The threads on this forum

Jadeite wrote:

Mrfeathers wrote:Can you not see your hypocrisy? Or do you realise that you too are afflicted by the same symptoms of 'unintelligence'; which I believe I resolved you had confused with something else in your last thread.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines intelligence as the faculty of understanding and understanding as a quality admitting of degree; spec. a superior understanding. Understanding being the chief quality that separates man from beast, it is thus by degrees of superiority denoted as higher intelligence, to the point where it appears to be removed altogether from the beast. In other words the superior man is the most intelligent, since he contains in himself the the greater of the man and the lesser of the beast. Intelligence is what defines the man; instinct, a quality which is minimal in the superior man, the beast.

Any by those definitions you fail utterly: Your "understanding" of schizoids is flawed to say the least and your strawman idea(l) of us being loners completely apathetic and void of human qualities as though entirely rational and logical automata or robots is patently ridiculous. Well obviously you are incorrect and if not for instincts that would drive us to engage in some limited social activities, it is an intellectually driven choice of our own to engage in this activity on these forums for our own ends, whatever those may be. You aren't talking with people, let alone engaging in a debate, you're evangelizing your own brand of superiority with such fervent zeal and certainty of self that it'd be laughable, if it weren't so sad at the same time.. oh wait, it's just laughable.

Do you actually have any idea what makes you seek out this "intellectual debate" or are you just acting on instincts and innate drive to act in this way that is not the least hypocritical, at all... no, no, you're beyond hypocrisy aren't you. Clearly, there's no understanding of that either, so shove that "intellect" up your ass and try again.

Edit: Quoting Roosevelt "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." and of course you would take it to heart. However, the funny thing is that all three can be done at the same time without diminishing anyone's quality of "intellect" as per whatever definition you use.

Dalloway wrote:What if solitude is part of the denial? What if being apart from ones emotions is part of the denial?

I've always thought that they are. To me, that's what makes it a personality disorder and separates a schizoid from an unemotional loner. But that's not to say the denial is conscious; I think it's more likely to be subconscious in a person with a PD. (And just to emphasise: that's all my opinion, not something I'm claiming as fact.)

Dalloway wrote:What does remain if we strip all that away what people say but don´t do?

You mean like remove people's defence mechanisms and expose them to some greater truth about themselves? I don't know. I think if someone tried that on me I'd quickly leave! I find it hard to face my own contradictions, even when they're laid out in front of me. If maladaptive defences are in use, I assume they would have originally been utilised for a purpose. I think you'd have to convince the person that those defences are no longer needed before they could be stripped away. Even then, old habits die hard.

Miyuki wrote:

Jadeite wrote:

Mrfeathers wrote:Can you not see your hypocrisy? Or do you realise that you too are afflicted by the same symptoms of 'unintelligence'; which I believe I resolved you had confused with something else in your last thread.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines intelligence as the faculty of understanding and understanding as a quality admitting of degree; spec. a superior understanding. Understanding being the chief quality that separates man from beast, it is thus by degrees of superiority denoted as higher intelligence, to the point where it appears to be removed altogether from the beast. In other words the superior man is the most intelligent, since he contains in himself the the greater of the man and the lesser of the beast. Intelligence is what defines the man; instinct, a quality which is minimal in the superior man, the beast.

Any by those definitions you fail utterly: Your "understanding" of schizoids is flawed to say the least and your strawman idea(l) of us being loners completely apathetic and void of human qualities as though entirely rational and logical automata or robots is patently ridiculous. Well obviously you are incorrect and if not for instincts that would drive us to engage in some limited social activities, it is an intellectually driven choice of our own to engage in this activity on these forums for our own ends, whatever those may be. You aren't talking with people, let alone engaging in a debate, you're evangelizing your own brand of superiority with such fervent zeal and certainty of self that it'd be laughable, if it weren't so sad at the same time.. oh wait, it's just laughable.

Do you actually have any idea what makes you seek out this "intellectual debate" or are you just acting on instincts and innate drive to act in this way that is not the least hypocritical, at all... no, no, you're beyond hypocrisy aren't you. Clearly, there's no understanding of that either, so shove that "intellect" up your ass and try again.

Edit: Quoting Roosevelt "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." and of course you would take it to heart. However, the funny thing is that all three can be done at the same time without diminishing anyone's quality of "intellect" as per whatever definition you use.

There was never a presumption of debate.

Superior men may be as rare as the planets in space.

After all, they have little right to exist.

They have never bred, or if they did, it would not be with an equal. They owe their existence to genetic anomalies.

Jadeite wrote:

Miyuki wrote:Snip!
Edit: Quoting Roosevelt "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." and of course you would take it to heart. However, the funny thing is that all three can be done at the same time without diminishing anyone's quality of "intellect" as per whatever definition you use.

There was never a presumption of debate.

Superior men may be as rare as the planets in space.

After all, they have little right to exist.

They have never bred, or if they did, it would not be with an equal. They owe their existence to genetic anomalies.

Nice, ignoratio elenchi and in case you haven't found out by now, the only thing limiting planet-spotting is the size of our telescopes and there aren't exactly all too few exoplanets out there. What with the rate we've been finding them as of late, there would be more superior men than there are people on the planet Earth pretty soon... and claiming otherwise is to fall into using arguments from ignorance and no that's not a claim of certainty, I mean spotting peturbations in the motions of distant suns, or periodic dimming as a means to spot exoplanets could all be wrong, right?

Edit: I don't suppose that last bit alludes to your being misogynistic to boot? No superior women, is it?

If you hold that there is no such thing as a superior man, then that is that. Or perhaps you believe that you would be able to recognize him by his words--or by his appearance. No, he falls short in both. He is no great orator; homo sapien will never empathize with him or follow his thoughts. He is not an attractive mate; he would have been seduced and numbed in his the vulnerable stages of his development had he been. You quote a public leader in such a discussion--you are an utter fool. You do not even comprehend this at the simplest level.

Jadeite wrote:If you hold that there is no such thing as a superior man, then that is that. Or perhaps you believe that you would be able to recognize him by his words--or by his appearance. No, he falls short in both. He is no great orator; homo sapien will never empathize with him or follow his thoughts. He is not an attractive mate; he would have been seduced and numbed in his the vulnerable stages of his development had he been. You quote a public leader in such a discussion--you are an utter fool. You do not even comprehend this at the simplest level.

I have yet to fully ascertain your definition of "superior man" as incoherent as it is, so I can not form any beliefs based on this as of yet, to do otherwise is irrational. Now, if I were to consider you a decent orator that could be empathized with for various reasons, then what does that make you?

The quote was added when I read one of your comments, let's see:

That you choose to speak specifically of me rather than my ideas shows that you are more interested in people than ideas; I am not.

When this person was doing both at the same time.. well, you failed to comprehend this and your own usage of the very same form of argumentation when speaking of your ideas while using people and what they have said as examples. Public leader or not, you failed to see the connection and relevance and while at, it used it as a justification to ad hominem your way through that whole concept shared by who just happened to be a public leader.