by 3aidlillahi » Sat 29 Nov 2008, 09:38:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '2'))You do not call people stupid if they are average. If you are saying x is stupid than it assumes that this is a judgment against someone else. If I say "xyz brand oatmeal tastes like crap" I am not saying "It tastes like oatmeal" I am saying that compared to other brands of oatmeal, this brand is peculiarly bad.
Actually, I would call something stupid or intelligent without regard to something else.
Dictionary.com
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')tupid - adjective, -er, -est, noun
–adjective
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.
5. in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue
Only one of the five definitions ever needs a reference point. Just like there can be red without non-red colors (based off of wavelength) or a square without non-squares (based of length and number of sides), so can there be stupid without intelligent. If everyone is "2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.
5. in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue.",
then there aren't
some people in that group that wouldn't be identified as stupid, they'd all be stupid based off of the definition.
Let's use your analogy: food. If you've never had oatmeal, and then you eat oatmeal for the first time, is it not possible to say that it tastes bad? Of course, you may be referencing it to other foods.
Let's say that you are a created being in your current form and age. You've never had any memory nor experience of eating oatmeal. You eat oatmeal and it's your first meal ever. Is it the case that this bowl of oatmeal can
only be described as bland or neutral (since you have nothing to compare it to and thus can't be good or bad)? Of course not. The "goodness" or "badness" of the oatmeal will be based off of you sensation of the oatmeal's compounds striking your nerves on your tongue. If the oatmeal is extremely salty, then it doesn't matter that you've never had anything to compare it to; you'll still think that it's crap. If it's sweet, then you'll enjoy it.
Good and bad don't need a reference point. Just like you don't need Hitler to realize that helping someone out is good, you don't need an Einstein to realize that Joe 6-Pack is not that bright.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '3')) Saying these things are "universally true" and the exceptions just prove the rule, is about as intelligent as white people who castigate blacks, "except for my friend Jim, he's ok" or "Mexicans are lazy except for Jose at the factory, he works hard" or any other bit of racist/tribal/cultural simplifications that serve only to create false divisions.
As for the "exceptions prove the rule", I said that kind of tongue-in-cheek. Should've put a smiley. Of course everything is more complex than what can be laid out on a forum. But that doesn't change the fact that for the vast majority of Americans and in every corner of the US, this does apply: even to us in one shape or another.