that are more logical thinking than myself can explain this concept being cruel to those less than you is all about. What does a superior person get out of stomping down someone less than them?


I can't agree more that putting up an act like that is simply off setting and unbalanced. 

Some people believe they have the right to be arrogant because they have a certain advantage opposed to others. Yet by acting like an arrogant fool they appear to be ignorant themselves, which then tears down the whole notion of being truly superior. In case this attitude stems from a personal problem (such as frustration) then I hope they can solve it. One solution could be a change of attitude.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Coffee Grinder said:


> maybe they are superior in that certain area of knowledge yet are emotionally insecure?


Ok, now we are getting somewhere with this discussion. Lets say that a person does have superior knowledge on a subject but is emotionally insecure. This person starts getting upset at someone he sees as less than him and reacts all mean to the lesser one. How is that lesser one going to view the one with superior knowledge? Is not the lesser one going to see the one with superior knowledge as less than he really is? And observers to this incident are going to see the superior one was lesser? So in the end does not the one that believes himself to be greater end up lesser?


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> I can't agree more that putting up an act like that is simply off setting and unbalanced.
> 
> Some people believe they have the right to be arrogant because they have a certain advantage opposed to others. Yet by acting like an arrogant fool they appear to be ignorant themselves, which then tears down the whole notion of being truly superior. In case this attitude stems from a personal problem (such as frustration) then I hope they can solve it. One solution could be a change of attitude.



That is the conclusion I keep coming up with myself. It does appear that even though one has superior knowledge or ability that by being mean to others are criticizing them makes them really less than they can be. It seems that a truly great person is only great if they are good to other people. That is the way I see it. But I don't want to rely on my own logical thinking in this matter.


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

Coffee Grinder said:


> maybe they are superior in that certain area of knowledge yet are emotionally insecure?


It's not an excuse...


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

Hurting said:


> That is the conclusion I keep coming up with myself. It does appear that even though one has superior knowledge or ability that by being mean to others are criticizing them makes them really less than they can be. It seems that a truly great person is only great if they are good to other people. That is the way I see it. But I don't want to rely on my own logical thinking in this matter.


I suppose it depends on whether he is truly acting arrogant or whether others only view him as such. But to use intelligence as an excuse for acting more arrogant than usual is weak in my eyes. Excuses have their uses; I wonder what the underlying motives in this case would be.

I can see how this leads one to be less than they can be...
And I can see how this could restrain an individual within a whole...
So your thinking doesn't seem that far fetched to me. Good thread btw 

(I didn't engage myself a lot into this because I'd start to ponder the word "good" and then I'll go all woaaaaahah XD But there is an obvious clash between giving and getting here and perhaps even a question regarding egoism and altruism.)


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> I suppose it depends on whether he is truly acting arrogant or whether others only view him as such. But to use intelligence as an excuse for acting more arrogant than usual is weak in my eyes.



Yes mine too. And I have known people that truly has wanted to help others but just did not understand others emotional makeup to help. In that case this guy never really helped anyone because he was known for hurting others and they stayed away from him. So his superior knowledge did neither him or others any good.


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

Hurting said:


> Yes mine too. And I have known people that truly has wanted to help others but just did not understand others emotional makeup to help. In that case this guy never really helped anyone because he was known for hurting others and they stayed away from him. So his superior knowledge did neither him or others any good.


Yes, it's like his Attitude affects his Openness and makes him more Ignorant over the long run, closing down an otherwise potential door.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> Yes, it's like *his Attitude affects his Openness and makes him more Ignorant over the long run, closing down an otherwise potential door.*



I liked that quote. I am going to print that out and put it on my wall at work.


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

Hurting said:


> I liked that quote. I am going to print that out and put it on my wall at work.


Oh, that is so 'flattering'! I feel appreciated


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> Oh, that is so 'flattering'! I feel appreciated



You came to the same conclusion as I did. Only you put it way more elegant that I ever could. The bottom line is that even if a person is superior in one way or other the way they treat people really determines their greatness. Because what good is there in being superior if others don't see us as superior?


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

Hurting said:


> You came to the same conclusion as I did. Only you put it way more elegant that I ever could. The bottom line is that even if a person is superior in one way or other the way they treat people really determines their greatness. Because what good is there in being superior if others don't see us as superior?


Their perception could be clouded, so I wouldn't solely rely on that. But the thing seems to be that arrogance can evoke ignorance and therefore restrain communication... :O I wish I was able to dig deeper in this.


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> It's not an excuse...


It's not an excuse at all. I'm just posing reasons why people act certain ways.

The bully punches the kid because he is emotionally insecure, that does not in anyway excuse the bully, but that *IS* the underlying reason.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Coffee Grinder said:


> It's not an excuse at all. I'm just posing reasons why people act certain ways.
> 
> The bully punches the kid because he is emotionally insecure, that does not in anyway excuse the bully, but that *IS* the underlying reason.



Ok, lets take the bully as a good example of someone that is superior to the victim. Let take the verbal bully, the ones that has more knowledge than the victim. The bully takes a verbal stab at the victim, in that act how does that make the bully superior? The victim could easily apply himself and learn the same thing as the bully. So the knowledge is nothing really special that the bully had. And what did the bully get out of verbally stabbing the victim? I cannot see anything he may have got out of it. I can see a lot that the bully could lose from the incident. He would love respect from others that see the acts. But what does he gain from that act?


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

Coffee Grinder said:


> It's not an excuse at all. I'm just posing reasons why people act certain ways.
> 
> The bully punches the kid because he is emotionally insecure, that does not in anyway excuse the bully, but that *IS* the underlying reason.


