given that a proportion of people will have lower intelligence than the norm, usually through no fault of their own, is it fair to discriminate against them and ridicule them, making their lives less happy - and to use words describing reduced intelligence as insults ?
Don't we all have our place in society, whatever our capabilities ?
I reckon less than 50% have lower intelligence than the norm so you would be picking on a minority.
I seem to remember that it is okay to hate a particular minority as long as you don't discriminate against them or act on your hatred.
Sounds a bit stupid to me
[i]Don't we all have our place in society, whatever our capabilities ? [/i]
No.
is it fair to discriminate against them and ridicule them,
Yes. Like fat people and the religious too.
Next!
As I look at the world I live in, with its greed, its status obsessions, celebrity and consumer culture etc, I think that stupidity is an ASPIRATION, not a negative.
( I'm not admitting to being any better BTW, I'm as fick as the best of you! 🙂
I can go along with that.
I think there's lots of people out there who are thicker than stupid and so for whom stupidity would definitely be an aspirational IQ target .
😉
WCA
I reckon less than 50% have lower intelligence than the norm so you would be picking on a minority.
Reckon not; I'd say that EXACTLY 50% have below average intelligence so its not a minority [b]or[/b] a majority ....
Is there a word for that (an equality maybe :o)
Yes. Like fat people and the religious too.
well, one might argue that there was at least a degree of choice about those attributes, but one cannot will oneself cleverer
Reckon not; I'd say that EXACTLY 50% have below average intelligence
my understanding of how a mean is calculated might not necessarily result in an exact 50/50 split, however, I think this is beside the point - even if the people being discriminated against for some characteristic were in the majority, would this then be any more justifiable ?
On the official* scale:
A person with an IQ of 0-25 is an "idiot".
A person with an IQ of 26-50 is an "imbecile"
A person with an IQ of 51-70 is a "moron".
No idea where "stupid" features on this scale.
[size=1]* the long deprecated Goddard scale that is.[/size]
Im too clever to reply to this troll, but too stupid to come up with a witty response. A bit 50:50 really.
Reckon not; I'd say that EXACTLY 50% have below average intelligence so its not a minority or a majority ....
That rather depends on which definition of average you are using. To give an example, more than 50% of people in the UK earn less than the average (mean) wage.
My children genuinely think "stupid" is a swear word. My 7 year old complained of someone using the "S-word"- turned out he meant "stupid" rather than any other profanity. This wasn't something I'd discussed with him before, so must have been re-inforced at school!
No idea where "stupid" features on this scale
well, I was implying inclusion of any any term implying reduced intelligence...
How would you define stupid...we have all done stupid things. Even very clever people can be stupid so stupidity is not necessarily a measure of intellligence. So I reckon its acceptable to call someone stupid if thats what their being. So dont be so stupid 🙄
How would you define stupid...we have all done stupid things. Even very clever people can be stupid so stupidity is not necessarily a measure of intellligence
or to quote Forrest Gump "Momma says stupid is as stupid does"
Stupid will be banned soon. Remember when people were mentally retarded, well now they have learning difficulties. Soon that will be banned and we will have to call them something else. Perhaps it will go full circle and they will be called morons.
My favourite has always been "hard of thinking"
Im too clever to reply to this troll
while I'll admit it's partially a sideswipe at ernie and junkyard who seem much exercised about racial descriptors but relaxed about accusations of stupidity, it also reflects the outcome of my epiphany over fattism last week
simonfbarnes, gonefishin.
I was (obviously) using the definition of "average" that implies that what I said is completely correct.
To do otherwise would be .. well .. you know 😉
The 50% thing - If there is one person or more who is exactly on the 50% mark then there will be less than 50% of people more stupid and less than 50% less stupid.
It is a bit like the fact I have more legs than the UK average. Well it isn't but I love confusin statistics.
I'll admit it's partially a sideswipe at ernie and junkyard who seem much exercised about racial descriptors but relaxed about accusations of stupidity
Well a quick search of the word "stupid" under all posts by ernie_lynch, reveals that I last used the word 10 days ago to describe Nick Griffin (with reference to his performance on QT)
Has my criticism of Nick Griffin 'capabilities' being playing on your mind ever since ?
WorldClassAccident
You can use the definition of the median without having to get caught up in the practicalities of calculating it.
(odd numbers of people, skewing effect of Daily Mail readers, people who can't be measured because they ate the pencil (see reference to Nick G. above), etc etc).
I like "stupid" as a word, it is, almost uniquely just about rude enough, but still not such a swear word that you can't use it when your Mum's in the room.
Well a quick search of the word "stupid" ...
I was thinking of these terms:
You really are a goof-brain Berm
You really ain't the full ticket mate
which also imply an intellectual deficit
Has my criticism of Nick Griffin 'capabilities' being playing on your mind ever since ?
my point being not that some people shouldn't be insulted, but that if they are the terms used should not disadvantage other, unrelated groups. As far as I could see NG is of normal intellect, however nasty he may be.
I am comfortable with the fact that around 95% of the population are more stupid than me. It isn't too burdensome.
Im comfortable with the fact that ourmaninthenorth is more stupid than me.
😉
Is it acceptable?
Not if you're the one being called stupid!
So much variation within intelligence.
I asked one guy to stop calling a Halfords staff member 'thicko' as he was so ammused at this. He stopped laughing, then I ridiculed him-which made his GF laugh and he walked off red faced!
Treat others as you wish to be treated. No need for insults.
Im comfortable with the fact that ourmaninthenorth is more stupid than me.
Excellent. At least we all know where we stand, eh! 😀
I was thinking of these terms:
And yet you conveniently miss out that this was in response to me being called the "Thought Police".
A term which was used to describe me because apparently, I had the audacity to suggest the word "half-caste" wasn't "racist", but "merely impolite".
