" Fitting In"

Pre-College Issues High School Life
61

<p>"How in god's name is this in any way arrogant. He says he's physically incapable, as in HE CAN'T GENERATE DISCUSSION WITH THESE TOPICS."</p>

<p>And why is that, euphoria? He answered it himself: "Unless someone is sufficiently intelligent, I can't carry on a conversation with them at all. I'm physically incapable of parroting lines from tv shows, talking about lacrosse, or talking about how "awesome" it would be to "bang some chick""</p>

<p>I'd say that STATEMENT (because he cleared up what he actually meant...) was pretty arrogant, yes. And I've explained why. You should do the same for your point.</p>

<p>"Really? Then why did he make a second post explaining himself to a person who takes every internet post and dissects it? So your telling me you know what he's implying, but he doesn't? Whatever you say, champ."</p>

<p>I'm not even dissecting the post. I'm not even reading in stuff that wasn't in his original post. I'm not stretching. I'm going off what's there, and it was pretty clear. So I responded because I was offended by the statement and because it was, in my opinion, not true at all.</p>

<p>The fact that he "cleared it up" or whatever in a subsequent post only indicates that HE isn't arrogant, but not that his STATEMENT wasn't. So your point...isn't really one at all. Of course it was implied, if not outright stated, in the first post that those topics are equated with sub-par intelligence.</p>

<p>"How about "loosely" for starters?"</p>

<p>Pick another reading... So far, no one has. In which case, my whole point is supported. So, please, go ahead and offer what I like to call "evidence."</p>

<p>"You should also know that scoring a 2400 doesn't give you the right to talk out of your ass. And stop playing devil's advocate."</p>

<p>Oh, I'm not. I'm sorry that I'm right and his statement was wrong. But that doesn't mean I like to "talk out of my ass."</p>

<p>What he said: He can't talk with stupid people (pretty clearly) because he can't parrot TV lines, talk about lacrosse, etc.</p>

<p>What I said: At first, he was arrogant because it is saying that those topics of conversation are enjoyed by those who are unintelligent (or below his threshold), when in fact I know many smart people who talk about them constantly. When he cleared it up, I said the statement was arrogant.</p>

<p>I'm sorry, am I missing something here? As far as I can see, no one has actually voiced any problem with my point...</p>

<p>Oh, and euphoria, usually inventing stuff doesn't make for a convincing argument. But do it your way if you like. ;)</p>

62

<p>"And why is that, euphoria? He answered it himself: "Unless someone is sufficiently intelligent, I can't carry on a conversation with them at all. I'm physically incapable of parroting lines from tv shows, talking about lacrosse, or talking about how "awesome" it would be to "bang some chick""</p>

<p>Keep in mind the sufficiently intelligent part was kept out of your previous post when you quoted him. I may have thought of it somewhat arrogant, but I saw no need in blowing it out of proportion. The reason I'm defending him is that I can relate to how he feels and I'm saying that he wasn't implying arrogance, but lack of connection. Maybe it just across that way to people who couldn't relate to what he was trying to say.</p>

<p>"The fact that he "cleared it up" or whatever in a subsequent post only indicates that HE isn't arrogant, but not that his STATEMENT wasn't. So your point...isn't really one at all"</p>

<p>And if you had read your own statement correctly, allow me to redirect to an earlier quote: "and I still stand by my statement that you were arrogant."</p>

<p>"Oh, I'm not. I'm sorry that I'm right and his statement was wrong. But that doesn't mean I like to "talk out of my ass.""</p>

<p>Oh, okay. So it's all settled then. Why bother arguing when you can proclaim?</p>

<p>"When he cleared it up, I said the statement was arrogant."</p>

<p>Not until this post, you didn't.</p>

<p>"I'm sorry, am I missing something here? As far as I can see, no one has actually voiced any problem with my point..."</p>

<p>Ditto Choklit Rain's post.</p>

<p>"Oh, and euphoria, usually inventing stuff doesn't make for a convincing argument. But do it your way if you like"</p>

<p>You've lost me on this one.</p>

63

<p>


</p>

<p>As if your experiences apply to everyone's school...</p>

64

<p>"As if your experiences apply to everyone's school..."</p>

<p>His statement was unqualified. Thus any evidence that suggests that it's untrue should apply. Or should I suspend logic for this?</p>

<p>"Keep in mind the sufficiently intelligent part was kept out of your previous post when you quoted him. I may have thought of it somewhat arrogant, but I saw no need in blowing it out of proportion."</p>

<p>I don't see how I did at all. It's right there. Maybe we're talking about different parts of my post?</p>

<p>"The reason I'm defending him is that I can relate to how he feels and I'm saying that he wasn't implying arrogance, but lack of connection. Maybe it just across that way to people who couldn't relate to what he was trying to say."</p>

<p>Right, and I retracted my statement when he adjusted his statement. Given the new information, my former statement was obviously untrue. I have no problem saying that. But his statement was arrogant, whether it was intended or not. I don't see why we should have to guess at alternate interpretations and ignore what the post is actually saying. So you're right, I couldn't relate to his statement, especially because I saw my former self (explained earlier) in the literal words of his post.</p>

