Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by Conservationist at 2008-09-01 07:52:25

Forced post? Only if we accept what you say your arguments prove, instead of looking at your arguments. What you're trying to do here is rush us to "agree to disagree" without admitting the FACTS do not back up your point at all.

"Intelligence may be inheritable, but to strip away the potential for advancement for a single mind at any time is a waste of what it is to be human, which, barring INJURY OR DISEASE is a constant POTENTIAL for growth. " -- No, it's not. Intelligence does not grow. A person of IQ 105 never becomes a person of IQ 125. Potential for growth occurs through natural selection, or depressing the 105s and ensuring the 125s breed.

"t it is in no way close to reality. Some people born into considerably low-functioning, low-stimulus environments go on to live lives of incredible intellect and cognitive function. Your NATURE vs. NURTURE argument follows trend in situations most often when the standard of living in a particular area matches the education provided to those in the area ie. the ability to 'move up' correlates to the position deemed at birth or through economic status during the formative years." You're arguing backward here. In most areas where education is good, the parents of the children were successful or sacrificed to move them there, so the raw material -- the children -- already have the genetic ability to move up.

"I never consider that all ideas are constructive, yet it is impossible to be exacting when dealing with influence in the structure of the human mind and its ingenuity. Why play safe and categorically say that within a certain group of people, only this permutation of ideas can be created, deemed to be of only so much worth? Why is it that 4-5 ideas so similar mean less? Perhaps that is an indication of an idea holding more weight that 4-5 answers of vastly different properties? WHY BE SO EXACTING?"

"So the higher an IQ score the better quality of life someone can have?"

You're asking the wrong question here. The question is not worth, or quality of life, but ability to do things, including logical analysis and action.

"There is no need for an intelligent answer here because no matter how a person scores on a HUMAN test administered to measure PERCEIVED intelligence, to negate free choice in the destiny of any individual is to deny what is essentially human: some may be provided with a natural advantage, but it is to the individual to use that in a way that prospers. A 105 could lead a much more fulfilling life than a 125 if the 125 makes choices that do not fit with the normative being of society."

The classic individualist argument reveals itself to be the cornerstone of your belief.

An IQ test doesn't measure intelligence, but intelligence potential -- the physical wiring necessary to have intelligent perceptions.

"Fulfilling" sounds to me like something I'd hear on Rachel Ray. I'm not interested in the emo view of the world, but how practical things are, because if you analyze life, practicality leads to ability which leads to better life -- and life of a better nature.

Most people do what, exactly that's so great? Yes, and they think that's fulfilling, too. Fulfilling is a subjective assessment, so a moron eating poo will think his life is fulfilling also.

"Someone being in error does account to discourse. While perhaps a bit cheeky for argumentative purposes, it is impossible to grasp the most normative behaviors without studying their most deviant possibilities. "

One can study them in theory without having to have a model present. I don't need to actually see a man fjucking a horse to know his anus will become dislocated and he'll die at a Seattle-area hospital.

"Your points about confederation are simply personal taste, and favor nothing of reality. Your point of inconsistent leadership is laughable, as having 13 states within a single nation with as much power as you propose would lead to 13 individual voices of (hopefully) equal power and might?"

I don't think we're communicating effectively on the nature of confederations. Confederations include a federation, but not all powers are distributed to it; for example, it might decide war and commerce, but not whether drugs are legal in an individual state.

If you want to know something interesting on this front, it's that in the 1980s, when Texas was quite conservative, it was actually one of the few places legal drugs might have occurred. Reasoning: honest, rural conservatives tend to view drugs as an insoluble problem and not throw money after it, figuring that if people make the choice and live, nature has blessed them, and if not, well, we leave weak calves closest to the rain for natural selection.

"a perceived 'universal' definition of a word does not exist! " -- yes, that was my point; you don't need to define the WORD but the PATTERN in REALITY.

"Your incredulous attitude toward my want for differing views is just too shortsighted:" -- It's a practical response to awareness of the fact that those different views (a) aren't different, falling into general categories and offering nothing new and (b) don't amount to much. Society's best efforts come from individuals and small groups laboring with purpose, where "support all different arguments" doesn't reward this. For analytical purposes, it's dysgenic.

" I just do not see how your ideas of separatism could at all benefit our way of life: you must realize no matter how we try only a fraction of the population could even participate in the argument we're having." -- only a fraction of the population can be brain surgeons, but we need those too.

For the record, I don't care who is a Marxist or neo-Marxist or neo-Nazi: logic trumps all political allegiances. However, the flaw of Marxism is its Hegelian emphasis on "Progress."

I think if you want "unforced posts" you will need to look at what is being said above and address it. I do not think we are communicating on some of the more crucial issues.

[default homepage]

[print][

11:13:41am Apr 28,2024
load time 0.01206 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]