Military Review

How to recognize an idiot during a discussion

97
Everybody complains about his memory, but nobody complains about his mind.
La Rochefoucauld



First of all, the author would like to express his gratitude to numerous interlocutors, both in real life and on Internet forums, without whose help this article would never have seen the light.

In time to identify an idiot during the discussion is extremely important, as this will save you considerable effort. Of course, sometimes you can change the opinion of an idiot without relying on facts and not using logical arguments, but this article assumes that the discussion is conducted for exchanging logically consistent opinions and getting new information from each other, and not for recruiting supporters of your idea of ​​idiots. If you set yourself such a goal, then you had better turn to my other article, namely “How to create your own sect”. Before proceeding to the analysis of signs, with the help of which you will be able to determine that this person participating in the discussion is an idiot, we will explain what is meant in this case by the term idiot. Naturally in this case, the concept of "idiot" is not a medical term, but rather characterizes a person’s intellectual abilities.

We now proceed to consider the signs that you are arguing with an idiot.

- 1) Rudeness and / or lack of any substantiation of factual or logical when giving an answer or approving something

Examples: Everything you say is bullshit! Nonsense! The land is flat and stands on three pillars and do not dare to say the opposite! Etc.

Explanations. If the interlocutor is unable to provide any logical or factual arguments in support of his opinion, then he has no choice but to be rude and categorically and without proof to repeat his own. The inability to substantiate your opinion suggests that the idiot is arguing with you with a fairly high probability.

Reliability feature: not very high.

An example explaining the reasons for possible unreliability: For example, in a discussion of two intellectual and erudite interlocutors discussing Napoleon, his policies, etc. another person intervenes. "And Napoleon, by the way, is a Jew and an agent of the Mossad and his task was to establish world domination of the Freemasons," he says. The course of the discussion in the future depends on the strength of the nerves and pedagogical inclinations of the first two participants. If their nerves are strong and they are not alien to pedagogical talent, then they can try to enlighten the new participant in the discussion about historical realities of Napoleonic times. It is impossible to say in advance whether they will succeed or not, but it can be assumed that the probability of this is relatively low. Since, if a person is really interested in the issue and is capable of learning, then he could probably find some more or less acceptable literature about this period and would not carry such nonsense. Consequently, if the first two participants in the discussion are not too restrained, they are not inclined to study for free the one who wedged into the discussion, then it is very possible that one of them or both of them will say to the new interlocutor something like - "Get out of here! Moron!" without arguing for his answer. And this their statement quite falls under the above sign of idiocy, but, as it is quite obvious from the given example, in this particular case this sign works incorrectly, since those who made this statement are by no means idiots. So it is advisable to use it only in conjunction with other features.

- 2) An attempt to convince an opponent not by logical arguments and facts, but by repeating an unsubstantiated statement

Example: Consider all the same interlocutors mentioned above discussing about Napoleonic times. Suppose that after sticking into the discussion stated to them - “And Napoleon, by the way, the Jew and the Mossad agent and his task was to establish the world domination of the Freemasons”, they did not send him to hell immediately, but thoroughly and with evidence from authoritative sources they began to explain to him that Napoleon could not be an agent of the Mossad, if only because at that time Israel did not exist as a state of Israel, much less such a special service as Mossad. And Napoleon was not a Jew, but was a Corsican. After that, speaking with such allegations, he waits for a while, and then reappears with the same allegations that his interlocutors disproved. Further actions of debating with a similar character depend on their patience, and on his part, the issuance of such many times refuted statements becomes cyclical.

Note: It is obvious from the example that the person behaving in a similar way is either unable to hold the arguments against his assertions in his head for more than a relatively short period, or he believes that the repeated repetition of some assertion despite the fact that it was logically or actually disproved, nevertheless, gradually makes it true either in general or in the eyes of interlocutors

Reliability of the feature: very high

- 3) Unreasonable generalizations and extrapolations

Example: When someone claims, for example, that all Finns from music listen only to Frank Sinatra on the grounds that he was familiar with only two Finns, and they did not listen to songs of Frank Sinatra or that all Frenchmen wear triangular hats and dream of conquering Russia, since he read somewhere about Napoleon and extrapolated this information to all the French.

Or give another example of an erroneous extrapolation by Bobby Henders (for more on this in the Wikipedia article Flying Spaghetti Monster)

Pirates and global warming

The influence of the number of pirates on global warming as an illustration of the fact that the relationship is not equal to causality (Latin: um hoc ergo propter hoc - after this, therefore, because of this). In this letter, Henderson develops the argument that "global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters are a direct consequence of the reduction in the number of pirates from 1800." The chart attached to the letter shows that with a reduction in the number of pirates, the global temperature rises, thus illustrating that statistically related things, however, are not necessarily interrelated.

Explanations: From the above statements or the like, it can be quite clearly stated that the person making them has no idea what constitutes a representative sample and that far from any extrapolation makes sense by itself.

Reliability of the feature: very high

- 4) Attempt to refute statistics with single examples.

Example: When someone responds to a statistical study that shows that the average standard of living in the US is higher than, for example, Belarus declares - “Lies! I was in the US and there I had a homeless man begging for food! Is this a high level of life ?! But in Belarus, my brother lives and he has his own villa, the Jaguar machine and in general he is almost a millionaire! So all your statistics are lying about the fact that in Belarus the standard of living is lower than in the USA! "

Explanations: In principle, explanations are superfluous in this case.

Reliability of the feature: very high

- 5) Attempt to attract arguments (to refute or confirm allegations) from a field that is not the subject of discussion (lynched blacks, etc.)

Example: Someone say in the discussion about what country the average standard of living above states "Here you claim that the standard of living is higher in the US than in Somalia. And the United States, by the way, dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki! A lot of people died there ! " etc.

Explanations: In this case, the person does not understand that The subject of discussion is a comparative standard of living across countries, and not what image a country has, what methods a high standard of living was achieved in, etc. Therefore, although his statement is absolutely true, in the framework of the above discussion, it is absolutely meaningless, because in no way disproves or confirms that the average standard of living in the US is higher or lower than in Somalia.

The reliability of the sign: not very high

An example explaining the reasons for possible unreliability: If the subject of the discussion is not clearly stated, and this is not a rare case, then one of the interlocutors may simply decide to expand the scope of the discussion by giving arguments from related and interdependent topics with the discussion of other areas. In such a case, such an opponent will not be an idiot. He will be an idiot only if the topic of the discussion was specified quite clearly, and despite this, he will try to push arguments that do not fall under this topic into the discussion.

- 6) Selective application of data and logical reasoning

Example: If a Mongol proves to all, citing a lot of historical information, that Chaka (the founder of the Zulus state in South Africa) was a bloodthirsty savage and aggressor, but is terribly insulted and refuses, based on no less data and following the same logic, the savage of Genghis Khan, thereby demonstrating the selective use of logic and the desire to ignore those data that do not fit into his ideas.

Explanations: Actually explanations in this case are unnecessary.

Reliability of the feature: very high

- 7) Misunderstanding of the unequal value of different sources of information

Example: If a person does not understand that an article in the field of physics published in the journal AIDS-Info has much less weight than an article on the same topic published, for example, in such scientific journals as "Nature" or "Physical Review Letters" or ceteris paribus information reported news agency Reuters, enjoys more confidence than information from a source such as the same AIDS-Info, then this in itself is very significant.