<p>"And if you had read your own statement correctly, allow me to redirect to an earlier quote: "and I still stand by my statement that you were arrogant.""</p>

<p>Selectively quoting much? Here we go: "Fair. But that's not what you said, and I still stand by my statement that you were arrogant (based on my knowledge at the time) for saying this"</p>

<p>In other words, what he said led me to believe he was arrogant... I still agree with that. I'm not contradicting myself. But now that he restated what he said, that statement, although true at the time, is now outdated. Here's the order:</p>

<p>1) Choklit makes statement
2) I say he's arrogant
3) He retracts
4) I say statement is arrogant, and my former was statement was justified based on the knowledge I had at the time</p>

<p>"Oh, okay. So it's all settled then. Why bother arguing when you can proclaim?"</p>

<p>Interestingly, it seems that I'm the only one actually backing up statements without terribly misquoting other people. Ironically, you respond to my statement with another...lack of argument. </p>

<p>"Not until this post, you didn't."</p>

<p>Yet I did. Plus, let's look at my retraction of my former statement:</p>

<p>"Fair. But that's not what you said, and I still stand by my statement that you were arrogant (based on my knowledge at the time) for saying this: "I'm physically incapable of parroting lines from tv shows, talking about lacrosse, or talking about how "awesome" it would be to "bang some chick""</p>

<p>This is obviously referring to Choklit saying that it's about maturity. I was fine with that. This was, of course, the "clearing up." </p>

<p>Earlier in my latest post:</p>

<p>"I'd say that STATEMENT (because he cleared up what he actually meant...) was pretty arrogant, yes. And I've explained why. You should do the same for your point"</p>

<p>In other words, I have already acknowledged that he had cleared up what he meant, which naturally led me to this statement...</p>

<p>"Ditto Choklit Rain's post."</p>

<p>Let's talk on the same plane, yes? Here's my "point:" </p>

<p>"What I said: At first, he was arrogant because it is saying that those topics of conversation are enjoyed by those who are unintelligent (or below his threshold), when in fact I know many smart people who talk about them constantly. When he cleared it up, I said the statement was arrogant."</p>

<p>As far as I know, that statement still stands. No one has actually challenged the validity of the statement at the point in time at which it was made. The fact that he reworded his statement doesn't change the fact that my own statement was justified at the time. Thus, no one has actually voiced a problem with my original point given the information we had at the time.</p>

<p>"You've lost me on this one."</p>

<p>Read my post. </p>

<p>Is this cleared up? Must we continue this? If you want to, let's go ahead. But I would rather move on.</p>

65

<p>


</p>

<p>Considering you established in my intelligence thread that the experiences of me at my school and resultant perceptions can differ wildly from those gleaned from yours, I would just demand a little continuity of thought on your part. He has experience with the social climate of his school, and you have it with yours. Trying to tell him specifically how smart people are at his school and how this is reflected in the conversations of these said people is no different than me making the assumption that your school sees the same level of collaboration and peer editing yours does.</p>

<p>(Short version: You can't disprove a statement of his with examples from your own school, considering you have no idea what his school is like.)</p>

66

<p>"Considering you established in my intelligence thread that the experiences of me at my school and resultant perceptions can differ wildly from those gleaned from yours, I would just demand a little continuity of thought on your part."</p>

<p>The situations are not analogous, for one. And I was wrong for making the statements I did on the other thread so conclusively, because of the reason you have just mentioned. But you should note that Choklit never limited the "intelligence" to his schoolmates... It would have been so easy to do so. </p>

<p>"He has experience with the social climate of his school, and you have it with yours. Trying to tell him specifically how smart people are at his school and how this is reflected in the conversations of these said people is no different than me making the assumption that your school sees the same level of collaboration and peer editing yours does."</p>

<p>I never said that, and that's why this is different. Let me quote his post:</p>

<p>"I have friends, but for some reason I'm not great at relating with the majority of people. Unless someone is sufficiently intelligent, I can't carry on a conversation with them at all. I'm physically incapable of parroting lines from tv shows, talking about lacrosse, or talking about how "awesome" it would be to "bang some chick""</p>

<p>The fact that it was such a huge, sweeping generalization that disturbed me. I'm not telling him how the kids at his school are, I'm saying that in a general sense (as his statement was general) that his statement was untrue. Again, there were no qualifications. "Most" "some" "Many dumb kids..." etc. would have all made the statement limited to his school.</p>

<p>"(Short version: You can't disprove a statement of his with examples from your own school, considering you have no idea what his school is like.)"</p>

<p>See above.</p>

67

<p>Back to the old topic....I couldn't care less about "fitting in." I wear what I want, talk about what I want, and if people don't like it, then too bad.</p>