Hm, I agree. 

But err, how is that bully any more superior, knowledge wise? You kind of missed that point (and you were the one to imply it in the first place: you stated intellectual superiority may lead to emotional insecurity, but I don't see this happening in your bully example. However, I'm not saying it's impossible for an intelligent being to result into bullying actions).

I'll try:
- Kid 1 is skilled at seeing through lies
- Kid 2 lies
- Kid 1 accuses him of lying and gets punished by the teacher for this, making him frustrated, making him bully Kid 1 even more

Is that the kind of clash between insight and insecurity that you implied?


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Hurting said:


> Ok, lets take the bully as a good example of someone that is superior to the victim. Let take the verbal bully, the ones that has more knowledge than the victim. The bully takes a verbal stab at the victim, in that act how does that make the bully superior? The victim could easily apply himself and learn the same thing as the bully. So the knowledge is nothing really special that the bully had.


I don't think the fact that one could learn something nullifies the superiority of knowledge.
For example: I *could* study medicine, I could easily apply myself and learn the same thing as a doctor. So doctors aren't very special. Knowledge is something people work for and therefore people with more knowledge are superior in the certain knowledge field they are an expertise in.




> And what did the bully get out of verbally stabbing the victim? I cannot see anything he may have got out of it. I can see a lot that the bully could lose from the incident. He would love respect from others that see the acts. But what does he gain from that act?


A sense of superiority? Ego boost? A re-affirmation of superiority?
These are all just reasons, not excuses.


----------



## Vanitas (Dec 13, 2009)

Hurting said:


> Criticisms if done unnecessarily harshly or done unnecessarily at all is mean.


Just wondering though, how to weigh whether it's unnecessary or not? Maybe for the critic it is necessary, and what they do is helping. 
You're trying to keep the discussion strictly about 'unnecessarily' putting down people, but who to decide if it's so? 

I also don't get your definition of ' (thinking themselves as) superior' people. Bosses? Parents? Random person who you don't even know and saying that you should lose weight? An advice/ question you asked but don't like the answer of?

It's very vague. Would you explain?

If it's a run of the mill bully, and they, say, think of themselves as superior and 'criticize people' (honestly, bullies don't criticize, they just call names, trip you or beat you up), I'd say because that's the natural order of the world they perceive. It's normal/ supposed to for them to play pranks and make the lives of 'lesser people' miserable. 
'Lesser people' exist for their entertainment, if you like. They're not their equal.


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> Hm, I agree.
> 
> But err, how is that bully any more superior, knowledge wise? You kind of missed that point (and you were the one to imply it in the first place: you stated intellectual superiority may lead to emotional insecurity, but I don't see this happening in your bully example. However, I'm not saying it's impossible for an intelligent being to result into bullying actions).
> 
> ...


The Bully example was not pertaining to the knowledge claim but to specifically your statement that it's not an excuse.

I never said that intellectual superiority may lead to emotional insecurity.
I said that they may be intellectual superior in a certain aspect yet be emotionally crippled or insecure.
To say someone is superior, you must define the nature in which they are superior. Someone isn't just "superior", they are superior in certain things such as tennis, ice-skating, counting, dancing, painting.etc. Being superior in one thing does not guarantee that one is emotionally mature enough to handle social situations where one must impart knowledge or correct errors.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Vanitas said:


> Just wondering though, how to weigh whether it's unnecessary or not? Maybe for the critic it is necessary, and what they do is helping.
> You're trying to keep the discussion strictly about 'unnecessarily' putting down people, but who to decide if it's so?
> 
> I also don't get your definition of ' (thinking themselves as) superior' people. Bosses? Parents? Random person who you don't even know and saying that you should lose weight? An advice/ question you asked but don't like the answer of?
> ...



The question has nothing to do with helping others. I am asking the question what do people that think they are superior to others get out of being mean to others? If you call me an idiot what do you get out of it?


----------



## Vanitas (Dec 13, 2009)

Hurting said:


> The question has nothing to do with helping others. I am asking the question what do people that think they are superior to others get out of being mean to others? If you call me an idiot what do you get out of it?


.. That's.. not logical. To get a logical answer you should provide a logical question. Why would I call you an idiot? Who am I for you and vice versa?_Are you being an idiot? _There's no all-encompassing answer for something that has so many possible variables.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Vanitas said:


> .. That's.. not logical. To get a logical answer you should provide a logical question. Why would I call you an idiot? Who am I for you and vice versa?_Are you being an idiot? _There's no all-encompassing answer for something that has so many possible variables.



I am not saying you are calling me an idiot. And neither would I care of you did. What I am asking is if one person calls another one an idiot what do they get out of it? I am not saying it is logical for that to happen but it does happen. I am just trying to learn what people get out of doing this kind of thing.


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Hurting said:


> I am not saying you are calling me an idiot. And neither would I care of you did. What I am asking is if one person calls another one an idiot what do they get out of it? I am not saying it is logical for that to happen but it does happen. I am just trying to learn what people get out of doing this kind of thing.


I'm pretty sure you know the answer. Why do people insult others? It's putting people lower than you, the more people lower than you the better you feel because you are better. What's even better is that the people lower than you know that they are lower than you because you've openly insulted them. This is what goes on inside their head, it's not logical, it's not well reasoned. It's tricking the mind.

Your question is basically, Why are people mean to other people?


