#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Agree
Side Score: 191
|
Disagree
Side Score: 214
|
|
4
points
I completely agree with this because once this has been accomplished the human race will cease to exist. Those people only the highest IQ's and Harvard should be kept alive. In a couple of years when their egos are deflated, so will the food supply. Those left will feed off their comrades still boosting about how smart they are, while eying the weakest member of the group. Finally the last of them will fall and be rewarded for his great IQ as a vulture rips out his heart. The world at last will be a better place, for animals don't boost how great they are. Side: Agree
In a couple of years when their egos are deflated Why are you conflating IQ with ego? I understand this is a simplistic piece of rhetoric, but for it to be meant to establish a point, it is entirely inefficacious. for animals don't boost how great they are. Take a look at the male peacock, lion, various insects, etc., and come back and look at this statement. It was a nice try, but sometimes the best thing to do is to not try. Though I do apologize if you felt insulted (perhaps your IQ wouldn't fit the criterion for 'High'), this was entirely theoretical. Side: Disagree
3
points
Why are you conflating IQ with ego? I understand this is a simplistic piece of rhetoric, but for it to be meant to establish a point, it is entirely inefficacious. I don't conflate IQ with ego, but you do. This is in direct response to arguments that you have stated in the past and the debates in which you start like this one. It is your claim of superiority and the claims you've made in regard to you deeming yourself as intelligent that one write this rhetorical. The claim is not mine, but yours. Take a look at the male peacock, lion, various insects, etc., and come back and look at this statement. Yes, take a look at those animals in which you listed and prove to me that it is boosting and not basic instinctual functions of that species. What you are basically attempting to claim is that the male rabbit has intercourse to prove he has a penis worth showing the gals and not that it is basic instinctual behavior. What a crack pot! It was a nice try, but sometimes the best thing to do is to not try. Though I do apologize if you felt insulted (perhaps your IQ wouldn't fit the criterion for 'High'), I would only be insulted if I ever agreed with you on anything, and this will never happen. Side: Agree
I don't conflate IQ with ego, but you do. This is in direct response to arguments that you have stated in the past and the debates in which you start like this one. It is your claim of superiority and the claims you've made in regard to you deeming yourself as intelligent that one write this rhetorical. The claim is not mine, but yours. None of what you just written deals with the point of conflating IQ with ego. Essentially all you have just said is that I have a big ego and a (self-proclaimed) high IQ... Yes, take a look at those animals in which you listed and prove to me that it is boosting and not basic instinctual functions of that species. What you are basically attempting to claim is that the male rabbit has intercourse to prove he has a penis worth showing the gals and not that it is basic instinctual behavior. What a crack pot! I had to second-guess whether or not you were serious when I read this. Its instinctual function is to "boost", obviously. This is why your claim rendered itself erroneous, and this counter-rebuttal only exacerbated it. I would only be insulted if I ever agreed with you on anything, and this will never happen. This speaks volumes of your constrained mind-state and predisposes you to such statements such as the one above. Just because you do not like someones based on their proclamations, doesn't mean that their wrong about certain subject material. That's like someone disliking Obama because he is black and therefore disagree with all of his policies, which sadly, for too many people, that is the case. Side: Disagree
3
points
2
points
2
points
Education is obviously overrated. Many of the recent graduates come from the liberal environment that colleges and universities are saturated with. These institutions are notoriously liberal and therefore turn out liberal-minded people. These kinds of "studies" are often a concoction of the left designed to stroke their minions and make them think they are smart for voting democratic. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many of these faux studies put forth by the left to try to convince their followers to stay the course. I'm sure after a few years of paying taxes and footing the bill for the bottom half, most will see the light of day and become more conservative and they mature. Nice try, though. The fact that they vote liberal undermines the study. ha ha ha Side: Agree
2
points
No Jolie we are not - we need to understand the language we use The term mental retardation does not just mean a Low IQ but also levels of function. Simply because a person has a low IQ (>70) does not automatically mean they also have behavioural problems or lack daily living skills. There is a considerable difference between the two believe me I used to work in such a unit Side: Agree
That is the whole point. Yes there are people with low IQ who are able to function in their daily living tasks It is simply a matter of degree of what they are able to achieve. We are not talking about high function activities just simply managing daily living tasks Side: Agree
