UTAHRAPTOR: Half-Witted Wonder Continues Stoopid Streak; Greatly Exceeds Expected Idiocy Quota

Posted by The Host on 27 April 1999 at 23:19:06:

Utahraptor:

I'm sorry to say what I'm about to say. It's immature, and I despise immaturity. It's insulting, and I try to refrain from insults. It makes me sound like a jerk, and I don't think I am. It makes me sound like a hypocrite, and I hope that I'm not. But it is not unfounded. I think it is something that needs to be said, by me. It's something that's been said by others, because they are angry, or it is simply a part of their debating style or personality to say such things. Not mine. It makes me sound like I'm angry, and I'm not. I'm actually quite sorry to have to say this, but I do.

Utahraptor:

You’re an idiot.

A bloody fool, a drooling moron, a most unfortunate imbecile. You are an asinine ignoramus. [That means dummy -- sorry, my polysyllabilism just keeps creeping up.]

There. I said it. Now, please, before responding with insults (I suspect you will anyway -- or else ignore this, which would perhaps be worse), allow me to expand. Allow me to justify. Though blind to your own stupidity, it will at least prove to those with open minds and eyes that I do not make a mindless assertion. I make a calculated, logical conclusion. That conclusion, again:

You're a flipping dumbass.

I suspect you perhaps lie about your age. No, strike that. I hope that you lie about your age. Because if you are over twenty, and if you are in university, it is a sad testament to the state of the American nation. Makes me a little more proud to be Canadian -- at least our education system (and resultant average IQ) is considerably better than that of our southern neighbor.

You have absolutely no comprehension of the word logic. Logic, Utahraptor, is a useful device in debate. It has nothing to do with evidence, and thus can apply to any concept, even those unproved or purely philosophical -- even the alien debate.

Logic indicates, simply, that your arguments make sense. It shows that there is a structure behind them, and inner structure, a reason you have come to a conclusion. Without logic, any argument is simply an assertion: something not only unprovable, but completely unsupported by evidence, or even common sense. To say that my computer houses the spirit of A 14 000--year-old wookie named George, for example, would be an assertion. To say that aliens live and visit the earth, also, is an assertion. It is as ludicrous and unbelievable as the existence of my hairy friend George. Perhaps, blinded by your fervent adherence to X-Files paranoia, you are unaware of the parallel between my example and your assertion. You probably don't realize why your entire argument about aliens is completely invalid, simply because you seem to intuit knowledge that is withheld from the rest of us poor saps.

I'm not saying aliens don't exist. I think they do. I'm not even saying they don't visit the earth every so often -- I personally don't believe in the little green men (oh, I mean 'grey;' sorry to stereotype your race) hovering over Las Vegas in giant hubcaps, but, hey, I've got an open mind.

However, you offer no evidence. You put forth no logic. You don't even point out the fact that common sense would dictate that aliens exist out there somewhere. You simply state, simply, that they exist, and assume we will all believe you simply because what you say goes.

But I am being redundant. Imp already challenged you to bring forth evidence; take him up on his offer. If you don't wish to, then at least take me up on my perhaps lighter challenge: at least try to show some logic in your argument. Tell us why you think aliens exist, and please don't say you believe it because of what you saw last night on Fox's 'World's Scariest Anal Probings Caught On Tape 4.'

I have always suspected you of being a simple bandwagoner. You believe in aliens because they're cool; because there are lots of websites about them, because the X-Files is such a rocking show, because that little alien keychain your aunt picked up in Roswell is just so damned cute. Please, I beg you, prove me wrong. Respond with a clear, concise, logical argument about the existence of aliens, and one you have believe yourself, not one you pull from some webpage because I asked you to find one. Pretend I'm a skeptic. Convince me.

When it comes to your idea about saving the financial crisis in the year 2000 by creating paper records: please, concede that argument. A person who is mature will understand when he is wrong, and will graciously step down. Trust us, you are wrong. Very, very wrong. Your idea is, to be blunt, moronic. Actually, Imp didn't even begin to realize just how stoopid it was. I believe he once stated that you should try to understand a post before you reply: that is the case here.

