Thread: Idiot!!

I read the topic title of "Idiot!!" noting the two exclamation points, then was immediately presented with a screenshot of IE

Originally Posted by Ynot

I read the topic title of "Idiot!!" noting the two exclamation points, then was immediately presented with a screenshot of IE

Ok time to fix that. First time inserting picture. Lack of knowledge is not stupidity. Anyone who fails to realize that is an idiot.

^Quite right. Lack of knowledge actually equates to ignorance, which in my opinion is even worse than stupidity.

Originally Posted by Lëzen

^Quite right. Lack of knowledge actually equates to ignorance.

Nope, it doesn't. Lack of knowledge = lack of knowledge.

Originally Posted by bonthan

Nope, it doesn't. Lack of knowledge = lack of knowledge.

Hrm....

ig⋅no⋅rance
  /ˈɪgnərəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ig-ner-uhns] Show IPA

–noun
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Hrm....

Oh so you wanna go word by word in the dictionary. What if instead of using "lack of knowledge" to describe my inexperience with picture inserting, I'm gonna use "do not know", because in the current situation, "lack of knowledge" and "do not know" both signify the fact that I had not insert a pic in a post before so I forgot to cut the IE frame. So when I changed it to "do not know", you wouldn't find it under "ignorance" definition in the dictionary, therefore "do not know" would not equate "ignorance" wouldn't it. So my point is that what is to be understood and what is said are two different thing. In the understanding, "ignorance" means "unwareness of".

Dude 1: "let's chill man"
Dude 2: "damn man I don't wanna get a cold"

Originally Posted by bonthan

Oh so you wanna go word by word in the dictionary. What if instead of using "lack of knowledge" to describe my inexperience with picture inserting, I'm gonna use "do not know", because in the current situation, "lack of knowledge" and "do not know" both signify the fact that I had not insert a pic in a post before so I forgot to cut the IE frame. So when I changed it to "do not know", you wouldn't find it under "ignorance" definition in the dictionary, therefore "do not know" would not equate "ignorance" wouldn't it. So my point is that what is to be understood and what is said are two different thing. In the understanding, "ignorance" means "unwareness of".

Dude 1: "let's chill man"
Dude 2: "damn man I don't wanna get a cold"

I was just pointing out that ignorance does, in fact, equate lack of knowledge.

Originally Posted by bonthan

Oh so you wanna go word by word in the dictionary. What if instead of using "lack of knowledge" to describe my inexperience with picture inserting, I'm gonna use "do not know", because in the current situation, "lack of knowledge" and "do not know" both signify the fact that I had not insert a pic in a post before so I forgot to cut the IE frame. So when I changed it to "do not know", you wouldn't find it under "ignorance" definition in the dictionary, therefore "do not know" would not equate "ignorance" wouldn't it. So my point is that what is to be understood and what is said are two different thing. In the understanding, "ignorance" means "unwareness of".

Dude 1: "let's chill man"
Dude 2: "damn man I don't wanna get a cold"

You can't make this stuff up, people.

Originally Posted by bonthan

Oh so you wanna go word by word in the dictionary. What if instead of using "lack of knowledge" to describe my inexperience with picture inserting, I'm gonna use "do not know", because in the current situation, "lack of knowledge" and "do not know" both signify the fact that I had not insert a pic in a post before so I forgot to cut the IE frame. So when I changed it to "do not know", you wouldn't find it under "ignorance" definition in the dictionary, therefore "do not know" would not equate "ignorance" wouldn't it. So my point is that what is to be understood and what is said are two different thing. In the understanding, "ignorance" means "unwareness of".

Dude 1: "let's chill man"
Dude 2: "damn man I don't wanna get a cold"

"Unwareness"...

You miss the point. Ignorance is lack of knowledge, no which way about it. Ever hear the term "ignorance is bliss"? Yeah, think of that.

I don't know what kind of circus you are having in the States, but that doesn't sound like a proper use of force if you can tazer or spray someone if he is just using drugs and not being aggressive. That is just plain pathetic if the user of force cannot tame the person without lesser means. If you think of pepper spray, it is, at least here, one step below from the use of firearm.

