Tuesday, 11 August 2009
-
Stupid Rules Normal people follow - Part 1 of 5
[Note: I'm using the word "normal" in this post. Those who are not normal—myself included—should not take offense; I am using this term in the mathematical sense of "near the mean of a normal distribution," as in within one standard deviation of the mean; in the context of cognition another word is "neurotypical," but this is less common and less general, and many people are unfamiliar with its meaning. In the vast majority of possible systems, most will be normal and some will not. It's nearly inevitable. See also Stupid Rule 4, for our fear of being "abnormal" is very much a Stupid Rule.]
Introduction
A major part of what makes life difficult for those who are rational, especially those on the autism spectrum, (in the interests of full disclosure: I'm on the near end, just shy of Asperger's Syndrome) is the fact that normal people follow certain rules on most occasions, rules that don't really make sense—but that we all are expected to follow, because otherwise it forces us to confront issues that we feel more comfortable avoiding. They are all stupid rules, rules that are rationally difficult or impossible to justify; but they are universally present and strongly enforced, and we ignore them only at our own peril. Perhaps we ought to challenge them, find the places to attack them that will most weaken their grip upon humanity—but we cannot be sure to win such a fight, and we certainly cannot simply pretend it is already won.
Stupid Rule 1: Animals and their bodies are dirty—especially when it comes to humans.
This covers a wide variety of behaviors, from the universal prohibition on nose-picking to the fact that men aren't supposed to talk at urinals. It's also why people don't like to be looked at in the shower, why masturbation is not to be performed in public, why one is expected to chew with the lips closed, and why blood is not an appropriate topic for dinner conversation. Anything that reminds us of our animal nature—bodily substances such as blood, saliva, mucus, entrails, urine, feces, skin, hair; and especially the fundamental forces of animality itself, sex, disease, and death—makes people uncomfortable. Eating is less troublesome, but not completely immune, and hence there are many strange taboos about eating that vary across cultures. (Consider "Don't put ketchup on your ice cream." It's actually more nutritious that way, so if you like the taste, why not? Because that's not how you do it. It's a taboo.) Sleeping and breathing appear to be exceptions, perhaps because breathing must be done literally constantly and sleeping is similar enough to "clean," non-animal phenomena like nightfall and machine shutdown. Sex, disease, and death are also somewhat appealing to us, especially sex, for two reasons: We are, in fact, animals, and we have animal drives built into our brains; and most people find things that are forbidden appealing simply because they are forbidden. These may in fact be mutually-reinforcing phenomena: If sex weren't forbidden, would the forbidden still be sexy? Even if it would, would it be as sexy as it is now?
The normal behavior is therefore to avoid these topics whenever possible, but when they do come up—usually in private, or with close friends—to laugh and joke about them in order to defuse the tension. If you ever wondered why everyone giggles during sex education, this is why. It's also why most of the really funny jokes are so-called "dirty jokes," about sex, disease, and death.
Plants and fungi appear to be largely exempt, which is why it's "animals" and not "lifeforms." No one is disgusted or scandalized when we talk about sap, seeds, or spores, but nearly all are when we talk about blood or sperm, even insect blood or horse sperm. Bacteria may also count as "animals" under this rule, or, since people react so strongly to bacteria even when they wouldn't react to animals, they may be a separate Stupid Rule 1A: Bacteria are really, really dirty. And lest you think this latter is rational: Roughly 99% of all bacteria are harmless to humans, and the dominant species of bacteria on Earth is a strain of E. coli that we and most other mammals absolutely need for survival.
Do you think this rule is true?
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to autisable's Autisable Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in autisable's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: pnrj@xanga
- Name: Patrick
- Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
- About Me: I suppose I might as well begin with the mundane. I finished my bachelor's degree in cognitive science in December 2010 from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. I was born in 1988. I have two cats, Dot and Tootsie (my other cats, Shadow and Fila, and my gecko, Fhloston, are now deceased.) I write, I study, I live, I learn, I love. I am a complex, creative, and interdisciplinary individual, as my blog will clearly show.
-
True
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 5 Views: 0 8196 Comments: 0 80 View all posts by pnrj@xanga
Comments (63)
I definitely agree. Wow, this is very well thought out and written for a random blog. I can't wait to read the rest.