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Coffee Grinder said:


> I'm pretty sure you know the answer. Why do people insult others? It's putting people lower than you, the more people lower than you the better you feel because you are better. What's even better is that the people lower than you know that they are lower than you because you've openly insulted them. This is what goes on inside their head, it's not logical, it's not well reasoned. It's tricking the mind.



I am not talking about inferior people that put others down. Insecure people do this thing all the time. They put others down just to make themselves look bigger and more important. That is just a pathetic attempt to be something. Most people can see through these kind of people. These people are not the ones I want to know about. I want to know about people that are truly superior to others. What do they get out putting others down.


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Hurting said:


> I am not talking about inferior people that put others down. Insecure people do this thing all the time. They put others down just to make themselves look bigger and more important. That is just a pathetic attempt to be something. Most people can see through these kind of people. These people are not the ones I want to know about. I want to know about people that are truly superior to others. What do they get out putting others down.


Superior in what way?


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Coffee Grinder said:


> Superior in what way?


It does not matter since everyone has something about them that would be superior to some other people. So we are all superior in something over at least a few people. So this topic applies to everyone.

A good example of this is if I can count to three I am superior in abilities than a baby that is just starting to talk. If I can speak at all I am superior in speaking abilities than a newborn baby.


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Hurting said:


> It does not matter since everyone has something about them that would be superior to some other people. So we are all superior in something over at least a few people. So this topic applies to everyone.
> 
> A good example of this is if I can count to three I am superior in abilities than a baby that is just starting to talk. If I can speak at all I am superior in speaking abilities than a newborn baby.


So what makes superiority in a certain aspect mean that they aren't insecure or pathetic?
If you are insulting someone, no matter how superior you are in a certain way, you can still be insecure and pathetic. Thus my original reasons stand.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Coffee Grinder said:


> So what makes superiority in a certain aspect mean that they aren't insecure or pathetic?



Again I am not asking about people that are insecure or pathetic. We can all spot these people. I am talking about people that are truly superior. If a 15 year old calls a baby an idiet for not knowing how to speak yet what does the 15 year old get out of it?


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

Coffee Grinder said:


> The Bully example was not pertaining to the knowledge claim but to specifically your statement that it's not an excuse.
> 
> I never said that intellectual superiority may lead to emotional insecurity.
> I said that they may be intellectual superior in a certain aspect yet be emotionally crippled or insecure.
> To say someone is superior, you must define the nature in which they are superior. Someone isn't just "superior", they are superior in certain things such as tennis, ice-skating, counting, dancing, painting.etc. Being superior in one thing does not guarantee that one is emotionally mature enough to handle social situations where one must impart knowledge or correct errors.


Of course one may be intellectually superior in one aspect and emotionally crippled in another.

Yet what the author (I think? or at least I am) is trying to get at is that when you take over a certain -attitude-, for instance, saying "I can be a dick because I'm smart", it just makes you look like an ignorant individual. This has nothing to do with being emotionally cripple. The individual willfully chooses to act like a dick with the excuse of being intelligent in some area.


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Hurting said:


> Again I am not asking about people that are insecure or pathetic. We can all spot these people. I am talking about people that are truly superior. If a 15 year old calls a baby an idiet for not knowing how to speak yet what does the 15 year old get out of it?


*clutches head in frustration*

They feel happy, because they have identified someone that is below their standard and thus have reinforced their own ego.


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> Of course one may be intellectually superior in one aspect and emotionally crippled in another.
> 
> Yet what the author (I think? or at least I am) is trying to get at is that when you take over a certain -attitude-, for instance, saying "I can be a dick because I'm smart", it just makes you look like an ignorant individual. This has nothing to do with being emotionally cripple. The individual willfully chooses to act like a dick with the excuse of being intelligent in some area.


It has everything to do with being an "emotional cripple".
Someone that is mature in their emotional state can seperate emotions from their thoughts and thus are able to be emotionally satisfied through personal gain and self-worth rather than through tearing other people down. This is all about emotional maturity and how most people cannot be self-sufficient in feeding themselves emotionally.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Coffee Grinder said:


> *clutches head in frustration*
> 
> They feel happy, because they have identified someone that is below their standard and thus have reinforced their own ego.



So you are saying that an adult that calls a baby an idiot is really superior? That sounds more like a stupid person to me.


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Hurting said:


> So you are saying that an adult that calls a baby an idiot is really superior? That sounds more like a stupid person to me.


You are using words in a very brazen and ill-defined matter.

Yes, the adult is deficient in their emotional growth it seems. (stupid you might say)

But, I might safely say that on all measures of superiority, including knowledge, reasoning, understanding of the world, mobility, logic, and maybe even emotional growth (because for example, the adult might be able to display empathy that the baby probably can't) they are superior to the baby. This is not to say anything about my judgement of the adult in comparison to what adults should be like.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

queenofleaves said:


> If you stomp on someone, it might make you feel better about yourself...I mean if you feel you're ugly and find someone and call them ugly, you can lie to yourself by making yourself think they're the ugly one...also you cn get people against that person so they wont concentrate on you. If you're jealous of someone for something, talking bad about them will help you lie to yourself by saying they're not that great...someone with confidence can admit their weaknesses and otehr people's strengths because they are solid with their own strengths and don't wont feel put down if someone happens to be good or better at something because they know there are good things about them...I've never really met anyone who just thinks of themselves as superior to everyone else...I've only met people who feel bad about themselves and have to make up for it by criticizing others to feel better



I like you and your way of reasoning. You already understand in a deeper way than most people.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Hurting said:


> That is good reasoning for other post but for this thread I called on the logical thinkers for a specific purpose. I need to be attacked by them and tried to be proved logically wrong for this puzzle to work. Be patient, I will soon had all the pieces I need drawn in to complete the puzzle.



