<p>It’s just mindless entertainment.</p>
<p>But tiff, you are starting to sound like a right-wing nutjob. The show is liberal and you are conservative so you dislike it. We don’t see anyone making threads about Glenn Beck or the O’Reilly factor, which makes Stewart’s show seem like 60 minutes in comparison.</p>
<p>Conservatives— just, eew.</p>
<p>Do people actually date conservatives in college? Eeew lol</p>
<p>^ Based on the other replies on this thread, I think you may have just dug yourself a hole ma’am (or sir) :eek:</p>
<p>"HAHAHAHA you’re basing that off of an impersonal online forum? That’s pretty unintelligent of you. Honestly, send me your address. I have a proctored IQ test from grade school, and I still have the results. I would be all too pleased to send them to you. And no, my arguments have not been proven to be irrational by any degree. You are inserting your personal biases because you want to agree with a certain viewpoint. That type of bias prevents you from being fair. You have not proven A SINGLE THING. Instead, you just want to resort to labeling something without proof. It’s funny that everytime I adquetely challenge people on here, they resort to name calling and labeling, because they realize they can offer no support for incorrect and irrational assumptions that are weighed down in their own biases. "</p>
<p>Your entire argument is calling a show unintelligent that really isn’t. All of your “logical points” have just been your opinions and you tried to establish credibility by flaunting an IQ score which no one here actually believes you have. True intellectuals don’t bring up their IQ in discussion, as the great Stephen Hawking would say, “I have no idea [what my IQ is]. People who boast about their IQ are losers.”
If you’re so keen on demonstrating it, why don’t you scan it and link it, with of course a timestamped note on the scanned page.</p>
<p>I also enjoy how you say you “adequately challenge people” on here. I must not have seen these posts which are adequately challenging, did you type them in invisible characters? Curious. And people who make a post that is centered in bias shouldn’t try to make silly accusations about others’ bias.</p>
<p>"flaunting an IQ score which no one here actually believes you have. "</p>
<p>Seriously, do you want me to post it? Why would I lie about my IQ? I don’t really seek acceptance by anyone on here, because it is, once again, an online forum. </p>
<p>"And people who make a post that is centered in bias shouldn’t try to make silly accusations about others’ bias. "</p>
<p>Can you elaborate on how calling someone biased is biased?</p>
<p>“If you’re so keen on demonstrating it, why don’t you scan it and link it, with of course a timestamped note on the scanned page.”</p>
<p>Give me a week or so, PM me and I will give you a link to it, or I can email you a PDF- that goes to anyone who is curious. I was not “flaunting” my IQ, it was in response to a comment, so keep lying to yourself to feel better. It’s at my parents house.I don’t carry it around with me. </p>
<p>I will enjoy you realizing you’re wrong. The reason people don’t want to believe my IQ is high is because they disagree with me, and people want to believe their own views are built on their intelligence. Having a person make an argument who has a higher IQ challenges their own intelligence, so people like you act like it is impossible for the opposition to have a higher degree of intelligence. It’s an inferiority complex- you can not believe you have an inferior level of understanding than someone else, which would result in you realizing the foundation of your argument may not be the most intelligent foundation available. </p>
<p>Once again, you have not given any examples or proof of anything, meaning you can not support any of you strong views. Additionally, you obviously do not understand why I do not like Stewart- his followers think he’s a solid source of news and that his commentary is smart. Misquoting people and creating a different context for a quote. Repeating opinions by others is not smart. Everyone I know grew out of the CC Stewart phase in HS. </p>
<p>“True intellectuals don’t bring up their IQ in discussion”</p>
<p>Hmmm…any proof? That’s a flawed argument considering it’s based 1) only in your assumptions (is that not what you are criticizing me for, even though my arguments follow examples and fact? ironic). 2) you are basing a universal statement on ONE quote. That was a great example of something that would appear on the formal logic portion of the LSAT. </p>
<p>“But tiff, you are starting to sound like a right-wing nutjob. The show is liberal and you are conservative so you dislike it. We don’t see anyone making threads about Glenn Beck or the O’Reilly factor, which makes Stewart’s show seem like 60 minutes in comparison.”</p>