I think I agree with you. While cleanliness is important to avoiding the worst diseases, I think people are a bit too preoccupied with cleanliness, and censor a bit too much as taboo subjects. As a result, our immune systems are churning out allergic reactions instead. Kids are denied open access to fundamentally important information. I find your series very interesting. Looking forward to reading Stupid Rule 4.
Peace,
109
your opinion matters to YOU!!!
end argument!!
@deadlyelixir@xanga - Actually I don't know anyone with cancer and I've never had cancer. So it is quite an exaggeration. It's not as prevalent as you think.
And I disagree with the whole not expressing our animal parts; I'd much rather not get a disease from someone masturbating in a public place I have to be in. As well as other things. It's more of a health issue than it is a social rule.
@BunnyParfait@xanga - Okay, does "ALMOST everyone" sound better to you? You're probably part of the very small population of people who has had not cancer/known someone who has had cancer/known someone who knew someone who had cancer. It's not that much of an exaggeration, and definitely a lot more "prevalent" than autism. Lol.
@deadlyelixir@xanga - How do you know that?
@BunnyParfait@xanga - I don't feel like actually writing out an essay for you, with citations and references and all that fancy shiz, but check this out.
http://www.poodwaddle.com/clocks2.htm
Click on illnesses. "Population living with autism" doesn't change whether you click on yr/month/week or whatever, since it seems to be the total accumulation over time, so I'm going to look at "autism diagnosis" instead. I'm looking at the yr chart btw, although if you click on wk/month or whatever cancer numbers still outweigh 'autism diagnosis.'
@deadlyelixir@xanga - My browser is a little slow so while it loads let me ask if it takes into consideration biases such as misdiagnosis especially in cancer patients? It's not exactly a rare case where people get misdiagnosed for cancer when other problems occur; machines scan bodies for cancer, not physical therapists. Machines make lots of mistakes.
@deadlyelixir@xanga - Also as I'm looking at this this only records the incidence, not the prevalence. Which means the number of people who were said to have it, not how many people have it while living. That's a very important factor, seeing as how autism is something that is diagnosed psychologically and seeing a psychologist isn't as embraced as seeing a doctor for cancer.
The statistics are extremely biased and you either misread or misinterpreted. I'd much rather get info from the CDC and the AMA.
@BunnyParfait@xanga - Below the "clock" thing, there are a list of sources. Of course, like ANY data, on the internet, textbooks, etc, nothing is 100% reliable. In fact, nothing's even for sure in the universe. I don't know whether it takes into consideration misdiagnoses, but if you're going to argue about that, it can go for autism misdiagnoses too. People could mistake other things for autism. I don't know that much about autism, but is there any actual evidence that determines whether or not someone has autism? At least with cancer, there's actual tangible things with cells and such, but autism is a mental thing, right? What defines autism exactly? Are there a list of traits, that, if someone has a few of, makes them "autistic?" Is it determined through psychological tests?
Also, you should know that a lot more people die FROM cancer than autism. It's not life threatening, putting things that may result from autism, such as awkwardness, aside. I'm talking about directly from the disease. Cancer itself kills a lot of people. Autism itself doesn't. It would be inaccurate to try and compare the number of people who have it while living if cancer is more life threatening. That's a very important factor too. You even say so yourself that autism is diagnosed psychologically, and these "mental" things are very sketchy compared to things you can have solid evidence on. It's like feelings/emotions...they aren't words, but we try to describe them with words. Perhaps in the future there will be developements that can translate feelings/emotions/brain waves into things we can understand.
Like I said again, no information in the world is 100% reliable and nothing is for sure. I could get a textbook from Germany, a textbook from the U.S., read both concerning World War II, and get a very different perspective of "what happened."
Some of those who commented are ill-mannered, but this article poses interesting questions. I have often wondered where I fit on the scale that includes Asperger's, because I have a rather odd view of reality. I consider similar questions.
As an engineering student, I saw a video about the making of a Samurai sword. The priest or holy man followed sound, metallurgical principles to make the ideal steel for both power and flexibility. The process was shrouded in mystery and religious accoutrements.There seems to be no better way of preserving science than to by turning it into religion. When the mysterious 'germs' were discovered a couple of hundred years ago, people were told to wash their hands. To reinforce it to those who didn't understand, I suppose it was made into a kind of social religion. Thus, society learned about the 'yuckies'.
BTW, isn't Autisible supposed to be about autism? Why were people asking why you mentioned it?
