CreateDebate


JustIgnoreMe's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of JustIgnoreMe's arguments, looking across every debate.

How does people believing "more than just intelligence" includes intelligence justify your stupor?

Through your comments, it was obvious you were referring to electric/molecular dipole moments.

Apparently you still don't know what your talking about.

My comment that you responded to: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy (through a shift in its dipole moment), preventing that radiant energy from going into space."

You brought up the difference between temporary and permanent dipole moments.

YOU brought up the permanent dipole moment, dummy; I said your reference to the permanent dipole moment of CO2 was irrelevant - IT IS!!

It does not make the source unreliable, it just implies that you do not understand the overall picture.

Having one source out of many (which one and what it excludes you haven't actually established) not specify every possible thing (an impossibility) does not reflect a lack of understanding whatsoever.

Instead, you just paste whatever you can find with google and hope for the best.

I pasted references after your ineptitude demanded it - they all concurred with my description. Maybe you should try to find a source for how they are all wrong...

Now that I have pointed out your error

You have yet to point out any error - only your own ignorance.

This claim would be substantiated if you had actually mentioned the degenerative modes before or within the original comment.

Explaining to you that the bending modes of CO2 are degenerate was not necessary to substantiate my statement - and was mentioned in the references I posted in my second response to you.

If you were right all along and actually understood this topic

Again, here is my original comment: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy (through a shift in its dipole moment), preventing that radiant energy from going into space."

It was, and still is, correct - regardless of your ignorance. Claiming to "clear up the science" on greenhouse gases, you tangented into Raman spectrum and permanent dipole moments, etc. - while providing nothing that was actually relevant.

Cartman - Miller-Urey

You - different than early earth

Cartman - still shows it is possible

You - not for Earth

Me - abiogenesis did not need to start (inorganic to organic) on Earth for life to arise on Earth; it could start elsewhere (Mars, asteroids, etc) and have subsequently been brought to Earth - still a valid path for abiogenesis.

Understand yet??

Ok. I am back.

Oh joy!

I thought I responded to this part a long time ago.

You apparently think many things that are incorrect.

You are just mashing together

Nope.

You should google "dipole moment" and "transition dipole moment".

I already know the difference (and tried to explain it to you in my very first response to you).

The confusion was yours all along - if you knew what a greenhouse gas was from the beginning, you would not have interjected to clear things up by discussing the permanent dipole moment of CO2.

Dipole moment refers to ...

Dipole moment can refer to several things - again, not knowing which one was relevant shows your ignorance on the subject, not your knowledge...

Your mish-mash of information even includes unclear statements.

Unclear to the unlearned.

One source does not even mention degenerative bonds.

Not mentioning every possible piece of information does not make a source inaccurate or irrelevant.

"Water has three normal modes of vibration,..." and "Only two IR bands..."

Both of these are correct statements - what are you taking issue with? Note the "Water..." one does mention that the bending mode is degenerate in the original source if you could read it.

This is why you should focus on learning the basics so that you understand the big picture.

This is why you should look again and see that my statement was correct all along if you knew what you were talking about...

Thanks for clearing things up though...

How is that a response to my post?

....

You - I'm dumbfounded that people think I meant intelligence

Me - here's why

You - check out this article on the relationship between brain size and intelligence

...

Still dumbfounded???

it is a requirement for explaining life on Earth

No, it isn't.

JustIgnoreMe(1823) Clarified
3 points

The same top marginal tax rate as under that flaming liberal extremist Eisenhower...

JustIgnoreMe(1823) Clarified
1 point

"For you love all things that are

and loathe nothing that you have made;

for you would not fashion what you hate."

Wisdom 11:24

JustIgnoreMe(1823) Clarified
1 point

they did not invent the actual computer

They made it work - including programming and debugging it.

One of those women (Admiral Grace Hopper) also invented the first compiler and oversaw the team that created COBOL ref

they invented a program... woohoo

Um, try using your computer without running any programs...

To say "Women were comp!" is a bit of a of exaggeration.

Actually, it is not one bit exaggeration - before "computer" was a machine, it was a job - one that many women held.

the computer your[sic] using

Women WERE computers!

The first program ever written for an electronic computer was written by women.

ref

JustIgnoreMe(1823) Clarified
2 points

Click the "Show Replies" under the argument you responded to. (Presumably the one by Harvard that begins "This could be a clever smear...")