Are you attempting to show that if there is no logical solution... then feeling can be *a* solution?


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> The bias that superiority comes through reason, when applying a "logical deduction" onto a situation such as the 15 year old vs. the baby, may be dismissed when one comes to consider different angles to our human existence. This Particular Interpretation of the "superiority of mind" is a very narrow way of perceiving both oneself and others and is therefore 'dismissed', when it comes to "holistic superiority", for being ignorant.
> 
> And yes, you're arguing from an idealistic stance, as pointed out before... Which is an "equal" aspect to our existence opposed to things such as "logical thinking". Lol basically there are so many glasses to view reality with, and question reality on itself.
> 
> ...


Wonderful observation. I did carefully word my title and opening statements. They were all for a specific purpose. 

Now the next step is to think about the concept of that was mentioned before. A 15 year old being superior to a baby because the baby cannot yet speak. Thank about that for a while with all the dynamics involved with that idea.

Assume the baby is a mental genius and the 15 year old is someone that is mentally retarded and cant even dress himself. How does that change the dynamics of the equation? Think it though imagine that the baby and the 15 year old in all kinds of different scenarios. Is the 15 year old superior in all those scenarios?


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Grim said:


> Are you attempting to show that if there is no logical solution... then feeling can be *a* solution?



That concept would be wonderful for another puzzle but that was not my intent for this puzzle. Even though feeling can be a solution to many many things in life.


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

Hurting said:


> Wonderful observation. I did carefully word my title and opening statements. They were all for a specific purpose.
> 
> Now the next step is to think about the concept of that was mentioned before. A 15 year old being superior to a baby because the baby cannot yet speak. Thank about that for a while with all the dynamics involved with that idea.
> 
> Assume the baby is a mental genius and the 15 year old is someone that is mentally retarded and cant even dress himself. How does that change the dynamics of the equation? Think it though imagine that the baby and the 15 year old in all kinds of different scenarios. Is the 15 year old superior in all those scenarios?


We've already went through this & I've stated it is futile of the 15 year old to operate the way he does in that scenario. 

However, to throw in and question the notion of 'superiority' in order to attack the otherwise preassumed superiority of logical thought is tricky of you and therefore heavily discussed . Perhaps it's just in the way you phrase it... Hm.

He simply reassures a higher position opposed to the baby by comparing their hierarchical position in terms of language control. 

Is it necessary? No. 

Does that make him a dumbass? Questionable. Potentially.

Is he a humble person? Probably not =P.

Do you view being humble as part of being a more superior being? I think you do .


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

the way you use the word superior is ambiguous.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

> Assume the baby is a mental genius and the 15 year old is someone that is mentally retarded and cant even dress himself. How does that change the dynamics of the equation? Think it though imagine that the baby and the 15 year old in all kinds of different scenarios. Is the 15 year old superior in all those scenarios?


The 15 year old will remain superior until the baby is able to use his genius in a productive fashion that will out-due the other child's abilities. The fact is even though the baby has the potential for greatness too many things may destroy his chances before he is of an age where he can use his talents, meanwhile at the time the 15 year old is already capable of doing things that the baby can not. Unless you were able to map the babies future with utmost certainty the logical choice would be to give the 15 year old priority. But if the 15 year old is already virtually worthless do to his mental handicap and is unable to care for himself then you would put the baby as a priority because they have equal value at that time, but in future prospects the baby has more potential than the teen has or ever will have.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

I can see you guys are not getting the whole purpose of the puzzle. Think not so much about the question but the concept of the question. Change the variables as to who is superior and who is inferior and see how that changes your view on superiority and inferiority. That is the whole purpose of calling the logical thinkers so they could take the puzzle to the depths with logical thought. Play around with the concept in your mind for a while and the solution will come to some of you.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

sorry but besides the first couple pages and the last one I haven't kept track of what has been going on, what exactly is the discussion? are we still going on about people acting superior or has the issue shifted in some way. I suppose I could read through the threads... =/


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

RighteousRob said:


> sorry but besides the first couple pages and the last one I haven't kept track of what has been going on, what exactly is the discussion? are we still going on about people acting superior or has the issue shifted in some way. I suppose I could read through the threads... =/



Notice that the whole thread is in the Psychology section. Then notice the title of the post. What is the last work in the title? Then think about the content of the introductory questions. This puzzle is not really that hard to figure out.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

if the puzzle is not that hard to figure out and you truly desire an answer I think it would best if you took a definitive stance on what issue you are pursuing and what it is you are trying to accomplish without using so many vague ideas and concepts. Otherwise this discussion is just going to keep going in circles, but if that is what you are actually after then I would say you are on the right track.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

RighteousRob said:


> if the puzzle is not that hard to figure out and you truly desire an answer I think it would best if you took a definitive stance on what issue you are pursuing and what it is you are trying to accomplish without using so many vague ideas and concepts. Otherwise this discussion is just going to keep going in circles, but if that is what you are actually after then I would say you are on the right track.



RighteousRob, I can see you have an interest in understanding where I am taking this. I will give you over half the answer in logical terms. Then we can see how many people can get the rest of the puzzle. Some people have already touched on the answer but not got the whole picture. Here is a hint in simple algebra terms. If you have an equation of A + B = C. What happens to the value of C if you change the values of A and B?