So it would seem that IQ relates to do the ability to do 'high functional activities' then. A person with an IQ of 70 wouldn't be able to whereas someone with an IQ of 100 could. So what exactly is the objection? That the difference isn't proportional? That for example someone with a IQ of 50 isn't necessarily less able than one with 70? Side: Agree
It would be best to not only look at IQ alone, rather someone's genetic chances of having children with high or maybe even average IQs. Now I've read that IQ has a bit more to with nurture instead of nature. In that case there has to be looked into someone's ability to raise a child instead of genetics or some combination of those two in a ratio based on proper research and theory. This law in North Carolina was on the right track of realising this but the execution was not based on proper research since we still lack knowledge on the causes of low IQs. I tried to expand here on the relevance of IQ and the rational motives behind the application of this law on mentally defective individuals without regarding the ethics. Side: Agree
you first. The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, derived from the logical conjunction of the Savanna Principle and a theory of the evolution of general intelligence, suggests that more intelligent individuals may be more likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel values, such as liberalism, atheism, and, for men, sexual exclusivity, than less intelligent individuals, while general intelligence may have no effect on the acquisition and espousal of evolutionarily familiar values. Side: Agree
yes, they are. that's the whole point behind evolutionary psychology. evolved humans no longer need to cling to tradition, religion or disperse their "seed" as widely as possible in order for the species to continue. in fact these things all become a detriment to a species population at some point.... i think we are AT that point now. Side: Agree
1
point
That makes those things an indirect result of evolution, but not evolutionary qualities themselves. you would seem to claiming that i've made a variation on the causation/correlation fallacy here. but you have failed to establish the difference in this case between "qualities" and "indirect results" you are welcome to try. Side: Agree
Ignoring the fact that Evolutionary Psychology is almost a pseudoscience, you still listed random traits that have nothing to do with the field. You listed human constructs that have nothing to do with evolution. How would natural selection affect "liberalism"? An actual trait studied in the field would be the intrinsic ability to identify beauty, to prefer sweetness, etc. The only thing that came close was "for men, sexual exclusivity". No idea why you qualified it with "for men". You should look up evolutionary psychology before talking about it. Side: Disagree
oh, i've looked it up... an utterly fascinating theory called the savannah hypothesis explains why those particular traits are evolutionarily significant. perhaps it is YOU who needs to look things up before spouting your easy negativity. it's SO easy, isn't it? . do you ALWAYS denounce things you don't understand? Side: Agree
oh, i've looked it up... an utterly fascinating theory called the savannah hypothesis explains why those particular traits are evolutionarily significant. perhaps it is YOU who needs to look things up before spouting your easy negativity. it's SO easy, isn't it? . do you ALWAYS denounce things you don't understand? Then explain how the Savanna principle extends to liberalism and atheism. I am pretty sure you have completely misinterpreted the Savanna principle. That would explain why you think human constructs were genetically inherited from human ancestors. Side: Disagree
Then explain how the Savanna principle extends to liberalism and atheism. well, if you bothered to look it up you would know that liberalism is defined as a willingness to share scarce resources, which is not something you would do if "survival of the fittest" is your only criteria. . as for religion, it has an evolutionary function to help explain the unknown (rustling in the brush) and generally keep ppl in line... . however, it's the more curious and more intelligent of the species that go and LOOK at what's in the brush.... sometimes it's a new food that allows their genes to propagate... sometimes its a lion. . law of averages. . but the point is the "conservative" members of the tribe will cower in fear of the rustling, while the "liberal" members are the ones who innovate. Side: Agree
Seems there's something personal against flewk. nothing personal against him, or you.... feeling left out are you? Why is the fact that more intelligent people tend to be more creative (not only in value acquisition) enough to support eugenics? this was your opener? eugenics? i evoke Godwin's law Side: Agree
Yes, eugenics is my opener. The title of the debate, "People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized", coupled with the definition of eugenics, "a science that tries to improve the human race by controlling which people become parents", makes it a reasonable opener. Your post was clearly in support of the title. While you presented an interesting enough position, you failed to persuade. You never actually stated why intelligent people tending toward creativity (in value acquisition) justifies sterilizing less intelligent people (eugenics). Side: Agree
or, perhaps you are taking this way to seriously. you seem to be the only one taking the polling stats to heart... i was dis waded off that idea back when i only had 30 pts. or a you simply picking at nits in a vein attempt to intimidate? either way, may i suggest a hobby of some sort would benefit you spare time energies better than this. Side: Agree