As a person who has been in the security business for long now, I find that just.. ridicilous. Don't police officers around there have a partner so they can subdue the client together by using physical force? Or if he is very aggressive, subdue him first by hitting his leg once with baton and then put him on cuffs? Shouldn't be that hard if you have professional training.

C'mon. If a cop knows when a criminal will attack, so many cops didn't have to die. Criminals don't warm "I'll gonna shoot you with my AK47 that I am gonna pull out from the back of my car at this very second!" before they attack. I hate fucking dumbasses like this and ATS is getting more and more of them. Forums should only allow to register members with IQs more than 90. But that would limit 70% of the users on DV from joining wouldn't it *ExoByte...coughs*

And by writing that you have succesfully proven that you have no idea how the principles of using force are applied in real world. By "knowing" you must mean that you have seen the weapon or you have extremely good reason to except the person to carry a weapon. Unless you haven't, no matter how aggressive the person may appear if he is barehanded, you cannot just go and threathen him with firearm in order to subdue him.

"Stronger methods of using force may be applied if the lesser ones have proven themselves unsuccesful. Even then, the client must be subdued with the least power necessary to control the situation."

Originally Posted by Unelias

I don't know what kind of circus you are having in the States, but that doesn't sound like a proper use of force if you can tazer or spray someone if he is just using drugs and not being aggressive. That is just plain pathetic if the user of force cannot tame the person without lesser means. If you think of pepper spray, it is, at least here, one step below from the use of firearm.

As a person who has been in the security business for long now, I find that just.. ridicilous. Don't police officers around there have a partner so they can subdue the client together by using physical force? Or if he is very aggressive, subdue him first by hitting his leg once with baton and then put him on cuffs? Shouldn't be that hard if you have professional training.



And by writing that you have succesfully proven that you have no idea how the principles of using force are applied in real world. By "knowing" you must mean that you have seen the weapon or you have extremely good reason to except the person to carry a weapon. Unless you haven't, no matter how aggressive the person may appear if he is barehanded, you cannot just go and threathen him with firearm in order to subdue him.

"Stronger methods of using force may be applied if the lesser ones have proven themselves unsuccesful. Even then, the client must be subdued with the least power necessary to control the situation."

Ok is that your opinion or fact based on your experience? You are in the security business? Can you prove that? If not then I would have to conclude that you don't know a damn thing about "using force are applied in the real world", therefore I'm not gonna argue because my view is different from yours.

It is a fact based on my experiences and yes I have done security business and at the moment I am leader of military police squad in army, which supervises security of the military areas at the time of peace.

We can talk about reasonable use of force if you want. but I don't think you have much of valid arguments. Sadly, I can reply again at thursday or wednesday. Write something up and I will certainly answer.

In real peace time law enforcement you don't go shooting clients if they are unarmed or baton them 20 times. Yes, I have seen this many times in news and surprisingly mostly in USA. I am not alone with my statement since most of the people outside the States agree with me in that USA law enforcement and system is literally a circus.

Originally Posted by bonthan

Ok is that your opinion or fact based on your experience? You are in the security business? Can you prove that? If not then I would have to conclude that you don't know a damn thing about "using force are applied in the real world", therefore I'm not gonna argue because my view is different from yours.

If you are going to be pretentious and condescend others responses to your topic, at least offer an alternative argument from yourself with equal expected support. Otherwise, you just come across pompous.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

If you are going to be pretentious and condescend others responses to your topic, at least offer an alternative argument from yourself with equal expected support. Otherwise, you just come across pompous.

~

What are you talking about? I'm not condescending him. I respect the guy as much as I respect anyone in DV, but saying you are something on a forum is just not going to increase your validity or power of your opinion, and I'm not gonna offer an argument for the expected support because that's the argument I'm trying to avoid. The point of this thread is how idiotic the guy in the screenshot is saying that "we" should add this and that law. And how am I even pretentious? "if you are going to be pretentious"- if you're gonna assume something about somebody you better back it up with proof or not you'll be just as pretentious.

I am vastly amused at the way you all completely missed Ynot's point.


Use Firefox, please.

This entire thread is just lol.