<p>I don’t watch Beck or O’Reilly. They are not comedians poking fun at something while doing the same thing they criticize others for doing. They are not NEWS shows, either. They are commentary. CNN does the same exact thing. All news does it, Stewart just doesn’t admit that the left and right both do it. Stewart being a liberal is not the reason I don’t like him. He is a hypocrite who thinks he is an intellectual. I would have the same issue if he did a political 180. I extensively gave examples of his irrationality and hypocrisy, and examples of how he misquotes people and takes statements out of context. The fact that he does all the things he fights against, and people actually thinking what he does is news or even smart, baffle me. I can not understand how anyone can not see how stupid Stewart and his show are. The writing is horrible, the ascetics look like CNN, the interviews could be good, if the questioning was good. The show is a joke, but people don’t treat it as a joke in the sense that they go to that show for news. Why would you think anything Stewart does is rational or logical, when he is a comedian? That is the point. I don’t have some pent up hatred of the guy, his old stuff, pre Daily Show, was decent. He is just arrogant and tries to hard to appear smart. It has nothing to do with him being an Obamanite. I am not a supporter of a two party system at all, and clearly people on here assume conservatism=GOP, and do not understand conservatism. I am against news that pretends to be fair and balanced or objective, because it’s all biased. I actually read 80% liberal commentary. I watch Communist News Network, read the NYT and Wall Street Journal, read the Economist and read things by liberals all the time. It has nothing to do with ideology, but rather presentation.</p>
<p>“I also enjoy how you say you “adequately challenge people” on here. I must not have seen these posts which are adequately challenging, did you type them in invisible characters?.”</p>
<p>1 example:</p>
<p>Person states silent majority will show up for Stewarts protest and that the protest is rational.</p>
<p>I give an explanation of what silent majority means. Silent majority members don’t protest. Having a protest targeting that group will not be successful, since those in the silent majority catagory do not publicize their views. It is irrational to think that targeting a group that, by definition, does not protest, to protest. </p>
<p>How is that not an adequate challenge and an accurate assessment? Oh wait, it’s not because you don’t agree with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not saying this to be mean, tiff, but reread your posts. I think you’re arguments are becoming more and more disconnected with trying to find objective truth and more about just trying to prove your own intelligence. I, too, have a very high IQ that’s been officially tested when I was pretty young, but there’s no need to flaunt this everywhere. It adds nothing to your argument.</p>
<h2>*I don’t watch Beck or O’Reilly. They are not comedians poking fun at something while doing the same thing they criticize others for doing. They are not NEWS shows, either. They are commentary. CNN does the same exact thing. All news does it, Stewart just doesn’t admit that the left and right both do it. *</h2>
<p>Clearly you don’t watch The Daily Show either. A huge chunk of the content is from CNN.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Additionally, you obviously do not understand why I do not like Stewart- his followers think he’s a solid source of news and that his commentary is smart.</h2>
<p>You don’t like Stewart because of opinions you believe his “followers” have? Well that’s certainly fair…</p>
<hr>
<h2>I can not understand how anyone can not see how stupid Stewart and his show are. … I don’t have some pent up hatred of the guy … He is just arrogant and tries to hard to appear smart.</h2>
<p>I’m sure the hatred isn’t pent up. You seem to be doing a great job releasing it right here.</p>
<p>I want to be TCBH when I grow up</p>
<p>“Can you elaborate on how calling someone biased is biased?”
It’s the fact that your entire claim, which lacks unbiased premises, is based on an opinion which is inherently biased towards your opinion.</p>
<p>"Give me a week or so, PM me and I will give you a link to it, or I can email you a PDF- that goes to anyone who is curious. I was not “flaunting” my IQ, it was in response to a comment, so keep lying to yourself to feel better. It’s at my parents house.I don’t carry it around with me. "
Sure thing, I can forward you a link to photoshop as well if you don’t have ready access. It’ll look better than doing it on paint.</p>
<p>“Hmmm…any proof? That’s a flawed argument considering it’s based 1) only in your assumptions (is that not what you are criticizing me for, even though my arguments follow examples and fact? ironic). 2) you are basing a universal statement on ONE quote. That was a great example of something that would appear on the formal logic portion of the LSAT.”
