Shifting and Concerning Moods Regarding the Writing

[Alec97]

I would have thought that was implied.

To spell it out: people who are intelligent and confident in their knowledge don't feel the need to insult other people and push laboured and pretentious arguments with no real relevance to try to assert their fragile sense of intellectual superiority continually.

To that end, if you have a valid point to make, you'll find that it is subsequently lost when you engage with the other party with the emotional intelligence of a grapefruit. "Arrogance is earned", oh, yikes.

Read a book instead of trying to throw slurs. This is the pot calling the kettle black. You have a deep problem with this as it affects you. The education systems of the West have been called out for producing low-quality students for decades, especially in countries like Britian, America and France. The education system of the West isn't a human being either, and therefore, there is nothing to flaunt my so-called superiority over other than a failed system.

You think I'm acting superior when I'm merely pointing out how most people are ignorant because their governments, teachers and families have failed them, so they barely understand the foundational concepts upon which their society was built.

Yes, arrogance is earned, this is why elitism is rampant in academia, creative works, medical institutions and state craft etc. Humility is only a virtue when you've actually done something and it's amongst peers of like minded capability. I get you don't like it, but it's too bad life is unfair. Instead of trying to project your issues onto other people and add nothing to the conversation, you might want to attempt to fix them.

[Lunaxia]

I get you don't like it, but it's too bad life is unfair.

Oh good, you're one of those.

Read a book instead of trying to throw slurs.

All you're doing is making broad, condescending assumptions and hideous generalisations about the level and quality of other people's education and then passing it off as a criticism of the system - and in this instance, seemingly insinuating an acquaintance with philosophy and classics is somehow a reliable indicator of both when you clearly know nothing about either.

It's true elitism can be found anywhere, but that's because unfortunately, many people pursue these fields for the wrong reasons and seek to propel themselves to the top to satisfy their egos than for any genuine love of learning or desire to better themselves, and that ultimately boils down to their personal issues and the underlying inferiority complexes fuelling them. Thankfully, however, everybody else capable of basic courtesy and self-introspection realises the ridiculousness of such behaviour and opts for human decency, rather than attempting to justify misguided self-importance with their own distorted view of the world.

[Alec97]

Oh good, you're one of those.

All you're doing is making broad, condescending assumptions and hideous generalisations about the level and quality of other people's education and then passing it off as a criticism of the system - and in this instance, seemingly insinuating an acquaintance with philosophy and classics is somehow a reliable indicator of both when you know nothing about either.

It's true elitism can be found anywhere, but that's because, unfortunately, many people pursue these fields for the wrong reasons and seek to propel themselves to the top to satisfy their egos rather than for any genuine love of learning or desire to better themselves, and that ultimately boils down to their issues and the underlying inferiority complexes fuelling them. Thankfully, however, everybody else capable of basic courtesy and self-introspection realises the ridiculousness of such behaviour and opts for human decency rather than attempting to justify misguided self-importance with their distorted view of the world.

Generalisations exist to critique the general public. It’s why they are called generalisations. They aren't inherently wrong, nor is using them condescending or immoral. The only reason you would feel that way is because you feel personally attacked by it, or you know the type of person I'm talking about. The fact that you can't remain civil and need to start throwing slurs shows the very same lack of emotional maturity that you would label others with. You say you are capable of basic courtesy, but you haven't established it once.

This is a post about you

In that case: Then you were wrong.

And look, you need to stop insisting things about people that aren't true. I was in no "absolute rate", and look, you were the one that read me saying "some people hate stuff, but some people just have different tastes, and that's okay", and you perceived that as a personal attack to which you responded very aggressively, did you not?

I differentiate between people critiquing arguments I make and people insulting me personally. For example "I disagree with your argument here, and here is why..." is not an attack on the person. "You are responding in bad faith and have a history of..." is an attack on the person. That should be clear...

...but why am I bothering? You aren't going to listen and you, despite your own sage advice, don't see you're doing the things you're accusing me of.

