Stupid Is as Stupid Does

Is it unethical amoral, and an injustice to criticize fascism as behaving stupidly

Since we weren't there and a neighbor has gone along with the police reports and there is going to be NO lawsuit, then I'd say it ios a moot point you are trying to bring up.
 
and again, how is Obama ethnically challenged. I'm trying to understand the stupidity. Give me an example of the ethnically challenged stupidity, please.
 
"Also, getting an education might help... "

Is this ethical academic advice? Let's take another glance at the opening question: Is it unethical amoral, and an injustice to criticize fascism as behaving stupidly?

I'm very hopeful that regular participants in this didactic oasis understand the terms. Would you like each term defined, or the sentence diagrammed?
 
Is it unethical amoral, and an injustice to criticize fascism as behaving stupidly? Is Forrest Gump unAmerican? I Barack Obama ethnically challenged?

Omamba spoke totally out of line! He admitted that the didn't know all the facts, and yet, as a stupid bastard, a politician and a black man, he made a judgement .....based solely on the races involved.

Yes, Omamba was a totaly idiot who should be strung up at dawn, then shot by a firing squad. What ruler of a nation of the free world would make such a judgement, such an important judgement, based on no facts??!!

Baron Max
 
OK, let's play. Why do you think fascism behaved stupidly? Because they lost?

Would you have asked the same question in 1941 when the Germans owned pretty much whole Europe?

What is the historical definition of stupid? Do you mean loser?

P.S.: You can not ask overgeneralized questions without defining the words in them...
 
Syzygys: "Why do you think fascism behaved stupidly?"

It's my opinion that fascism is a flagrant form of collective stupidity.

"Because they lost?"

Fascism is still a replicating and mutating virus, so it has not yet "lost".

"Would you have asked the same question in 1941 when the Germans owned pretty much whole Europe?"

They took a very violent European tour. It was not well received. They never owned anyone.

"What is the historical definition of stupid?"

I this particular context, people who are inept to serve from a position of authority.

"Do you mean loser?"

Yes, stupid behavior makes people and collectives prone to failure.

"You can not ask overgeneralized questions without defining the words in them... "

That's why I started the thread with an embedded link for context. I think truth is often mistaken for ubiquity and triviality, because it is intrinsically common to many contexts.

"Is starting stupid threads on Sciforums unethical?"

Are you sure this is a stupid thread, or is it possible that you have only considered it superficially so far?

Anyway, I think the US President reacted eloquently and properly in describing the bully culture that has been spreading our society: It's stupid.

Allow me to rephrase: Educators, trainers, and coaches know that it is most effective to criticize the performance, rather than the performer. I am offering for your consideration that it is in fact stupid to behave unethically, and particularly to entertain and defend authoritarianist behavior personally or institutionally. So is it not true, that stupid is, as stupid does?
 
Fascism is still a replicating and mutating virus, so it has not yet "lost".

We were talking about WW2. They lost if you haven't heard.

They never owned anyone.

Ask about this the French, the Dutch, the East Europeans,etc.

I this particular context, people who are inept to serve from a position of authority.

That is not stupid, that is weak. Big difference.

Yes, stupid behavior makes people and collectives prone to failure.

Not necesserily. Since there can be onbly one winner, the loser can be very intelligent, just weak. That doesn't mean they are stupid. They might just luck resources,etc.

Are you sure this is a stupid thread,

It was a philosophical question. :)
 
Syzygys: "We were talking about WW2."

You've been confining the concept of fascism to WWII all by yourself, and that's unreasonable.

In this particular context, I'm inviting your attention in considering people who are inept to serve from a position of authority.

"That is not stupid, that is weak. Big difference."

It isn't smart to undermine the moral basis of one's own authority. Stupid behavior makes people and collectives prone to failure.

"Since there can be onbly one winner, the loser can be very intelligent, just weak."

If you're making a "might makes right" argument, it's a stupid thing to do here.

"That doesn't mean they are stupid. They might just luck resources,etc."

The stupidity I'm hoping to examine here is abuse of authority, and the conditioned public reflex to absolve, rather than question authority in cases of abuse.

"['Is starting stupid threads'] was a philosophical question. :) "

Yes, I think it's a crime worthy of punishment.
 
Back
Top