I don't take the polling stats to heart, I take the position one takes in a debate about a given subject to be representative of an actual position and I assume it is relevant to the subject at hand. If you weren't interested in debating this topic, you might have said you changed your mind, or got bored. i was dis waded off that idea back when i only had 30 pts For all I knew you were still fully waded of this position 2 days ago when you posted it...and when I responded to it. Side: Agree
well, if you bothered to look it up you would know that liberalism is defined as a willingness to share scarce resources, which is not something you would do if "survival of the fittest" is your only criteria. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ No. You are talking about social development. Willingness to share resources is not a genetic trait, unless if you can show a source indicating otherwise. From the evolutionary stance, the preference for companionship could be considered a genetic trait. In order to maintain communal relationships, social structures will develop which are human constructs. Human constructs are not genetic. as for religion, it has an evolutionary function to help explain the unknown (rustling in the brush) and generally keep ppl in line... Religion is also a human construct. In addition, explanation of the unknown does not necessitate religion. Science also explains the unknown. Basic observation and reasoning can explain what is rustling in the brush. There is nothing to suggest that unknowns lead to genetic religion. however, it's the more curious and more intelligent of the species that go and LOOK at what's in the brush.... sometimes it's a new food that allows their genes to propagate... sometimes its a lion. . law of averages. . but the point is the "conservative" members of the tribe will cower in fear of the rustling, while the "liberal" members are the ones who innovate. You do not seem to understand what law of averages means. If the lion and berries average out, then there would be no selection potential for looking at the brush. Curiosity is probably an evolutionary trait, but curiosity has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. Intelligence has been shown to be genetic, but that still has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. They are human ideologies. From what I can tell, you are just projecting your personal liberal ideologies onto the mechanism of psychological evolution without even understanding the almost-pseudoscience. Side: Disagree
Curiosity is probably an evolutionary trait, but curiosity has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. this is where you are going wrong. it certainly IS a trait of liberalism.... in fact one of liberalism's driving forces. a willingness to try new things is what DEFINES liberalism. btw, your personal "observations" about me are meaningless. Side: Agree
it certainly IS a trait of liberalism.... in fact one of liberalism's driving forces. a willingness to try new things is what DEFINES liberalism. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ Which part of the definition shows that curiosity is a trait of liberalism? Side: Disagree
probably the 4th one comes the closest. it is evolutionarily novel to devote a greater portion of private resources to benefit genetically unrelated individuals. or as some might say "tax and spend". that was a "new thing" when our founders thought of it.... and for some it seems to still be a new and strange idea. i call those ppl conservatives. Side: Agree
probably the 4th one comes the closest. "a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities." How does that interpret as "curiosity" to you? It is regarding Protestantism, a branch of Christianity. Side: Disagree
freedom from tradition and authority curiosity drives this.... i guess you have to be a liberal to understand that. Progressiveness drives this. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ I guess you have to speak English to understand this. Side: Disagree
2
points
2
points
1
point
Would be good in the long run, but it's unethical and "mean", and lots of people have idiots in their family (even thought not that much since idiots are usually members of the same family). If only... Lmao at the amount of 2 digit IQ's making "arrogant ego you're a big jerk" "arguments" that don't make any sense, proving once again how dumb and worthless they are. Side: Agree
|
I understood completely what you meant. No, you didn't. Otherwise, you would have answered my question. Intelligence has a threshold, which is what makes such statement patently false. You should've known this (or at least had an idea). You only raise more questions by responding. How do you know that you are measuring intelligence properly? How do you know that you are evaluating the IQ score properly? Perhaps I shouldn't have presumed that everyone would understand such a simple statement. No, you should have presumed that people weren't homicidal maniacs like you and would find reasons to not kill people. Side: Disagree
3
points
You point was invalid and erroneous... what do you not understand. And wasn't it you who claimed peacocks appreciate human language, and because of that, knows how to speak it? I understand that you withdrew from the topic once you say imminent defeat, but to even ponder such a claim speaks volumes of your intellect... Perhaps you should take you own advice, flewk. Side: Agree
