Why are people so stupid?

Speak for yourself!

Re: Why are people so stupid?

Colonel Sanders, I think we can safely say, is no longer capable of being stupid, unless one wants to argue that the total absence of brain function (a regrettable, but totally predictable sequela to the colonel's demise in 1980) constitutes "stupidity." Likewise, we can, with some confidence, say that Mighty Mouse, as a fictional cartoon character, is also incapable of being "stupid," at least in the conventional sense of the term.

And if we posit Colonel Sanders and Mighty Mouse as end points on a continuum or spectrum of stupidity (as is suggested by the phrase "from Colonel Sanders to Mighty Mouse"), then presumably the examples encompassed in this range are no more stupid than the extremes represented by the two end points. Thus, if Colonel Sanders and Mighty Mouse are both equally incapable of being stupid (although for different reasons), then we can assume that those individuals bracketed by the Colonel and the Mouse are likewise not stupid.

Of course, the Colonel-Mouse range may enclose a null set, a club with no members. Such a result, however, would cast doubt on the initial choice of the Colonel and the Mouse as representing the end points of a "spectrum of stupidity," and thus, perforce, it would cast some doubt on the intelligence of the person choosing them as exemplars of stupidity.

In sum, I think this question deserves more thorough research, and I am applying to the NEH for a grant to study this in depth. The tentative title of my research proposal is: "The Mouse that Clucked: Heuristic Modelling Processes Based on Fictional Rodents and Informed by Seven Secret Herbs and Spices."

Just for a minute, I thought this was a question. Maybe I'm just stupid. Hmm, while I'm stupid, I nominate Individual for King of the world! Wait a seccy there....I'M the one who thinks everyone else is stupid! Individual and I will now have to duke it out in a celebrity boxing match for the title of King of the world. Bring it on!

I would think that "duking" it out would be beneath the dignity of anyone aspiring to be king. Certainly, to expect a king to "put up his dukes" would be to ask him to ascribe mere nobility to his regal mitts, which is a gross example of lese' majeste'. Likewise, no one could expect that a king could be "down for the count," because a count is several degrees lower than a king, and so the king would always be on top of the count, no matter how far "down" he was. Indeed, a count would consider himself lucky to be "down for the king" while "duking" it out in a "battle royal" according to the Marquis of Queensbury rules. But, as the Brits would say: "Lor' love a duck." Or, in this case, "lord love a duke," meaning "someone with a baronial title loves a duke," which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

I have a similar question, but it's more narrowed down: why are women drivers SO F'N STUPID?!?!?!?!?

True enough joe. Perhaps we can assign dukes to do the 'duking out' for us. As for the counts, they can keep score. Mind you, I'm stupid, so all know from counts I learned from Sesame Street.

Jeepers, joefromthesecondcity, isn't it 11 herbs and spices? 'Course the only one I can taste is salt.

Uh, I digress. What was the question again?

jespah, I believe it's 9 kinds of salt, 1 herb, and 1 spice.

My reference to seven herbs and spices was a . . . a pun. No, wait, what's that thing that's the same backwards and forwards? A palindrome! Yeah, that's it. It was a palindrome.

On a more fundamental level, both seven and eleven, of course, are mystical numbers, famed in both the Kabbalah and the casinos as "lucky" numbers. Not only are they prime, they're primo: indeed, as the Japanese would put it, they're "super happy lucky fun numbers." And, as is clearly evident, the difference between seven herbs and spices and eleven herbs and spices is roughly four herbs or spices, or a combination of two of each or one of one and three of the other, the other being the one that isn't the one of a kind but rather that which is one among many, making it an aspect in a multiplicity which is a transcendent concept signifying the unity of all existence in a fragmented or dissonant perspective or world-view or Weltanschauung vis-a-vis the unitary "I" that is the observer who is, in truth, the "observed." "It's an ironic twist," as a dancing Chubby Checker once wryly quipped to a bartender who, in fashioning a Manhattan, used a slice of big apple as a garnish.

Oh great, now I've forgotten the question.

Okie dokie, like a good boy, I shall address the original question, which, if I'm not stupid, was that "nobody escapes the temptation of stupidity". In my book, that chalks up to "fun". Now, for the rest of us ignorant fools who may not "get" your post, please focus it a bit more. That would be smart.

I need to go find the crush thread. Silliness is a big plus in my book.

