Our political system is based on liberal democracy, multiculturalism, and personal materialism (individualism).

Now, looking over the past 5000 or so years of history, please name:

(1) A democracy that did not go into decline following its adoption of democracy, and end up a third-world dictatorship.

(2) A multiculture that did not result in a hybrid ethnicity with less aptitute for cultural and intellectual pursuits than its ingredient ethnicities.

(3) A culture based on individualism that did not rapidly lose sight of reality and collapse.

I'd love to hear your answers (but I know you cannot answer this one).

Rome fell, and the USA is falling, because we have nothing we agree on and are dedicated to selfishness and illusion.

You either figure this out and counteract it, or lie back passively and try to enjoy the collapse.

http://forums.chron.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?n...es&tsn=1&tid=339&webtag=hc-politics

SUMMARY:

1. FUCK DEMOCRACY
2. FUCK GREED
3. ANYONE WITH IQ < 120 SHOULD BE SHOT IN THE FACE

i don't get it, could you elaborate please

Iceland

infoterror said:

did you take one of those free online IQ quizzes? aww how cute

1) Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, France, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Maldives, Mauritania, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Namibia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia (Montenegro), Seychelles, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.

All have the same government set up as the U.S. None of them are third-world countries or dictatorships.

2) That answer would vary from person to person. Its based purely on opinion and therefore could not be used sucessfuly in an arguement.

3) See above.

Why are you trying to get us to do your international relations homework for you?

infoterror said:

Doesn't most of the world have an IQ of less than 120 or am I mistaken?

sacreligion said:

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! awesome...seriously though, the questions to those answers take way more time and effort than I want to expend right now...basically any system of government is fucked once greed, ignorance, and concentrated power enter the picture.

SteveOTB said:
IQ Description % of Population
130+ Very superior 2.2%
120-129 Superior 6.7%
110-119 High average 16.1%
90-109 Average 50%
80-89 Low average 16.1%
70-79 Borderline 6.7%
Below 70 Extremely low 2.2%

100 is average so this should be the "mid point" and if you look at a bellcurve of it, I'm sure using pisscup's data, you can find the 98% points on your own.
though I did a search for the bell curve to find an image and I found this:

which shows it much differently

Man_of_the_Century said:


several of the countries listed would be considered third world

infoterror said:


That's what dictators do. Kill off all the intelligencia. Then proceed to take over all forms of media. It's called facism dude. Smarten up.

paganmegan said:

Actually I think the MAJORITY of the countries listed would be considered third world, but who's counting?

paganmegan said:

I checked the list to this:
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world.htm

According to that, they're not third-world.

I also just found this...
"The term Third World was originally coined in times of the Cold War to distinguish those nations that are neither aligned with the West (NATO) nor with the East, the Communist bloc. Today the term is often used to describe the developing countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania.
Many poorer nations adopted the term to describe themselves."

So, maybe "third-world" isn't the best term for this...

"Riot squad, bash their heads, kiss their ass until they're dead, I want to be a facist pig, love to fight, what a thrill, we don't stop until we kill, I want to be a facist pig!"

he said...anyone with an IQ < 120

read < as "less than"

he's not saying to kill off the "intelligencia" he's saying to kill off everyone but them. Kinda funny that people didn't read this right. Guess you'd get killed.

but I don't really have answers for your first three questions.

I only read pisscup's. people with high IQ typically have terrible breath.

Apr 17,2006 12:01pm - brian_dc]
he's not saying to kill off the "intelligencia" he's saying to kill off everyone but them. Kinda funny that people didn't read this right. Guess you'd get killed.


~~~
hahahaha
zing!

I was a 118 going into high school. Wonder if that's changed at all.

my breath is kinda shitty right now.

I'd live, so kill away.

yeah, I'm fairly confident I'm in the 120 range now...but really what would be the good of killing off everyone else. Other than food for years and years with proper refrigeration.

We'd just procreate and eventually different classes would arise and we'd be in the same mess we're in now. Well, maybe a little bit different of a mess, but still not worth the mass genocide.

But again...the supply of food...hmm.

...I would be sad to see my only source of ridicule be killed off. What would I talk about if not how stupid people are?

I changed my mind.

Forget democracy, what form of any government has lasted since the dawn of human history without going into decline?

The answer is none, therefore all humans must die.

HAIL XENU! ARM THE THERMONUCLEAR VOLCANO!

IQ isn't intelligence, it's just how fast you process information. you could have a 140 and still be a complete idiot.


this is retarded i'd love to see a 120 IQ be a farmer for his whole life and not kill himself.

i guess you could keep some of the dumber people for slaves, But then the people will take the smart people over, because the smart people aren't smart enough to realize what they're doing.

bingo. a high IQ doesnt include common sense either.

a high IQ doesn't even mean you know how to read

brian_dc said:

Yes -- it's generally a relative measurement against predicted intelligence at age 18, so the closer you get to that age the more accurate the test is. It's a generalized measurement and not to be used as absolute law, but the divide between under-120s and over-120s is pretty goddamn obvious. Also note that the smarter you are, often the longer it takes your brain to mature...

There are plenty of high-IQ idiots but we can kill them off later. Earth with 200 million people would be sweet.