"Ignorant" is the new "Stupid"...

[Seattle]

We see words tossed around like "you are either stupid or a liar". Stupid would mean you have a low IQ, liar would require active intent rather than just lack of knowledge (if that is, in fact, the situation).

IQ is distributed in a Bell Curve. Most anything we are discussing isn't really about IQ. Most people aren't "stupid". What you actually mean is that they are "ignorant" or lazy in their thinking. Those human traits are distributed in a Pareto Distribution where 20% of the inputs result in 80% of the outputs.

So it may be true that most people aren't "stupid" but 80% can be ignorant, lazy in their thinking, make poor decisions, lack motivation, etc.

It's a misdirection to talk about stupidity, switch to IQ, knock that down, while never addressing the elephant in the room.

When you hear, for instance, that 20% of the people hold 80% of the wealth, that's the expected outcome, it's not some abnormality or something to "fix".

When you "bash" Trump, for example, you aren't "right" because everyone in the forum agrees with you or because you imply an opposing opinion is either "a liar or stupid" or "supporting Trump or a "Trump lover". Or because you are more emotional on the subject.

It has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with dealing with reality.

What do you think? Are most people arguing for solutions as if a Bell Curve distribution applied when in fact, most human characteristics (other than IQ and height) are distributed in a Pareto Curve?

 

[Sarkus]

What's the actual point you're asking? You seem to be jumping from "stupid" being bandied around when other criticism might be more appropriate, to fallacious reasons a "Trump basher" might think they're right, and then to the idea that the tyoe of distribution curve might have some bearing on how one argues for a "solution"??

It's unclear what you're asking.

Maybe give an example of a "solution" people are arguing for, how they're arguing for it as if the distribution is a Bell curve, and how their argument might/should be different if it is actually a Pareto distribution?



Also, you say - and this may actually hit on what you're trying to get at - that with regard the 80/20 split of wealth it is "the expected outcome". This would suggest a misunderstanding of the Pareto distribution: it is not prescriptive but descriptive. It makes no claims as to what "ought" to be. So whether or not the 80/20 split needs to be "fixed" is up to an individual to determine for themselves. There are certainly some economic arguments as to why some level of inequality is beneficial, but there's no consensus as to what that level might be. Saying that the Pareto curve is how it ought to be, for example, is a position, like any other, that depends on assumptions of fairness, efficiency, and the role of markets.

 

[Seattle]

What's the actual point you're asking? You seem to be jumping from "stupid" being bandied around when other criticism might be more appropriate, to fallacious reasons a "Trump basher" might think they're right, and then to the idea that the tyoe of distribution curve might have some bearing on how one argues for a "solution"??

It's unclear what you're asking.

Maybe give an example of a "solution" people are arguing for, how they're arguing for it as if the distribution is a Bell curve, and how their argument might/should be different if it is actually a Pareto distribution?



Also, you say - and this may actually hit on what you're trying to get at - that with regard the 80/20 split of wealth it is "the expected outcome". This would suggest a misunderstanding of the Pareto distribution: it is not prescriptive but descriptive. It makes no claims as to what "ought" to be. So whether or not the 80/20 split needs to be "fixed" is up to an individual to determine for themselves. There are certainly some economic arguments as to why some level of inequality is beneficial, but there's no consensus as to what that level might be. Saying that the Pareto curve is how it ought to be, for example, is a position, like any other, that depends on assumptions of fairness, efficiency, and the role of markets.

I'm not saying what it ought to be. I'm saying based on historical reality it ought to be expected since that's how human characteristics have tended to play out.

For instance, if you have a summer BBQ party in your backyard and invite a lot of people over and at the end you suggest that it would be helpful if everyone lingered for a few minutes at the end to help clean up, the results could be anything.

However, if 10 people stay, it wouldn't be surprising if 2 did most of the work and the other 8 picked up a piece of paper on their way out.

 

[Roosters for ever]

So it may be true that most people aren't "stupid" but 80% can be ignorant, lazy in their thinking, make poor decisions, lack motivation, etc.

I refer you to your comments in the "Trump2" thread.

When you "bash" Trump, for example, you aren't "right" because everyone in the forum agrees with you or because you imply an opposing opinion is either "a liar or stupid" or "supporting Trump or a "Trump lover". Or because you are more emotional on the subject.

You are confusing "trump bashing" as you put it, to the factual evidence and facts that show he is an egotistical, self appraised, misogynistic pussy grabbing, habitual lying, convicted felon and probably pedophile. That is actually reasonable every day people expressing their thoughts and words about a leader (Trump) who has started a war without any notification to his regular allies, coveted the Noble Peace prize, and doing his best to turn the USA into a dictatorship. Perhaps if the people of Germany, early on in 1939/40 had spoken up, or expressed their revulsion later on at the holocaust, instead of remaining silent, things may have been different.

It has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with dealing with reality.

It has everything to do with Trump. And funnily enough your obvious obsession with your hero in starting another thread about him.

 

[Seattle]

I refer you to your comments in the "Trump2" thread.