You point was invalid and erroneous... what do you not understand. Then quote the part of the review paper you cited that proves I was wrong. I have already shown that your own citation supports my claim. Refute those points. All you have done is claim I am wrong without showing why. And wasn't it you who claimed peacocks appreciate human language, and because of that, knows how to speak it? I understand that you withdrew from the topic once you say imminent defeat, but to even ponder such a claim speaks volumes of your intellect... What debate are you talking about? I have no recollection of debating about peacocks. Side: Agree
3
points
2
points
In the future and maybe even the near future most of these jobs would cease to exist perhaps creating more poverty and promoting the unequal wealth distribution. Why would these jobs cease to exist? Because technology. Tech innovation provides with labour for a smaller amount of energy than it would take to feed a human. Think about the huge surface area required for growing crops solely to feed the animals we eat and even if the future presents us with an entirely vegan world the exponential growth of humanity would still be a heavy burden on this planet. Therefore technology gives us the means to keep everything balanced in a future society. Side: Agree
IQ is genetic, but inheritance does not seem to be the main factor. Nurture vs Nature. Monozygotic twins tend to show the least variance in IQ which suggests a genetic relationship. However, parent and child tend to show fairly large variances, similar to those of parent and adopted children. I think your debate title would make more sense as: "Bad Parents should be Euthanized." Side: Disagree
Genes play the largest role in determining IQ, so sterilization would still be the most effective for the progression of mankind. Since it would be very difficult in practice to distinguish bad parents from good ones, as apposed to an individual taking an IQ test, the low IQ method would be the best solution, as stated previously. Side: Agree
You should read your own citations. I don't know why, but most people never bother reading them. "second law of genetics for complex traits and common disorders: All traits show substantial environmental influence, in that heritability is not 100% for any trait. Acceptance of the importance of both genetic and environmental influences leads to interest in the interplay between genes and environment, such as their interaction (moderation) and correlation (mediation) in the development of complex traits" Both are important. Let us keep reading to find out which one is most important to the variation of intelligence. "It would be reasonable to assume that as we go through life, experiences—Shakespeare’s ‘whips and scorns of time’—have a cumulative effect on intelligence, perhaps overwhelming early genetic predispositions. However, for intelligence, heritability increases linearly, from (approximately) 20% in infancy to 40% in adolescence, and to 60% in adulthood. Some evidence suggests that heritability might increase to as much as 80% in later adulthood" The effect of nurture seems to increase linearly over development. This means without the proper environment, variance increases. Let us keep reading to find out why. "Increasing heritability despite genetic stability implies some contribution from what has been called genetic amplification.57 This has recently been supported in a meta-analysis of 11500 twin and sibling pairs with longitudinal data on intelligence that found that a genetic amplification model fit the data better than a model in which new genetic influences arise with time.58 Genotype-environment correlation seems the most likely explanation in which small genetic differences are magnified as children select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic propensities. This active model of selected environments—in contrast to the traditional model of imposed environments—offers a general paradigm for thinking about how genotypes become phenotypes." "Heritability of intelligence increases dramatically from infancy through adulthood despite genetic stability" Let me refer to my original comment: "IQ is genetic, but inheritance does not seem to be the main factor. Nurture vs Nature." My source noted how environment was a larger factor than genes where variance becomes 0 with low socioeconomic status (you probably did not read mine either). You chose a review article to dispute my claims without actually reading it. It notes that the amplification of gene expression by the environment leads to the largest variances in intelligence which directly supports my point. Side: Disagree
Genetics plays the largest role influences a child's drive to learn, how well they learn, and influences their settings in which they wish be. And since you say environment plays the largest role, and one's genetics heavily influences their environmental attraction through which their IQ is molded, it would follow, then, that genes play the largest role in determining IQ. I read my own citations. If you fail to understand what is meant by them, well... I don't know how else to help you really.. Side: Agree
Your points points to environmental effects. And as previously stated, genes influence the environment in which a child wishes to be, and hence genes heavily determine the outcome of one's IQ. Now you countered by reducing to 'well not that much study has shown [...]' when plenty of study has shown the effect that genetic makeup has on the influence of a child environment. Then you issued red herring saying, well the child doesn't choose his/her environment. Though this may be true, this line of reasoning would entail a slippery slope. Perhaps i should've said, "assuming the child was not born in a Nazi concentration camp". Perhaps your not exactly sure of the type of environmental stimuli a child needs to develop her IQ? Side: Agree