Explanations: The area of ​​assessment of the credibility of various sources of information is still rather poorly formalized, which does not negate, however, the possibility of grading these sources according to the degree of reliability in an empirical way. In the same areas as science, quite workable methods of assessing the credibility of scientific articles like the citation index are already being developed.

Reliability of a sign: rather high

An example explaining the reasons for possible unreliability: Despite the above, however, it should be noted that hF> The experimenter repeats the task.

Subject The village headman was not angry that day.

Experimenter. The village headman was not angry? Why?

Subject Because he doesn't like Flumo.

Experimenter. He doesn't like Flyumo? Tell me why?

Subject Because when Flumo drinks cane juice, it's bad. Therefore, the village headman is angry when Flumo does this. And when Yakpalo sometimes drinks cane juice, he does nothing bad to people. He goes and goes to bed. Therefore, people are not angry with him. But for those who get drunk on cane juice and start fighting, the warden cannot tolerate them in the village. "
The subject has in mind most likely some specific people, or simply invented them. He discarded the first premise of the task and replaced it with another statement: people are not angry with other people. Then he entered into the task new data concerning the behavior of Flumo and Yakpalo. The subject's answer to the experimental problem was incorrect. But it was the result of quite logical arguments based on new premises.
To analyze the problem posed in the first experiment, we reformulate it so that the logical connections of the statements are revealed: “If a spider eats, it also eats a deer; if it eats a deer, it also eats a spider; a spider eats; consequently, a deer also eats”. The buildings of people of different cultures, clearly show that most often the reason for the difficulties is that the reasoning pattern, its form, does not stand out in its pure form. To address the issue of correctness of reasoning, some irrelevant substantive considerations are involved instead. They are usually associated with the specific situation described in the argument.

Here's how to describe the course of one of the experiments conducted in Africa, M. Cole and S. Scribner in the book "Culture and Thinking".

Experimenter.

One day the spider went to a holiday dinner. But he was told that before he began to eat, he must answer one question. The question is: "The spider and the black deer always eat together. The spider eats. Does the deer eat?"

Subject Were they in the forest?

Experimenter. Yes.

Subject Did they eat together?

Experimenter. Spider and deer always eat together. The spider is eating. Does a deer eat?

Subject But I was not there. How can I answer this question?

Experimenter. Can't answer? Even if you were not there, you can answer this question. (Repeats the question.)

Subject Yes, yes, a black deer eats.

Experimenter. Why are you saying. What does a black deer eat?

Subject Because a black deer always walks all day in the forest and eats green leaves. Then he rests a bit and gets up again to eat.

This is an obvious mistake. The subject does not have a general idea of ​​the logical correctness of the conclusion. To give an answer, he seeks to rely on some facts, and when the experimenter refuses to help him in the search for such facts, he invents them.

Another example from the same study.

Experimenter. If Flumo or Yakpalo drink cane juice, the village headman is angry. Flumo does not drink cane juice. Jakpalo drinks cane juice. Is the village elder angry?

Subject People are not angry with other people.

The experimenter repeats the task.

Subject The village headman was not angry that day.

Experimenter. The village headman was not angry? Why?

Subject Because he doesn't like Flumo.

Experimenter. He doesn't like Flyumo? Tell me why?

Subject Because when Flumo drinks cane juice, it's bad. Therefore, the village headman is angry when Flumo does this. And when Yakpalo sometimes drinks cane juice, he does nothing bad to people. He goes and goes to bed. Therefore, people are not angry with him. But for those who get drunk on cane juice and start fighting, the warden cannot tolerate them in the village. "

The subject has in mind most likely some specific people, or simply invented them. He discarded the first premise of the task and replaced it with another statement: people are not angry with other people. Then he entered into the task new data concerning the behavior of Flumo and Yakpalo. The subject's answer to the experimental problem was incorrect. But it was the result of quite logical arguments based on new premises.
To analyze the problem posed in the first experiment, we reformulate it so that the logical connections of the statements are revealed: “If a spider eats, it also eats a deer; if it eats a deer, it also eats a spider; a spider eats; consequently, a deer also eats”. Here are three packages. Does two of them follow: “If a spider eats, a deer also eats” and “Spider eats” the conclusion “Deer eats”? Of course. The reasoning goes according to the scheme already mentioned: “if there is one, that is, there is a second; there is one, which means there is a second.” It is a logical law. The correctness of this reasoning does not depend, of course, on whether everything happens in the forest, whether the subject was present, and so on.
The second problem is somewhat more complicated: “If Flumo or Yakpalo drink cane juice, the village headman is angry. Flumo does not drink cane juice. Yakpalo drinks cane juice. Is the village elder angry?” Distracting from the specific content, we reveal a pattern of reasoning: "if there is one or second, that is, the third; there is no first, but there is the second; therefore, there is a third." This scheme is a logical law, and, therefore, the reasoning is correct. The scheme is close to the previously mentioned scheme "if there is the first, that is, the second; there is the first; therefore, there is the second." The only difference is that two alternatives are indicated as the “first” in a more complicated argument, one of which is immediately excluded. ”

Explanations: Actually this feature is cumulative and in fact includes all the other features mentioned above (they were considered separately only for greater clarity), and therefore is the most reliable. All the many logical errors that can be made cannot be considered, since they, like human stupidity, are endless and therefore the above are just a few examples of such errors. As for the rest, applying this sign you just need to check the line of reasoning of the disputing person for compliance with logic.

Reliability of the feature: extremely high

What else to remember when discussing with an idiot.

As a rule, an idiot thinks that he won the discussion if you stop discussing with him first, i.e. respond to his idiotic remarks and refute them. And you are more likely to stop doing this first by virtue of Shapiro's law, which I modestly named after me. And this law says that "the statement of an idiotic statement requires an order of magnitude less effort than its consistent and reasonable refutation and moreover, sometimes this refutation is impossible at all." To understand why this is so should refer to the famous 'Russell Teapot'. In 1952, Russell wrote: "If I assume that a porcelain teapot flies around the Sun in an elliptical orbit between Earth and Mars, no one will be able to refute my statement, especially if I carefully add that the kettle is so small that it is not visible even with the most powerful telescopes "

Can you imagine what efforts the refutation of such a statement would require and that it is impossible to implement this refutation at the present level of technical development? And even in cases where a refutation is possible, it requires an incomparably monstrous effort compared to the effort required to make an idiotic utterance, which is required to be refuted. Therefore, the option that you simply can not physically refute the statement of your opponent, an idiot, and you will have to stop the discussion is very possible. And it will not help you at all if you decide to demand from an idiot opponent that he himself has proved the truth of his delusional claim, since it is elementary in the proof of its delusional assertion will result in equally delusional reasoning and proof, and this in turn means that you have to refute them as well. And this is not to mention the fact that an idiot can easily use the method I mentioned in the second sign of idiocy ie constant repetition (sometimes slightly modified) of their already refuted statements. Based on this, an idiot, according to his criteria for victory, always gains the upper hand in the discussion. So, isn’t it better to reveal an idiot with the help of the signs given above by me to immediately send him to far away? So you will save a lot of time and effort.
Author:
Originator:
http://samlib.ru/s/shapiro_m_a/raspidiota.shtml
97 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 25 May 2013 06: 38 New
    24
    The author did not take into account several factors
    Any person who cites one or another example refers to one or another link in the internet of one or another author. But some authors themselves are more like idiots or just work for an organization. Custom polls of this or that opinion, custom articles signed by non-existent academics, articles of “scientists” who expose any theory they like to be an irrefutable fact.
    Those who are gullible and believe any nonsense and perceive it as truth. Someone is smarter and starts looking for confirmation of the author’s identity and published material, all people are different and think differently.
    But there is a category of impenetrables, the likeness of a clown glorifying the ROA and seriously convincing everyone that they were liberating their homeland, well, there’s a clinical case, like with Bandera.
    In short, think for yourself, decide for yourself who is who hi
    1. GreatRussia
      GreatRussia 25 May 2013 07: 48 New
      10
      This is all wonderful. But how does this article relate to the theme of the Military Review site?
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 25 May 2013 08: 03 New
        +8
        Quote: GreatRussia
        But how does this article relate to the theme of the Military Review site?

