You address a salient point, and one I made reference to already. Everyone’s an idiot from time to time, every one of us.
By the same token, however, I think we can all agree that there is a distinction between Bosda or I, or you, or anyone, having a moment’s worth of “instant stupid” …
…and the kind of moron who thinks nothing of causing accidents for a mile up and down the interstate simply because he is GOING to exit at the next exit, regardless of who’s between him and it, you know?
Admittedly, the testing procedure is still under construction. You may rest assured, Bosda, that I ain’t gonna start shootin’ folks until we get this down to an exact science.
One of the problems with your proposition, Master, is that many of the people you describe as ‘stupid’ aren’t necessarily stupid; they’re just inconsiderate, selfish jerks. (This doesn’t include the momentary brain farts we all have when we act like an inconsiderate, selfish jerk because, in fact, we weren’t paying attention for a moment.) Intelligence is no block to being a real shit, you know?
Let’s kill off all the putzes, of any profession and any degree of intelligence. I get to decide who qualifies. If we decide we need further purging, we can go for the idiots later. Or the lawyers, if you insist.
Does this mean you’ll be arming customer service personnel? If so, I think we’ve got a solution for 7 up yourslittle problem . Of course that brings up one problem I have: I have asserted, for years, that all customers, regardless of their intelligence outside the place of consumption, are idiots.
I realize that you’re only discussing the hypothetical (rats) elimination of those that I would call willfully ignorant: That is they’ve shown themselves to be unable to be educated, rather than simply educated. But while I do believe that getting rid of the borons would be a good idea - what happens when you next enter the supermarket? Or worse, the car dealership?
Is it worthwhile to eliminate those who are too willful in their stupidity to take the time before entering the place of consumption to protect themselves from the intelligence siphoning effects of a cash register? What about those people willing to allow someone to make their TV into a place of consumption by watching and purchasing things hawked via infomercials?
Or, worse, are all of us using the internet at home (where we supposedly pay for the service) due to be eliminated? :eek:
I don’t know what the solution would be, really. But, going back to my customer service days… I really would have loved sanction to prevent certain customers from passing their genes on…
So you want to kill me, Kang-Wa? Just as an academic excerise, of course. To work the mental muscles, that’s all.
You know what? I’m not amused by your little intellectually dishonest “disclaimer.” You want to talk about killing large groups of people. That’s not fighting ignorance, which is what this Board is about.
I’m sorry, NP, I don’t know you that well. Where did you get your law degree? Or are you a member of the other group? Or are you both? I wouldn’t think an idiot could get through law school, but I know of one who made it through med school, so I suppose anything’s possible.
Do note, however, that I did not call you an idiot. Or a lawyer, for that matter. In fact, I’m still not sure which one you’re supposed to be; you’re the one who put the shoe on and loudly announced that it fit. If you must insult me, do be kind enough to explain precisely why, won’t you? As in “which group?” The suspense is killin’ me.
AvhHines makes an excellent point, though. My first assumption, upon seeing someone giving a foodservice employee a hard time… or seeing someone slew across four lanes of traffic, heedless of what’s between him and the exit…
…is that the person is an idiot. Insulting ANYONE who’s going to be handling your food before you eat it is not a smart move, and considering what can happen on the interstate when one drives recklessly in dense traffic, it’s a fair cop.
On the other hand, it ain’t necessarily so, and AvhHines does make a fair objection: blind, poisonous arrogance and self-centeredness is not necessarily stupidity. I stand corrected; plainly the theoretical assessment process is going to have to take this into account.
Which begs the question of whether we’d rather have to deal with arrogant, self-centered intelligentsia… or humble, self-effacing idiots…
Well, dunno, Dio, Cindy Sue Leggett was dumb as a sack of hammers, but she had these really enormous…tracts of land. And we’re gonna assume that the SDMB Esquires are specificly exempt, right? 'Cause Minty still owes me $5 And Dewey’s already on the Straight to the Wall Come the Revolution list, so, really, what’s the hurry, can’t wait another six months?
I’m closing this thread, after a couple of complaints from lawyers. I know of at least one other lawyer who hasn’t complained about this thread in particular, but about other lawyer-bashing threads.