Your points points to environmental effects. And as previously stated, genes influence the environment in which a child wishes to be, and hence genes heavily determine the outcome of one's IQ. Now you countered by reducing to 'well not that much study has shown [...]' when plenty of study has shown the effect that genetic makeup has on the influence of a child environment. It seems like you are confused about this too. It is just a supposition used to explain large variances during development. There has been no study done to verify this supposition, at least none that I have seen. Maybe you should cite one of the "plenty of stud[ies]". PS: The review paper you cited earlier actually refutes that explanation and uses the genetic amplification model (which supports my original point). Then you issued red herring saying, well the child doesn't choose his/her environment. Though this may be true, this line of reasoning would entail a slippery slope. Perhaps i should've said, "assuming the child was not born in a Nazi concentration camp". Obvious Nazi strawman aside, you have misinterpreted my earlier statement. A child does not choose his/her environment, not because the parents are fascist, but because children are under the care of the parents. Like I already pointed out several times, the socioeconomic status of the family is out of the control of the child. Just because the child is predisposed towards a specific environment does not mean it will be available to the child. Kind of weird how you use a the accusation of a red herring as a red herring. By the way, you still have not responded to my previous argument which was supported by scientific papers. Side: Disagree
Just clicked on the link. Looks like you gave up trying to understand actual scientific studies/review papers. That is just a magazine article that tried to interpret the study for the reader. It seemed to have failed the first try: "*Correction, 7 October, 12:20 p.m.: This item originally stated that 62% of academic achievement could be attributed to genetic factors. In fact, the research showed that 62% of the differences between individual students' GCSE scores were attributed to genetic factors." Side: Disagree
It was a credible science article... You're now telling me articles aren't a valid source of reference... Though the source you issued was also an science article, perhaps inadvertent hypocrisy? I could also reduce to such fallacies by saying no site on the internet is a valid source of reference, perhaps even no reference, including the scientists behind the study, is valid until we both see the results ourselves with our own eyes (and not through fallible video). But, it doesn't stop there, as our own senses are highly fallible and therefore we mustn't.... I'm sorry, flewk, I have no intentions delving into Descarte's Meditations 1 & 2. Side: Agree
It was a credible science article... You're now telling me articles aren't a valid source of reference... I could also reduce to such fallacies by saying no site on the internet is a valid source of reference, perhaps even no reference, including the scientists behind the study, is valid until we both see the results ourselves with our own eyes (and not through fallible video). But, it doesn't stop there, as our own senses are highly fallible and therefore we mustn't.... I never claimed it was not a credible magazine article. I just pointed out that it was not a paper published in a scientific journal. I used that point to mock your previous misinterpretation of a "complex" review paper. Side: Disagree
Furthermore genetics plays the largest role influences a child's drive to learn and influences their settings to which they wish be in. And since you say the environment plays the largest role, and one's genetics heavily influences their environmental attraction through which molds IQ, it would follow, then, that genes play the largest role in determining IQ. You are referring to the hypothesis that certain genes might predispose a child to specific environments or methods. There has been no significant objective study on this topic. The reason for this is mentioned below. The environment that a child wishes to be in or is predisposed to does not just magically appear around them. The environment that a child is exposed to depends on the parents and their socioeconomic status (a lot of other factors as well). As indicated by my first source, socioeconomic status can completely "zero out" the heritability of intelligence. Side: Disagree
3
points
Well.. He have argued many times that animals have a different sort of intelligence that is not measured accurately by IQ tests. It similarly follows that some humans also have intelligences that is not measured by IQ. I think it is important to note this. Anyhow... I have an uncle that has an IQ of around 80. He spends every week day packing boxes in a factory. He rarely takes day off sick and is a very efficient worker. He contributes a lot to his employer. Do you think you could do what he does? Spend your whole life packing boxes? I couldn't. Quite frankly, he is a lot more use to society than someone such as yourself. Side: Disagree
he is a lot more use to society than someone such as yourself. Why do all your arguments come from the presumption that you know me? Surely you can debate someone without assuming that half of your [mis]perceptions of them are true... or is that the only way you can even debate someone such as me? Side: Agree
