- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 5,762
- Reaction score
- 0
no, it doesn't. It implies the lack of conscious thought in a moment in time. "Stupid" is (1) a relative term and (2) it implies an inability to reach some arbitrary level of conscious thought (this would be the level at which one would qualify as "not stupid").His defense is that he fought on instincts?
His instinct was to take down a fighter who was on 1 leg? Doesn't that kinda just help prove how dumb he is?
You can say an act is stupid (relative to an arbitrary level at which an act is "intelligent"), but you can't say someone is stupid based off one act. Though, of course, if there is a pattern...