CreateDebate


XMathFanx's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of XMathFanx's arguments, looking across every debate.
xMathFanx(1650) Clarified
1 point

@DeathWolf

I think we may have discussed this before, concerning a thread on trolling--Nom is the one member on this forum that I genuinely take some enjoyment out of getting under his skin from time to time. Perhaps it is an improper hobby, though it sure can be fun.

I believe the technical term is flame-baiting.

2 points

George Orwell Was A SOCIALIST Who Wrote About Where The RIGHT Was Heading

Indeed, George Orwell was a Socialist, however 1984 was not intended to warn against where the 'right' was going, but rather Soviet-style Communism/totalitarian state.

Further, this is the fundamental premise behind another of Orwell's great works, namely Animal Farm. The character Snow Ball symbolized the type of Socialistic views you are suggesting, while Napoleon and his crew as Stalin and his underlings.

1 point

@TheDevil

...The Ministry of Truth

Good point .

2 points

@Ming

Amen .

1 point

@Baboon

Exactly.

xMathFanx(1650) Clarified
0 points

@Nomenclature

FM, I think MathFan might be leading you into opinions like this deliberately...

Patronizing your allies, it is a bold strategy.

Evidently, it is lost on you that the overwhelming majority of people who stay the formal route, in anything, are the inferior minded sheep while the gifted are lone wolves (or small pack of wolves) that disengage from the hierarchy in order to have full autonomy of thought (as well as other benefits). I can go into quite a bit more detail about this if need be, though it is clear FM already understands the point--as it is also apparent it will remain lost on you no matter how thoroughly exposed.

Also, do note, FM was far too humble individually & far too generous with you in a previous thread/comment--his IQ is most definitely superior to yours.

1 point

@Amarel

Yes, I find Stoicism very informative and useful. I will be sure to check that book out, thanks for the recommendation.

xMathFanx(1650) Clarified
1 point

@DeathWolf

Jordan Peterson is roughly a 2/10 in intelligence (1/10 being average).

I generally agree, though would put him at a 3/10

When I judge a person's intelligence I am not simply referring to intelligence in the classical sense, but basically every intellectual capacity someone could have including creativity, wisdom, knowledge on particular subjects etc.

Good. Personally, the metric I use first looks at 2 staples, and then works to 'branch' & 'twig' areas thereafter. (1) Everyone is born into this life with their own personal 'chessboard'. How sensibly have they played that game? (2) Whether there is evidence of high level of success in areas that they apply themselves in. That is, are they good at what they do when they really try? After (1) & (2), I will analyze other areas, some of which you discussed in your response.

One out of two of the points goes to him for understanding psychology on an academic level

He does not--in fact, this is the first thing I noticed about him upon introduction. There are many examples that could be given to demonstrate this, though perhaps the most significant (and blatantly false) is his position on the matter of Ashkenazi Jew IQ. Peterson claimed the average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is 115, which, if true, would necessitate for all other Jews on the planet (i.e. non-Ashkenazi) average IQ to be less than 85. See, Israel is 75% Jewish, from which 47.5% are Ashkenazi, making up 36% of the total population. Now, the reported Israeli IQ is 95, and the average reported Jordanian IQ of 84 standing for Arab Israelis, then an Ashkenazi average IQ of 115 would necessarily imply that all other Jews on Earth have an average IQ of 84--lower than African American, and a standard deviation below European whites. Does that sound correct to you? Or, rather, does it sound like a superficial thinker stating common, erroneous talking points without bothering to look into the matter personally, and is also statistically illiterate as he does not possess the requisite learning, nor Left-Brain strength, to interpret what he is looking at (the collective data points)?

the other is for his ability to form arguments and analyse.

This he has above average ability in, yes. Though, that is precisely why it would be intellectually honest to describe himself as a Philosopher pushing his own views/philosophy, rather than claim the authority of science, unwarranted. A person who demonstrates a severe lack of integrity on even one matter puts all other of his work into question.

One thing I've noticed is that he is not good at spotting alt accounts or telling when he is being trolled. His intelligence seems to be very technical and he is not very good at social "mindfuck" games or things such as manipulation.

This is a fair criticism, as I tend be naive in this regard--it leaves me particularly vulnerable to Gamma personality types (i.e. manipulative masterminds & deceivers who often pose as Betas or Deltas for leverage).

xMathFanx(1650) Clarified
1 point

@Nomenclature

I am prepared to have an honest conversation on the topic.

Frankly, it was (and is) my impression that I represented your views on the matter accurately.

xMathFanx(1650) Clarified
1 point

@Nomenclature

Is it possible you hold a not-so-slight embarrassment about your position on the topic?

xMathFanx(1650) Clarified
1 point

@Nomenclature

You seem to be entirely unaware of how unreasonable a claim that is. By necessity, you must then take the position that JP's IQ is a standard deviation or so above Einsteins--and, simultaneously, there is zero evidence he would be able to do even Undergrad Phys. or Maths (hence why he insists upon stating Psychotherapy is a "science" and does bizarre, concentrated, premeditated hand motions when explaining a "complex" (i.e. incredibly simple/obvious) idea).

You have managed to demonstrate, once again, your utter inability to comprehend the skills & abilities attached to specific IQ brackets.