Now think about the question I ask. Superior + Inferior = MistreatmentOfInferior. Now change the variable of Superior and Inferior and observe how MistreatmentOfInferior changes. The answer I am looking for is what happens to the the value of MistreatmentOfInferior when you change the values of Superior and Inferior? Now you got the equation now what is the answer?


----------



## Susanna (Nov 15, 2009)

I'm a chemist but I'll take a stab at psychology for a minute. There is the inferiority complex where one feels inferior and therefore acts superior - I think. There is no one better than anybody else. No one is superior to another. Social status, intelligence etc can be used as superficial measures of superiority yet it is just a facade. I am glad for this thread though becuase I just realized I act/think I am superior when I am around people who I think are acting superior. Its like I know I'm superior to someone who doesn't know that we are all equal. Sorry, that was a cool revelation for me. Thanks for the thread.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

nothing ever changes though, because if you change the variables you still have someone that is superior and one that is inferior, or you would have equal variables in which case the formula would be inaccurate as the labels could no longer apply to the variables they had been assigned. Because even if a+b=c and you change b to make it greater than a it would still be b+a=c. Nothing has changed, something is still superior something else is inferior and the end result is just the combination of the two. 

You give the example of a baby being a potential genius compared to a 15 year old with a mental deficiency. The thing is there is still a superior, it all depends on the perspective of the person who views which one is superior. To me, what you are asking is the opposite of logical, it is a practice in futility to discuss random variables which can not be assigned a true value. While you may believe you understand exactly what it is you are implying it is only your perception that gives you this, while it may be true for you it may not be true for everyone, and since it can not be considered a constant then there is no real logic involved in it.

Logic is inexorable truth


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Susanna said:


> I'm a chemist but I'll take a stab at psychology for a minute. There is the inferiority complex where one feels inferior and therefore acts superior - I think. There is no one better than anybody else. No one is superior to another. Social status, intelligence etc can be used as superficial measures of superiority yet it is just a facade. I am glad for this thread though becuase I just realized I act/think I am superior when I am around people who I think are acting superior. Its like I know I'm superior to someone who doesn't know that we are all equal. Sorry, that was a cool revelation for me. Thanks for the thread.



You made me so happy to read this post. You are at the beginning of the true understanding. You had one big revelations and that is so wonderful. You are way ahead of most people on this issue. And if you keep thinking about this equation you will keep getting even deeper understandings. This is something I have pondered for many years and still get revelations when I ponder this equations. I feel very happy that at least one person got it!


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

Grim said:


> Show me where I forced an assumption.


Sigh, Grim, you know you can't force me into accepting your position with stones and harsh language; here were your attempted assumptions for the discussion. Perhaps force was a strong word; but I have seen in this thread a lot of forced assumptions designed to limit discussion.



Grim said:


> Let's assume for sake of argument in deference to the spirit of the post as intended by the author... that no one is superior.
> 
> If each person is worth as much as the next, and we're all in this together then I think the question would be:
> 
> Why are some people so intent on seeing humanity fail, or at the very least kept from progressing? Why are they tearing themselves down?





Grim said:


> Coffee Grinder said:
> 
> 
> > When you assume, you make assumptions.
> ...





Grim said:


> Show me where I mentioned my morality.


The question I asked was simply are you attempting to force structure to the discussion to force a logical conclusion which suits a close minded moral lesson; which the OP poster has already admitted to.



Grim said:


> If you somehow felt limited reading my post... that's your problem. My post was an attempt to find what the OP was looking for... rational or not. I made no claims, attacked no points of views, espoused no personal points of view.


The conditions I have talked about above cause a limit in discussion. 

My question for you required a yes or no answer; are you attempting to limit discussion as the opening poster is to force us all to learn a close minded moral lesson they believe they have the right to teach us without the correct discussion process? We are all adults here, there is simply no need to spit out your dummy over penetrating questions.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Hurting said:


> You made me so happy to read this post. You are at the beginning of the true understanding. You had one big revelations and that is so wonderful. You are way ahead of most people on this issue. And if you keep thinking about this equation you will keep getting even deeper understandings. This is something I have pondered for many years and still get revelations when I ponder this equations. I feel very happy that at least one person got it!


This is Fi + Ne talking...not logic. But, congratulations on your mystical enlightenment.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

RighteousRob said:


> nothing ever changes though, because if you change the variables you still have someone that is superior and one that is inferior, or you would have equal variables in which case the formula would be inaccurate as the labels could no longer apply to the variables they had been assigned. Because even if a+b=c and you change b to make it greater than a it would still be b+a=c. Nothing has changed, something is still superior something else is inferior and the end result is just the combination of the two.
> 
> You give the example of a baby being a potential genius compared to a 15 year old with a mental deficiency. The thing is there is still a superior, it all depends on the perspective of the person who views which one is superior. To me, what you are asking is the opposite of logical, it is a practice in futility to discuss random variables which can not be assigned a true value. While you may believe you understand exactly what it is you are implying it is only your perception that gives you this, while it may be true for you it may not be true for everyone, and since it can not be considered a constant then there is no real logic involved in it.
> 
> Logic is inexorable truth


RighteousRob, just think about it. Ponder it for a while. Don't try to answer it just think about it.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

i have, but the truth of the matter is we are not actually equal, there is always someone better at something than another, that is the way the world works. While it is nice to envision a world where no one is held above another it is not feasible to do so. People need someone to lead them just as we need engineers and scientists. Not to mention natural selection definitely goes against equality.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

I can see this subject was to deep to bring up on this forum, so lets change the subject. We can always psychoanalyze the avatar above you. Or we can create a three word story at a time. Or better yet why don't we chat about the weather in your location?