'Course seven isn't exactly a palindrome, unless you think neves is the same as seven. Then again, hasn't there been a ballplayer named Nieves? http://www.baseball-reference.com/n/nieveme01.shtml Did he wear a seven? That could count. I mean, it's just an I in there which is extraneous, which is like a 1 and if you multiply by 1 you get the same thing so hey, we're ahead of the game and somewhere in there I think there might not be 9 different kinds of salt. I mean, there's rock salt and kosher salt and table salt but there's also sea salt. But if there are seven seas (ah, the mystical number again!) then perhaps there are seven different types of sea salt but then the Colonel would be remiss in not including all 10 (7 seas + kosher + table + rock) types of salt but then again maybe rock salt shouldn't be allowed as it's really only good for clearing your driveway. This reminds me, we need to buy some rock salt as it snowed the other day but it didn't stick but hey, you've gotta be prepared, yanno.

Anyway, we're off to lunch. It will not be cooked by the Colonel.

Jespah: Juan Nieves, of course, could play both left and right fields, making him a two-way player. So, in a very real sense, he was already a palindromic outfielder. Moreover, he played his last season in Cincinnati, where he would have been familiar with five-way chili, which would, perforce, be a multi-dromic dish. And a two-way player eating five-way chili would equal seven ways of "beingness," and that yields the mystic number seven again, thus bringing us full circle, which, as we all know, is the symbol of both completeness and nothingness, much as the doughnut is an entity that simultaneously embodies the essential wholeness of the circle while encompassing the emptiness of it -- unless it's a jelly doughnut or a bear claw, which is neither a bear nor a claw, thus illustrating the irony that is immanent in all baked goods. And, as we all know, doughnuts are sold by the dozen, which is the sum of two prime numbers, five and seven, and so there's seven again, which was Mickey Mantle's number, and he was a switch-hitter, making him a kind of two-way player in his own right, so that he too was palindromic, but in a different way from Juan Nieves -- luckily for Mantle. And Mantle took over center field from Joe DiMaggio, who wore number 5, and dollars to doughnuts says that seven plus five equals twelve, which is an even dozen. And so we once again find ourselves exactly where we left, which is like not leaving at all, even though we can never leave in the sense of leaving ourselves, and thus we are always wherever we are, and so we find ourselves in this position because we can't find ourselves in any other position, as long as we are truly looking for ourselves, and if you're like me you'll usually find yourself in the last place you look, like under the sofa in the living room. I hope that clears things up.

Is that the same logic that suggests that a hundred dollar bill is the same as a one because zeros mean nothing?

While no true palindrome in the technical sense, I do respect joe for posting such a wonderful enigmatic palindrome, like when sand gets blown in one's face, not always unpleasant but a visceral palindrome, nonetheless. I wonder if our proud producer of this thread is thinking?

Roger, zeros serve as place holders so they are in fact something.

[The following is idle rambling]

Zero standing by itself represents the place of nothing, but it is far from nothing in and of its self. 1.00 the two zeros are pointers to nothing, but are not nothing. They tell you something, so they must be something to indicate something. Yes/no?

[rambling off]

joefromchicago, you don't allow yourself too many indulgences do you (Not an Argumentum ad Hominum)? To analyze everything said within the finite scope of logic and the many logical fallacies is rather…bland. Logic doesn't take into account the subtitles of speech nor the allowed mistakes which are normally allowed.

No, I don't engage in ad hominem arguments. That sounds like something you would do.


I am not concerned about the "subtitles of speech," unless of course I'm viewing a foreign film. And I don't have much sympathy for the "allowed mistakes which are normally allowed," inasmuch as I don't have much sympathy for the "allowed mistakes which are normally allowed." In general, I prefer to avoid redundancy in favor of repetitiveness.

Nicely repetitive there Joe, Joe. I'm feeling stupid already, and loving it. Where is our friend Individual anyway?

Hmmm. There's Fleur de Sel (gourmet sea salt) http://www.honestfoods.com/fleurdesel.html

and Sel Gris (gray salt - unprocessed sea salt - let's not think too carefully about that ) http://www.honestfoods.com/selgrisretba.html

so we're up to 5 kinds of salt...

And what evidence of this do you have? I never once said you used an ad Hominum nor did I direct one at you. So it appears you have fallen into a fallacy my unbelievably logical friend. I cant remember the name, but it's something along the lines of drawing the wrong conclusion or basing fact off of no information. I'm sure you know to what I am referring to.



Clever as always Joe.