        Remember a recent article about an aircraft carrier that isn't even on paper? So the article was splashed under the cries of cheers, but why shout the cheers plans?
        1. GreatRussia
          GreatRussia 25 May 2013 08: 38 New
          +9
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Remember a recent article about an aircraft carrier that isn't even on paper? So the article was splashed under the cries of cheers, but why shout the cheers plans?

          Yes and figs with him. This has more to do with emotions, hopes and expectations, rather than the ailment stated in the article. )))

          By the way, you will see what links to third-party resources with article headings hang on the site (lower right corner of the site) or pop up when scrolling through articles:
          With this weapon Putin intimidated by the West (a photo)
          Powerful American drone hit the whole world
          The most devastating rocket launcher that everyone dreams of

          Etc. bully
          1. Vladimirets
            Vladimirets 25 May 2013 08: 57 New
            +7
            Quote: GreatRussia
            By the way, you will see what links to third-party resources with article headings hang on the site (lower right corner of the site) or pop up when scrolling through articles:
            Putin frightened the West with these weapons (photo)
            Powerful American drone hit the whole world
            The most devastating rocket launcher that everyone dreams of
            Etc.

            The headings themselves fit the characteristics indicated by the author of the article.
            1. lewerlin53rus
              lewerlin53rus 25 May 2013 09: 14 New
              11
              Quote: GreatRussia
              By the way, you will see what links to third-party resources with article headings hang on the site (lower right corner of the site) or pop up when scrolling through articles:
              Putin frightened the West with these weapons (photo)
              Powerful American drone hit the whole world
              The most devastating rocket launcher that everyone dreams of
              Etc.

              Yes, such links are available on most resources. And they are placed there not by idiots, but for them. For those who are guided by such high-profile, if not scandalous, headlines like "we lose a great actor" or "find out your past (future) with a guarantee", etc. As a result, they rake in a bunch of spam, and even viruses.
              1. Arberes
                Arberes 25 May 2013 09: 37 New
                +8
                Quote: lewerlin53rus
                Yes, such links are available on most resources. And they are placed there not by idiots, but for them. For those who are guided by such high-profile, if not scandalous, headlines like "we lose a great actor" or "find out your past (future) with a guarantee", etc. As a result, they rake in a bunch of spam, and even viruses.

                I absolutely agree with you!
                Dedicated to the victims of media culture!

                MEDIA NIGHTMARES!

                I have nightmares at night
                I can’t live like that anymore!
                I’m caressing Novodvorskaya
                I drink vodka with Zhirinovsky!

                I’m a member of the GAY parade!
                Naked and tights waist-high
                I’m in KREMLIN and on the tatami
                PUTIN gives me a kimono!

                I wake up sweaty, clammy
                And I do not come to my senses either
                Again all night ditties obscene
                Ksenia Sobchak sang to me

                In the morning I dream GOS DUMA
                I know all the faces for one or two
                Here I am again in a brothel
                More precisely in HOUSE number 2

                Why am I so tormented
                Himself in black measles!
                All the blame for the headlines
                I watch them all day in the morning !!!

                I have a word and ... from not printed!
          2. tomket
            tomket 25 May 2013 11: 24 New
            +2
            Now I am writing an essay on the subject of "headlines in the modern press." and I understand, but the people do not drive much.))))))
            1. dmitreach
              dmitreach 25 May 2013 13: 33 New
              +2
              tomket, interesting topic. It seems to me that this is an acquired quality.
          3. sams
            sams 25 May 2013 11: 29 New
            -6
            Quote: lewerlin53rus
            For those underway

          4. Geisenberg
            Geisenberg 25 May 2013 14: 56 New
            -1
            Quote: GreatRussia
            Yes and figs with him. This has more to do with emotions, hopes and expectations, rather than the ailment stated in the article. )))



            Quote: GreatRussia
            5) An attempt to attract arguments (to refute or confirm the allegations) from an area that is not the subject of discussion (lynched blacks, etc.)


            To you as your article ... laughing

            Thanks a lot. Reading was fun and interesting.
          5. piotr534
            piotr534 25 May 2013 16: 15 New
            +2
            By the way, you will see what links to third-party resources with article headings hang on the site (lower right corner of the site) or pop up when scrolling through articles:
            Putin frightened the West with these weapons (photo)
            Powerful American drone hit the whole world
            The most devastating rocket launcher that everyone dreams of
            Etc.
            Do not look for meaning where it does not exist, as their goal is to drag the Internet user to the site and it does not matter what sauce it is served under. The law of advertising.
        2. vilenich
          vilenich 25 May 2013 09: 32 New
          +2
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          So the article was splashed under the cries of cheers, but why shout the cheers plans?

          So it's just that people scored points for themselves, since such a system of points and ranks on the forum is accepted, then this is the cost in its work.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Arberes
        Arberes 25 May 2013 08: 26 New
        +9
        Quote: GreatRussia
        This is all wonderful. But how does this article relate to the theme of the Military Review site?

        Perhaps the author of the article got very stupid people?
        But without them it’s boring!
        Or am I wrong? drinks
        1. max73
          max73 25 May 2013 12: 54 New
          +5
          I don’t know about you, but it’s interesting for me to read professional comments, not hat-making, or, on the contrary, Russophobic “creations” ...
        2. Nick
          Nick 25 May 2013 15: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: Arberes
          Perhaps the author of the article got very stupid people?
          But without them it’s boring!
          Or am I wrong?

          It depends on the mood. Sometimes they help to relax, laugh, and sometimes they are very annoying ...
      4. Kolya
        Kolya 25 May 2013 10: 00 New
        +3
        Quote: GreatRussia
        This is all wonderful. But how does this article relate to the theme of the Military Review site?

        They said to Bush: Yes, there is no nuclear weapon in Iraq! - but he groundlessly stubbornly repeated his. Now the whole world knows who Bush is. Would recognize his shortcomings earlier - would save hundreds of thousands of lives.
        1. Hleb
          Hleb 25 May 2013 10: 07 New
          +1
          They would recognize an idiot earlier - they would save hundreds of thousands of lives.

          this is an example) to mix US policy with idiocy, clever ... so to argue, then all US leaders fit this definition? Yugoslavia, Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, A
        2. Hleb
          Hleb 25 May 2013 10: 13 New
          +1
          Afghanistan, the Cold War, finally. Did someone believe in their published reasons for the invasion of Iraq or Yugoslavia? What was there to recognize? And who would save hundreds of lives? They did not stop after Iraq. Now we are clearly seeing yet again
        3. Nick
          Nick 25 May 2013 15: 07 New
          0
          Quote: Kohl
          the whole world knows who Bush is. Would recognize his shortcomings earlier - would save hundreds of thousands of lives.

