TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- The Word On The Street
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

The Word On The Street

Today's word on the street is "How".

For too long people have been concerning themselves with all the wrong questions. Even trained professionals, journalists as they like to be called, often times focus their efforts in entirely the wrong areas. The world has gone stagnant by failing to recognize that there is more than the ever popular "five w's".

There was a time when we needed to know "why that happened" or "who it happened to", but that time has come and gone.

Now what we need to know is "how that happened?"

With the answer to our problems now clearly in our laps many people are continuing with the trend and asking "how could we let this happen? How did we not change our ways sooner?"

The reality of the situation is that we cannot be faulted for our inaction. If Barbara Walters, David Letterman and even the great late Peter Jennings could not see the error in their ways, how could we be expected to do anything different?

What is important is that we have seen the light, and now know that "how we can make a difference" is as simple as focusing on the h word.

Re: The Word On The Street

quote:

Originally posted by shanny The reality of the situation is that we cannot be faulted for our inaction.

That is such a crock. Hell yes we can! Are you intelligent or not? Because an intelligent person always acts.

Re: Re: The Word On The Street

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie That is such a crock. Hell yes we can! Are you intelligent or not? Because an intelligent person always acts.

I disagree. Intelligent people can be lazy and motivated people can just as easily be dumb.

Re: Re: Re: The Word On The Street

quote:

Originally posted by jackd42o I disagree. Intelligent people can be lazy and motivated people can just as easily be dumb.

No. An intelligent person would never betray their ability to think by choosing inaction and non-accountability.

Claiming inaction is claiming ignorance is claiming unintelligence.

If you have a brain and don't use it, you're not *really* very smart, are you?

Yes. I might just be lazy or incapable of acting. Action is not a prerequisite of intelligence. A theoretical physicist may come to an incredibly brilliant conclusion without so much as flinching. Our argument is based on hypothetical circumstances though. Obviously it�s more intelligent to act at times�

�I think I should brush my teeth or I�ll get a cavity� nah fuck it.�

quote:

Originally posted by jackd42o Yes. I might just be lazy or incapable of acting. Action is not a prerequisite of intelligence. A theoretical physicist may come to an incredibly brilliant conclusion without so much as flinching. Our argument is based on hypothetical circumstances though. Obviously it�s more intelligent to act at times� �I think I should brush my teeth or I�ll get a cavity� nah fuck it.�

If the physicist never goes beyond "flinching" in all of his work, then, hindering and withholding one's capacity to achieve is not a very intelligent thing to do, now is it?

quote:

Originally posted by DanR If the physicist never goes beyond "flinching" in all of his work, then, hindering and withholding one's capacity to achieve is not a very intelligent thing to do, now is it?

This man knows.

Intelligence is a measure of the mental capacity of an individual to grasp concepts, relationships, etc. One can be intelligent and lazy at the same time.

My roommate in first year university would study for physics for about 2 hours compared to the 30 hours everyone else spent and he would do better.

This was VERY aggravating, trust me

quote:

Originally posted by beefy k Intelligence is a measure of the mental capacity of an individual to grasp concepts, relationships, etc.

Precisely.

If we're talking about mental capacity only, we may as well be robots. What about CONSCIOUS thought?

What about IT?

quote:

Originally posted by jackd42o What about IT?

It's beyond simple mental capacity.

Of course it is. What's your point?

quote:

Originally posted by beefy k Intelligence is a measure of the mental capacity of an individual to grasp concepts, relationships, etc. One can be intelligent and lazy at the same time.

Physicists, chemists, engineers, philosophers, etc. are intelligent in the sense that they can grasp abstract and real concepts... fine. However, a necessary requirement for someone to be intelligent is that he makes intelligent/reasonable decisions - otherwise, he wouldn't be intelligent. Can you explain to me how, in general, being lazy is an intelligent and reasonable approach to life/decision? Given my previous statement, I don't know how to answer that; i.e. "If the physicist never goes beyond "flinching" in all of his work, then, hindering and withholding one's capacity to achieve is not a very intelligent thing to do, now is it?"

If you can't show me how a person who makes decisions predicated by laziness is still making an intelligent decision, then this person that has not made an intelligent decision, is thus, not intelligent.

quote:

My roommate in first year university would study for physics for about 2 hours compared to the 30 hours everyone else spent and he would do better. This was VERY aggravating, trust me

Heh, I know the feeling...

Fair enough. So you're saying that a person must express their intelligence in order to be intelligent?

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie It's beyond simple mental capacity.

Intelligence and moral fibre do not rely on one another, as much as that sucks.

quote:

Originally posted by DanR Physicists, chemists, engineers, philosophers, etc. are intelligent in the sense that they can grasp abstract and real concepts... fine. However, a necessary requirement for someone to be intelligent is that he makes intelligent/reasonable decisions - otherwise, he wouldn't be intelligent. Can you explain to me how, in general, being lazy is an intelligent and reasonable approach to life/decision? Given my previous statement, I don't know how to answer that; i.e. "If the physicist never goes beyond "flinching" in all of his work, then, hindering and withholding one's capacity to achieve is not a very intelligent thing to do, now is it?" If you can't show me how a person who makes decisions predicated by laziness is still making an intelligent decision, then this person that has not made an intelligent decision, is thus, not intelligent. Heh, I know the feeling...

I strongly disagree. If one does not act on a certain notion that they have concluded on using their intelligence then that individual is irresponsible.

A good example is when you have a person that people regard as someone who has 'great potential', but is not living up to it. This shows a lack of responsibility on that person's part because they are not using their gifts, in this case let's limit it to ones intelligence, properly or using them at all.

quote:

Originally posted by jackd42o Fair enough. So you're saying that a person must express their intelligence in order to be intelligent?

Not exactly. I'm saying that in order to be intelligent, you have to make intelligent decisions.

Expressing intelligence in order to be intelligent implies someone has intelligence even before they make the intelligent decisions.

But I think that leads to an apparent problem with my argument. How can someone make intelligent decisions without already being intelligent?

this thread is gay

quote:

Originally posted by beefy k I strongly disagree. If one does not act on a certain notion that they have concluded on using their intelligence then that individual is irresponsible. A good example is when you have a person that people regard as someone who has 'great potential', but is not living up to it. This shows a lack of responsibility on that person's part because they are not using their gifts, in this case let's limit it to ones intelligence, properly or using them at all.

Not acting on a decision is a decision to not act on a decision, i.e., an unintelligent/unreasonable decision to not act on a reasonable decision. So, the person is being unintelligent, no?

Ran out of stuff to say?

quote:

Originally posted by DanR Not acting on a decision is a decision to not act on a decision, i.e., an unintelligent/unreasonable decision to not act on a reasonable decision. So, the person is being unintelligent, no?

I don't believe so.

Intelligence is a type of personal attribute. It is not the governor of what you actually do in life. Responsibility governs what you do with you attributes, whatever they are.

Another example. Take athletic ability. Almost everyone knows someone that is athletically inclined, but at stages in their life they have not really taken advantage of it. During those stages, would you say that the person suddenly became nonathletic, or just was making a decision, albeit an irresponsible one, to neglect his/her gift?

i agree with beef cake

I'm the word on the street...

quote:

Originally posted by beefy k Intelligence and moral fibre do not rely on one another, as much as that sucks.

It is called sociopathic behaviour and unfortunately, it is rife in this world.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker I'm the word on the street...

Your face is the word on the street!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.