Most of your arguments are only meant for abasing me and not actually debating. This is understandable as when we do debate intellectual matters, you seem to be incapable of comprehending my points. You assert thing such as "murder is objectively wrong because most people in the world agree with this" fallacies such as this are typically made by individuals lacking the intellectual ability to comprehend what would follow from such statement. Or the dispute a physical 's' that daver had to politely explain to you what was meant by my statement, it took him for you to tacitly concede that you were wrong; it also took amarel for you to understand that your statement regarding murder was semantically flawed. Side: Agree
I have an uncle that has an IQ of around 80. He spends every week day packing boxes in a factory. He rarely takes day off sick and is a very efficient worker. He contributes a lot to his employer. Do you think you could do what he does? Spend your whole life packing boxes? I couldn't. I didn't see this as being worthy of a response. However, a high IQ society would surly be innovative enough to have machines pack boxes for them; actually, most factories do that now. Essentially all I received from this statement was that low IQs seem to be reverberated down your families bloodline, and that your uncle works for a company with presumably low productivity, since its manufacturers' still use humans for tasks that machines can do speedily. Side: Agree
I didn't see this as being worthy of a response. However, a high IQ society would surly be innovative enough to have machines pack boxes for them; actually, most factories do that now. Oh right they should use machines!!! Right. I will tell them that right away. Thank you so much for telling me. Side: Disagree
Oh and while I'm at it I will also contact this long list of companies that are currently looking for packers: http://www.indeed.com/ Funny thing is... if I presented this to anyone else they would think "oh yeah whoops, that was a bit stupid of me. Of course an investment of millions of dollars in packing machines isn't viable for every business. My bad". But what you will probably do now is one of two things 1) decide that this wasn't what you meant a convince yourself, and maybe try and convince me too, that I have misunderstood. 2) Say that all these businesses are stupid and you, the zoology/psychology/general studies student has solved everyones production problems with saying "machines!!!!! stupid! Use machines!!!". Side: Disagree
Actually, no. I will bring back the original issue which was your uncle packing boxes with a low IQ which therefore indicates that low IQ individuals have a significant importance to society. I just refuted that with if we had a high IQ society, [machines] would easily replace most manual labor through innovation by intelligent individuals. You went off on a tangent by trying to prove that companies still use workers for packing-a statement that I never disagreed with. All I am basically saying is that there is no need for workers to pack boxes as we clearly have the technology to do so, and much more quickly. Surely you can understand such a simple point? Side: Agree
All I am basically saying is that there is no need for workers to pack boxes as we clearly have the technology to do so, and much more quickly. Surely you can understand such a simple point? God you're a fuckwit. Look, it is extremely simple. Some jobs need hand packing. You agree with this. I just refuted that with if we had a high IQ society, [machines] would easily replace most manual labor through innovation by intelligent individuals. . For example, one job my uncle was telling me about was putting bonnets on jam jars and putting them in to individual boxes. This company contracts the packing company to do. It is a fairly small order. Why would anyone invest in specialist machinery worth millions of dollars to do such a small job? How is that viable? You call yourself an entrepreneur.. you don't have a clue. Side: Disagree
With your line of reasoning half of the revolutionary innovations created for 'simple things' would have never been invented. You obviously refute the fact that technology is replacing manual labor even down to simplistic functions. To build one continuously effective machine that will replace an individual collecting a salary is not counterproductive. Now maybe his company cant afford such a machine but I will say, and it is quite obvious, that if it could afford such a contraption, it would purchase it (please do tell me if this company is garage-run or otherwise). I must say that it is quite comical that you're the first individual who thinks machinery will not replace virtually all forms manual labor eventually. Of course garage-run businesses will probably continue such an archaic form of labor, but when they enter the corporate level they will discontinue such concept. (Note: using the term "millions" is an exaggeration with respect to the theoretical machine. If the job is really so simple, a small machine programmed to do [your uncle's] task would most certainty not be worth 'millions'.) Side: Agree
My uncle worked for maybe 2 months of this jam jar thing. Then be was packing something else. To you the company should invest in robots every couple of months? We are getting off track. Even if my uncle was the person that loading the items from the lorry onto the machine... And never took a sick day and worked as hard as he could at it etc etc he would be worth as much as someone with a high IQ. It would be a job that someone with a high IQ would simply not do. Side: Disagree