Originally Posted by bonthan

What are you talking about? I'm not condescending him. I respect the guy as much as I respect anyone in DV, but saying you are something on a forum is just not going to increase your validity or power of your opinion, and I'm not gonna offer an argument for the expected support because that's the argument I'm trying to avoid. The point of this thread is how idiotic the guy in the screenshot is saying that "we" should add this and that law. And how am I even pretentious? "if you are going to be pretentious"- if you're gonna assume something about somebody you better back it up with proof or not you'll be just as pretentious.

If you are asserting someone as being an idiot without offering a counter argument... what do you call that?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

If you are asserting someone as being an idiot without offering a counter argument... what do you call that?

~

What? did I call him an idiot? No, I didn't. I told you I don't want to argue because simply I don't want to argue. And I never call him an idiot.

Originally Posted by bonthan

What? did I call him an idiot? No, I didn't. I told you I don't want to argue because simply I don't want to argue. And I never call him an idiot.

Originally Posted by bonthan

Ok is that your opinion or fact based on your experience? You are in the security business? Can you prove that? If not then I would have to conclude that you don't know a damn thing about "using force are applied in the real world", therefore I'm not gonna argue because my view is different from yours.

First of all, consider that not everyone will agree with you insulting another person - regardless of the cirumstannces or how idiotic it may seem to you.

Notice how you completely argue the credibility of the point but then try to modestly end with "I'm not going to argue because my view is different from yours".

Do you see where I am going with this? You called the post idiotic and then told someone else that they likely do not know what they are speaking of and then offered nothing in return.

Please.. tell me.. what do you call that?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

First of all, consider that not everyone will agree with you insulting another person - regardless of the cirumstannces or how idiotic it may seem to you.

Notice how you completely argue the credibility of the point but then try to modestly end with "I'm not going to argue because my view is different from yours".

Do you see where I am going with this? You called the post idiotic and then told someone else that they likely do not know what they are speaking of and then offered nothing in return.

Please.. tell me.. what do you call that?

~

"offered nothing in return" I already offered my view and it's in the very FIRST post in this thread if you pay attention and it is solely my opinion. And when he stated his view on the subject I want to avoid the argument because opinion vs opinion will lead to NOWHERE based on my experience on this forum. What I offered in the first post is that a criminal will not advertise before he attacks and Unelias is arguing my opinion using his, therefore I think the conversation is pointless and try to avoid that. Please pay attention before you chime in.

Originally Posted by bonthan

"offered nothing in return" I already offered my view and it's in the very FIRST post in this thread if you pay attention and it is solely my opinion. And when he stated his view on the subject I want to avoid the argument because opinion vs opinion will lead to NOWHERE based on my experience on this forum. What I offered in the first post is that a criminal will not advertise before he attacks and Unelias is arguing my opinion using his, therefore I think the conversation is pointless and try to avoid that. Please pay attention before you chime in.

Your opinion is that criminals will not advertise their attacks and...? So what should the cops do then? What force should be encouraged, if any?

Do not make the mistake of thinking I am not paying attention for this is why I am interjecting in the first place. You made an accusation and did not offer any alternative forms of resolution besides your own conjecturing insult of "idiotic" and how criminals behave - nothing for how police should act. Please thoroughly review your thought process before sharing it with others.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Your opinion is that criminals will not advertise their attacks and...? So what should the cops do then? What force should be encouraged, if any?

~

I told you I don't want to argue.

Originally Posted by bonthan

I told you I don't want to argue.

Exactly. You make an accusation and argue against others but offer nothing from yourself. Yet you say you don't want to argue and either fail to see how you are actually arguing or you think you do not need to argue. That is being pretentious.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Exactly. You make an accusation and argue against others but offer nothing from yourself. Yet you say you don't want to argue and either fail to see how you are actually arguing or you think you do not need to argue. That is being pretentious.

~

Oh for god's sake! I've told you my argument is in the FIRST post and I don't know if you're unawere of just plain fucking thick OR just annoying. I'm gonna save my self some times and not gonna reply to this thread anymore so you can be here and reply to yourself ok? Because whatever I said you're just gonna ignore and try to push your false accusation across. Ok so stay on this thread and have fun.