And incidentally SFB, it's hardly an example of me being [i]" much exercised about racial descriptors "[/i] as you claim.
🙄
[i]Don't we all have our place in society, whatever our capabilities ? [/i]
Don't be stupid. Oh, errr...
😉
I only needed to get to the 3rd and 4th posts to see the answers I wanted to see. It was all summed up in those 2 posts, well done. 8)
Ian Munro - MemberDon't we all have our place in society, whatever our capabilities ?
No.
Stoner - Memberis it fair to discriminate against them and ridicule them,
Yes. Like fat people and the religious too.
Next!
BTW SFB.........how do you know that the term "goof-brain" is offensive ?
It is a term that I had never heard of before, which I simply made up myself, for that particular post.
And do you know what "not the full ticket" means ?
And do you know what "not the full ticket" means ?
well, one might surmise they were not intended to be complimentary
It's ok so long as you spell it STOOPID of course
Thick is a better word than stupid............
stupid can mean too many things....
stupid as in a person is stupid
stupid as in stupid actions...........
and we all do stupid things simon, dont we........... 🙄
....not intended to be complimentary
And it's not intended to be in insulting either - merely an observation. In the same vein as "a sandwich short of a picnic".
And btw, it was in reference to him waffling on about prince Charles not being allowed to marry a Chinese Catholic, on a thread which asked if the term "half-caste" was ok to use.
think we need to differentiate between calling someone stupid and saying they have stupid ideas - first implies incapable of logic and moral reasoning - the second that they have corrupt logic and morals
And yet you conveniently miss out that this was in response to me being called the "Thought Police".
Brilliant : I think you've made a bit of an assumption there that that phrase was aimed at you ernie. If you check my orignal use of the term there is no reference to you, in fact by your own posting we were actually in agreement on the salient point. However, you then weighed in telling me what I may or may not think. . So I guess from then on its a case of if the cap fits you should probably wear it with good grace.
Now about this stupid business........ 😉
this thread reminds me of...
[img] 
[/img]
🙂
[i]is it fair to discriminate against them and ridicule them, making their lives less happy - and to use words describing reduced intelligence as insults ?[/i]
3 points:
- Ridiculing people is generally over-done and the world would be better if it was done rather less.
- "discrimination" is a negative thing when it is done for reasons we regard as irrational in the context. If you are choosing soldiers to award the VC to, it is unjust to rule out those who are ginger, but perfectly just to rule out those who are cowardly. Much of the way our society organises itself rewards (a certain degree of) intelligence (definitions of which vary). Stupidity/intelligence is not an arbitrary characteristic. The individual may have little control over it, but it is not irrelevant, it is a fundamental determinant of how well the individual does at many things. Compare this with, say, being black. All else being equal, a black man may fail at somethign because obstacles are placed in his path by bigots. A stupid man will fail because he cannot achieve what he needs to do. Stupidity is a predictor of whether someone can do particular things. Blackness isn't.
(There are other circumstances, other societys in which brute strength or savage cruelty or physical courage are similarly important. But again, in such situations, weakness, cowardice or execessive scruples are actually predictors of whether the individual can do something necessary for success, not arbitrary).
3 - Many people are abused not for [i]being[/i] stupid, but for behaving in a stupid way. I quite agree that bollocking someone with mild learning difficulties for being "stupid" is horrible, but doing the same to someone who should be thinking better and isn't is not the same. A huge number of instances of ridiculing for stupidity are of this type - the stupidity being criticised is discretionary denseness.
I reckon. 🙂
All else being equal, a black man may fail at somethign because obstacles are placed in his path by bigots. A stupid man will fail because he cannot achieve what he needs to do
the exception being the public school system where a bunch of bigots manage to promote sufficient self confidence in stupid people that they can be successful
its all contextual - as said discretionary denseness deserves attack - a kid who is a poor reader with low self esteem never deserves to be called stupid
Berm Bandit - MemberI think you've made a bit of an assumption there that that phrase was aimed at you ernie.
Too right I did. You said, quote :
"[i]I can't ever remember any person to whom those non PC words apply challenging their use, its almost invariably a plain clothes member of the thought Police.[/i]"
You are very clearly saying that anyone who suggests that the term "half-caste" is impolite, is part of the "Thought Police".
What you think matters more than what you say. If you take offence to things I say I reckon your stupid to be upset by someone elses point of view. Thats quite different to taking offence to racial discrimination say in the form I encountered while growing up in South Africa and Zim.
We should encourage open and frank debate without the cencorship of banning words etc. Get it out, discuss it and then make up your mind based on good rational debate.
Banning the word fat for example, so we have to substitue it for large is plain stupid.
And it's not intended to be in insulting either - merely an observation. In the same vein as "a sandwich short of a picnic".
I think that sounds disingenuous, in the same way that saying someone had ‘A touch of the tar’, merely implied they had a nautical ancestry. It's certainly meant to convey some kind of deficiency.
3 - Many people are abused not for being stupid, but for behaving in a stupid way. I quite agree that bollocking someone with mild learning difficulties for being "stupid" is horrible, but doing the same to someone who should be thinking better and isn't is not the same. A huge number of instances of ridiculing for stupidity are of this type - the stupidity being criticised is discretionary denseness.
but by using that word (or any other reflecting some level of reduced intelligence) one is also disadvantaging people who [b]are[/b] stupid and cannot help it. Much in the same way someone on here recently called themselves a 'girl' because they weren't bold enough to do something, simultaneously implying that all females were cowardly too, which is obvious nonsense and derogatory to that sex.
Instead of calling someone stupid or '2 apples short of a picnic' it would be better to use a word of no clear meaning like 'numpty' or 'cockweasel', or even better just say they were misguided or confused.