My uncle worked for maybe 2 months of this jam jar thing. Then be was packing something else. To you the company should invest in robots every couple of months? Ha, no. Just reprogram the robot to do different tasks as most factories do. We are getting off track. Even if my uncle was the person that loading the items from the lorry onto the machine... And never took a sick day and worked as hard as he could at it etc etc he would be worth as much as someone with a high IQ. It would be a job that someone with a high IQ would simply not do. Exactly, and my point is a company could purchase a small machine, and someone with a high IQ would just simply program the machine to do whatever task that need be done. It costs way less than paying someone a salary for reasons that would go off the topic even further (though if you would like an economical equation as to why this would be the case I will be more than happy to provide it). Side: Agree
2
points
Sterilizing people would insensitively suppressing the emotional side of intelligence. There are numerous ways to boost IQ scores in a society. Probably the most effective way would be advancing child care and pre-school programs as is now advocated by the democratic party. A lot of research has gone into this proposition. Sterilizing people would be unnecessary and ineffective because recessive genes are carried by intelligent people. Side: Disagree
2
points
2
points
People can be smart and not work hard. People can be less smart and still make a profound impact on society. It truly depends on the person. I can see this argument revolves around the female race, too. Besides, how can abortion be claimed illegal by some while this isn't? We live in the 21st century. Equality is what we strive for. Side: Disagree
2
points
People who lack intelligence have definitely been proven to have an impact on society. People who have less intelligence tend to be more emotional and dramatic, therefore their drama tends to gloss over matters and blind people to logic, so many emotional and less intelligent reporters for example tend to create a false blind over logical matters across the world, so they need to be reduced in the population to stop them from blinding people. Of course they need to be sterilised, they are the people who are in fact the most likely to blind other people who would usually be more interested in logic. Side: Agree
2
points
I believe that there is a difference between those who lack intelligence, and those who does not have an inherited intelligence. People who does not have an inherited intelligence have lower IQ scores, while those who lack intelligence is determined according to their behaviours and views that are already developed. They are the people who are in fact the most likely to blind other people, not necessarily those with a low IQ score. A person with a low IQ score can always improve and move forward. Side: Disagree
1
point
People who make the best decisions in fact actually have the highest I.Q's. Intelligence is the ability for the brain to make connections. If someone has a high I.Q. they are able to make lots of brain connections. If someone has a low I.Q. they are incapable of making brain connections. That is why if you explain a VERY SLIGHTLY COMPLICATED topic to a low I.Q. person and he understand after explaining it to him for hours, he then tends to forget what you had told him later, or struggles to apply what he has been told. High I.Q. people can apply things they have learnt, low I.Q. people can't, even if they understand the topic at hand. So you may say someone is learned, but they have no ability to apply and connect what they have learned. So, no, learned and low I.Q. people are not able to make and apply things to make good decisions, even if they were given a book that given them knowledge of everything there is to know. Side: Agree
2
points
I believe that there is a difference between those who lack intelligence, and those who does not have an inherited intelligence. People who does not have an inherited intelligence have lower IQ scores, while those who lack intelligence is determined according to their behaviours and views that are already developed, but can still have a high IQ. They are the people who are in fact the most likely to blind other people, not necessarily those with a low IQ score. A person with a low IQ score can always improve and move forward. Side: Disagree
1
point
2
points
2
points
3
points
You misunderstand the point. Basically the idea is that everyone is intelligent in different ways, you can't just pin it all into one test, its the same idea as Einstein's quote: "Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its life believing that it is stupid." IQ tests are using an objective standpoint, they don't (and can't) test for every form of cognitive ability in a person making them fairly useless to accurately test a person's intelligence. Even for people that are intelligent in the selected areas. Side: Disagree
1
point
2
points
No, it doesn't. An IQ test measures for one of them, which simply doesn't work to measure a person's intelligence accurately by any stretch. http://www.webmd. http://listverse.com/2013/05/19/ Side: Disagree
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
The article stated there were three main types of intellect, not four, as you stated, nowhere did it ever mention the number four. And it said that there are more than just three types of IQ. Really? Those categories of three sum up the entire meaning of intelligence. Reading something and then twisting what an article says does you no good. And where in the article did it say that the IQ only addresses 1 element of intelligence? Not even those articles had ever stated something quite as dumb, that statement only just came from your mouth alone. The IQ covers the three most major intelligence skills, cognition, reckognition/memory and verbal. What a hoot! Side: Agree