68

<p>Then it is obviously just a matter of differing interpretations between us. I took 'majority of people' as referring to kids in school, because in the context of the thread, it made sense. The purpose of this discussion is to talk specifically about high school social situations, so it is not a contrivance to see 'majority of people' as referring to the majority of the people in his school.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>You were only wrong in stating I was undeniably wrong, since obviously, we've decided the other point (i.e. my reason/what you communicated to me in the other thread) is correct. I would mention something regarding the parallels, but since we weren't reading his post the same, that is irrelevant.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I never said that, and that's why this is different.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>By providing counter-examples from your school, you were implying as such. But again, this is all based on the interpretation of 'majority of people,' there is little else to say. I think we would be in agreement if we interpreted his statement in a similar manner.</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
"That's not what he was implying."</p>

<p>Really? Then why did he make a second post explaining himself to a person who takes every internet post and dissects it? So your telling me you know what he's implying, but he doesn't? Whatever you say, champ.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Writing can unintentionally make an implication. Nobody has perfect control over what they say.</p>

70

<p>I refuse to fit in. At my kind of school you are a social outcast if you wear the same pair of clothes twice a month. I wear the same clothes every day, cycling through them only when I need to wash them. I never try to fit in and I always do my own thing. The small amount of friends I have in school is plenty for me.</p>

71

<p>I don't try to fit in. I acknowledge my obsession with academics and personality quirks and move on. The people who tend to gravitate towards me are also the ones I would gravitate towards. It's nice.</p>

72

<p>i agree with the person above. plus, i like to think people fit in with me. lol.</p>

73

<p>Shut the hell up Baelor. It's clear that everyone whose posted on this argument has been on Choklit Rain's side (that you were too quick to judge someone). You sound like a ****ing idiot who can't let an argument go. And I'm not doing ANOTHER point-by-point rebuttal. Spare us the long diatribe and JUST STOP TALKING.</p>

74

<p>Euphoria, you held your own until that post. No need to get all mad over the</a> internet. </p>

<p>Anyways, I just read this page, but I'm with Baelor. I'm sure ChoklitRain's statements applied to his own observations but really it's dumb to make such sweeping generalizations (and arrogant and elitist to apply them to your everyday life like he does.) (I love ya, ChoklitRain, btw.) </p>

<p>Also, I second Baelor in that I can have some pretty dumb and inane conversations even though I'm probably considered intelligent by most academic standards.</p>

75

<p>Skimming this, I'm also with Baelor (although I was suprised at his opinion, since his earlier posts I remember reading a couple months ago seemed to be more elitist, but...).</p>

<p>I really don't see how this got out of hand into an argument though, lol, obviously someone can be intelligent but have other interests and act "immature" sometimes, and etc...</p>

<p>(why is it that Baelor every thread you go onto turns into an argument, haha. I just find it pretty hilarious ;))</p>

76

<p>"It's clear that everyone whose posted on this argument has been on Choklit Rain's side "</p>

<p>Ignore this statement after recent responses.</p>

77

<p>I'm just with the opinion that of course someone can be intelligent and still be dumb at the same time, chill, have fun, etc, but I don't really know how this turned into such a heated argument lol...</p>

78

<p>"I'm just with the opinion that of course someone can be intelligent and still be dumb at the same time, chill, have fun, etc, but I don't really know how this turned into such a heated argument lol..."</p>

<p>Well, yeah we both agreed on that point. It was the interpretation of Choklit Rain's post we were arguing over.</p>

<p>Baelor just reminds me of the kind of person who would say "Amen and women" just to be fair and politically correct. And I guess that kind of annoys me how literally some people look at life... and I'm not trying to insult you by this Baelor, there are plenty of nice people like this. Just not my kind of people. :)</p>

79

<p>"By providing counter-examples from your school, you were implying as such. But again, this is all based on the interpretation of 'majority of people,' there is little else to say. I think we would be in agreement if we interpreted his statement in a similar manner." </p>

<p>Yes, I agree totally. We interpreted it differently. I saw his "intelligence" statement as far more general because there was little specificity to confine that to his school. In other words, the answer to the hypothetical question, "Does he believe this is true for most everyone?" would have been yes from my reading. Make sense?</p>

<p>@at euphoria: I got your PM, and let's go that way. ;) I'm sorry that we got angry at each other, and I would like everyone to know that his last post, and my verbal insults, were both unjustified. :P We have since moved on.</p>

<p>ANYWAY... I think fitting in is important for some and unimportant for others. This seems tautological, but I used to be an outcast for the sake of being one and found myself incredibly unhappy. So I conformed, and don't regret it. However, I would not think anyone who didn't want to was wierd or whatever, as long as they were happier not fitting in. Of course, they could be wierd in their own right (just as the conformists are...)</p>

80

<p>"(why is it that Baelor every thread you go onto turns into an argument, haha. I just find it pretty hilarious )"</p>

<p>I need to stop doing that, right? :P And I was incredibly elitist before, and then wasn't. That's why I'm so against it, although clearly it degraded into an unjustified witchhunt. I apologize for that Choklit.</p>