- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Public School VS. Home School
The schooling system has never been designed for human intellectual nor physical cultivation. Rather, it is structured for obedience, conformity, forcibly imposing certain narratives & habits/methods of operation on young impressionable minds while squelching competing ideas and the fundamental capacity/power of independent human ingenuity.
Home school your kids, preferably. If not, do not allow them to think anything important is going on--trust your own mind over all others.
Is University/College really necessary?
Concerning finances, attaining a standard University diploma is not at all necessary in order to thrive in America, as other options exist in abundance. To briefly discuss but a few, let us focus in on vocational training, real estate, and "penny pinching" while working at the local corner store.
First, consider the route of vocational training. Standard jobs in this grouping include Electrician, Plumber, HVAC Technician, Installer/Repairer, Dental Hygienest, etc. etc., all of which pay $40,000-$80,000 a year on average. As of 2018, the average starting salary of a University graduate is $50,000 per year. Hence, the flat rate difference is non-existent, or even detrimental to the University grad when compared side-to-side. Further, the average University graduate has accumulated $30,000 of debt, which would definitively reveal vocational training as the superior path to succeed monetarily.
Second, real estate provides an individual with the means to generate passive income as well as having their own investments make money for them, unlike a wage/"9-5". Through purchasing property, one can get other people to pay off their mortgage as well as further income that will allow them to purchase further property, that will in turn produce further earnings. It is a very solid, simple strategy that works every time, as long as the individual does not get greedy and take unnecessary risks.
Third, and finally, working at the local corner store and "penny pinching" is yet another very basic, effective strategy for financial success. For instance, take the example of a local grocery store yearly wage earnings. The standard worker will begin at minimum wage, or very close, making approximately $7.25 per hour the first year, with yearly raises that typically go to about $17 an hour, and added benefits for long-standing full-time workers such as health coverage. Then, if a person works 60 hours a week the first few years, they will earn $21,000 up to $30,000 annually as the wage increases. A single apartment can be found for $725 a month rent, low electricity usage, say $35 a month, grocery bill at $225 a month, no cable, basic internet (if desired) for $50, and walk/bicycle to work and bussing for elsewhere (therefore, no car bill nor insurance). Then, even after this initial low hourly wage period, they will be able to save about $35,000. With that money, they can purchase a condo or small townhouse, where the mortgage will be considerably less than rent payment, approximately $350 a month, as well as earning a higher base wage and benefits package (health coverage, possibly tuition assistance programs as well), and will be able to transition over to a 40 hour work week from that point onward and sustain a local lifestyle. Also, a vehicle could be comfortably purchased if desired. As years accumulate, they approach the $17 an hour cap, which is nearly $35,000 per year. Now with other expenses being less than or equal to $1000 a month, this implies they will be able to save $20,000 per year. After "x" amount of years of doing this, they will easily be able to either (a) go down to a leisurely part-time hours, say 10-20 per week (b) work seasonally (c) take "x" years off and "y" on, in order to support their lifestyle comfortably.
In conclusion, we have seen how, in America, if one has a sensible plan, follows it rather than succumbing to the vice of overindulgence, they will be able to monetarily succeed and support a very comfortable lifestyle. A few such strategies have been outlined, namely (a) vocational training (b) real estate (c) local work and frugalness. These are very straightforward, simple, and effective strategies that work every time when implemented inside of the pre-specified boundaries.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.