That said, I appreciate your best intentions and take that at face value of you being a decent person. My recommendation to you is to read what you just wrote here and in the post that I replied to above. Then go back and read this post:



And this post:



And ask yourself if you might need to listen to your own advice. In both cases, you took what I said as some kind of piercing personal attack, even though it wasn't (my first post wasn't directed at anyone, didn't mention anyone, didn't quote anyone, and I don't even recall interacting with you like this before such that you'd have any reason to think it DID apply to you in the first place). And in both cases, you responded aggressively. And in the second case, when you accused me of something - your first post accusing me of expressing false concern is an attack, btw - and I explained to you it was genuine concern, what was your response?

"No, it wasn't". You didn't listen to what I said, you didn't let me explain. You already decided you were personally insulted and you weren't going to let go of that since it was justifying your behavior. If you were wrong and I wasn't personally insulting you, it would mean your first post (and second) were uncalled for.

In essence, it looked like you flew into an absolute rage and responded like that because you felt slighted against or attacked.

You just said it is under no circumstances ever acceptable to behave as you did, right?

Yet...you did.

.

Again, I know you won't listen, but on the off chance maybe you aren't beyond reason, I'm saying in the hopes that you do. I don't believe you're a bad person, but you did what you just accused me of doing. And before I did it, at that.

If you need help, I suggest you leave because you clearly can't deal with a differing opinion as you are inserting your baggage into it, but looking at the other posts you have made recently shows that you are only here to fight people by going on moral crusades instead of adding to the conversation. Instead of perceiving everyone as some form of ideological enemy, you might want to calm down.

“Oh good, you're one of those”. I would also add this is bigoted. Do you have a prejudice against people who see the world as intrinsically unfair or is there some more profound bias that you would like to label me but don't want to say? Either way, I doubt it's suitable for polite conversation and takes away from your so-called human decency.

[Lunaxia]

Generalisations exist to...

Generalisations, especially those founded on nothing but a subscription to your own questionable criteria, are meaningless; they're self-serving, deeply flawed, highly subject to personal bias and subsequently, more often than not, completely wrong, and I'm amazed I should even have to point that out and why as a result they have no place in a real discussion. I also shouldn't have to explain why it's both condescending and entirely irrelevant to use such poorly pre-conceived notions to make any sort of sweeping judgement about an aspect of a someone's attributes in an argument. For all that you are trying to paint me as an injured party and yourself as the rational one here, your posts are surprisingly lacking in relatively basic logic.

Funnily enough, half of that conversation you're referring to is actually missing because of the way that particular individual wound up responding to several posters in that thread, and I'd suggest familiarising yourself with his history before you use that as a basis to make even more poor judgements based on selective and limited evidence. I frequently debate with other people here, and I greatly enjoy it, but I have no interest in opinions offered without thought or respect for the other party, nor maintaining a sense of decorum when absolutely none is shown in kind.

And for the record, hearing about bigotry from someone who considers an entire population of people intellectually beneath them because to your mind they're not sufficiently cognisant of the effects of Confucianism or Plato on media might be the winner for the grossest lack of self-awareness shown on these forums, and that's quite the accomplishment, I have to say. But to humour you: do I have a prejudice against people who think life is unfair? No. Do I take issue with using that attitude to justify poor behaviour towards other people? Absolutely.

[Alec97]

Generalisations, especially those founded on nothing but a subscription to your questionable criteria, are meaningless; they're self-serving, deeply flawed, highly subject to personal bias and subsequently, more often than not, completely wrong, and I'm amazed I should even have to point that out and why as a result they have no place in an honest discussion. I also shouldn't have to explain why it's condescending and entirely irrelevant to use such poorly pre-conceived notions to make any sweeping judgement about an aspect of someone's attributes in an argument. For all that you are trying to paint me as an injured party and yourself as the rational one here, your posts surprisingly lack relatively basic logic.

Funnily enough, half of that conversation you're referring to is missing because of the way that particular individual wound up responding to several posters in that thread. I'd suggest familiarising yourself with his history before you use that to make even more poor judgements based on selective and limited evidence. I frequently debate with other people here, and I greatly enjoy it. Still, I have no interest in opinions offered without thought or respect for the other party, nor maintaining a sense of decorum when absolutely none is shown in kind.

And for the record, hearing about bigotry from someone who considers an entire population of people intellectually beneath them because, to your mind, they're not sufficiently cognisant of the effects of Confucianism or Plato on media might be the winner for the grossest lack of self-awareness shown on these forums, and that's quite the accomplishment, I have to say. But to humour you: do I have a prejudice against people who think life is unfair? No. Do I take issue with using that attitude to justify poor behaviour towards others? Absolutely.

