Home
Contact Info.
Sign Guestbook
View Guestbook
Submit Ques.
Dr. DUM
Answers
Dr. Noah Tall
Answers
DUM Email
Post Cards
Blond Test
Idiot Test
Ask The Dr's.
DUM Stories
Mad Libs
Joke Page
Joke Mailing List
DUM Software
Favorite Links
|
|
DR. DUM GIVES THE ANSWERS
|
|
Here are the questions and answers Dr. DUM has received
|
Questions
|
Answers
|
Est-ce que vous petez? Parce-que, moi et mes copians aiment les medicin qui petent beacoup.
-Michelle
4/20/02
|
Dizzy medicine? I love the stuff! Bet you didn't
know I knew some french, eh?
|
How do you gain courage. I find that the only wall in life for me is that I'm paranoid of many things. I hate that, is there anyway I can change or am I stuck a coward for the rest of my life? Or is courage simply the fact that you don't care about what happens to you or the people around you because you take such huge risks?
-Kasey
4/20/02
|
Courage did not exist until humans came along
and called being a Safe Non-Risk Taker wussiness.
Then they had to come up with a word for being a risk
taker: Courageous. You just have to take risks and
hope for the best, that's the only way to get over it.
|
|
In your response to Kurt's question on Beauty, you agreed that it was relative. With that in mind, I ask you this. If beauty is relative, then why do masses of people generally find the same objects beautiful and non-beautiful? I will admit that there are often differences in opinion, but when given objects to look at, people will generally tend to see a shared similar view of beauty in certain objects more so than others. One example being in writing. People will often agree to the difference between a good written piece of writing and a bad piece of writing, a well-written book a book with poor plot development. If beauty is all-relative, how do you propose we all sense the same degree in many occasions? Should instead have the capability to see the same amount beauty in the hastily written book with broken sentences and bland characters as a well-written book with alive characters and symbolism? And I also ask, if beauty is realative, is quality relative as well? And is quality a part of beauty?
-Totter
4/20/02
|
You forget the one most important fact of all:
the public is like a herd of sheep. No one wants to
stand out and change their opinion because it might
get them ridiculed. Even though 'masses of people' as
you put it find the same thing beautiful, that's not
everyone. There are still others who find the
alternative beautiful, so hence, beauty is relative.
I would not apply it to books though. That would be a
question of quality. Unless you are talking about
poetry. Poetry is put together in books and although
the public says such and such poet is good, I might
disagree. Take e e cummings for example. Lots of
people would say his poetry is beautiful. I think
that's a load of carp. Plenty of other people do too.
There, more proof that beauty is relative. What about
essays? Would you call them beautiful? I sure
wouldn't. I couldn't think of a better way to waste
ink, paper and time. There are plenty of people out
there who love 'em though, so that's relative too.
Let me show you an occasion in which everyone had the
same opinion because if they didn't they would die:
the Holocaust. If a book or painting was by a Jewish
writer/artist the work was definately not beautiful.
If you disagreed you would get in big trouble. The
public is like that today still, they think it's just
easier to go with the flow of everyone else and not
give their opinion no matter how different it is. We
could also attribute this to why Bush is in office
right now: Too many easily swayed minds.
About quality being relative, wow are you dumb. Would
you want a shoddily made car because compared to a
Yugo its way good? Just because your computer only
crashes 5 times a day does that mean its more
preferable to own than one that crashes 6? If it
crashes it crashes and thats bad. You want something
that's going to work all the time. I don't even know
how to answer this because of how ridiculous this is.
ARGH. Quality! Of course there's a standard for
quality! How could you even question that? I'd want a
book that doesn't fall apart even if its a book I
don't like.
|
I have much confusion, for Dr. DUM has undergone a tranformation in appearance. I must ask how and why. Or have you recently had your portrait re-done? If so, what was your reason? DO you prefer the new picture? And if so, then why do you not change the Dr. DUM in the "ask Dr. DUM" software as well?
-Bananas are smushy if you smash them
4/20/02
|
Hey, I'm a real person here, but I do need a
bit of embellisment on my pictures so that I'm more
marketable. If I looked like a dweeb, as I'm sure Noah
does, I wouldn't get much respect. But as I look like
a wisdom filled old man, I'm more likely to get asked
decent questions. At least I'd like to think so. As
for the software, do you really want to go back and
download it on your 56k connection and then delete the
other one and install a new one for just a picture
change? That's a good old fashioned waste of time if
I ever heard one.
|
|
Hey Dr. Dum, My Economics class is selling watches and smoothies at my craptastic school (Douglas County High Skool). I think we should stick to selling watches seeing as how we will reap in a bigger profit then selling smoothies. Since my class is full of ignorami (that spelled right??) they cant understand why I am right on this matter and they are all wrong. Other then the use of a baseball bat how would you convince them?