You sound like a thoughful individual, and I'm glad you posted.
@deadlyelixir@xanga - "In fact, nothing's even for sure in the universe."
So in short your sweeping generalization was just that, a generalization. Not a fact like you were attempting to portray it as.
"I don't know that much about autism, but is
there any actual evidence that determines whether or not someone has
autism? At least with cancer, there's actual tangible things with cells
and such, but autism is a mental thing, right? What defines autism
exactly? Are there a list of traits, that, if someone has a few of,
makes them "autistic?" Is it determined through psychological tests?"
Yes it is in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV TR). And cancer is more than just "cells." I don't expect you to know the science of it but please refrain from trying to explain things you don't understand.
"Also, you should know that a lot more people
die FROM cancer than autism. It's not life threatening, putting things
that may result from autism, such as awkwardness, aside. I'm talking
about directly from the disease. Cancer itself kills a lot of people.
Autism itself doesn't. It would be inaccurate to try and compare the
number of people who have it while living if cancer is more life
threatening."
I really don't see the point in saying autism doesn't physically kill people like a disease does. For one you made the generalization that there are more people in the world with cancer than there are autism. Dead people don't count sweet heart. That's like saying there are still millions of people suffering from the black plague. Were talking about prevalence, not incidence.
"That's a very important factor too. You even
say so yourself that autism is diagnosed psychologically, and these
"mental" things are very sketchy compared to things you can have solid
evidence on."
Incorrect - the diagnosis for autism is pretty accurate based on the criteria. What I was saying was that more people are willing to go to a medical doctor than they are to go to a psychologist. A little thing called "social stigma" hinders that.
"It's like feelings/emotions...they aren't
words, but we try to describe them with words. Perhaps in the future
there will be developements that can translate feelings/emotions/brain
waves into things we can understand."
It's called psychology.
"Like I said again, no information in the
world is 100% reliable and nothing is for sure. I could get a textbook
from Germany, a textbook from the U.S., read both concerning World War
II, and get a very different perspective of "what happened.""
That is...completely irrelevant.
Did anyone notice...? "Due you think this rule is true?" Hmm..
@jesuismir@xanga - I noticed but I didn't say anything.
Fascinating and well written. I'm subbing for part II-V. Thanks.
@BunnyParfait@xanga - What do you mean by my "sweeping generalization?" Nothing's for sure in the world, facts are only facts until they're proven wrong, etc. Everything is your opinion. Even facts are, because you have to think they are facts. However, people agree on certain things or else no one could ever argue about anything. We agree on things such as math axioms and dictionary definitions so we have a foundation to work on.
Did I say cancer is only just "cells stuff?" No. I don't expect myself or anyone else to know the complete science behind it either, and I'm not trying to explain things I don't understand. Lol. I said "tangible things with cells and such." I didn't say "with cells. only." -_- And I have no idea what you mean by DSM IV TR. It's just a label/name to me. Unless you can elaborate and explain how exactly someone can tell a person is autistic. What is autism, exactly. What does it consist of. How do you label someone as autistic. Through tests? o_O
Yes, there is a point in saying that autism doesn't physically kill people like cancer does. How have I made the generalization that there are more people in the world with cancer than there are with autism? The definition of "prevalent" is "widespread; of wide extent or occurrence; in general use or acceptance." Why exactly don't dead people count? Incidence is directly related to prevalence o_O. I'm saying you can't accurately compare the two based on how many people are alive with autism, and how many are alive with cancer, because some people die from cancer itself.
Uh, how is the diagnosis for autism "pretty accurate" based on the criteria? Supporting evidence plz. Also, how do you know more people are more willing to go to a medical doc than a psychologist? Isn't that stereotyping?
Incorrect
- the diagnosis for autism is pretty accurate based on the criteria.
What I was saying was that more people are willing to go to a medical
doctor than they are to go to a psychologist. A little thing called
"social stigma" hinders that.
Psychology doesn't translate feelings/emotions/brain waves to plain words.
@deadlyelixir@xanga - "What do you mean by my "sweeping
generalization?" Nothing's for sure in the world, facts are only facts
until they're proven wrong, etc. Everything is your opinion. Even facts
are, because you have to think they are facts. However, people agree on
certain things or else no one could ever argue about anything. We agree
on things such as math axioms and dictionary definitions so we have a
foundation to work on."
None of that makes sense whatsoever. It's a grand paragraph of contradictions. So I'm just going to ignore that.
