Parent overheard describing contrails to a child, “Look, that’s the jet-stream.”
Has a thread been opened to discuss “How America Lost its Mind” ? I think it’s worth at least a skim.
Here is some grade A stupid, right here amongst us.
Ah. The vacuum version of Cutco knives.
Back when Dubya was President, I was walking past one of the break rooms at work and overheard the vending machine guy drop this little nugget to someone he was talking to. “I don’t know why everyone thinks Bush is so stupid. He’s a Rhodes Scholar too, y’know.”
Ah, funny. The “special gift” I got for letting him try to sell me a vacuum was…
… a cheap set of knives.
I guess he fell for that one, too. 
It’s no different from Natural Philosophy, a logically consistent theory, based on social prejudices, with jack all facts to back it up.
I only skimmed the link, but it’s got to be a pretence, a parody of a hypothetical crazy stupid person. Yes, the parodist may himself be a crazy stupid person, but it’s still parody. Things like “letters in the real alphabet” and the valediction “Merry CHristmas” in March give it away.
Got to be parody. … Right?
I once knew a British guy who was convinced the moon landing were a hoax. Not because of any dodgy shadows on photos, but because if flying to the moon could have been done then the British would have done it first.
Is this Fred or did you guys actually have multiple crazy religious cults?
Multiple actual Dopers have posted the same sentiment. Scary and sad.
A lot of the examples listed in this thread aren’t exactly stupid, they’re misinformed or outdated.
-
It is not unreasonable to argue that someone who was a Rhodes Scholar is not dumb. Yes, Bush was never a Rhodes Scholar, but if someone had been told, or mistakenly thought, that he was, then for him to say that Bush can’t be dumb because he was a Rhodes Scholar is a legitimate and sound argument. Hard for a dumb person to get that scholarship.
-
The 2nd Amendment indeed does not say that guns are for hunting; it says they are for militia. Now whether that militia means for use in defense of the nation, or for resistance against tyranny, is its own debate. But the gun-supporter’s argument wasn’t entirely unsound, nor was it stupid. One can argue that the 2nd Amendment was a bad idea. But the interpretation that the 2nd amendment is for resistance against tyrannical government is not unreasonable.
There are some ways I can interpret that sentence and agree with it, and other ways I can interpret it in which I won’t agree. However, this is what Chefguy said:
I agree that the statement shows some lunkheadedness.
That was some mighty fine cypherin’ in that post!
It’s also utterly unsupported by the text, given that nowhere does the Constitution mention a right to revolution and that the Founding Fathers themselves rather denounced that right during the Whisky Rebellion.
The notion that the “militia” contemplated by the Second Amendment must be an organized paramilitary force is better-supported, given that the text itself describes said militia as “well-regulated”, but I suppose that text has been interpreted into a nullity. If you don’t see the “well-regulated”, it can’t eat you. If you don’t see the “well-regulated”, it can’t eat you. If you don’t see the “well-regulated”, it can’t eat you.
I agree it isn’t dumb. Didn’t mean to imply that.
It’s those damn commas and lack of conjunctions that confuse the issue:
It is poorly written and too ambiguous to make sense.
If they had put an “and” between “free State,” and "“the right”. It would be perfectly clear that neither a well regulated militia NOR the people’s right to bear arms should be infringed. If they had put the whole phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” first, then added “as part of” before “a well regulated Militia”, then it would be clear that the right to arms was dependent on being in a well regulated Militia. Heck, if the first word were “For” it would be clearer.
I tend toward the first - there should have been an “and” - view, primarily because guns were a necessary tool for everyday citizens. The FF, I believe, did not foresee a situation where it would be good for the government to take them away or make the process to obtain one overly onerous. That, to me, makes more sense than simply establishing a militia - at least as written.
I’m honestly surprised that there are no “here’s what we were thinking” accounts written any any of the FF involved.
I believe I have reported this conversation before, but it never gets old (to me, anyway).
Dumbass: Hey Kelevra, you’re a scentist. So tell me, which is bigger, a kilogram or a kilometer?
Kelevra: Uhmm, those are different things. One is mass, the other is distance.
DA: Yea, but one of them has to be bigger.
K: OK, tell me this. Which is bigger, a pound or a mile?
DA: A mile obviously.
K: Well there you are, a kilometer is bigger than a kilogram!
This isn’t stupid, but just odd (and something I posted about before):
A little over a decade ago, I knew a Chinese man who was posting on an Internet message board, and exulting over the fact that China was making significant progress in producing its own stealth jet fighters. Now, given that he was a military enthusiast, this was nothing surprising, until he explained his thought process further: He felt that Western women would now be more interested in dating Chinese men, because surely such women were following global aerospace and military developments of this sort, and now that China was making its own stealth fighters, they would be more attracted to Chinese men as a result. :dubious:
This? Is completely awesome. My hat is off.