First of all, your solution is ludicrous. Do you know how long it would take to transfer all bank files to hard copy? I'm not going to even begin to guess. Probably several months. During that time, they would have to hire several thousands of new employees. They would have to shut their doors and simply not serve the public -- all tellers, managers, investors, planners, hell, even maintenance people for ATMs would have to work on transferring files to paper. Before doing this, they would have to drain all bank accounts, giving people their money back, demanding that all loans be immediately paid back. In order to do that, as most money is stored electronically nowadays, the American government would have to mint trillions of dollars for the banks to give their customers. You obviously know nothing of economics, and the laws of supply and demand (more on that later), but suffice it to say the American dollar's value would likely drop by at least 85-90%, probably more. You'd have to pay $40 for a Mars bar. Meanwhile, thousands of businesses currently working in the red (probably close to half of America's industries are in such a state) would go bankrupt when they have to return all borrowed funds to the banks. Dependent industries would also shut down, or have to lay off employees, when they find that the supply for, say, plastic has dropped by 70% because of mass bankruptcies. This, coupled with the faltering American dollar, would cause the price of most raw resources to increase tenfold -- at least. That would result in more bankruptcies, and even higher prices. Suddenly it costs $400 for a Mars bar, and nobody in your family has a job. You can't even sell your house because nobody can afford it. The stock market crashes, propagating more industries to shut down. America's unemployment rate climbs to 95%. Foreign trade ceases, as nobody wants to invest in a worthless dollar or near-bankrupt corporations. There is looting everywhere, and violent crime rates rise so high that it is unsafe to leave your house. The power company stops running because it can't afford gas or oil or maintenance on its generators. The phone company closes because it has no staff, and nobody can pay their phone bills anyway. A state of emergency is declared across the nation, and suddenly you find that your rights to freedom of speech and assembly and all of those other precious vices of the constitution have been severely limited.

But who cares, it'll only last a few months; no big crisis there.

Secondly, you didn't even understand Jurassosaur's conclusion. You had no idea what he was talking about. Because, if he's right (personally, I feel that the problem he predicts will not be as great or widespread as it could be, but I tend to agree that it is very, very likely), it doesn't matter whether Y2K exists or not: we're in deep trouble. There undoubtedly will be a recession because of Y2K; how deep a recession (or depression) I am unable to say. But it could be bad. Very bad.

Jurassosaur said that economics is based upon expectation. He's right. Quick lesson in economics, Utah (it's obvious that you either a) did not take high school economics, or a related course at university level or b) you are a total fucking idiot): the stock market is dictated by confidence and predictions. Ever hear of a self-fulfilling prophecy? It is a prediction which comes true, simply because it was predicted. The stock market's full of 'em.

Here's how it works: a corporation issues shares in its companies to investors and the public. This essentially means that people fund the company's endeavors, and in return get a say in how a company is managed. If a company issues, hypothetically, 100 shares (usually the number would be substantially higher) at ten dollars, then each share constitutes 1% of the corporation. For ten dollars you buy a share, and own 1% of the company. In certain issues of great importance, you get a single vote with that share -- one out of a hundred. Those who own the most shares are on the board of directors; they basically make the important decisions as to how the company runs.

Of course, things can be vastly more complicated, but I'm trying to work at your basic level of comprehension here. God, I hope you can understand this Utah. I don't think I can explain it in simpler terms.

Now, a stock's price rapidly changes. Why? Not because of the value of the company, not because of its profitability (though those are significant factors): no, it changes with the number of stocks owned.

Think of it this way. The fewer copies there are of an item, the more that item is worth, correct? If you've got one of 30 million Roger Clements baseball cards, it's pretty worthless. If you own one of only twelve remaining Mickey Mantle rookie cards, it's probably worth a little more.

Same thing goes for the stock market. If, say 94 of a company's 100 stocks are open, then only 6 actually exist and are for sale. There are only 6 in the public domain. This means they are worth a lot of money, because they are hard to come by. It shows that investors have great confidence in said company, because they're buying stock very quickly. The company is doing well. The $10 stock is suddenly worth about $40, which means if you invested $30, you now have $120. You're much richer. It means more people will buy stock, more people will give the company money, allowing it to grow, become richer. The company is in a boom.

People are paranoid, though. (See, you're not alone, Utah.) If people think that, for some reason or another, a stock's value is going to decrease, they sell their shares at the high price -- raking in big bucks, and, they think, just missing a loss of money. Others see this happening, and sell their stock as quickly as possible, so as not to lose money. Then others, then others, then still others do the same. Now suddenly only 13 people own stocks; the other 87 are up for sale. The value of the stock, of course, goes down. Why? Because somebody thought it would. Then, with less money to work with, the company's profits go down. Eventually, it's value seems so low, that it can't go any lower. Don’t forget to buy low, sell high; this looks like a great time to buy. People buy back stock, and the company's stock value again increases.