Let’s use some inductive logic. Name some of history’s greatest geniuses and contributors to the fields often considered most intellectually demanding. Einstein, Hawking, Feynman, Planck, Newton, Edison, Heisenberg; find me some quotes in which they overtly brag about their intelligence or even more directly their tested intelligence. I’ll further go to say that I, as an objectively tested intelligent person who also has a large group of associates with objectively tested high levels of intelligence, never bring up my personal IQ and never hear any of my associates do the same. No professors I have ever had or read works by do it, nor any other students. Often the people who I do hear bringing this kind of thing up are the people who don’t have enough real credibility in the subject they’re arguing for. It’s a rather weak tactic.</p>
<p>"1 example:</p>
<p>Person states silent majority will show up for Stewarts protest and that the protest is rational."
First of all it’s a rally, not a protest, which is in the most part based off this crazy thing called comedy. You might know this if you took the time to see how he presents it, often with laughter and a fake rivalry with Colbert. He’s not doing it to spark some new political movement, but rather to make fun of things like the portrayal of political figures as radical Muslims or Hitler-like.</p>
<p>These always go the same way.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>tiff makes a statement which very few people agree with.</p></li>
<li><p>People try to contest that statement.</p></li>
<li><p>tiff becomes irate and a) claims that everyone else’s arguments are irrational in comparison to her infallible logic b) says “YOU HAVEN’T PROVED ANYTHING, WHILE I’VE PROVIDED SO MUCH EVIDENCE” then proceeds to ignore any evidence provided by anyone else or c) decides that everyone else is obviously much stupider than herself and is therefore incapable of understanding the “truth”</p></li>
<li><p>Everyone continues to believe what they want to believe.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>^ Lol. </p>
<p>For some reason, that made me laugh really hard. </p>
<p>But you did forget one part though- you forgot the part where she calls everyone who disagrees with her “too sensitive” and that the argument really doesn’t matter to and/or affect her.</p>
<p>Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Your trying to prove the point that Stewart is ignorant by saying that young people take what he says literally, which is NOT THE INTENTION OF THE SHOW. If you can’t get that through your head, your supposed IQ is BS.</p>
<p>Also, I’m actually the Queen of France, so what I say has authority over your claims of a 99 percentile IQ. Suck it.</p>
<p>
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So basically College Life is an angrier version of HSL where “Rate my schedule” is replaced with “I have no friends”?</p>
<p>… consider the legitimate discussion:</p>
<p>whines about a show on comedy central and cites its viewers as a reason why the host is unintelligent.</p>
<p>…“Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Your trying to prove the point that Stewart is ignorant by saying that young people take what he says literally, which is NOT THE INTENTION OF THE SHOW. If you can’t get that through your head, your supposed IQ is BS.”</p>
<p>So I am the ignorant one? You can’t even use “your” or “you’re” correctly. People on here don’t want to believe my IQ is 138/139, which is the 98th percentile, because I disagree with all of you. Permanence bias much? My point is the way Jon Stewart conducts himself, he is trying to appear as a legitimate source of news. Why else would he make an actual attempt at a serious interview? Fail. What a horrible assessment of the conversation.</p>
<p>“decides that everyone else is obviously much stupider than herself and is therefore incapable of understanding the “truth””</p>
<p>Well I don’t use made up words like “stupider” when trying to question someones intelligence. Pathetic. I guess that is a “Living Oxymoron.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No… he’s not.
The whole point of the show is that he is a political satirist. Yes, he may have an occasional serious interview, but The Daily Show is NOT a legitimate source of news. If it wanted to be, it would present itself as such. And it would not be on COMEDY Central. </p>
<p>Do you think The Onion is trying to be a legitimate news source as well? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>well, I tried being nice.
