*Note that I'm only responding to your posts as replied to me.
Firstly, hehe, You obviously haven't heard to much about us. ENTPs love knowledge so yes, I've studied, but ENTPs also rush into battles unarmed just for the challenge of winning. I've done this right now, and am currently looking for one of my favorite historical stories to demonstrate.
Actually, I don’t think it’s a matter of knowing enough about ENTP’s, just knowing a good quality argument when I see one. You speak often about loving to argue and doing it frequently for your enjoyment, so I would assume you would have had enough practice by now to know that throwing statements out there without evidence, historical or otherwise, does not a powerful stance make. What I mean is that, if you’re truly interested in debating this issue, even if you’re a seat of the pants type of arguer, you should be injecting each of your points with reasons for your belief and outlining your logic. It doesn’t take hours of painstaking research to check what you’re saying against a verifiable reality. I think it is entirely possible to assess the win-capacity of a potential argument before you set it down, and anticipate your opponents’ next move with a counter-argument and prepared evidence. Even if it is posited in the heat of a moment.
Honestly, I think you’re going to be hard pressed to come up with some proofs for this one. Care to reformulate? Or are you going to attempt to stick to your guns?
I know and that is why I evolved my theory just now. I bounced my thoughts and it evolved into something else. That's how Ne works; New possibilities. Now I believe humans are equally flawed. Meaning some might be smart because they know their stupid, but might be flawed in other ways. Like myself, I'm crazy & arrogant & quite stubborn. My flaws, and I'd never get rid of them.
Hmm... are humans all
equally flawed? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It depends on a number of variable factors, such as what you consider to be 'flaws.' Some flaws can be culturally defined; what's condoned in one culture might not be celebrated in another. With that in mind, there's also no way of measuring whether or not flaws are equally distributed across the population. A person can be arrogant and stubborn, but as we all know, we can always encounter someone out there even
more arrogant and stubborn than them. In this vein, can all flaws be measured equally? Or is a flaw, a flaw?
And I'm anticipating you to say something about balance, in that someone might be more arrogant but make up for it by being less greedy. But are greedy and arrogant be considered on par with one another? Or is one worse than the other?
I don't think we can say this with any sort of relative certainty, because 'flaws' in an individual are chiefly subjective perceptions. One person might be more inclined to tolerate a temper, while another person cannot.
With something subjective and perceptive like the term 'flaw,' I think it would be difficult to qualify as 'equal' across the board.
I believe I already mentioned that in my previous post, which you consented to, and then reformulated with the above reply:
TheDaringHatTrick said:
Equality does not apply to individual varibles that can be voluntarily or environmentally cultivated or subdued.
However, I still believe that the general population, the ones that need someone else to tell them how to think and act. They're stupid.
That’s an assumption. Just because there are current structures in place that condone certain thoughts or behaviors, that doesn’t ratify a
need for the masses to be told how to think or act. Of course, certain rules and principles must be adhered to if one
chooses to belong to a community, but any one of us would still have to capacity to survive on a remote island without societal structures if we wanted to.
Careful with how you word your arguments: ‘need,’ and a conscious choice are two
very different things. If something is a ‘need,’ it cannot be helped. It’s a necessary component to survival. If someone is following their ‘needs,’ they’re making a conscious effort toward self-preservation. How is that stupid?
That being said, I think you need to ‘evolve’ your statement again and change that stipulation within your definition to the term ‘require’ or ‘choose.’ Stupidity, as you loosely defined it, is simply not knowing any better. As a close cousin of ignorance, this faintly implies a choice: there's always the option to knowing more. Thus, that leads me to believe that if something is voluntary, if something
can be helped, that’s when you can use a qualitative label like ‘stupid.’
But before I put the cart in front of the horse, I’d like you to clarify what you mean by ‘someone else’ telling people how to think and act? Who is this 'someone else'? Are you referring to government? Religion? Family? Cultural and societal expectations and taboos? I wish you'd be more specific; generalizations and sweeping statements can cripple a debate because parties spend too much trying to discern what the other means.
It doesn't take comparing to another species to know were not all powerful and the best species ever. Say a super intelligent alien race was to grace us with their presence? They'd still probably be flawed, but at that time humans would see how far behind we truly are. The difference is, along with evolution, we can... fuck I hate doing this... evolve past it
Okay, this argument is a little messy, so let me see if I get this straight. You say that
it doesn’t take comparingto another species to know we’re not all powerful and the best species ever. Okay, I’m intrigued by this, and a little disappointed to see that you didn’t deliver with this argument. If we don’t need another species to compare ourselves to, what is another way you'd go about to prove your argument?
Because in the next sentence, you’re doing just that. You’re
comparing us to an alien race. Mind you, this is an
unverifiable proof. You describe an alien race that’s only possibly super intelligent (your own use of the word ‘probably’ tips me off that you yourself realize you can't state any of this with certainty). But the problem is, at this point in time we do not and
cannot know if there is sentient life beyond our planet, let alone if it is "super" intelligent. The universe being so vast and grand, we can only
assume so, but that’s the problem: the qualities and conditions of alien existence are only limited by the stretch of
our imagination.
So in this vein, if “humans
aren’t the most powerful and best species ever,” I’m still curious as to what logical basis you’re positing this on? A human, imaginary,
ideal? If that’s the case, than an ideal or the possibility of an imagined species isn’t a good basis for measuring the reality of a statement.
As for ‘evolving’ past our limitations and being able to look back on how far we've come. How do I put this delicately? D’uh! The future model is, presumably, always going to be better than the model before it. If you’re basing your statement on future potential, again, that’s still an ideal, a prediction, an assumption. It hasn’t happened yet. You don’t look at a group of four month old infants and argue that they're stupid because they can’t string together a mathematical equation even though they may one day have the potential to do so. They haven’t even developed that sort of reasoning yet. The only way to verify if this particular group of infants is ‘stupid’ is to compare them to other infants their age. We can measure how they compare to the cognitive development of other four month olds who have tested in the past, but we cannot reasonably predict that future four-month olds are going to be able to do calculus homework. We can estimate how certain cognitive developments might go, based on trends, but even then, it's prediction... not hard evidence.
The same thing can be applied to the idea of the 'still evolving' argument for the human race and the supposed potential we hold.
I may have jumped the gun here, but I'd like to put forth that we should focus on the present. Not what we could be, not what we were, but the state of the human race
right now. In the face of something we can reasonably verify, how do “we know we’re not all powerful and the best species ever?” You said it wouldn't take comparisons to know this. What other way, using hard facts or reasoning, would you asses your stance?
Looking foward to what you've got to say