You are confusing "trump bashing" as you put it, to the factual evidence and facts that show he is an egotistical, self appraised, misogynistic pussy grabbing, habitual lying, convicted felon and probably pedophile.

You consider "probably pedophile" to be unbiased?" Is ranking Presidents by "pussy grabbing" rational?

That is actually reasonable every day people expressing their thoughts and words about a leader (Trump) who has started a war without any notification to his regular allies, coveted the Noble Peace prize, and doing his best to turn the USA into a dictatorship. Perhaps if the people of Germany, early on in 1939/40 had spoken up, or expressed their revulsion later on at the holocaust, instead of remaining silent, things may have been different.

It has everything to do with Trump. And funnily enough your obvious obsession with your hero in starting another thread about him.

Is "obvious obsession with your hero" unbiased in any way?

 

[Sarkus]

I'm not saying what it ought to be. I'm saying based on historical reality it ought to be expected since that's how human characteristics have tended to play out.

But you explicitly added: it's not some abnormality or something to "fix".
One only fixes things when they are not the outcome one wants. To equate "be expected" with "not something to fix" implies that what is expected is what one wants. I.e. that it is what it ought to be.

If you meant that the output of the system will tend towards a Pareto curve, and left it at that, and made no mention of it not needing fixing, and left it as descriptive rather than implied prescriptive, sure. But then, what point are you trying to make? Things tend towards a Pareto curve. So what?

 

[Roosters for ever]

You consider "probably pedophile" to be unbiased?" Is ranking Presidents by "pussy grabbing" rational?

If I was biased, I would have said pedophile for certain. What do you reckon based on evidence?. Please try and answer without any beating around the bush.
The "Pussy grabbing" was from words from his own mouth, and doesn't necessarily infer pedophilia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_tape extract: " "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

Is "obvious obsession with your hero" unbiased in any way?

I'm not the person who has just started another thread about Trump, (in a beating around the bush manner) You did that. Obviously then you are the obsessive one, particularly with your hero in who you continually make excuses for.

 

[Seattle]

If I was biased, I would have said pedophile for certain. What do you reckon based on evidence?. Please try and answer without any beating around the bush.
The "Pussy grabbing" was from words from his own mouth, and doesn't necessarily infer pedophilia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_tape extract: " "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

I'm not the person who has just started another thread about Trump, (in a beating around the bush manner) You did that. Obviously then you are the obsessive one, particularly with your hero in who you continually make excuses for.

What a line "you don't necessarily infer pedophilia for the pussy grabbing comment". No kidding.

I've heard the pussy grabbing comments. I've heard similar crude comments in boy's locker rooms. You seem to like crude comments, why is this so surprising to you?

Naming calling and baiting me just implies that you have no better arguments, which clearly you don't.

 

[Roosters for ever]

What a line "you don't necessarily infer pedophilia for the pussy grabbing comment". No kidding.

Just attempting to educate you, as you seem pretty confused. Perhaps too much beating around the bush?

I've heard the pussy grabbing comments. I've heard similar crude comments in boy's locker rooms. You seem to like crude comments, why is this so surprising to you?

Trump isn't a little boy. Sadly he was at that time, a candidate for the President of the USA.

Naming calling and baiting me just implies that you have no better arguments, which clearly you don't.

Baiting you??? Let me repeat...I'm not the person who has just started another thread about Trump, (in a beating around the bush manner) You did that. Obviously then you are the obsessive one, particularly with your hero in who you continually make excuses for. So you feel "baited" when someone dares to describe your hero, (Trump) for what he is according to the evidence and words from his own mouth?. I at least have an argument! An argument built on overwhelmingly convincing evidence in thought, word and deed. You have only excuses.

 

[Roosters for ever]

Naming calling and baiting me just implies that you have no better arguments, which clearly you don't.

As usual, you failed to answer a question. Too busy beating around the bush and making excuses for Trump? Again, What do you reckon based on evidence?. Please try and answer without any beating around the bush. (with regards to his probable pedophilia and Epstein files)

 

[Seattle]

As usual, you failed to answer a question. Too busy beating around the bush and making excuses for Trump? Again, What do you reckon based on evidence?. Please try and answer without any beating around the bush. (with regards to his probable pedophilia and Epstein files)

No charges have been filed so how would I or anyone else know?

 

[Roosters for ever]

No charges have been filed so how would I or anyone else know?

Ignorant is the new stupid, as per the title of this thread. Ignorance, and/or lies on your part. What do you reckon based on evidence?. Please try and answer without any beating around the bush. (with regards to his probable pedophilia and Epstein files)

 

[Seattle]

Ignorant is the new stupid, as per the title of this thread. Ignorance, and/or lies on your part. What do you reckon based on evidence?. Please try and answer without any beating around the bush. (with regards to his probable pedophilia and Epstein files)

What evidence?

 

[billvon]

You consider "probably pedophile" to be unbiased?"

When it is supported by testimony of victims, other sex crimes, taking advantage of other underage girls in his pageants, and his own words ogling ten year olds and his own daughter - yes. Not only is it unbiased, it is a very reasonable suspicion.

