Philosophy Now Forum

Nick_A wrote:It seems that for some reason many blind deniers, as on this thread for example, have trouble with either giving a fuck or giving a shit. Obviously emotional blind denial creates both erectile dysfunction and constipation in many whose denial is sufficiently intense. This is a problem for a trained psychologist. How can blind denial be treated so that the person can perform their bodily functions normally?

No one is denying his advancement of physics. So what exactly is your issue? That we don't worship his memory, or wear a t-shirt with his mug on it, accompanied by some glib, nerdy saying? Or watch that stupid sitcom with the nerds living together?

Get over it.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Nick_A wrote:It seems that for some reason many blind deniers, as on this thread for example, have trouble with either giving a fuck or giving a shit. Obviously emotional blind denial creates both erectile dysfunction and constipation in many whose denial is sufficiently intense. This is a problem for a trained psychologist. How can blind denial be treated so that the person can perform their bodily functions normally?

No one is denying his advancement of physics. So what exactly is your issue? That we don't worship his memory, or wear a t-shirt with his mug on it, accompanied by some glib, nerdy saying? Or watch that stupid sitcom with the nerds living together?

Get over it.

Years ago one of my favorite t-shirts had Einstein's picture on it. It was a white t-shirt, and on the front was Einstein's face in blue ink, on the back was the back of his head in red ink. It didn't need a saying, the t-shirt was the saying, but most people didn't get it.

You could assume that somebody who was clever about one subject is clever about everything.
Or you could assume that somebody who was exceptionally clever about one subject must have been stupid about everything else.


Or, you could read the essay and judge it on it merits.

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Nick_A wrote:It seems that for some reason many blind deniers, as on this thread for example, have trouble with either giving a fuck or giving a shit. Obviously emotional blind denial creates both erectile dysfunction and constipation in many whose denial is sufficiently intense. This is a problem for a trained psychologist. How can blind denial be treated so that the person can perform their bodily functions normally?

No one is denying his advancement of physics. So what exactly is your issue? That we don't worship his memory, or wear a t-shirt with his mug on it, accompanied by some glib, nerdy saying? Or watch that stupid sitcom with the nerds living together?

Get over it.

Years ago one of my favorite t-shirts had Einstein's picture on it. It was a white t-shirt, and on the front was Einstein's face in blue ink, on the back was the back of his head in red ink. It didn't need a saying, the t-shirt was the saying, but most people didn't get it.

That's actually not bad. Blue-shift, red-shift. I get it lol!

Skip wrote:You could assume that somebody who was clever about one subject is clever about everything.
Or you could assume that somebody who was exceptionally clever about one subject must have been stupid about everything else.

Or, you could read the essay and judge it on it merits.

One of my favorite authors was Isaac Asimov, and he was very good at science related subjects, but I remember reading that his daughters and wife would make fun of him when he screwed up on some mundane topic. I think it comes down to what is more important, and those things are gotten right, the things that are less important are not given enough attention to get right.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Nick_A wrote:
It seems that for some reason many blind deniers, as on this thread for example, have trouble with either giving a fuck or giving a shit. Obviously emotional blind denial creates both erectile dysfunction and constipation in many whose denial is sufficiently intense. This is a problem for a trained psychologist. How can blind denial be treated so that the person can perform their bodily functions normally?

No one is denying his advancement of physics. So what exactly is your issue? That we don't worship his memory, or wear a t-shirt with his mug on it, accompanied by some glib, nerdy saying? Or watch that stupid sitcom with the nerds living together?

Get over it.

The issue is that posts here have demonstrated that the subject matter is causing blind deniers to have trouble with ED and constipation. They admitted that they couldn't give a fuck or give a shit. You are lacking in compassion if you are unable to see how unfortunate this emotional affliction is for the proper functioning human body.

Nick_A wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Nick_A wrote:
It seems that for some reason many blind deniers, as on this thread for example, have trouble with either giving a fuck or giving a shit. Obviously emotional blind denial creates both erectile dysfunction and constipation in many whose denial is sufficiently intense. This is a problem for a trained psychologist. How can blind denial be treated so that the person can perform their bodily functions normally?