"Did I say cancer is only just "cells stuff?"
No. I don't expect myself or anyone else to know the complete science
behind it either, and I'm not trying to explain things I don't
understand. Lol. I said "tangible things with cells and such.""
Psychology is also tangible and completely scientific, so I once again don't understand your point...
"And I have no idea what you mean by DSM IV
TR. It's just a label/name to me. Unless you can elaborate and explain
how exactly someone can tell a person is autistic. What is autism,
exactly. What does it consist of. How do you label someone as autistic.
Through tests? o_O"
So I'm guessing you didn't catch on that DSM IV TR stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the fourth edition in revision. In other words it is THE book determining diagnostic criteria for a wide range of disorders. And that's pretty much all I have to say. If you don't understand just how significant it is you're highly sheltered.
"The definition of "prevalent" is
"widespread; of wide extent or occurrence; in general use or
acceptance." Why exactly don't dead people count? Incidence is directly
related to prevalence o_O."
I'm guessing I need to define some terms for you. Incidence is how many times a disorder or disease has come up, ever. In the past and the present. Prevalence is how many times a disorder or disease has popped up in a specific time span, as in recently. As in right now at this moment how many people have cancer. Dead people don't count because once they die they don't have cancer because the cancer dies, and also because they are not subjects to be polled.
"I'm saying you can't accurately compare the
two based on how many people are alive with autism, and how many are
alive with cancer, because some people die from cancer itself."
And some people also die from side effects of autism such as depression caused from an inability to integrate properly into society. There's still no point here.
"Uh, how is the diagnosis for autism "pretty
accurate" based on the criteria? Supporting evidence plz. Also, how do
you know more people are more willing to go to a medical doc than a
psychologist? Isn't that stereotyping?"
The following is the diagnostic criteria taken from the DSM IV TR which is something you should know about by now:
"
A. A total of six (or more) items from (1), (2), and (3), with at least two from (1), and one each from (2) and (3)
(1) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(a)
marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as
eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to
regulate social interaction
(b) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(c) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or
achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing,
or pointing out objects of interest)
(d) lack of social or emotional reciprocity
(2) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:
(a)
delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not
accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of
communication such as gesture or mime)
(b) in individuals with
adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or
sustain a conversation with others
(c) stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language
(d) lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level
(3)
restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests
and activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(a)
encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted
patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(b) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(c) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger
flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(d) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
B.
Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas,
with onset prior to age 3 years: (1) social interaction, (2) language
as used in social communication, or (3) symbolic or imaginative play
C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett's Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder."
As you can see it is very specific. If someone meets the criteria on this level of specificity then they can be diagnosed with the disorder. As you should be able to see if you're actually going to read it very few people get misdiagnosed as having disorders that require very specific symptoms.
And no, saying that people are more willing to go to a medical doctor than a psychologist is a social observation not a stereotype. A stereotype would imply that a certain type of people are more willing to go and I'm speaking in general based on polls and general social stigma in the US.
"Psychology doesn't translate feelings/emotions/brain waves to plain words."
Yeah, it does actually. That's how the DSM IV TR was created. - - /facepalm.
I don't even think I would appreciate you replying because you don't seem to be that intelligent and I find it would be a waste of time for me to read anything you wrote. Sorry, you're just not smart enough.
Have a nice night.
@BunnyParfait@xanga - Oh really, I don't seem very intelligent to you? Why do you feel this way? Also, what is intelligence? Define and describe intelligence. If you use a term, then you should be able to explain it in full detail to another person, right?
Let me try to explain this again. You can ask questions if you need to :).
-Facts are only facts until they are proven wrong. Science is discovering new things all the time. Technology is advanced. These "new things" people discover may contradict something that was claimed to be a "fact" in the past. Lots of people thought the earth was flat. Then science provided an argument, saying that earth is not flat. And? That's only what we think right now. Who knows what may be learned about the shape and structure of the earth in the future.
-Everything is your opinion- even facts because you have to think they're a fact. However, people agree on certain things or else no one could ever argue about anything. We agree on things such as math axioms and dictionary definitions so we have a foundation to work on. Language was most likely created for convenience, so people can use it to "work together" and discuss things using terms they agree on [which comes from the dictionary] to try and explain more complex ideas.