I would direct you to a previous thread of mine on the topic for further details.

xMathFanx(1650) Clarified
1 point

@Nomenclature

Okay.

If you will, please, describe your official position on the matter concerning extraterrestrial life and the notion of panspermia.

xMathFanx(1650) Clarified
1 point

@Nomenclature

That said, he's still an incredibly smart guy.

Jordan Peterson is not particularly intelligent, nor informed about the topics he speaks about. The main advantage he brings to the table is that the vast majority of humanity, objectively, severely lacks basic cognitive skills as well as personal confidence in their own abilities, due to reasons FM & I have discussed elsewhere. Consider, people of IQ less than 120 are functionally illiterate--which is 90% of humanity. Given that, it is not difficult to see how many can be decieved by an ambitious, somewhat cunning charlatan.

I would recommend you Jordanetics, if interested in the topic.

xMathFanx(1650) Clarified
1 point

@Nomenclature

In essence, your argument is:

Since I am skeptical of the existence of Ancient Extraterrestrial Engineers being responsible for life on Earth, that evidences a distinct lack of critical thought.

How far 'outside the box' am I, and others, required to go in order to gain your approval? Considering, I know of (many) Twilight Zone episodes that are substantially more plausible than the scenario you are asking us to believe, in the absence of evidence.

xMathFanx(1650) Clarified
1 point

@Nomenclature

You have predictably omitted to mention that our conversation deteriorated when I specifically warned members not to confuse...

In fact, the conversation began with you providing a caveat along the lines:

Nom: "I know you are going to think I am crazy, but...I believe intelligent creation/design is responsible for the genetic code here on Earth".

xMathFanx: "Are suggesting you believe in a quasi-Prometheus (movie) type scenario?"

Nom: "Yes, very much like that actually. Ancient Engineers of an extra-terestrial basis may have, and very likely did, create the code and blast it out throughout the Cosmos a long time ago."

From there, I brought up the discussion of Directed Panspermia & Francis Crick.

0 points

@DeathWolf

Other than Nom, I see you as having the most potential of anyone here to join the movement to secure humanity's future as a type one civilization.

Although I am eagerly hopeful of this, and look forward to it, one must learn how to walk (or ever stand) prior to running. As of currently, humanity is in a drunken stupor, 'sobriety' & stability is prerequisite to greater adventurous potential.

It's unfortunate that Nom hates you

Nom does not hate me. Rather, he possesses a very fragile ego that seeks retributive justice when cracked or shattered.

But I wouldn't compare him to a dark side user at all.

It is not that Nom is a "Sith", rather that the light & dark live within us all and, in this instance (among others), the dark has gotten the better of him. My statement which you quoted in bold equally holds for me & all other people. In Star Wars it is the "Dark Side of the Force", in Christianity "the Devil", Lord of the Rings presents the "Ring of Power", and secular realm it is "vice".

With the genetic code thing it was about semantics.

Nom argued that any person who contends nature could have devised the code independently is an ignoramus. Further, he continued stating that, clearly, the hand of intelligent creation from extra-terrestrials from long ago, possibly even from a different galaxy, are responsible for life on Earth, as we know it.

1 point

@Mint

Anonymity is both a strength & weakness of discussion boards such as this.

1 point

@DeathWolf

Ally, I appreciate the support.

Nomenclature's enmity toward me is clouding his judgement. Consider, as with the allegory of "Star Wars", the Dark Side of the Force will exploit every crevice of weakness & coward a person possesses. Balance has been broken ever since our debate concerning the topics of Time Travel, Genetic Code, and others some 8 months ago. In this instance, there is a need to regain control of his emotions & mind in order to bring order to muddled, impetuous thought.

In truth, I am not the fiend the devil on his shoulder is persuading him of.

xMathFanx(1650) Clarified
1 point

@Dreadnought

Your hypocrisy is on full display with this pitiful piece of provocation.

The entire intended purpose of this thread, your creation, is to flame-bait & troll. Hence, in response, I gave you a dose of your own medicine by gas-lighting.

Reap what you sow.

0 points

@Mint

Amarel and I are, indeed, two separate people. Nomenclature has accused me of being roughly half a dozen people thus far.

xMathFanx(1650) Clarified
0 points

@Nomenclature

My old friend, I would encourage you to watch the movie "The Number 23" by Jim Carrey. It is a tale of a paranoid schizophrenic who obsessively connects dots that do not exist in order to arrive at a pre-established base conclusion, the Number 23. Currently, you show signs of being several notches dialed down from full realization, however it is best seek professorial help sooner (at first onset), rather than later--as conditions tend to only atrophy with ageing.

The Number 23
1 point

@Ming

Are you familiar with this site:

https://relampagofurioso.com/education/

Just stumbled upon it, right up the alley we were previously discussing.

xMathFanx(1650) Clarified
1 point

@excon

Someone who believes in the Constitution, as written as well as the general 'spirit' of it, would be placed much more as a Right-Wing Libertarian than a standard Democrat/establishment Left, who support the program I previously discussed.

Recall, the catalyst to the Revolution was imposed foreign taxes, and being bound to a centralized authority (King George)--both of which Democrats are in favor of. RW Libertarian is on the opposite side of the spectrum.

xMathFanx(1650) Clarified
1 point

@excon

Can you explain what you, individually, do support?


1 of 94 Pages: Next >>

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