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Hurting said:


> I can see this subject was to deep to bring up on this forum, so lets change the subject. We can always psychoanalyze the avatar above you. Or we can create a three word story at a time. Or better yet why don't we chat about the weather in your location?


Is it just me, or is this very ironic?


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

The subject was already discussed several times, you can look at my thread about equality and it'll be the same things you are discussing here only hashed up differently. There is nothing deep about human nature, to me it all seems quite clear.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Is it just me, or is this very ironic?



What I am trying to do is convey some deeper knowledge that I have learned. And I called on the deeper thinkers because I thought you guys would get it. But it seems like most people are just wanting to find fault instead of learning something new. So if people don't want to learn something then go to the threads where you don't have to think. If anyone wants to learn more then feel free to contact me personally and I will be happy to discuss the issue. In fact I would love to discuss the issue logically with someone.


----------



## Susanna (Nov 15, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Is it just me, or is this very ironic?


Yeah that was the point. I really liked this thread. Likely the best I've been on yet. I will continue to ponder this.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Hurting said:


> What I am trying to do is convey some deeper knowledge that I have learned. And I called on the deeper thinkers because I thought you guys would get it. But it seems like most people are just wanting to find fault instead of learning something new. So if people don't want to learn something then go to the threads where you don't have to think. If anyone wants to learn more then feel free to contact me personally and I will be happy to discuss the issue. In fact I would love to discuss the issue logically with someone.


Need I remind you that you called upon "logical thinkers," not mystics? Critical thinking does not involve accepting precepts that are logically incoherent.
From the get-go, your whole intention has seemed to be something along the lines of "stumping and awing the intellectuals with your mysterious, unparalleled wisdom..." I can imagine that it would be frustrating that your ideas were not received in this way, but that's what happens when you try to apply very subjective, esoteric concepts to "logic."

In principle, what you have provided is a nice idea. Humility is indeed a wonderful virtue. It's just that your reasoning doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny...




Susanna said:


> Yeah that was the point. I really liked this thread. Likely the best I've been on yet. I will continue to ponder this.


I think we're on very different pages as to "what" was ironic.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Susanna said:


> Yeah that was the point. I really liked this thread. Likely the best I've been on yet. I will continue to ponder this.



Thank you!!! You get it!!!


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

I do not mind discussing the issue when the scope is not designed to be a opinion vieled as a discussion; if you wish to tell us what you have discovered then do so and allow us to comment freely afterwards. 

To a critical thinker it is bad manners to expect others to be limited to your perspective and for them not to be allowed to bring new information that may challenge the consensus position. Otherwise you will find that people will be resistant because you are attempting to create the same ideals within them that you hold without allowing them their own opinion and perspective.

Different people have different learning styles, this by rote approach is not suited to some, but may be suitable to others. 

I am unlikely to support a conclusion unless I can reach it myself and as I will not have answered all of my questions on the topic I will not view it as correct.

Remember that this thread is about superiority, there are lots of flavours, one could say that you are espousing your moral superiority by asking us to accepting your moral position 'as is' without complaint and without the ability to relay our own perspective on the issue.


----------



## Susanna (Nov 15, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Need I remind you that you called upon "logical thinkers," not mystics? Critical thinking does not involve accepting precepts that are logically incoherent.
> From the get-go, your whole intention has seemed to be something along the lines of "stumping and awing the intellectuals with your mysterious, unparalleled wisdom..." I can imagine that it would be frustrating that your ideas were not received in this way, but that's what happens when you try to apply very subjective, esoteric concepts to "logic."
> 
> In principle, what you have provided is a nice idea. Humility is indeed a wonderful virtue. It's just that your reasoning doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny...
> ...


Very nice. I wish I could think like you and understand. Instead I think like me and understand.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

InvisibleJim said:


> I do not mind discussing the issue when the scope is not designed to be a opinion vieled as a discussion; if you wish to tell us what you have discovered then do so and allow us to comment freely afterwards.
> 
> To a critical thinker it is bad manners to expect others to be limited to your perspective and for them not to be allowed to bring new information that may challenge the consensus position. Otherwise you will find that people will be resistant because you are attempting to create the same ideals within them that you hold without allowing them their own opinion and perspective.



What I am trying to do is bring you to a point of understanding the equation of the puzzle then the answers to the different variables of the equation would be a bit different for each person. So I am not trying to "limit your perspective" in the least. I wanted to enhance it. But you guys just did not get what I was trying to show you.

I called the logical thinkers because I though you guys were the most intelligent of the group.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Susanna said:


> Very nice. I wish I could think like you and understand. Instead I think like me and understand.



That is the point. To introduce you to this concept and then you find the answers that are your answers. I believe people should think for themselves and not rely so much on others philosophy. And I think you are doing pretty good at this.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

InvisibleJim said:


> My question for you required a yes or no answer



Perhaps I didn't want my response limited. Thank you for the Furbee.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

I find this thread irritating yet I am still hanging around reading it. In "thinker style," I guess, I wish Hurting would be straight-forward and quit beating around the bush asking people to read her mind. I don't see this as a fun puzzle; it seems manipulative and confusing to me, not "deep." It seems like she is playing mind games trying to get people to attack her to make a point. Nevertheless I am intrigued because it seems to be a _simulation_ of a mind game. Huh!