Or, click "Show All Replies" near the top left

(both probably require JavaScript)

one gender being dominant in a specific field

So, your position is that sometimes men are dominant on average and sometimes women are dominant on average?

Then your post belongs on the other side.

A) If it was irrelevant vis-à-vis dominance, why mention it?

B) you specifically say that it is more than a trivial fact, but that it does have relevance: "BIGGER than a female brain, which is significant in terms of psychology" - psychology includes intelligence.

That case was decided wrongly.

"That is your opinion pal."

Just because 9 people think one way does not make it right.

It did make it legal.

You just love to use the 14th amendment for whatever you like.

I like to use it to defend the position that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, etc.

If states want to not allow interracial marriages, that is their choice also.

Actually, they can't.

First, that pesky Constitution gives the aforementioned "9 people" the judicial power in all cases arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, etc.

Second, under the VA statute that existed, everyone would actually have been negro, they just didn't know that. There are no biological white/black races.

move to another state

The federal government recognizes marriage for taxation, immigration, military spousal benefits, court proceedings (not being required to testify against spouse), etc.

Should the federal government treat you differently depending on whether the state you live in recognizes your marriage?

If you get married in one state and have/adopt children, then your spouse leaves to a state that does not recognize your marriage, do you loose custody rights? (based on real cases)

If the 14th amendment was so important, it would have been included in the original Bill of Rights.

Was the abolition of slavery important?

The founding fathers did include states rights so the federal government would not have too much power.

The founding fathers also created the federal government and gave it power (and provided a way to amend the Constitution, etc.)

This is a load of crap and was found out to be a myth

Your link says that her claim "might be something of a myth", but it says that your claim is definitely a myth.

Is it psychologically dominant to prove yourself wrong?

JustIgnoreMe(1823) Clarified
1 point

There is a possibility that it is too ambiguous.

Indeed. So, what does that mean in terms of how religious people should live their lives?

They would use their bibles as a moral guideline.

That's what I mean - they each use their bible to come to a conclusion, but they each arrive at different results. Therefore, even if the Bible is a necessary element (arguable), it would not be sufficient to know what action a moral person should take.

I believe this verse was meant to follow behind the forgive everyone verses.

It follows the part where Jesus says that if someone hits you in the face, let them do it again - ref

I think war is a bit different.

How so? Didn't some religious people support and some oppose going to war with Iraq?

not once have I said anything about intelligence

Does dyslexia prevent you from knowing that psychology includes intelligence??

I have openly admitted to being a terrible speller due to conditions (dyslexia)

I do find it interesting that people who are below average in a given aspect are often the ones defending the average - e.g. my brain is broken, but men have better brains than women...

The general case does not apply to every specific case - there are many women who are better than you physically/psychologically.

incessantly pointing out

Is one post incessant to you?

irrelavent[sic]

relevant

uncontrollable

controllable - (use a good spelling and grammar checker since you know you are deficient in that area.)

God formed man out of clay

God just happened to form man out of clay with DNA very similar to that of a monkey...

JustIgnoreMe(1823) Clarified
1 point

called to obey his word

Is his word too ambiguous to be obeyed?

Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Calvinists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, Amish, and members of the Ku Klux Klan all believe they are obeying God.

If you put several highly devout priests into individual rooms with a list of moral dilemmas and ask each of them for the moral answers, you will get differing opinions and justifications for those opinions - how would one know whom to obey?

E.g. - does "love your enemy" mean no war is ever justifiable?

That is your opinion pal.

And the opposite would only be your opinion, friend.

Where do you get off thinking your position is what is best for all 50 states.

By listening to the arguments against it and seeing that they literally amount to zero. Some positive vs zero negative - some positive wins no matter which state you live in.

JustIgnoreMe(1823) Clarified
1 point

Do you think people can come to understand God's purpose for them (through messages from God, etc.), or is it always reserved to God xemself?

If you're going to make an argument about intelligence, you should probably learn to spell/proofread.

Let's see if you can "rap" your head around that...

JustIgnoreMe(1823) Clarified
1 point

Do only humans have a God-given purpose, or everything?

e.g. - do you think Neanderthals had a purpose?

Did species that went extinct and left no evidence for us to discover their existence have a purpose?

The 14th amendment doesn't say anything about marriage.

"Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Loving v Virginia (Unanimous decision of the Supreme Court - 1967)

Did they wrongly decide that case??


1 of 116 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]