          You are right, and the one endowed with power, it’s scary ...
      5. crazy_fencer
        crazy_fencer 25 May 2013 10: 08 New
        +2
        To the actual topic - nothing. But to discuss the subject of the site - in full growth.
      6. il grand casino
        il grand casino 25 May 2013 11: 20 New
        +1
        Moreover, many discussions here are taking place here: My neighbor (think up nat.) Was a freak! Ayda cut them all and expel from Rus Mother.
      7. piotr534
        piotr534 25 May 2013 15: 56 New
        +1
        This is all wonderful. But how does this article relate to the theme of the Military Review site?
        Although the attitude is indirect, it seems to me that this prompted the author to write this article. It is enough to read comments on any article on the site and NOT IDIOT everything will become clear and understandable. lol Apparently there are so many minuses in the article rating. hi
      8. Ruslan67
        Ruslan67 25 May 2013 16: 12 New
        +6
        Quote: GreatRussia
        How does this article relate to the theme of the Military Review site?

        Probably the fact that the category of persons described in the article is widely represented on it wassat
    2. SPACE
      SPACE 25 May 2013 07: 52 New
      +6
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      The author did not take into account several factors

      The article is similar to an antivirus program introduced by VO to clean or "set the brains" of some IPs. Most likely, an offended participant, and maybe a guardian.
      The VO site is like an express laboratory, you want to find out the state of society, “take a sample” write an article and put it into the VO analyzer, after some time various types of microorganisms such as “bacteria”, “fungi”, “viruses” and transformers, large and small, are experienced and they will give you the result in the form of comments, it remains only to summarize. The analysis is more accurate, the more different people with different opinions who participate in the discussion and debate. So there are no superfluous here, and even the diot is useful and plays the role assigned to it.
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 25 May 2013 08: 05 New
        +6
        Quote: SPACE
        after some time, various types of microorganisms such as "bacteria", "fungi", "viruses"

        Just remember three nicknames falling under these three categories laughing
        1. djon3volta
          djon3volta 25 May 2013 09: 50 New
          +5
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Just remember three nicknames falling under these three categories

          Quote: bask
          Simple as that, read the comments: J. 3W, a police officer. Everyone.


          "Get out of here! Moron!" without giving any reason for his answer.


          some people recognize themselves in this article, am I right? of course I’m right, but you don’t admit it openly, because it’s dumb and embarrassing.
          Zdarova kitchen presidents and laborers, virtual marshals of the Soviet Union)))
          1. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 25 May 2013 10: 07 New
            10
            Quote: djon3volta
            Zdarova kitchen presidents and laborers, virtual marshals of the Soviet Union)))

            I am not the author of these lines, and therefore do not put pluses for poetry hi
            Blind faith.

            Above the bed, a portrait of Vova Putin
            His days and nights commander
            Under the pillow Medvedev photo
            Kissed on the lips to holes!

            He is the only patriot here.
            As always, he’s not free over himself
            Kind of mustache and hapless warlike
            He is sick of the United Russia!

            Everyone who thinks otherwise
            He considers the enemies of RUSI
            Traitors have bred on the site
            At least take a weapon in your hands.

            First-rate statesman
            I will not torment everyone anymore
            This is our patriot John 3-volt
            Even sickening to go to the site!
            1. tan0472
              tan0472 25 May 2013 11: 54 New
              +9
              Quote: Alexander Romanov
              Everyone who thinks otherwise
              He considers the enemies of RUSI
              Traitors have bred on the site
              At least take a weapon in your hands.


              Quote: Alexander Romanov
              I don’t go to dinner before dinner, John, I live in the Far East, you can’t even understand this


              He is always, he is there, he is here ("I am here, I am there, I am always" to \ f DMB)
              His name is Emperor
              Ban Giver, Autocrator
              He is our everything, our moderator

              When John sleeps sweetly and booty breathes
              Sasha has noon, Sasha comments
              In versification he knows all the ways
              Its tops are sharp sharp. And the rhymes are strict. smile wink
              1. Hleb
                Hleb 25 May 2013 12: 01 New
                +7
                what I really like on the site is that here, in addition to banal slogans, you can find excellent humor, originality, and a worthy answer.
                1. baltika-18
                  baltika-18 25 May 2013 13: 04 New
                  +6
                  Quote: Gleb
                  You can meet excellent humor, originality, a worthy answer.

                  That's for sure. The mood rises sometimes.
              2. Alexander Romanov
                Alexander Romanov 25 May 2013 14: 08 New
                +4
                Quote: tan0472
                In versification he knows all the ways

                I wrote that the author of the lines is not me! And you, you need to learn from the author in versification, otherwise you don’t want to read poems with a bad rhyme about yourself laughing
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Hleb
                  Hleb 25 May 2013 16: 19 New
                  +4
                  normal Alexander.we even lifted the mood in verse
                  Garkalin (well, you understand, yes) - the king of plagiarism
                3. tan0472
                  tan0472 25 May 2013 16: 46 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Alexander Romanov
                  I wrote that the author of the lines is not me!

                  Who? In Yandex, I did not find the author.
                  Quote: Alexander Romanov
                  And you need to learn the versification of the author,

                  I’m not a poet, but a rhymes. But on your advice I’ll learn to rhyme. Here's an example from him:

                  A.S.Pushkin.

                  RHYME

                  An echo, a sleepless nymph, wandered about Peneus.
                  Phoebe, seeing her, passion for her kindled.
                  The nymph fetus suffered the raptures of a god in love;
                  Between talkative mollusk, tormented, she gave birth
                  Lovely daughter. She was accepted by Mnemosyne herself.
                  A frisky virgin grew up in the choir of the aonid goddesses,
                  A sensitive mother is like, obedient to a strict memory,
                  Muses are cute; on earth she is called Rhyme.
                  Quote: Alexander Romanov
                  but somehow I don’t want to read poems with a bad rhyme about myself

                  Feet-chickpeas what we are fussy. He goes over verses about him ... lol
                  1. Alexander Romanov
                    Alexander Romanov 25 May 2013 17: 25 New
                    +3
                    Quote: tan0472

                    Who? In Yandex, I did not find the author.

                    This is one of the visitors to the site sent me in a personal, but did not spread it himself, was afraid to mentally kill Johnny. By the way, the author put you a plus and I personally hi
                    Quote: tan0472
                    . He goes over verses about him ..

                    I thought I was worthy of a poem wassat
            2. Tatanka Yotanka
              Tatanka Yotanka 25 May 2013 14: 37 New
              +4
              Quote: Alexander Romanov
              This is our patriot John 3-volt
              Even sickening to go to the site!