----------



## Susanna (Nov 15, 2009)

InvisibleJim said:


> I do not mind discussing the issue when the scope is not designed to be a opinion vieled as a discussion; if you wish to tell us what you have discovered then do so and allow us to comment freely afterwards.
> 
> To a critical thinker it is bad manners to expect others to be limited to your perspective and for them not to be allowed to bring new information that may challenge the consensus position. Otherwise you will find that people will be resistant because you are attempting to create the same ideals within them that you hold without allowing them their own opinion and perspective.
> 
> ...


I would be interested in your perspective on the issue. I will check to see if you have already postedit on this thread.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

Hurting, are you playing head games with us so you can feel better about yourself by "outsmarting" and insulting people to whom you feel inferior? Or do you genuinely wish to discuss the topic of social competition and dominance?


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Nitou said:


> Hurting, are you playing head games with us so you can feel better about yourself by "outsmarting" and insulting people to whom you feel inferior? Or do you genuinely wish to discuss the topic of social competition and dominance?


The answer is NO. I am not trying to feel better about myself. The whole point to this thread is to get people thinking about who is superior and who is considered inferior. This tread is NOT about social competition. Social competition is about competing with equals. I am not talking about who we consider as our peers. 


Here is the point I wanted you intelligent thinkers to come to but few seemed to get the point. The point is people tend to think of themselves as superior. I have been there too so I know it happens. And we also tend to think of others that are different or have different circumstances as less or inferior to ourselves. I know I have don't that many times. But in reality how can we even consider someone less and ourselves as superior? Someone in a wheel chair my be inferior in walking or running but my be way more superior in thinking abilities. There are so many special things about each and every person and we don't know everything about every person then how can we judge them to be less than us? But yet people do. I just wanted to get people thinking in that direction. 

I have learned throughout the years that I am neither better or less than others. And if people start looking at people they consider greater or less than them you will see what I am talking about.

That is what I wanted to share with you. And part of the puzzle was to see who would attack me and how they would attack me. That information tells me more about peoples mindset and mental abillities than if just ask them.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

"Superiority" does exist, and is situational. The more competent and capable for the task at hand is superior in the moment. Everyone brings something to the table at some point though. I don't think that anyone is inherently a superior or inferior person in all ways though. People are too different and offer different things.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Promethea said:


> "Superiority" does exist, and is situational. The more competent and capable for the task at hand is superior in the moment. Everyone brings something to the table at some point though. I don't think that anyone is inherently a superior or inferior person in all ways though. People are too different and offer different things.



The point I wanted people to come to on their own. Just because a 15 year old has speaking abilities that a baby don't have, don't make 15 year old superior to the baby. The baby could grow up to have all kinds of abilities the 15 year old could never have.


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

Hurting said:


> The point I wanted people to come to on their own. Just because a 15 year old has speaking abilities that a baby don't have, don't make 15 year old superior to the baby. The baby could grow up to have all kinds of abilities the 15 year old could never have.


Ah, but this analysis ignores the passage of time; in truth at the time a teenager has many more abilities than a baby. However when the teenager is a very old age pensioner and the teenager is still productive the shoe will be on the other foot. But this is not superior, this is 'capable'. Certainly at some point they may individually be more capable than the other at unique tasks.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Hurting said:


> The point I wanted people to come to on their own. Just because a 15 year old has speaking abilities that a baby don't have, don't make 15 year old superior to the baby. The baby could grow up to have all kinds of abilities the 15 year old could never have.


But in the situation, the 15 yr old has the superior command of the situation. I'm not saying his life is inherently more valuable, but no, they are not equal so far as competence.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

Hurting said:


> Here is the point I wanted you intelligent thinkers to come to but few seemed to get the point. The point is people tend to think of themselves as superior. I have been there too so I know it happens. And we also tend to think of others that are different or have different circumstances as less or inferior to ourselves. I know I have don't that many times. But in reality how can we even consider someone less and ourselves as superior? Someone in a wheel chair my be inferior in walking or running but my be way more superior in thinking abilities. There are so many special things about each and every person and we don't know everything about every person then how can we judge them to be less than us? But yet people do. I just wanted to get people thinking in that direction.
> 
> I have learned throughout the years that I am neither better or less than others. And if people start looking at people they consider greater or less than them you will see what I am talking about.
> 
> That is what I wanted to share with you. And part of the puzzle was to see who would attack me and how they would attack me. That information tells me more about peoples mindset and mental abillities than if just ask them.


We have primal urges- some more than others- to test our skills and define where we stand in the social order. This is expressed in a myriad of forms, much of it being just friendly (or maybe not so friendly) competition like gaming, sports, debate, etc. Other times the "competition" is subtle or blatant hostility. As I see it, thoughts of superiority are a manifestation of the urge to compete. One who has a superior position in the social order (however the order is defined) has no need to flaunt his superiority unless challenged, because it is evident. On the other hand, one who exploits the weakness of another to dominate them without their consent is a bully. The bully may be one who is weak himself, since as I said above one who is truly dominant has no need to dominate. Or the bully may be dehumanizing another to get something he wants, which is sadly all too common in life. 

