Stupidity Poll

[apperception]

Ladies & Gentlemen, it is that time again where aidsbonnet requests your help in determining who the most idiotic individuals in LJ philosophy are. The competition is fierce this time, featuring everything from the drug-addled ramblings of 20-somethings to the Nietzschean pretentions of 30-yo heavy metal-listening libertarians

Comments

[matrexius]

Well, our leading contestants are someone who posts under the influence and someone who - ostensibly, at least - does not. The former largely seems to have taken the hint, and frankly, I'm willing to suspend judgment until he graces us with some drug-free posts. jonamo_cat may very well show his hand and wind up in future stupidity polls, but until then, I just can't bring myself to vote for him. On the other hand, edcalamia simply refuses to show mercy, compassion, or remorse in his brutal volley of vacuousness.

Thus, my vote must be cast in favor of persistence and incorrigibility. Congratulations, Tracy.

Re: Persistence?

[matrexius]

You're still commenting. Moreover, this is only the second time you remembered to log in before you posted something in this thread.

I mean, really.

Re: Persistence?

[apperception]

Well, you won the Stupidity contest. It turns out people on philosophy hate you so much, they're willing to vote for you over someone who is, in all likelihood, clinically retarded.

Now according to the rules of the Stupidity contest, I'm required to ban you from philosophy, probably forever. But I'm a compassionate person. I'm known for my compassion. I'm going to give you an opportunity to prevent yourself from being banned.

You need to make a post to philosophy, explaining to everyone what is wrong with your behavior. You need to apologize for your behavior, and you need to explain to everyone exactly what you're going to do in the future to make your conduct better.

If the people and I are satisfied with your self-criticism, I will allow you to stay in the community, and I will immediately ban the runner-up in your stead. If we are dissatisfied, you will be banished -- forever.

I'll give you 24 hours. If I don't see a Self-Criticism post in philosophy by then, I will banish you. Good luck.

[hollowman]

Awesome! I am the champion!

[ex_mrflagg]

i find the fact that you could receive any kind of stupid award bizarre.
i'm assuming this poster is a moron of some kind.

[hollowman]

I think most of it goes back to that thread where I said homosexuality was, from a Darwinian perspective, less genetically fit than heterosexuality. Apparently, facts are not suitably egalitarian for some people's liking.

Also, they think I'm talking rot when I talk about science and materialism, and I think they are talking rot when they talk about post modernism and mind-body dualism. It's like cats and dogs, really.

[hollowman]

Also, that is so not what I said. What I said was, me and Mr. T are not having children when we make sweet, sweet love, and this is a poor genetic strategy.

But oh so sweet.

[hollowman]

I went over this in the original thread. Genetic fitness depends on number of offspring compared to others within the same species; just having a kid doesn't do it. It seems likely that heterosexual couples will breed both more often, and in a higher percentage of couples, than homosexuals. This is borne out in the data... 46% of married couples are raising their own children, 38% of unmarried heterosexual couples are raising children, and 21% of male and 32% of female homosexual couples are raising their own children. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf). That is a significant fitness bias towards heterosexual couples, married and unmarried alike

[ironed_orchid]

::hands you chocolate and tissues::

[zentiger]

Sorry. You need to be taken out back and shot. It's for your own good.

[pure_doxyk]

When I get rich, I'm building a Philosophy BattleDome.

You're all invited. Free punch and pie!