No one is denying his advancement of physics. So what exactly is your issue? That we don't worship his memory, or wear a t-shirt with his mug on it, accompanied by some glib, nerdy saying? Or watch that stupid sitcom with the nerds living together?

Get over it.

The issue is that posts here have demonstrated that the subject matter is causing blind deniers to have trouble with ED and constipation. They admitted that they couldn't give a fuck or give a shit. You are lacking in compassion if you are unable to see how unfortunate this emotional affliction is for the proper functioning human body.

Compassion is not a requirement of my term on this prison plant, Warden.

Dalek Prime wrote: Compassion is not a requirement of my term on this prison plant, Warden.

It shows.

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Compassion is not a requirement of my term on this prison plant, Warden.

It shows.

Still not a requirement.

thedoc wrote: One of my favorite authors was Isaac Asimov, and he was very good at science related subjects, but I remember reading that his daughters and wife would make fun of him when he screwed up on some mundane topic. I think it comes down to what is more important, and those things are gotten right, the things that are less important are not given enough attention to get right.

I don't believe Asimov was an idiot about life outside of science. He wrote a not-too-shabby Guide to the Bible, for example.

My friend Bob had an IQ in the high normal range. He was good at his job in film distribution, at fixing old cars, at renovating houses and at playing Bridge. He was not particularly good at cooking or gardening, but was a sharp dresser. He liked hand-tools, neatness, Sandra Bullock and maple syrup. His wife and daughters made fun of him when he screwed up - and sometimes when he didn't.

Bob, like me, Isaac Asimov and Dalek Prime, held opinions on any number of topics unrelated to his work, and some of those opinions were intelligent. Chances are, any intelligent person's opinions on the topics that interest him will be intelligent.
I prefer to judge them on their merits rather that third-hand anecdotes.

Skip wrote: I don't believe Asimov was an idiot about life outside of science. He wrote a not-too-shabby Guide to the Bible, for example.

My friend Bob had an IQ in the high normal range. He was good at his job in film distribution, at fixing old cars, at renovating houses and at playing Bridge. He was not particularly good at cooking or gardening, but was a sharp dresser. He liked hand-tools, neatness, Sandra Bullock and maple syrup. His wife and daughters made fun of him when he screwed up - and sometimes when he didn't.

Bob, like me, Isaac Asimov and Dalek Prime, held opinions on any number of topics unrelated to his work, and some of those opinions were intelligent. Chances are, any intelligent person's opinions on the topics that interest him will be intelligent.
I prefer to judge them on their merits rather that third-hand anecdotes.

you misunderstand me, I'm not saying that Isaac was not intelligent about things, just that some things were not important enough to him for him to give much attention to.

Skip, I know longer 'hold' opinions. I put them away in my sock drawer, to replace the ones that go missing.

thedoc wrote: you misunderstand me, I'm not saying that Isaac was not intelligent about things, just that some things were not important enough to him for him to give much attention to.

I didn't misunderstand you. I did try to demonstrate that it's possible for a person who is exceptionally well-informed on one topic also to have some valid, worthwhile thing to say on a different topic. Even dead people. Even Einstein.

Nick_A wrote:I agree JS. It just seems frightening to me that what seems obvious to those like Einstein is intolerable for so many. If this is true and so much of society is based on self deception, what does it say about our species as intelligent creatures and what intelligence actually is?

Apparently, it says that the average person is an idiot.

Jaded Sage wrote:

Nick_A wrote:I agree JS. It just seems frightening to me that what seems obvious to those like Einstein is intolerable for so many. If this is true and so much of society is based on self deception, what does it say about our species as intelligent creatures and what intelligence actually is?

Apparently, it says that the average person is an idiot.

Actually, it says more about the need for self-deception, without which humanity would have to starkly face itself.

(See Peter Wessel Zapffe, The Last Messiah.)