When someone looks down their nose at me and treats me condescendingly (I get it at work from a few females), I feel that it is a hostile challenge (albeit minor). But there is little I can do about it except contemplate their inferiority. :dry:

You are correct that real competition is between individuals who are roughly equal. I enjoy debating and flaming people but I try not be too hurtful nor engage people who are not willing participants. It's just entertainment to me. I had difficulty resisting the urge to attack you, not because I think I am superior or wanted to be mean, but because the things you said registered as a competitive challenge in my mind. I believe it is just a thinker's nature to see things that way because controversy is our sports arena. I was confused about your motives and it was unsettling. I had an idea of what you were getting at, but nobody can read your mind. And like Jim, I will only reach a conclusion on my own terms.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

I am thankful that a few people could understand and get the meaning of the purpose of the thread. I thank the rest of you for teaching me how you think. I can see very clearly that this is more of a social forum and teaching advanced ideas is not tolerated. I apologize for attempting to teach something useful.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Hurting said:


> I am thankful that a few people could understand and get the meaning of the purpose of the thread. I thank the rest of you for teaching me how you think. I can see very clearly that this is more of a social forum and teaching advanced ideas is not tolerated. I apologize for attempting to teach something useful.


Nothing like a little defensive hubris to protect your fragile ego.


----------



## Susanna (Nov 15, 2009)

Hurting said:


> I am thankful that a few people could understand and get the meaning of the purpose of the thread. I thank the rest of you for teaching me how you think. I can see very clearly that this is more of a social forum and teaching advanced ideas is not tolerated. I apologize for attempting to teach something useful.


Hurting, I think it is too big an assumption that this is only a social forum. So do post away or else you let others decide who you are.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Nothing like a little defensive hubris to protect your fragile ego.



I think that statement was uncalled for and unnecessary. I do not have a fragile ego.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Hurting said:


> I think that statement was uncalled for and unnecessary. I do not have a fragile ego.


Then perhaps you can stop making jabs at the intelligence of the population of this forum, especially considering we have multiple sections dedicated to intellectual topics. Just accept the fact that the audacious form of your "lesson" wasn't received the way you had hoped and move on.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

I have ask the mods to close out this thread. It has deviated from a discussion to a boxing right. Time to close it down.


----------



## 1057 (Apr 9, 2009)

in b4 lock


lol crazies.


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Then perhaps you can stop making jabs at the intelligence of the population of this forum, especially considering we have multiple sections dedicated to intellectual topics. Just accept the fact that the audacious form of your "lesson" wasn't received the way you had hoped and move on.



And in what way have I made jabs at your intelligence. I called on logical thinkers because I thought you could get it. I meant what I said as a compliment to you all.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Hurting said:


> And in what way have I made jabs at your intelligence. I called on logical thinkers because I thought you could get it. I meant what I said as a compliment to you all.


"I can see very clearly that this is more of a social forum and teaching advanced ideas is not tolerated. I apologize for attempting to teach something useful."
"You already understand in a deeper way than most people."
"This puzzle is not really that hard to figure out."
"You are way ahead of most people on this issue."
"I can see this subject was to deep to bring up on this forum, so lets change the subject. We can always psychoanalyze the avatar above you. Or we can create a three word story at a time. Or better yet why don't we chat about the weather in your location?"

These aren't jabs at everyone who disagrees with you?


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Azrael said:


> "I can see very clearly that this is more of a social forum and teaching advanced ideas is not tolerated. I apologize for attempting to teach something useful."
> "You already understand in a deeper way than most people."
> "This puzzle is not really that hard to figure out."
> "You are way ahead of most people on this issue."
> ...



My intentions was not for it to be a jab. If you felt that way I apologize because that is not what they were meant to be. I called on the logical thinkers because I thought you guys would get the point of the discussion. But instead of a good debate looking to more information all I got was that I was not making sense. And maybe I was not as clear as I should have been. But that should have sparked a deep discussion and it did not. So best to just close down the thread.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Hurting said:


> My intentions was not for it to be a jab. If you felt that way I apologize because that is not what they were meant to be. I called on the logical thinkers because I thought you guys would get the point of the discussion. But instead of a good debate looking to more information all I got was that I was not making sense. And maybe I was not as clear as I should have been. But that should have sparked a deep discussion and it did not. So best to just close down the thread.


This was never about "sparking a discussion." It was a pretentious "guided lesson."


----------



## Blue Butterfly (Sep 19, 2009)

Azrael said:


> This was never about "sparking a discussion." It was a pretentious "guided lesson."



You can believe what you want but I know what my intentions were. I wanted a discussion and to teach some things I have learned through life to the younger generation. Get angry all you want because I could care less. Some people got the meaning and that is good enough for me. This discussion is over since I can see you are just trying to provoke me into a fight. And a fight I will not get into. Have a good day.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Hurting said:


> Get angry all you want because *I could care less*.












Sorry, it was necessary. :crazy:


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Sorry, it was necessary. :crazy:
> [/IMG]


Perhaps... but for Hurting's benefit, or yours?


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Grim said:


> Perhaps... but for Hurting's benefit, or yours?


Well, I thought the thread could end on a somewhat lighter note. :happy:

She ended by claiming that I was merely being provocative and belligerent...and I just ended with a grammar Nazi graphic. Problem?


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Well, I thought the thread could end on a somewhat lighter note. :happy:
> 
> She ended by claiming that I was merely being provocative and belligerent...and I just ended with a grammar Nazi graphic. Problem?


Very nice of you to take the time to prove her correct.

No, I have no problems.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Grim said:


> Very nice of you to take the time to prove her correct.
> 
> No, I have no problems.


Impartiality fail...


----------



## Ungweliante (Feb 26, 2009)

_“In the light of his vision he has found his freedom: his thoughts are peace, his words are peace and his work is peace.”_
- Siddhartha Gautama, The Dhammapada


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

This was one of the more interesting butthurt threads. I hope everyones butts are ok now.


----------