A typo does not a fool make. When one can’t attack argument, one attacks something unrelated.</p>
<p>By the way, it’s not that we don’t believe your IQ, it’s that we don’t care</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, have you seen how self-deprecating he is? And didn’t you say earlier you didn’t even watch the show?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>WHOOSH.</p>
<p>I’ll admit that I never read any of your posts nor your detractors’ posts, but that seems to be the whole argument here. The Daily Show is entertainment and Jon Stewart pulls no bones about it. That many people use his show as the most legitimate form of news in their lives only speaks to their own foolishness, not about Jon Stewart. Does it need to be reminded to you that this show is on COMEDY CENTRAL? It is the same thing with Glenn Beck. His show is entertainment - and it doesn’t even afford the luxury of transparency that The Daily Show does - and millions of really stupid people think his show is brilliant.</p>
<p>tiff, I like how when you make a spelling or grammar mistake it doesn’t reflect your intelligence (WRITING ISN’T ON AN IQ TEST!!!111!!!), but when anyone else does, it must mean that they’re an idiot.</p>
<p>Despite its name, intelligence tests usually aren’t recognized as reliable measurements of intelligence for several reasons. Even Binet dissented against the use of such a test for measuring such a broad and ambiguous term.</p>
<p>“tiff, I like how when you make a spelling or grammar mistake it doesn’t reflect your intelligence (WRITING ISN’T ON AN IQ TEST!!!111!!!), but when anyone else does, it must mean that they’re an idiot.”</p>
<p>Notice how I pointed out that it is IRONIC that a person who is calling someone unintelligent is making grammatical mistakes. You don’t want to see the irony, because you want to find an excuse for using the word “stupider.” When did I say you were an “idiot?” Oh wait, you’re making things up. Again. I CLEARLY said it was an oxymoron for YOU to use “stupider” to try and evaluate the intelligence of an argument. Clearly, you are the “stupider” one if your reading skills are that poor.</p>
<p>"Even Binet dissented against the use of such a test for measuring such a broad and ambiguous term. "</p>
<p>Binet was not alive when the revised test was revised by Lewis Terman. The purpose for Binet’s test were different than the revised test. Binet’s test was only designed to identify students with special needs. Terman’s revisions sought to measure intelligence, and sadly attached Binet’s name to a test measuring a skill Binet did not intend to test. Weschler then came out with the WAIS and WCIS, which is commonly used today. I will say that people who score highly are unquestionably intelligent, but other measures of intelligence, such as creativity, may not be adequately measured. However, IQ is linked to higher academic performance, and is a greater way to measure academic achievement than the SAT. High IQ’s also lead are also linked with better jobs.</p>
<p>“Um, have you seen how self-deprecating he is? And didn’t you say earlier you didn’t even watch the show?”</p>
<p>Watch as in regular basis. I watched the Tony Blair interview, and Stewart made an obvious attempt to appear as an accredited source. If he wasn’t trying to be a legitimate figure, he would not make an attempt at a serious interview, and instead would use Colbert’s interview tactics.</p>
<p>“A typo does not a fool make. When one can’t attack argument, one attacks something unrelated.”</p>
<p>AGAIN: My point CLEARLY was that if you want to call an argument, go ahead, but don’t make stupid mistakes like “your” and “you’re.” It is ironic to make stupid mistakes when trying to call something unintelligent. You are misinterpreting the argument to suit your needs. Go back and read it again.</p>
<p>“The whole point of the show is that he is a political satirist. Yes, he may have an occasional serious interview, but The Daily Show is NOT a legitimate source of news. If it wanted to be, it would present itself as such. And it would not be on COMEDY Central.”</p>
<p>Why have a legitimate protest if all you are is a comedian not trying to be legitimate? Once again, if he didn’t go out of his way to conduct himself in a serious manner for interviews, than people wouldn’t view him as a legitimate source of news. Colbert has gotten a lot more liberal, but he at least doesn’t try to appear serious.</p>
<p>And the thing is, I am not angry about anything. I get annoyed when people say stupid things, jump on a bandwagon instead of sharing their opinion and fail to explain their views logically when asked, even though I take the time to dumb things down for certain people.</p>
<p>“By the way, it’s not that we don’t believe your IQ, it’s that we don’t care”</p>
<p>If no one cared, people would have let it go a long time ago. And, when I am willing to prove something they 100% believe, they balk. It’s absolutely pathetic how some of these people operate. I said it in passing, in response to a comment. I am not bragging about anything, you guys are acting as if I made a thread all about my IQ. 1 freakin sentence in 2 1/2 years of posting and people are holding on to it? Please, they’re the ones with the problem. It is a lot easier to question my IQ than to formulate a logical argument or attempt to outline what logic is flawed. People see a bandwagon and jump on it, because they are too cowardly to get in an actual discussion. </p>
<p>I don’t put much thought into CC, or the screennames people hide behind. It’s something to do while at work or procrastinating, I don’t take anything seriously, even if my tone can be harsh. People need to realize this is an online forum and ****.</p>