-Purple Gurple
4/20/02
|
I would start my own business selling just
watches and pull in more bank than they will to prove
them wrong. But knowing stupid old DC, will the rest
of the ignorant student body even buy watches?
|
|
Would either of you concur with the idea that beauty or the sense of beauty is relative from person to person, depending on ones own state of mind, or do you believe that beauty is external to yourself. I shall elaborate on my question. If you are a relativist, and you come across a beautiful woman, well, I think so at least. Anyway, to you, she's not attractive at all. Does that mean she's not attractive at all, attractive, I'm crazy, or everyone has a different perception and so beauty can't be judged by anyone but yourself. OR. If I find something beautiful, such as an act of civil unrest, where death was involved (worry not... I don't see that as beautiful) but there ARE people who do... since for every horrific thing, attractive thing, ugly thing... anything carries beauty, and therefore beauty is external to ourselves and no object is ugly. WHAT do YOU think?
-Kurt
4/12/02
|
You are by far my favorite patron. Good deep
philosophical questions that requier thought, and none
of that "Is Billy gonna ask me out?" crap.
I'm definately a strong advocate of beauty being
relative, but even when I think like that, I find
myself judging things such as art and people as 'ugly'
only because I don't find them full of beauty. So I
think that if you are a beauty relativist you are also
immediately made into a hypocrite unless you can stop
yourself from judging things badly if you don't find
beauty in them. I try to keep from doing that, but
being human I find it hard to stop. But I would say
that there can never be a standard for beauty because
of different points of view. The other day I
commented on a girl I thought was 'hot' and the people
I was with disagreed with me because she wasn't
blonde.
For the civil unrest thing, I'm sure the people who
are fighting for something they truly believe in find
it beautiful and that's all good for them, but because
my views and morals are different, I wouldn't find it
beautiful, but I will do my best not to judge them as
'bad people.'
|
Why do you hate Dr. Noah so much? He never did anything to you, you just share opposite views. And I'm hoping you know that opposites attract... Oww I just cracked my neck. And I dont see how you can be an Atheist, I know there's no real proof that God exists, but there's no proof that he doesnt exist either.
-Bubba
4/12/02
|
By your own argument I don't see how you can
not be one. The evidence against far outweighs the
evidence for. Dr. Noah thinks he's high and mighty
and his views are too closed minded.
|
It is indeed known that throughout the Roman Era's (you know, looong ago) there were many Gods. Gods that bore the responsiblities of common man. Man did not do something for himself, he did it for a God. The concept of "I" had not yet been created. It turns out, through scientific evidence, that our brains (Left and Right Hemispheres) were actually seperate from one another. So a theory I've heard and built on, is that the reason for so many seperate Gods is simply this: each message sent from the right and/or left side of the brain did not immediately transmit to the left and/or right side, causing it to seem like a voice in our head, or a "God". So rather than stating "I did this," it was, "God hade me do this." Almost as if everyone was schitzophrenic to a certain degree. Now, later throughout history, the brain evolved, and the number of commonly known Gods dramatically decreased. In fact, most central focuses were on one God, and it was shortly either at the end of the Old Testament or the Beginning of the New that "I" was used. I believe it was the second, because I believe it one of the apostles. Anyway, unto my point... it seems that our numbers of Gods that are so praised have decreased and decreased dramatically, even Athiesm is more widely accpted now, and free will is becoming more of an issue. Is it possible, that our brains still have not fully evolved, and that God is actually just a lack of human evolution? That one day, when we recognize all of our thoughts, and conceptions and truths that we say either we can't understand or they are a result of God, that just possibly... we will evolve unto the point where God shall no longer exist, for we shall understand them? Think about it: the more we understand, the more we take away from God. Before we knew of many sciences and other medicinal things, they were "Miracles". Miracles were a lot more common when we knew less. Just curious.
-Kurt
4/12/02
|
I'll agree with that. The more we know and take
responsibility for our own actions, the less we depend
on any sort of 'higher being.' I have examples too.
Have you noticed that if a religious person does
something well, like art for instance, they'll say "I
thank God for my artistic ability." I would say "I've
practiced and practiced and now I'm a good artist."
See? I'm saying I can do things myself. Or if a
religious person is in an accident or goes through
something tragic they'll say something along the lines
of "God gave me the strength to live." Why? Did you
not really want to live yourself? Are you that much
of a tool? Being an atheist I'd say "I want to get on
with my life and do something better because *I* want
to, not because I'm a tool."
In all, I agree with you. Soon we'll evolve to the
point where we understand the world around us
completely and figure out we don't need to blame it on
some higher being because it doesn't need to be. Then
we'll be enlightened.
|
Could you please invent the perfect word to describe one who is odd, strange, and weird, but in a funny positive way?
-Wondering and Undering
4/12/02
|
How about supa-fly?
|
I have ran into a door three times in the past two days, each time into a different part of the door. I was wondering, how many different ways can one run into a door, and will the ramming stop once I have completed each way?
-Skip de dip.. OW!
4/12/02
|
Hold on, I wasn't listening, ask again.
|
What would it take for a human to recreate society, to form thier own government and morals for a society? Is it even possible with the current ruling capatlism in the world?
-Pencils don't write when broken.
4/12/02
|
Not if you want the Man to come and take you away
and put you in a little rubber room for thinking like
that.
|
|
Next Page
|
|
|