I love how you assume that it's my own internalised criteria. This has been a massive concern across education for the past 20 years, especially around things such as funding, staffing, and grading attainment compared to private models, trying to bridge the gap in trying to promote a more equitable society. The falling grade standard and grade inflation compared to previous models were grades used to be far more challenging to achieve and expected a lot more, classes have been streamlined, and what was on offer has shrunk, etc. We have even seen the collective overall IQ in the younger generations decrease by around 5 points, which is enormous because it's the best-determining factor of future success. In generations with far smaller cohorts, it's incredibly worrying because that means we are producing smaller amounts of people who are less intelligent than their parents. This has been a trend since the '80s and even the post-World War II generations have very few outstanding thought leaders compared to generations before and post-WW1.

It's clear that you have disdain for people who you beleive are antithetical to your values. That entire conversation was someone telling you that you don't listen, you project your internal flaws on them, label them things they aren't. Then, double down on your vulgar attitude while acting like a righteous individual, and even if they responded to you, it wouldn't matter because you had already made your mind up and wouldn't listen.

The only person here who has received poor treatment is you because you took issue with one point in a massive post and then continued to make it about yourself because you have internalised problems. Get help.

[Lunaxia]

I love how you assume...

Again, you're merely attempting to disguise the real issue of your lousy attitude with flimsy and poorly-substantiated arguments about the education system. And even if this were a genuine debate about the general state of education in the West - an area of discussion so vast it's impossible to make such generalised judgements about any aspect of anyway, which is the main point you seem to be missing - none of what you have suggested can even be used as evidence to that effect, being a hodgepodge of vague statements with nothing behind them and a reference to a single study that even the researchers emphasised cannot be relied upon to draw any meaningful conclusion about the current nature of public education from. Correlation does not imply causation, and there are myriad factors at play relating to the topic you're also ignoring because of rampant confirmation bias.

But it's a futile argument from the outset, built on your arbitrary definition of a "quality" education you've constructed to elevate yourself and insult and make unfounded assumptions about other people you know nothing about all because they disagreed with you, and it ultimately has no purpose beyond being a vehicle your own arrogance. If you actually had even the slightest interest in education, you would already know what I've told you.

Somehow, I don't think I'm the one that needs help here, but considering the other individual also had a similar habit of deflecting any criticism he received towards others while screaming at them in the process, I'm not surprised you'd find cause for agreement with him.

Mark my damn words. Ascians are coming back one way or another. That or there will be something like "who made the ascians" that will trigger us to have to go back to elpis, and in turn talk to emet, venat, etc. etc. etc. again. ESPECIALLY considering the mystery of Azem.

Oh, I don't doubt it. For all their current obsession with sweeping them under the rug, the moment the numbers truly start to drop, you can count on Emet-Selch to make a surprise appearance as a reincarnation, or the ramifications of the Hydaelyn/ Zodiark conflict to matter all of a sudden.

[MistakeNot]

Generalisations exist to critique the general public. It’s why they are called generalisations.

No, that is not why they exist, nor why they are called that.
Try educating yourself, so you know what words mean before you use them.

[Alec97]

No, that is not why they exist, nor why they are called that.
Try educating yourself so you know what words mean before you use them.

I love how you tell me to educate myself and then forgo giving the so-called education you've received. You will probably say it's not my job to educate you next.

A generalisation is used to speak about things which apply to the general public because that's who we are talking about, which can range from something very specific to something very broad. There will always be exceptions to the rule and those exceptions usually do prove the rule or provide indicators about specific issues which happen disprortilnatly within the specified group. So for example Celtic people have red hair is a generalisation and a very broad one but what it hints at is the higher percentage the rate at which they produce people with it even among Europeans. Generalisations are fine when your talking about something which is measurable, it won't affect everyone but it doesn't need to. It's only very recently that people like to have issues with generalisations because they want everyone to come up with an academic paper before saying something since it doesn't match their lived experience.

[MistakeNot]

I love how you tell me to educate myself and then forgo giving the so-called education you've received. You will probably say it's not my job to educate you next.

Since I don't know where you work, I don't know what your job is - but I sure hope it does not involve educating me, or anyone else. Getting a good education is much preferable.