Would you consider calling Kim Jong Un a dictator a biased statement?

 

[Seattle]

When it is supported by testimony of victims, other sex crimes, taking advantage of other underage girls in his pageants, and his own words ogling ten year olds and his own daughter - yes. Not only is it unbiased, it is a very reasonable suspicion.

Would you consider calling Kim Jong Un a dictator a biased statement?

I think unicorns can fly and I've heard that is the case.
Would you consider calling water, wet, a biased statement?

 

[billvon]

Would you consider calling water, wet, a biased statement?

Nope.

But I suspect you might claim that since there is no hard proof that it is wet, calling it wet is a biased and emotional claim. Indeed, according to you, it could be wet OR dry; two possibilities that should be explored and not rejected out of hand due to political bias.

 

[Seattle]

Nope.

But I suspect you might claim that since there is no hard proof that it is wet, calling it wet is a biased and emotional claim. Indeed, according to you, it could be wet OR dry; two possibilities that should be explored and not rejected out of hand due to political bias.

No, I'll concede that water is wet. What is the point for you, to name all the things that Trump might be? And then what? Start in on Vance? Hope that AOC is going to be elected? Call Trump an evil bastard for the next 2 years every day?

Compare something Trump might have done to a North Korean dictator who is, in fact, a dictator?

 

[Roosters for ever]

What evidence?

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU08/20250227/117951/HHRG-119-JU08-20250227-SD006-U6.pdf

New photos and videos highlight close ties between Epstein and Trump

Footage shows the pedophile at Trump’s 1993 wedding and the two attending a Victoria’s Secret fashion event in 1999

www.theguardian.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_tape

What 3 million new documents tell us about Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein

US President Donald Trump is mentioned more than 1000 times in the 3 million Jeffrey Epstein documents just released.

www.rnz.co.nz

What excuses will you offer to offer to counteract the facts that there is at least a case for Trump, (your friend, your ally) being a pedophile. How many of his questionable qualities do you share? (beside telling porky pies, and your obsession with making excuses and beating around the bush, when anyone happens to raise any of those questionable qualities).

No, I'll concede that water is wet. What is the point for you, to name all the things that Trump might be? And then what? Start in on Vance? Hope that AOC is going to be elected? Call Trump an evil bastard for the next 2 years every day?

Compare something Trump might have done to a North Korean dictator who is, in fact, a dictator?

This is going to be fun! (1) Threatening to take over Greenland, (2)Threatening anyone that dare criticise him, and sacking those that do not fall directly in line with his thoughts, words and deeds.3)Trump has frequently praised authoritarian leaders, including Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping, (4) After losing the 2020 election, Trump tried to overturn the results, culminating in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, (5) His promotion of the January 6th capitol Hill riots, comparable to Hitlers "Beer Hall Putsch, .....If I was more educated with USA politics, I could probably add many more for you to "excuse"

 

[Roosters for ever]

What is the point for you, to name all the things that Trump might be? And then what? Start in on Vance? Hope that AOC is going to be elected? Call Trump an evil bastard for the next 2 years every day?

 

[Randwolf]

What is the point...

The point is to state a premise, make assertions, and present evidence to support your position - almost as if you were participating in a discussion group. Why do you act as if the rules of conduct are nonexistent when you are in the political sub forum? The standards may be a bit looser, more relaxed, but they do not differ in kind - only degree.

When the subject is Trump, you go off the deep end - acting as though you haven't a clue how to conduct yourself. If you feel that your position is correct, that you have a point to make, take up your shot - and don't blow it. Convince us...

Correct the misrepresentations made. Explain your reasons for feeling Trump is being unfairly persecuted and continuously maligned.

For example, if someone claims that

... he is an egotistical, self appraised, misogynistic pussy grabbing, habitual lying, convicted felon and probably pedophile

rebut those claims. Set the record straight. Document your reasons for believing him innocent of the pedophile and rapist charges. Support this position with something more substantive than claiming the grey limbo of "not yet convicted."

Present some quotes to corroborate that he stands for human rights and abhors abuse of women and children. Point to some reputable people that vouch for his character and swear he is disgusted by anyone who acts in this manner.

If you believe Trump is a good man, then list some of his outstanding accomplishments. Tell us why you are proud to call him President. Do it in the same manner you would if you were attempting to substantiate that Elon Musk is a good businessman. I know you're capable, I've seen you argue convincingly on financial matters.

Show us some of the "fine policies" he has promoted. Help us discover the deep wisdom that he, as leader of the free world, exhibits. Share some of the profound statements he utters. Tell us why you feel that he is a great leader, deserving of the highest office in the land. Support making him the most powerful person on earth.

Do all of this in compliance with forum regulations - stop refusing to answer direct questions, over and over again. Stop trolling. Basically, just stop pretending to be so stupid. You know the game - show us what you got - support your position.

Bottom line - comport yourself in the same way you expect others to - balance out the overwhelming evidence the rest of us post showing what an evil bastard prick he really is.

That's what the point is, Seattle.