              I’ll add a bit with permission
              Who knows John, he will understand
              Only not enough tension
              Roofing presses on the brains of a hat

              John worthy and admiration
              For the fact that he is firm in his views
              For the style of his presentation
              Well, for being stubborn
              1. Hleb
                Hleb 25 May 2013 16: 10 New
                +4
                Tan has a parallel, and this already looks like a pantorithm. normal!
              2. Armata
                Armata 25 May 2013 22: 31 New
                +2
                Quote: Tatanka Yotanka
                I’ll add a bit with permission
                Stas stop annealing. Everybody knows your talent for a long time good compose more of the same cool poems.
      2. Sleptsoff
        Sleptsoff 25 May 2013 10: 18 New
        -1
        The thing is that this site is mainly visited by entities with a certain worldview, so that a complete analysis of society does not work out.
        1. Bosk
          Bosk 25 May 2013 10: 37 New
          +3
          Actually, I visit this site because I like the story and often something new pops up here ... and this already means that I'm not a subject with a certain worldview ... rather, with an uncertain worldview, and secondly, I'm not a subject ... but a separate person.
        2. SPACE
          SPACE 25 May 2013 10: 46 New
          0
          Quote: Sleptsoff
          so that a full analysis of society does not work.

          ... not only an analysis of society, in its part, but also the reaction of this part to various events. And the quality will depend on the quantity.
    3. bask
      bask 25 May 2013 08: 13 New
      +7
      Good morning.
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      But there is a category of impenetrable.

      There are some, sorry Alexander, I’ll change the meaning of your quote.
      How to recognize an idiot during a discussion

      Simple as that, read the comments: J. 3W, a police officer. Everyone. hi
    4. urganov
      urganov 25 May 2013 10: 57 New
      0
      As for the links, about the sources of information, the author spoke about their reliability.
    5. avdkrd
      avdkrd 26 May 2013 01: 29 New
      0
      There is still such a method of negotiation as "black rhetoric." Half of the examples cited are simply information transfer technologies, including the placement of punctuation marks (unaccounted for by the article). The use of these methods does not characterize the application as dolbo ... ba ...., on the contrary, it is mainly a meaningful application of NLP. The article is a minus, since either an attempt to introduce misconception or complete incompetence in this matter is viewed. Attempts to impose an opinion by means of clear definitions (conditionally true) indicate the latter.
  2. Vadivak
    Vadivak 25 May 2013 06: 41 New
    14
    ... "the statement of an idiotic statement requires an order of magnitude less effort than its consistent and reasonable refutation:


    I'd add

    Easy silly makes a person almost invulnerable.
  3. aszzz888
    aszzz888 25 May 2013 06: 46 New
    +4
    Quote: Vadivak
    ... "the statement of an idiotic statement requires an order of magnitude less effort than its consistent and reasonable refutation:


    I'd add

    Easy silly makes a person almost invulnerable.


    I agree, threshing under a duffel bag also helps (in the absence of intelligence, facts or arguments) +
  4. fenix57
    fenix57 25 May 2013 06: 47 New
    +1
    Hello!
    And who knows how: who considers whom and whom ... laughing
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 25 May 2013 06: 57 New
      +6
      Quote: fenix57
      And who knows how: who considers whom and whom ..


      You will know them by their deeds. Non-recognition of the obvious and the development of conflict
    2. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 25 May 2013 06: 59 New
      +7
      Quote: fenix57
      And who knows how: who considers whom and whom ..

      Hi Valera! just read the comments of some individuals or articles thereof hi
      1. djon3volta
        djon3volta 25 May 2013 09: 56 New
        +6
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        just read the comments of some individuals or articles thereof

        sometimes I look at your comments, you’re in almost every barrel .... you’re trying to answer, praise or criticize everyone, you’ll climb into almost every comment. From the side to watch you, it’s always funny for you. And most importantly you you’ll do it in the upper comments so that everyone would notice you. You don’t get into the lower comments and try to write your posts in the early morning, so that you can be in time in the upper comments, because they are the most important)))
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 25 May 2013 10: 11 New
          +3
          Quote: djon3volta
          , it’s just for you that sometimes it’s all-embracing.

          If the article has 100 comments, you think I’ll read them all. They will notice me on the drum or not, I’ve been on the site for a long time and I’m not going to draw attention to myself, well, if only girls wink
          Quote: djon3volta
          I try to write my posts in the early morning

          I don’t go to dinner before dinner, John, I live in the Far East, you can’t even understand this laughing
        2. Babon
          Babon 25 May 2013 12: 33 New
          +1
          Eugene, are you that big brother? Do you follow us day and night?
        3. Babon
          Babon 25 May 2013 13: 02 New
          +1
          Eugene, well, why envy something? And you also set an alarm to write first, believe me, and they will notice you like that! And you can ask a personal question, but what did you have in Russian when you graduated from high school? Do you happen to miss Russian lessons? And somehow it’s somehow interesting for you to build the text, well, I won’t write about grammar.
        4. Yarbay
          Yarbay 25 May 2013 15: 59 New
          +3
          Quote: djon3volta
          sometimes I look at your comments, you’re in almost every barrel .... you’re trying to answer, praise or criticize everyone, you’ll climb into almost every comment. From the side to watch you, it’s always funny for you. And most importantly you you’ll do it in the upper comments so that everyone would notice you. You don’t get into the lower comments and try to write your posts in the early morning, so that you can be in time in the upper comments, because they are the most important)))

          this time who made a speech?)))))))))))
          1. Hleb
            Hleb 25 May 2013 16: 33 New
            +2
            this time who made a speech?)))))))))))

            Garkalin)
        5. Armata
          Armata 25 May 2013 22: 33 New
          +1
          Quote: djon3volta
          , and try to write your posts in the early morning,

          So then with Moscow he has 7 hours of difference. laughing
  5. AlSuGe777
    AlSuGe777 25 May 2013 06: 51 New
    +4
    The last sign is that if at the end of the conversation you understand that your opponent is “I ... t”, then with a higher degree of probability it can be assumed that you have not gone so far from him (you were also calculated). wassat
    1. aviamed90
      aviamed90 25 May 2013 17: 18 New
      +1
      Sure! According to the "idiot" you - and ... t, not him!
  6. Fox
    Fox 25 May 2013 07: 05 New
    12
    two words covering any argument: AND CHO !?
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 25 May 2013 07: 11 New
      +3
      Quote: Fox
      AND WHAT!?

      Well this is chronic laughing
    2. Corsair
      Corsair 25 May 2013 09: 17 New
      +6
      Quote: Fox
      two words covering any argument: AND CHO !?

      A picture in addition to the comment ...
      wink fellow laughing
      1. bask
        bask 25 May 2013 11: 11 New
        +4
        Quote: Corsair
        addition to the comment.

        And WHAT-E-politics, the manifesto of the liberals and the spring aggravation, a lot of noise - AND NOT ANY CASE !.
        All our policies on (((WHAT, on HU, will be on the 20th of the 30th, the year-RESPOND.))) Holds.
    3. Babon
      Babon 25 May 2013 12: 36 New
      0
      For me, so- AND CHO, this is an expression of a street uneducated bydlyak. For such an argument, somehow I want to give a turnip, in Russian the word what.
    4. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 25 May 2013 14: 26 New
      0
      Quote: Fox
      AND WHAT!?