Psychology is the science of the mind. "The mind" consists of thoughts/feelings- I think we can agree on this? Thoughts and feelings are not tangible things. Can you touch and see your thoughts/feelings? Feelings and emotions are like electric signals, and we try and create and use words to describe them. For ex, is "love" tangible? No.
It doesn't matter to me what DSM IV TR stands for. It's simply a label. How am I "highly sheltered?" What does it mean to be "highly sheltered?" If I don't know about something, then am I "highly sheltered?" I've never even heard of this thing before you mentioned it. And? What does the equate to? How is it that I'm 'highly sheltered' 'cause I don't know about that book? Also, why *should* I know about anything? What determines what a person "should" know?
I use the dictionary to find out the meaning of words. Perhaps we should've defined what incidence and prevalence means before we started talking about any of this. That would've helped to put us on some common ground.
I don't really care if people die from the side effects of autism. I'm not talking about side effects, I'm talking about the solid disease itself. Cancer could cause someone depression by making them bald, so what? That's not what I'm talking about.
You're so generous to write out/pull up the "diagnostic criteria" for me :). And do the reasons behind any of the symptoms/traits mean anything? So basically, people who have a certain number of these qualities from certain sections of the criteria are labeled as "autistic?" That doesn't seem very accurate to me. Does it look at the MANY POSSIBILITIES behind why someone could have those traits? That's like saying, regardless of the reasons behind what led you to kill someone, killing a human=you're a heartless piece of shit. Lol. Then again, if your idea of an accurate diagnosis of a mental disorder means simply seeing which traits they match up with in the criteria, then sure, its very "accurate"
What exactly do you mean by "social observation?" Is it based on what you've observed? What is it based on? o.O If it's based on what you observe, then that's not very credible since the number of people you observe aren't that many, considering how many people live in the U.S. alone and what everyone does everyday. Are there actually plausible statistics somewhere showing that more people go see medical docs? And even if there are, so? What does that really mean, even if there are plausible statistics showing more people visit medical docs than psychologists? It just means...that, which doesn't really mean anything beyond the fact that more people visit medical docs than psychologists o_O
And uh, no. Psychology doesn't translate feelings/emotions/brain waves to plain words. So what am I supposed to do? Talk to someone who knows a lot about psychology, and s/he's supposed to "describe" my feelings/emotions/brain waves? That's not what I mean. I mean literally translate the stuff from your mind to words.
<table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dnindex" width="35"><td>
<table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">
<td>
<table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">
<td>
<table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dnindex" width="35">
<td>
@deadlyelixir@xanga - Just so you know, I'm not going to read this entire comment. I am only going to read and answer this section, and hopefully you'll understand why I'm not going to read the rest of it.
"Oh really, I don't seem very intelligent to
you? Why do you feel this way? Also, what is intelligence? Define and
describe intelligence. If you use a term, then you should be able to
explain it in full detail to another person, right?"
This is the very reason that I don't find you intelligent enough to discuss the topic with. I should not have to define every single polysyllabic word when having a proper discussion. I feel like I have to teach you basic concepts to get you to even understand what you're saying. And that's something I absolutely refuse to do.
You've shown that you're not familiar with the topic, how to do proper research, or any logical paths for formulating arguments. The rest of your comment was written within the same day as you demonstrated that which is not enough time for you to take the time to educate yourself on sociological concepts and this specific topic. You made a sweeping generalization and I refuted that. Generalizations are always logical fallacies. I imagine the rest of the comment is just a repeat of everything you've said in an attempt to claim I don't "understand" what you're saying however I do understand what you are saying and it just happens to be inaccurate.
Therefore I do not feel like discussing any scientific topic with you.
@BunnyParfait@xanga - Lol, what? No matter how much you're trying to tell me how dumb I am, you're just avoiding the subject completely. If you can't define and describe the word "intelligence" and then tell me I'm dumb for "not understanding what it is" then it just seems like you can't explain what intelligence is because well, you AREN'T.
You keep using the word "intelligent" without telling me what exactly you mean when you say it, so how are we supposed to discuss properly? Communication is a huge part of discussion, hell if not all of it, and if you're throwing out words that you and I may have different "ideas" of what it is, then how exactly are we supposed to talk about anything?
It's like saying the word "apple." Now, what "apple" is, is something that most people can agree on. If I pulled out an "apple," then I'm sure most people would be able to identify what it is, regardless of what language they speak. If I were somehow able to pull out "love" then people would have no idea what the hell that is. Why? Because we all have different ideas of what the consequences of love is.
