Evolution - are all races equally developed?

MrPedantic wrote:

In this context, I don't use "more intelligent" as a term of approbation, but as a neutral descriptive term, such as "bigger" or "smaller" or "more furry". As I've said several times now, I don't equate "more intelligent" with "better". In your "sacred truth", on the other hand, which you impute to other speakers, "intelligent" is used as a term of approbation. MrP

I don't equate them either. God forbid. I mentioned Josef Mengele, a very intelligent man, as an example.

Or maybe "better" means something more that I don't get. Certainly I prefer to be intelligent than to be stupid, if this is the meaning of "better".

That all human beings are more intelligent than all animals is not my sacred truth. In fact I believe quite the contrary.

But apparently believing quite the contrary is a sin of some kind; otherwise, why is everyone attacking Stannum's point of view and person in such an awful way? 

You all but burned him at the stake.

You aren't attacking me so.

Maybe because half of what I said has been censored. But I'm saying the same thing he's saying.

It'll be an honour to share the pyre with a man as highly intelligent as he truly is.

Stannum:

There is only one thing to say when confronted with the Holy Office (aka The Inquisition): Eppur si muove.

MrPedantic wrote:

Alexa For Australia wrote: But apparently believing quite the contrary is a sin of some kind; otherwise, why is everyone attacking Stannum's point of view and person in such an awful way?  No one is forced to contribute to Controversial Subjects; but if you do contribute, other members may well disagree with what you say. On the subject of burnings at the stake, as far as I know, everyone reading this is sitting safe and sound at their pc, surrounded by dogs doing cryptic crosswords, cats knitting cardigans for their grandmothers, and budgies preparing PowerPoint presentations on Pushkin's Use of the Imperfective Gerund. MrP

you forgot the cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog, rule all England under a hog.

MrPedantic wrote:

No one is forced to contribute to Controversial Subjects; but if you do contribute, other members may well disagree with what you say. On the subject of burnings at the stake, as far as I know, everyone reading this is sitting safe and sound at their pc, surrounded by dogs doing cryptic crosswords, cats knitting cardigans for their grandmothers, and budgies preparing PowerPoint presentations on Pushkin's Use of the Imperfective Gerund.

May I first congratulate you on your wonderful mangulation of English punctuation.  I dare say that you must have enjoyed that.  You gave us a descriptive worthy of Charles Lutwidge Dodson.

I think that the mistake that Alexa makes here is to assume that all contributors are here with like intent.

I note that you avoided saying that contributors are free to contribute as they wish as you and I are both aware that this is most certainly not the case here in this most heavily metamoderated forum.

It is fair and reasonable for a person to post opinions that are contrary to the herd mentality and it is fair for the herd to round on the new opinions and attempt to tear them to shreds but it is when the shepherds wade into the fray and begin to disagree with the opinion and then use their powers as shepherds to block and edit and remove disenting opinions all fairness is gone and fascism reigns supreme.

You make noises at Alexa as though the virtual 'burnings at the stake' are a mere trifle yet you could not be more wrong on the wrongest day of the year if you had an electric wronging machine set on maximum wrong.  Just weeks ago two young people in my general neighbourhood suicided after heavy harassment no small part of which was virtual.  You sit surrounded by very talented animals sipping cafe latte pushing gerunds up imperfections but some of us are trying to put our lives back together and more than one contributor to this forum is doing so in a tragic attempt to reconnect with humanity in a safe and manageable manner surrounded by all sorts of apparitions doing way more than knitting or counting their fingers to see if they chewed one off or if that was the next apparition bighting me.

Many contributors are obviously content and in positions of power and authority and simply use the Controversial Subjects to vent and also to display their prodidgeous language skills but others of us are trying to understand the world around us and the venal brickbats that are hurled with gay abandon (must be polite to do so - Gee, you are very brave to wear that dress, I wouldn't dare!) do hit a bloke smack bang square in the face at times and he wonders why the world can be so cruel but then he remembers that the world is just that cruel so how could I expect this virtual place to be any less venal and reactive than the real world that surrounds us every day of our lives that are real both in the flesh and blood sense and also the virtual one.

The difference I expected here is that I know that the average intelligence level in Englishforums is much higher than in the flesh and blood world.  I have much higher expectations in relation to the behaviour of the highly intelligent.

Stannum

MrPedantic wrote:

Alexa For Australia wrote: But apparently believing quite the contrary is a sin of some kind; otherwise, why is everyone attacking Stannum's point of view and person in such an awful way?  No one is forced to contribute to Controversial Subjects; but if you do contribute, other members may well disagree with what you say. On the subject of burnings at the stake, as far as I know, everyone reading this is sitting safe and sound at their pc, surrounded by dogs doing cryptic crosswords, cats knitting cardigans for their grandmothers, and budgies preparing PowerPoint presentations on Pushkin's Use of the Imperfective Gerund. MrP

Of course no one is forced. This is a forum, not a concentration camp.

But one thing is to disagree with someone and other attack him unmercilessly.

Words written in the net can hurt as much as words said face to face. You know it as well as I do. Virtual life is not so safe and sound as you say. Otherwise the tragedy of the Solar Temple Cult would not have happened.

You don't know really to whom you are talking to. I may very well be a woman who suffers from agoraphobia and depression,  for all you know. If it was so, it would be very easy to drive me to the brink of suicide.

Stop writing?

Yes, but for an agoraphobia sufferer the virtual life is the only life left.

Alexandra

Stannum wrote:

the venal brickbats that are hurled with gay abandon...do hit a bloke smack bang square in the face at times and he wonders why the world can be so cruel

Alexa For Australia wrote:

You don't know really to whom you are talking to. I may very well be a woman who suffers from agoraphobia and depression,  for all you know. If it was so, it would be very easy to drive me to the brink of suicide.

Alexa and Stannum,

If my posts have the deleterious effect on you that you say, further discussion is naturally out of the question.

Thank you for an interesting debate,

MrP