      There is still an argument - we are the smartest because we have nuclear weapons. Right now, as a hack, it will not seem enough
      1. Armata
        Armata 25 May 2013 22: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: Pilat2009
        There is still an argument - we are the smartest because we have nuclear weapons.
        The argument is weighty. when a person is dumb, he shows off his muscles fool laughing
  7. Best novel
    Best novel 25 May 2013 07: 06 New
    11
    And a few more signs: do you read Daria Dontsova, do you watch “house-2” and have you read this article to the end?
  8. Borat
    Borat 25 May 2013 07: 37 New
    +2
    Lord Point number six ... How often is this symptom in the comments!
    And yet - is this idiocy or patriotism?
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 25 May 2013 08: 09 New
      +6
      Quote: Borat
      Point number six ... How often is this symptom in the comments!

      Very often, especially when some with foam at the mouth prove that 2000 was in Russia (in Russia) thousands of years ago and present it as an indisputable fact. Citing the word “witness” of those events in evidence in articles published by him in 2011 in evidence laughing
      1. tan0472
        tan0472 25 May 2013 10: 45 New
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Very often, especially when some with foam at the mouth prove that 2000 was in Russia (in Russia) thousands of years ago and present it as an indisputable fact. Citing the word “witness” of those events in evidence in articles published by him in 2011 in evidence

        Do you think that a lie pronounced 2000 years ago and recorded at the same time is a greater truth on the basis that it (a lie) is 2000 years older? (I hope you will not prove with foam at the mouththat people then did not know how to lie?). If you you believe "to the" owners "who lived 2000 years ago is your choice. Vera individual and in dispute believer do not convince. Therefore, I believe that in disputes one should not be a believer, but think (rely on facts).
        And you will never be able to convince me that the Slavs were driven away from the trees by the “great enlighteners” 1500 years ago because there is the Arkona and the remains of the pyramids on the Crimean and Kola Peninsulas (and much more that “true science” does not like).
        And for me, it is better to believe that we (people) are descendants of more developed civilizations (albeit unproven, but in the hope of evidence) than that we are descendants of the clay from which we made people (I don’t want something to appear evidence of their origin from the mud).
        hiBut as they say - this is a matter of faith and "everyone chooses for himself - a woman, religion, road".
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 25 May 2013 10: 58 New
          +2
          Quote: tan0472
          Do you think that a lie pronounced 2000 years ago and recorded at the same time,

          You start from the fact that today the world around us is full of liars! And having written your comments, you decided that even then the lie was the basis of society. At that time, the lie was not elevated to the rank of society at all levels. The lie was always, but not in the volumes that it is today. Otherwise, the world has long come to an end.
          With regards to believe this or that, you need to believe the facts, and not theories presented as an indisputable fact hi
          Quote: tan0472
          (and much more that "true science" does not like).

          Science is more than a contested thing. Pompey ..... all the scientists of this world proved that all the inhabitants were saved, but it turned out, as it turned out. I don’t know which tree was sitting at that time, but on the ring of one of those who died in Pompeii had an inscription and everything would be fine if this inscription were not visible with an increase of 25 times, then there were no microscopes (probably) hi
        2. DeerIvanovich
          DeerIvanovich 25 May 2013 13: 27 New
          0
          it’s useless to say about it to Romanov, he’s a fanatical believer. be careful. if he doesn’t like your comment about religion, you will receive a warning.
          1. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 25 May 2013 14: 12 New
            +1
            Quote: DeerIvanovich
            if he doesn’t like your comment about religion, you will receive a warning.

            You already got one-free !!!
      2. Armata
        Armata 25 May 2013 22: 37 New
        +4
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Very often, especially when some with foam at the mouth prove that 2000 was in Russia (in Russia) thousands of years ago and present it as an indisputable fact. Citing the word “witness” of those events in evidence in articles published by him in 2011 in evidence
        As I remember right now, I’m running for a mammoth .................... laughing
        1. Ruslan67
          Ruslan67 25 May 2013 22: 42 New
          +4
          Quote: Mechanic
          As I remember right now, I'm running for a mammoth ...

          Not for but from request I saw from behind a tree wassat
  9. treskoed
    treskoed 25 May 2013 07: 47 New
    +1
    We are waiting for the pre-election debate !!!
    1. bask
      bask 25 May 2013 08: 52 New
      +3
      Quote: treskoed
      Looking forward to the pre-election debate!

      Do not wait.
      There will be no debate re-elected !!!
  10. Straus_zloy
    Straus_zloy 25 May 2013 07: 53 New
    +9
    do not discuss with an idiot, people may not notice the difference between you
    1. BDRM 667
      BDRM 667 25 May 2013 08: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: Straus_zloy
      do not discuss with an idiot, people may not notice the difference between you

      God be with them, idiots, they will figure out how and where to put the article.The rest for what ???
    2. Valery-SPB
      Valery-SPB 25 May 2013 09: 41 New
      +2
      And if this is your erring friend on the way to idiocy?
  11. Metlik
    Metlik 25 May 2013 08: 48 New
    +3
    The article is reminiscent of the "Classification of Demagoguery Experience"
    http://n-t.ru/nj/nz/1989/0902.htm
  12. fenix57
    fenix57 25 May 2013 08: 48 New
    +3
    Quote: GreatRussia
    But how does this article relate to the theme of the Military Review site?

    Based on the characteristics indicated in the article, we WILL IDENTIFY idiots during discussions on the site! wink
    1. lewerlin53rus
      lewerlin53rus 25 May 2013 09: 18 New
      +6
      Unfortunately, there are enough such idiots everywhere. And on the Internet and on television and in the press. Among them there are very famous personalities. One such recently called SMERSH and SS.
  13. Vladimir_61
    Vladimir_61 25 May 2013 09: 06 New
    +1
    Minus article. Just one statement about the statistics of what is worth, which has long been politicized and false.
  14. Hleb
    Hleb 25 May 2013 09: 20 New
    +2
    Does this guy fit the diagnosis?
    1. Yarbay
      Yarbay 25 May 2013 16: 44 New
      +1
      Quote: Gleb
      Does this guy fit the diagnosis?

      usual sophistry)))))
      the near kid was classically touched))))
      1. Hleb
        Hleb 25 May 2013 17: 34 New
        +3
        sophistry? I don’t agree. This is precisely on today's topic! from the point of view of logic, the guy is acting and acting (he sets himself up) and how many believers recognize this here? and if you look from the other side? this is the same in discussions of topics. One needs to understand what to question and what to compare with idiocy.
        and then the wise guy comes and begins-Pushkin's authorship of this poem is not proven.
        and here try to prove it to him here
        (why is the word i-ot used in the article. Is it impossible in the comments?)
        1. Yarbay
          Yarbay 25 May 2013 18: 09 New
          +1
          Quote: Gleb
          I do not agree. This is on today's topic!

          I know that you are an atheist, unfortunately!
          but the fact that the plot is related to the topic, I agree!
          1. Hleb
            Hleb 25 May 2013 18: 16 New
            +1
            wrong) I'm not an atheist. but ...
            1. Yarbay
              Yarbay 25 May 2013 21: 15 New
              +1
              Quote: Gleb
              wrong) I'm not an atheist. but ...

              Thank God I'm wrong!
              You see, Gleb the kid in your video is really close-sighted, and those who trolled him are very experienced and are very good at sophistry !!
  15. The comment was deleted.
    1. SPACE
      SPACE 25 May 2013 11: 14 New
      +2
      Quote: Corsair
      How to recognize an idiot during a discussion. Article-manual for especially stupid idiots on ... identifying just idiots.

