What are your thoughts on internet bullying?

Well, maybe we can come up with a working definition for our purposes, here.

I submit that:
- "ignorant" is not bullying,
- "idiot" and "stupid" are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the words were offered as poignant reminders of the potential for every person to perceive a situation differently

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's kind of what I was pointing out - "idiot" is an attack on a person - not a "perception" of a "situation".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do you know they are an idiot? Maybe your science guru is an idiot?

 

you need direction to or from an Ego to define the value of that.
which tends to place the meaning inside a nature of "culture"

which brings us back around to the original subject which is directly miss directed

is culture a bully ?
American culture has no real answer for that
mostly because a lot of American culture is founded inside religion that is a dictator of others.
thus all culture is defined as a force to control others and the right to not have that force opposed.

this defines the innocence as being the willing victim of the entity acting in its own culture.
this is why there is soo much opposition to multiculturalism

the "self" is only defined by its ability to control others
this is one of the tenet natures of greed as a self validating attribute of self actualization as a human value outside the value of group forced compliance of the dictator.

this is why religious authority fails as a moral code.

however, telling the junky why they are a junky does not solve the issue of the addiction or the abuse the addict meters out upon the world about them in an essence of innocence or wide comprehension of knowing.

you cant expect computer science if you give rocket ships to monkeys

 

-

well, let's see... perhaps the "science guru" in question is ignorant of subjective material. The science, however, is evidentiary based and, when validated, is a fact. therefore, if the "science guru" is presenting a fact-based argument from evidence, then it doesn't matter if he/she is an idiot as it is the evidence that determines who is being what, not the person.

Science:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena; A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area - https://www.wordnik.com/words/science
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/science
(using 3a) knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

[The] "Scientific method is an empirical method of knowledge acquisition, which has characterized the development of natural science since at least the 17th century, involving careful observation, which includes rigorous skepticism about what one observes, given that cognitive assumptions about how the world works influence how one interprets a percept; formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental testing and measurement of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings." - wiki


if an idiot is "a foolish or stupid person" ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiot )
and stupid is "lacking intelligence or reason" or "marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting" ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid )
then the actions of a person who refuses to accept proven, demonstrable, validated fact are the actions of a person who is an idiot and stupid.


As noted, using the terms may well be personal, but I don't think they're always directed as personal so much as descriptive of actions at a specific point.

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

yes, I did. twice
the first time, which you quote:

the second time, clarified

emphasis for clarity

 

The evidence shows that attractive people have it easier in life in general because everyone wants to have sex with them.

And very wealthy good-looking men can easily get reciprocal affection from the beautiful girls while poor and ugly men obviously cant.

I think it just comes down to basic biology and genetics: males must compete for female attention just like the other animals do in the animal kingdom. And genetics and courtship plays a large role about who gets to reproduce and who doesn't.

The way I see humans are obviously animals and we are not so different from the other animals in the animal kingdom when it comes to basic evolutionary instincts.

 

Believe me mate, there is someone for you.

 

Not with that attitude there isn't...

 

What attitude should you have?

 

The question was "How do you know they're an idiot?"

As far as you science spiel, scientists are proved wrong daily.

Breakthrough science comes through thinking outside of the box/ Free Thoughts.

Regardless of what science blueprint is stuck in your head.

 

and the asnwer was, summed up:

what part of that is so hard to understand?

so what's your point? scientists are in the business of expanding knowledge by pushing the frontiers of ignorance. there really are levels of "wrong"...
EDIT:
here is a good book on the subject that you should read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Relativity_of_Wrong

END EDIT

I never said that free thoughts are wrong or that breakthroughs don't happen from thinking outside the box. that is your belief and it's irrational to put those words into my mouth just because you don't read the posts

at this point I think you're just trolling ... especially since the terms are spelled out for you above and I've repeatedly answered your question, with explanations, while breaking it down as simply as possible, and yet you still have to reiterate the question and jump to irrational conclusions that suggest you're not altogether conversant with the scientific principles which eliminate pseudoscience.

 

pluto2 is his own worst enemy.

 

Okay, one more time. How do you know an idiot is an idiot?

 

Possibly, but there is someone out there. If you never meet them, then thank your lucky stars in my experience.

EDIT: I hear love can last between mates hmmm rare but there's a chance of true happiness, just around the corner for pluto2. I can feel it in my water pluto2!

 

asked and answered

three times
linked (yet again)

 

So basically...

If the your "evidence" suggests that I am an idiot, does that make me an idiot? What if your evidence is a bit dodgy? Or your understanding of the evidence.

We didn't give an example thread, but if it was far out stuff, no one can rely on any "evidence". Great science does come from free thoughts.

Is idiot offensive? hmmm maybe not.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...internet-bullying.157962/page-17#post-3601782

if there is no evidence, it's subjective and holds the same weight as an opinion (or a faith)

this is the second time you've tried to bring this into the conversation and it is still irrelevant because it's still not linked to anything I've said.