I don't wish to offend you, so I will ask the question here, where you can if you want to, answer anonymously

I don't think you're gay, maybe bi, but I am curious (and anyone else can answer this too) do you crossdress? Hopefully you'll respond, so that I can.
Modern intelligence is a placebo, initiated by other people.
90% of modern "geniuses" are just book people that are about as useful as a flash drive.
According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly.
>opens question to 'anyone' >asks particular person to respond anonymously there seems to be a flaw with this reasoning also homosexuality and transvestitism don't have to be linked ?? we don't need more book smart people you want the /real stuff/ (gestures at crotch)
very nice, very cool but I don't have clothes
and yeah I guess
The world is becoming dangerously full of book people. Back in the day, being a book person was okay. It gave you something to chit-chat about with other people, even if you couldn't necessarily expand on the topic. The books back in the day were a lot better, since not every moron in the world could get a book published. There was still quality. In this day and age, though, it is becoming dangerous. Everyone can write down their opinion, and have a book published about it. Generally speaking, the best-selling books are the ones with the most outrageous opinions. Not the ones that are correct, or founded on truth, but those that are outrageous. These books are part of the problem, since most people can't use reason to deduct reasonable conclusions anymore. That led to the situation we have now, where you get criticized by people just for bringing logical thinking into the argument, since people realize that their position is absolutely ridiculous, and doesn't really have anything to support it. The internet is similar, but anonymity has led to the situation becoming even worse. Now, we have a situation where people can claim to be highly qualified, regardless of whether or not they actually are, and publish their opinion. Since people assume they actually are qualified, they agree with them, and don't look into the person's opinion. They just assume they're qualified, which means they must be right. Often times they aren't. Here's my rule-of-thumb: If you don't understand it after they explained it to you, they probably don't understand it either. Somebody with a thorough understanding of a topic could explain it to anybody, just by gradually explaining it from the ground up.
"often times" is more correctly written "oftentimes"
of ten times
it's yeah. there are some typos. It's just a pain to type since the windows isn't very big.
lol. Another typo.
who the hell keeps posting these bad opinions anyway
I say that like I don't already know who it is though
If you want to call it a bad opinion you need to at least explain what is wrong with it.
What I meant by the flash drive statement is they can retain information, but lack the ability to expand on it, which is useless.
I don't, because you're the one in the wrong thread, and it doesn't always follow that "every idea must be entertained" but ok First of all "dangerously full of book people" doesn't mean anything. It's an anecdotal opinion without any evidence, though having evidence doesn't even matter because it's so vague as to mean very little. You're also confusing the colloquial phrase "book-smart" with "people that [achieve success by] publishing books" for reasons I can't begin to place. You do an alright job of criticizing people that publish books on topics just because there is an amount of assumed credibility that comes with being able to publish a book. This isn't a very hard argument to make, though, and also fails to consider particular rebuttals such as, for example "who cares?" There will always be stupid people and stupid-but-slightly-more-capitalistic-people to lead them, but the activity of people at that level rarely has as much affect as you're giving credit for. And if you think the blind leading the blind is anything new, you are quite misinformed. I don't want to get into "oh but it's /worse/ now because of the internet" because I don't think "ha see there IS a 1% change" is a useful conclusion to shoot towards. In case you weren't aware, yes, anyone could get a book published 50 years ago too. Go back far enough and it's "anyone with money could get a book published" Farther and "Anyone can get a book published, but only the intellectual elite will read it" and even farther and you find "no one can get a book published" putting aside that second archetype that you've brought up, "All modern geniuses don't know what they're doing" is an opinion usually held either by jealous unintelligent people to discredit those more intelligent than them in order to feel better or by somewhat smart assholes that want to think they're better than everyone else. It's an easy claim to make when you don't actually interact meaningfully with anyone of intellect, but it's just self-inflating. Even non-geniuses can think, but you paint every other person as not being able to. Don't you think that's a little arrogant? People that collect information and then don't do anything with it exist, of course, but acting like there's some big problem that "no one can think anymore" is just conceited conspiracy-like thinking.
I'm not sure where or why a debate popped up about 'book smart people', but it seems the person I was technically directing the question to didn't answer. In response to #26920's thing: ">asks particular person to respond anonymously there seems to be a flaw with this reasoning" I was aware, but I am confident that I'd know which answer belonged to the person I directed the question to, and it being a rather personal question, and one that might be offensive if I were to ask via a PM, I thought I'd sort of test run it here. (Though aside from #26920, nobody else has even addressed it) (Quoting from #26920) "also homosexuality and transvestitism don't have to be linked ??" I didn't even mention transvestism, so are you linking transvestism with crossdressing? In which case, that's kind of hypocritical of you, isn't it? Anyway, I said gay/bi on a sort of unrelated note since the person of which I'm speaking too has expressed desires in women, but has kind of hinted at men too.
>I didn't even mention transvestism, so are you linking transvestism with crossdressing? In which case, that's kind of hypocritical of you, isn't it? transvestism /is/ crossdressing anyway yeah I get why you did it. I answered in >>26926 It's also worth noting that it took me several minutes more than usual to figure out who asked this and who was being addressed due to the way it was stated.