      ... Saltykov Shchedrin’s story reminds, “A fool came to a clever man complaining that there are a lot of fools in the world. A smart one thinks to himself that if there are a lot of fools in a world, then how many more in relation to the clever "... The problem is that many consider themselves smarter than others and the rest are dumber than themselves. But who is who? That is the question.
      Saltykov Shchedrin is a genius, I advise everyone to read it, I especially recommend "Satire in Prose."
      Incredibly relevant.
      1. SlavaP
        SlavaP 25 May 2013 15: 31 New
        +2
        And, unfortunately, has not lost relevance to this day
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. Roll
    Roll 25 May 2013 10: 23 New
    +1
    belay Unfortunately, before writing the article, the author was too lazy to find out what meaning the word go-from carries. People in ancient Greece called idiots people who had the right to vote in the elections by law, but who didn’t participate in the elections because of their stupidity or laziness. Then the people are all different, there are just stupid, there are stupid, there are frank Trolls, and there are just debaters. Of course, the author is right and it makes no sense to enter into a discussion with many people. But in general, now is the time when there are a lot of speaking languages, but there are few people who can listen, and in 90, it was the other way around.
  18. Dimy4
    Dimy4 25 May 2013 10: 32 New
    +2
    He explained to his superiors why it was impossible to start a cantilever pump without a check valve at the end of the suction pipe (200 mm). Useless. There is only one answer - "so pour water into a snail." He made the appropriate conclusions.
  19. Bosk
    Bosk 25 May 2013 10: 47 New
    0
    Quote: Rolm
    there are many speaking languages, but few who can listen

    But this clever idea does not fit the current forum ... By the way, the administrators didn’t interfere with the news so that they could see malicious minuscule people ... let's say for a hundred minuses a week he would get rid of the title +.
  20. Day 11
    Day 11 25 May 2013 10: 57 New
    0
    The article is nothing. Each of us will see the degree of idiocy of the opponent after a couple of posts and simply will not communicate with him. As a last resort there is a "black list"
  21. shurup
    shurup 25 May 2013 11: 12 New
    0
    Well, if I really have one friend in Minsk with an apartment in an elite house, a cool car, etc. The second one is the same in Kiev. And the third and fourth in Los Angeles and Chicago are sitting on unemployment benefits.
    So is it me, or the authors of idiotic generalizing articles?
  22. MG42
    MG42 25 May 2013 11: 15 New
    +2
    This article was posted in the source 13/04/2008, someone boiled up, just surfaced ..
    << In every place there is at least one idi.ot. And if you don’t see him, then,
    maybe ... this is you >>
  23. lexe
    lexe 25 May 2013 11: 58 New
    +4
    Raise me a rating))) !!! They got it at all) with pagan mantras). And I don’t go to the polls), just as they didn’t fly with my Motherland). knows.)
  24. Sergey_K
    Sergey_K 25 May 2013 12: 20 New
    -2
    Congratulations, we are all idiots. In general, this is the Internet, baby. Here no one listens to anyone, they write with errors and can send to ...
  25. viktor_ui
    viktor_ui 25 May 2013 12: 46 New
    +1
    Regarding - _idioT_ne _idiot, the patriot is not a patriot, and so on. in this vein ... The brain is a tricky thing and the more it is able to process the existing questions per unit of time in terms of their adequate solutions, the SMARTER this "individual" will be and the less it will correspond to the concept of IDIOT (any of us, with great desire, can be put in an idiotic form in one or another topic in which we are not ear or snout - you must agree). So this is what I’m all about ... yesterday I watched a program about one man, he’s 100% Down and he’s up to 25 years old, they’re taking him for a walk by the arms because he can’t move on his own straightforwardly, they talk to him kindly as if he’s small, BUT he has one feature - he plays awesomely on the piano (on any keyboard) and at the level of the best world celebrities. HE plays any melody, or musical composition, which is LISTENED once in a lifetime. The reproduction accuracy of what you hear is 95% with computer processing of the source and the duplicate (checked on a jazz composition written specifically to test its capabilities). He has not studied anywhere and does not know what NOTES are. Well, is this DOWN-_IDIOT or HE UNIQUE ???
    My last statement is not related to the author of the article (the article is interesting in its own way drinks ), and to the accompanying comments in terms of which of us are more sheepish.
    I write with errors and I’m fucked who often thinks about it.
    Admins - tie the ban word _andDiOt_, otherwise I will smile crookedly drinks
    1. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 25 May 2013 16: 24 New
      +3
      Quote: viktor_ui
      otherwise I will smile crookedly

      Okay at least do not spoil the corners wassat
    2. V. Salama
      V. Salama 25 May 2013 18: 48 New
      +2
      Quote: viktor_ui
      The brain is a tricky thing and the more it is able to process available questions per unit of time in terms of their adequate solutions, the SMARTER this "individual" will be and the less it will correspond to the concept of IDIOT

      According to recent research in this area, the concept of "multiple intelligence" is introduced, so that one who is "more able to handle the issues per unit of time in terms of adequate solutions" will not necessarily be the smartest. Someone thinks slowly, but is able to solve more complex issues. Therefore, a society and a system that cannot be formed from absolutely equal elements. Therefore, each person is valuable to society, all are different, but all are equal and no one is worse or better than the other. And in the article, it is primarily about those who, in reasoning, violate the laws of logic due to the lack of logical thinking skills for various reasons (including medical indicators). There are communication problems with those who are in the opposite socio-political position, in this case the opponent is always perceived as I..t, because when the basis is based on antagonistic contradictions, no arguments are valid anymore.
      1. viktor_ui
        viktor_ui 25 May 2013 21: 07 New
        0
        V. Salama - so this DOWN is _IDIot ??? Do not climb into the "intellectual thicket" express your opinion on the specific example given hi
        Ruslan67 - I don’t know about the angles ... I don’t offend Dostoyevsky on _Ideta_ petition to roll the schaub for no reason ... or, nevertheless, to Gogol ... I’m lost in conjecture good If sho, then let's go to a corner for a couple wassat
        1. V. Salama
          V. Salama 26 May 2013 20: 39 New
          0
          Quote: viktor_ui
          ... so this DOWN is _IDIOT ??? ... your opinion on the specific example given

          I fully admit (I'm not a doctor) that from the point of view of domestic medicine, "this DOWN" can be defined both by this term (very old) and by others, such as "autistic" and other special ones. Since in each branch of knowledge, depending on the specificity of the subject of research, a specific conceptual apparatus (terminology) is also being developed. And the deeper the medicine has grown in these diseases, the wider the range of diagnoses and, of course, terms (words to indicate concepts, conditions).
          However, in accordance with the subject we are discussing, it is not such, since the author of the article took this term - "I." to denote another concept, writing, I quote: "Before proceeding with the analysis of the signs by which you can determine that the person participating in the discussion is an idiot, we will explain what is meant by the term in this case. Naturally in this case the concept of "I." is not a medical term ... "The author simply uses this term at the household level and fills it with its content
          1. viktor_ui
            viktor_ui 29 May 2013 05: 35 New
            +1
            V. Salama - thank you for the dialogue and here's a bonus: "Any __ idiot_ can destroy what’s built with a smile on his face, and only engineers can build ..."
            quote from the article http://warfiles.ru/show-31827-slomannye-krylya-rodiny.html
            with respect drinks
            1. V. Salama
              V. Salama 31 May 2013 14: 43 New
              0
              Quote: viktor_ui
              thank you for the dialogue