This happens weekly on the stock market with particular companies. Monthly with entire industries. And you see the same cycle repeat for the entire economy every eight years or so: four years of boom followed by four years of recession.

Why? Again, expectations, predictions. People see that four years of boom have gone by, think a depression will come soon, and sell stocks before it's too late: causing a recession. And so on.

So, what does this have to do with Y2K? It's simple, really: there are a lot of idiots who think all of the computers are gonna crash on 01/01/00. They fear that bank's computers will crash and, because most money nowadays is stored electronically, they'll lose all of their money. People are afraid the stock market will crash -- or at least it's computers -- and, because most money nowadays is stored electronically, they'll lose all of their money. So they withdraw money from accounts, they sell their stocks.

Money works the same way as stocks. The more paper money there is in existence, the less it's worth. Because most money nowadays is stored electronically, when people sell stocks and completely drain their bank accounts, an awful lot of paper money will have to be minted. It's value will greatly decrease. The effects of this I've mentioned before: though they won't be as great as if the banks were to close their doors for several days, you could expect prices to rise quite quickly. You could expect, as a result, several businesses and companies to close down, or to lay people off. Everything's connected in the economy, like a spider web; as one strand or firm is pulled away, others destabilize.

At the same time, the value of stocks will plummet. Still more companies go bankrupt. They can't pay back their loans: so the banks increase interest rates on loans, and suddenly Johnny can't build a house.

Okay, so not everybody is stoopid. Maybe only 5 or 10% of the population with withdraw money and sell stocks. Well, as I said before, investors are greedy. They don't care how their actions affect the entire economy, they just want their money. Investors wise enough to know that Y2K won't actually cause sweeping crashes, those wise enough to realize that their money won't cease to exist on 01/01/00, are also wise enough to realize that thousands of idiots are going to produce a recession due to their own paranoid stoopidity and ignorance. Investors want no part of that. They're gonna withdraw their fund in late December.

Unless something really changes before the end of the year -- say, for example, Europe explodes in a giant fireball -- you can expect a stock market crash to occur later this annum. It ain't gonna be pretty. It will be the great Y2K disaster. And it could, perhaps, be worse than what we've dared ourselves to imagine.

But probably not.

Anyway, Utah, you obviously knew nothing of economics. I hope you do now, or I've just wasted the last 30 minutes. You made bold accusations about aliens without explanation. You've done it before. You'll probably do it again.

So far, though, this has been argument by example. Just to clear something up: this is not an isolated incident. Your stoopidity spans many posts.

You are most certainly a bandwagoner. You're a hypocrite, Utah; you accuse others of misunderstanding (maybe if you typed using all of your brain, both of your eyes, and at least a few of your fingers, that would cease to be a problem) and acting immaturely: I am telling you now to look in a proverbial mirror and read over your own posts. Please try not to be blind of your own immaturity. Be not ignorant of your own ignorance.

You are incredibly immature. I will admit that Imp sometimes flies off the handle, but, then again, so do you. At least he recognizes his temper, unlike yourself. And there's the fact that when the two of you argue, well, he's generally right.

You tend to respond to even his non-threatening posts in a threatening way. I don't think Imp hates you, he seems more coldly amused by your ignorant stoopidity. You, on the other hand, seem to deeply hate him. You can't understand how anybody could be calling you or your arguments stoopid without trying to insult you personally; you cannot comprehend how the word 'idiot' can be more an observation than an attempt to proactively lessen your self-esteem, and other associated buzz-words.

My advice to you: grow up. Try to realize that people have different ways of expressing opinions; methods as varied as the opinions themselves. Try to type slow enough that your posts don't have to be put through an English-Utah translator before being read. Read others' posts before respond, and more importantly think before you make an ass out of yourself. At least that way you can say you've tried.

And, above all else, please understand: if you associate yourself with the intelligent, and claim to be intelligent yourself, expect your ideas and opinions to be tested. Expect others to disagree and, beyond that, to ask for explanation of your own opinions. If you are going to argue, expect somebody to argue back, and don't be offended when they do.

Essentially:

If you associate yourself with the intelligent, and claim to be intelligent yourself, you'd better have evidence of this intelligence. Otherwise, it is a simple assertion: something not only unprovable, but completely unsupported by evidence, or even common sense.

-The Host

[I hope you have the endurance to read all of this, Utahraptor. I hope you have the vocabulary to at least pretend you understand it. And I hope you have the balls to respond to it. Be warned: like Imp, I am prepared to attack blatant stoopidity, so you'd better think before you type. And use a damned spell-check.]

Follow Ups:



142.177.77.40 - 142.177.77.40