A smart man once said

"You're a fucking idiot"

I tend to agree.

 

That's pretty mean.

 

.................... right.

 

the question is to whom is it mean?

 

left .....................

 

If the post reads you're a fucking idiot we are left to belive that it refers to the reader as you have listed no particular object.

 

however the title reads "A smart man once said". Never told who he said it to, and since there is no name, but instead the word "you", in a direct quote, its given that the quote was meant for the person whom it was said to. So, unless a smart man once said that to you, it is in no way mean to any of the readers. Instead it is a stupid, but random, quotation from an anonymous person to an anonymous person.


Just wanted to make an example of how people make small assumptions that allow their opinion of a certain person or certain post to be skewed. It's an awfully self centered thought to automatically assume I'm referring to you.

 

yes, adam- you are.

 

Thanks for backing me up on this one.....seriously.

 

Try using words when you reply to a post, atleast then it's not a complete waste of time and space.

 

I must respectfully disagree. “You” can be used to refer to a group of people. If I was standing in front of a crowd without a microphone I would say “You are going to have to listen carefully as I am relying solely on my natural amplification.” In this instance, “you” is plural and refers to the group of listeners.

By what means am I to know whether or not our mystery man was speaking to a group or a person? You have not provided us with sufficient means by which to make an accurate judgement.

Thus, I am left to my own devices and take, as my deciding factor, your use of the quote. You chose not to use a private message, you did not specify to whom the author was referring or whether or not you meant to direct the quote at anyone in particular. From this, and through reading some of your other posts, I think it reasonable to assume that you did not mean to refer to any single person but the readers of “random thoughts”.

Of course, this may have been a hasty decision. I realize that there are many posts posted here that have some unspoken meaning to one or another person. I did not, though, think that you were one to post such messages. Perhaps, if this were in response to a thread and not a topic in and of itself, I may have thought differently.

It is unreasonable and decietful to give such broad posts with the intention of criticizing those who fill in, by their own mechanisms, the information you failed to provide.

You have duped us into making huge assumptions about what you have posted. How are we to know if the “you” is plural or singular? Isn’t it a safe assumption to think it plural given the circumstances? I think it is. Knowing that the specifications necessary for decent communication are absent from your post, you can hardly blame us for making assumptions.

Should we not have posted a thing?

As for it being self-centered of me to assume that the context in which the quote was given alluded to the “you” being plural, I can not agree. Such inferences have little to do with my psychological egoism.

Though I do believe that people can not be altruistic, I can assure you, my self-centeredness had nothing to do with my original post.

Thanks for the lesson ass fuck.

 

Again, your assumption is not on the number of people he is speaking to; your assumption is on who is being spoken to. In this case it is still a direct quote from a man whom you cannot identify and whom you did not hear speak; consequently, you make the assumption that either the entire group, or part of said group, is being spoken about.

You would've been more correct in your assumption that I was being mean to a specific person had I replied to a post in that manner. At that point, I am specifying who "you" is by directing my reply to a specific person.

It is more than a safe assumption to think that there could have been multiple targets intended under the vague usage of the word "you". It is not, however, a safe assumption to think that the quote is directed at the group of readers. It is one quote, out of context. Should you have not posted? That is up to you, however a more appropriate first post would've been something along the lines of "Who are you talking to dipshit?" I didn't mean to criticize or put down. Simply meant to show a flaw in human nature which causes a lot of us problems on a, most likely, daily basis. It's like when you stand next to somebody and you hold something in front of them, their natural instinct is to recieve it whether or not they have confirmed it is being given to them. I like to do this with empty cups and bottles to people on a regular basis.

I didn't mean to offend or single you out at all. I should've spoken more generally, but as a whole I believe assumptions like that are made on a subconcious level due to insecurities, paranoia or other outside factors. And you're welcome for the lesson... Douche bag. :X

 

The last two posts are been too long to read. I only read the words "douche bag".

"You're a fucking idiot" sounds like a rather hasty judgement.

 

Please don't over-analyze this. You CAN NOT give an appreciable response.

 

You may want to read those long posts. For they are what this thread was truly about. There was a method to the meanness and the madness

 

You didn't read the long posts either, did you?

 

I must admit, I didn't feel like expending the energy.

 

not that I blame you one bit.

 

You mean to tell me that you posted this abstract quote to point out a flaw in humanity?

I doubt that, but will agree that you meant it in such a manner.

No. I make the assumption that, because of the content of your post (this includes your commentary on the quotation), you were either agreeing that the group or person to whom the author was referring were stupid, or attempting to use the quote to express an opinion of a matter on which you and the author agree. Don’t be so quick to assume my assumptions.

Again, you’ll have to excuse me for failing to think that you had created the thread with the sole purpose of expressing your agreement with the meaningless words of some unknown person.

Let us just say that the probability of you having some ulterior motive to the one you suggest you have is close to the probability that I didn’t mean you were being mean, but that I was disagreeing with the unknown author of that abstract quote.

But enough of that. I admit I mistook your post.

That, however, leads into the real irony and fundamental problem with your thread. If you know for certain that such would be the outcome of your post, why do you assume that I was meaning one and not the other in my response? Based on what did you know for certain that I did not mean you were being mean, but the author?

You must have made some assumption becasue I replied in the same general sense that you did.

In this case, you end up as ‘the’ tragic flaw.

Ironic, no?

Or, is it that such a condition is not a flaw at all? You wouldn’t knowingly commit the foul you mean to point out as bad, would you?

I don’t understand why anyone would.

Unless, of course, you were just pointing out the obvious?

In that case, again, thanks for the lesson.

Yes, thank you, that was a nice reiteration of my point.

But such a reaction is based on either conscious deception on your part, or natural instinct on ours. Why then is it a flaw? You haven’t told me why assumption is a flaw at all. In which cases do these assumptions lead to real evil? Where is the harm, outside of the deception with which you are proving your point? And is assumption to blame?