              Mutually.
  26. Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 25 May 2013 13: 34 New
    -4
    The author is too categorical in his conclusions. Not everyone, even very stupid people, can work with sources of information and have a broad outlook.
    For example, someone claims: - Putin has ruined Russia, nothing is being built, etc. etc.
    For a person living in a small town in the European part of Russia, where they really are not building anything, this is convincing. It is difficult for him to imagine that in fact, industrial and energy facilities are being built in Russia, although not as much as required.
    He himself does not see this and is convinced that it is so everywhere. But thinkers ask the Internet is not enough. It’s worth typing in Google “on the construction of factories in Russia” and you’ll get 46 million answers.
    1. lexe
      lexe 25 May 2013 14: 38 New
      0
      relax. this article is neighing and relaxing. And you’ll write about your plants in another article)
    2. ia-ai00
      ia-ai00 25 May 2013 17: 37 New
      0
      Agree with you . And to you +! Let’s say about Putin: - yes, some of his actions upset me, well, for example, his statement that everyone cannot be equal before the law, well, there’s much more that makes me sad in his actions, but to say that HE ruined the country, and nothing positive happens in Russia - this is not fair.
    3. V. Salama
      V. Salama 25 May 2013 19: 09 New
      0
      Quote: Corsair5912
      Not everyone, even very stupid people, can work with sources of information and have a broad outlook.

      One can agree that the “ability to analyze” and the ability to analyze are not the same thing. In addition to analytical abilities, it is necessary to own the subject of analysis and a commensurate means of analysis. And the logic and sociopolitical position is also important, in order to understand who and what has collapsed and who and what is built for whom.
  27. serge
    serge 25 May 2013 15: 46 New
    +2
    The fact that the article is listed as a sign of idiocy is completely inherent in our media, which lie on the blue eye, using all of the above techniques and counting the public as idiots.
  28. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 25 May 2013 16: 37 New
    +1
    There is such a Ukrainian news agency UNIAN. I look through it periodically. Agency as an agency, as usual Russophobian. This is all normal, given the current state of Russian-Ukrainian relations. Messages are relevant. This is not surprising. Surprising comments. And on the one hand and on the other (Russia-Ukraine) mate, contempt to the lowest edges. Now I caught myself thinking that in my vocabulary there are no decent definitions of what is happening there. It seems that commentators are competing in idiocy. I turn to the author of this article, what is it?
    1. Day 11
      Day 11 25 May 2013 17: 01 New
      0
      You haven’t read it yet. Http://korrespondent.net/ That's the Russophobian site.
  29. aviamed90
    aviamed90 25 May 2013 17: 08 New
    +3
    A very timely article for forums on the "VO".
    The author is a plus.

    You can identify an idiot. This is a medical term.
    And how to identify a fanatic? Zealot (brainwashed idiot modification) - this is an urgent problem!

    What if a person believes? Just believe? In God, in Putin, in the king, in a brighter future? And this is not just faith and obazhenie, but absolute fanaticism and deification! Whatever his idol would do, he will be right! It is useless to convince and prove something to the opponent.

    He is presented with facts. A lot of facts. A chain of reasoning is logically built from them and conclusions are drawn. Conclusions with which he does not agree. In the course of reasoning, he agrees with everything, but in the end, he still shouts, “No! You're wrong!” (best case scenario). And in the worst case, he puts obscenities, declares you a traitor to the Motherland, and even (at a meeting) tries to fill his face.

    A simple example is the most popular topic: evaluating the work of the President of the Russian Federation and the government over 20 years of work on the VO website.

    Yes, even now, the respected “Corsair5912” (post above) is trying to accuse other people of idiocy, and besides the Internet (in his opinion this is undeniable evidence in the dispute), it does not lead to any facts. And what people see with their own eyes, and throughout the country, he considers undeserving of attention.

    So many opinions! How many users have so many opinions. They coincide in some ways, diverge in some ways. But they have something in common. Some common ground, allowing dialogue.

    But there are special opinions, and not supported by anything other than political slogans of any of the parties.

    In short, a very useful article.
    1. viktor_ui
      viktor_ui 26 May 2013 10: 10 New
      0
      aviamed90 - a fanatic that's brainwashed - great saying drinks
  30. Igarr
    Igarr 25 May 2013 17: 43 New
    0
    Here is bli-and-and-and-n ...
    just before reading this article ... "took to the chest" .. about ...
    I think that attention is being scattered, the effect of the "pink glasses" has come into effect .. we must be more attentive.
    As they say - so that you live a long time ...
    Read ...
    Not in one eye, the feeling of clogged brains and powdery eyes ... but the meaning of the article, the numbering of important-and-not-important signs-is a big question ...
    .
    Based on the postulates of the author - one conclusion ... I read - Idiot.
    Or how ... .
    .
    ..
    There is a common sense. There is experience in communicating with people in real life, in real life, and not "clawing around the clave."
    And the whole philosophy .... dash - wisdom.
    but not a theory as dry as saxaul.
    Or maybe aksakal?
    1. aviamed90
      aviamed90 25 May 2013 18: 07 New
      +1
      I also thought about this.

      Determining the idiot in the forum and in person is two big differences.
      When arguing online, you don’t know who your interlocutor is. You don’t know whether he’s a man or a woman, you don’t know who he works for, you don’t know what city he lives in, you don’t know his age ... You, except Nick, don’t know anything!
      And there is a good opportunity for him to mislead you and hang "noodles". In this case, you will not have reason to doubt - you will not prove anything. What if this is really so?

      Another thing - live. If you are a 20-year-old man who will declare, for example, that he is a GRU colonel in reserve or he is 88 years old and he served in the personal guard of Stalin, you will doubt it. The obvious reason for distrust is age.
  31. romuchik
    romuchik 25 May 2013 17: 49 New
    0
    The examples given are “Nature” or “Physical Review Letters” or a high level in the USA and the like. gives the author a skilled Western troll. And let someone consider me an idiot, but I love Russia without any logical evidence, with all my heart, and I believe that we are Russians a great people.
  32. piotr534
    piotr534 25 May 2013 18: 43 New
    +1
    After reading the article about the scandalous interview of the Russian diplomat (the Russian Federation has long justified the betrayal of the Crimean Tatars), I wanted to comment, but after reading the comments my hand didn’t raise up. The meaning of the comments clearly illustrates what this article says. All those who are frantically gaining pluses apparently didn’t read this article, and if they did, they didn’t understand a damn thing. Their refined brain is not able to digest it. Well, how can you not remember about throwing beads. hi
  33. lexe
    lexe 26 May 2013 21: 43 New
    0
    What is it? AN ALL-WINNING SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PROGRESS through downism-autism !? laughing
    I had vague doubts about the fools in the words of the Second World War) So that’s how we will do science now? -Wipe \ feed \ etc. will this all the advanced detachment of mankind be the rest?))) And so not far from experiments on breeding a greater number of geniuses. Hitler exterminated will now be deduced in the same ways — progress!))) Only the randomness of the methods of the scientific environment when working with the gene pool is scary. Well, what? everything in EDRO? - the most progressive party! crying