I'm not asking you to define and describe certain words because I don't have the slightest clue as to what they are, but because if we're going to discuss about something, then we need to agree on what certain terms represent.
I'm not asking you to define and describe every single word you use. I'm only asking you to do that on words and phrases which I feel we may have different ideas of what they are.
I'm not sure exactly what parts of this entire thing depended on "proper research skillz" and "familiarity of the topic." I'm not writing a report for school, nor am I claiming to say I'm a master of the topic of autism. However, that's not what I'm arguing with you about, is it? o_O I'm not saying I know all the details of autism. I've used a couple of basic facts on illnesses, and so? I don't see why I would need to read an encyclopedia on autism to be able to "properly discuss." Would you care to tell me why?
Also, I've been pretty consistent with what I say, so I'm not sure why you feel that I'm incapable of "any logical paths for formulating arguments." I still dunno what you mean by all these generalizations, since you keep repeating that word, so you should also explain what you mean by that. You see, it's not that I'm not intelligent for not being able to read your mind, but because what you say can be interpreted in many ways, and you should try to be as clear as possible when discussing something.
"I imagine the rest of the comment is just a
repeat of everything you've said in an attempt to claim I don't
"understand" what you're saying however I do understand what you are
saying and it just happens to be inaccurate." Hahaha. "I *imagine*." Okay kiddo, imagine all you want. You haven't read my entire comment and you're assuming what I had written is what you imagined it to be? LOL, good job. Again, lol@ how you're saying that you understand what I'm saying and it's not inaccurate. Unless you're actually going to explain how and what exactly you think isn't inaccurate about what I said, then what you say is basically meaningless.
@deadlyelixir@xanga - If the word is too big for you to understand look it up in a dictionary. Your inability to refute a topic does not equate to me being illiterate. That would be another one of the many logical fallacies.
And once again, you're making long comments that I'm not going to read. I already stated that I'm not interested in speaking on the subject matter with you because you refuse to educate yourself before speaking. I don't get what's so hard to understand?
@BunnyParfait@xanga - You should understand two things then. Firstly, I didn't even write anything directly concerning autism in my last comment. And secondly, just because you don't want to talk to me, doesn't mean I'm not going to post a comment to you. I'm not sure why you think what you want or don't want is of ANY concern to me. Lol.
Indeed, you're not very intelligent if you're unable to comprehend what I'm trying to say. Oh yeah, you didn't read the entire comment, lulz! If you had, you would've realized that a word isn't "too big for me to understand" and the dictionary provides definitions, not explanations, and if we were to discuss something, then we would need to agree on an explanation of a word. Not sure what refutin' you're talking about, but if you're not going to explain something, then I'm going to assume you can't explain it and whether or not you "feel like it" is not of my concern either :).
While you're at it, define "educate." So is a person who has read more textbooks more "educated" and therefore will provide a better argument because he's read more words? Lawl.
If you're going to tell me I have many "logical fallacies" then point them out and explain them, otherwise your words mean nothing. "I dun feel like it" has no meaning to me. 'I'm just lazy" Oh? Too bad. Same with everything else, if you're just going to ignore everything, then it just seems like you can't think of anything to say that will support your opinions, one of them being that I have many logical fallacies. :)
@deadlyelixir@xanga - You must be a slow child if you don't get that I'm not reading anything you're saying anymore. I'm sure you'll keep replying, let all your desperation out just realize that I've already lost interest in discussing anything with you.
=]
@BunnyParfait@xanga - Oh yes, I'm sobbing with tears because some ugly black woman on the internet decided not to discuss anything more with me. What. will. I. do?! Oh and btw, I'm not being racist. I'm just pointing out that I think you're ugly, and you happen to look like a black woman. Although who knows, maybe you're a very ugly man with black skin who happens to look like a very ugly black woman. I don't like jumping to conclusions ;] Actually, I should simply say that I think that way about the "person in your picture." Lol.
It fills me with joy to know there are such close minded people people like you x] who lacks critical thinking. Ones such as yourself, Mrs./Mr./Ms. I-can't-really-explain-what-I'm-saying-but-I'll-just-blame-the-other-person-and-pretend-like-I-still-know-what-I'm-talking-about-and-say-I-dun-feel-like-explaining