1
point
"Reading something and then twisting what an article says does you no good." I completely agree, and yes I was wrong about there being four it was three. However you pointing that out and recognizing it destroys your position. "They discovered that far from being down to one single factor, what is commonly regarded as intelligence is influenced by three different elements - short-term memory, reasoning, and verbal ability. But being good at one of these factors does not mean you are going to be equally gifted at the other two." " They found that different parts of the brain were activated when they were tested on each of the three factors." "IQ tests are misleading because they do not accurately reflect intelligence, according to a study which found that a minimum of three different exams are needed to measure someone's brainpower." "Single tests that measure intelligence quotient, or IQ, may become a thing of the past. A new study of more than 100,000 participants suggests that there may be at least three distinct components of intelligence. So you could not give a single, unified score for all of them." - those are all quotes from my sources. You have failed to reference anything, and instead have tried to pit your own opinion against a study done that used 100,000 participants. You're arguments are nothing more than you stating your position and saying you're right combined with ad hominem bullshit. You have also provided no arguments whatsoever supporting your position that people with low IQ scores should be sterilized. Side: Disagree
1
point
An IQ covers reasoning, short-term memory and verbal ability all in one package, which when put together puts together all of the different parts that the brain uses and covers a persons full intelligence. If someone gains their whole IQ of lets say for example 100 from just the skill of verbal ability then they have still achieved 100points of intellect, it is just that they have a different brain skill than the person who has achieved 100 points from reasoning ability and different types of intelligence makes up for the other. However, if someones intelligence falls below a certain line no matter how much their balance of the three different intelligence types is arranged, they are still too be recognised as being deficit in the mind and having incompetence. As for how many IQ tests are needed? Well, that all depends on how many questions there. Side: Agree
1
point
An IQ covers reasoning, short-term memory and verbal ability all in one package An IQ test COULD cover reasoning, short-term memory, and verbal ability. But that would require it to have three different sections, and only one of those sections would have the traditional questions found in an IQ test. While this could be done, it has yet to be, And again, your position on sterilization of people with low IQ's is still void. Side: Disagree
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
How in any way does a traditional IQ test (a set of questions) test verbal ability? Or short-term memory? You need a differently designed test for that to work as the articles I referenced proved. My proof isn't a position I am making just one I am supporting and referencing because it is more qualified than you or me. Side: Disagree
1
point
How does a traditional IQ test verbal ability and memory? By asking different questions as well as being moderated by some exam-board like rating scheme. The same way that exams are able to test things like verbal ability, because they are judged objectively by an exam board based on what the right answers should be based on a key. Side: Agree
1
point
In order to judge verbal ability you need the person to have that portion of the test to be tested verbally, hence "verbal". As to short-term memory, you would again need a separate portion of the test with some sort of memory game. Our brains work differently when they are tested different ways, you cannot simply pin it all down to questions on a sheet. The test would have to go more in depth and use different methods in different areas to test for different types of mental ability. As I said, an IQ test could theoretically do this, however traditional ones such as the Mensa test don't work to pinpoint a person's intellect accurate enough to be considered legitimate. Side: Disagree
1
point
It is fully possible to have a memory game on a sheet of paper. By denying that, you are also saying that it is impossible to play board games on sheets of paper, when in fact it is fully possible. Can't pin it all down on a sheet? Well, then IQ tests can consist of lots of sheets! Having your verbal abilities tested is like taking an English exam. Sorry you failed Mensa by 100 IQ points. Side: Agree
1
point
Actually I got a 134, not that it's relevant. And yes, it is possible to have a memory game on a sheet of paper, but I said a short term one. I.e. one that is timed quickly. The best way to do that is to have some sort of computer program run it, it would be near impossible to just give someone a sheet of paper with questions on it and get an accurate representation of their short-term memory. If you formatted the test differently by like telling them a string of answers then having them do it then I would change my objection on that point Next, no "like an English exam" wouldn't cut it for verbal ability. Verbal ability is your ability to speak on your feet, and well. As in an impromptu speech of some sort. Or really just a regular conversation, and how well you can come up with intelligent responses. Regardless, the point is that it can't be done with just a sheet of paper. Side: Disagree
1
point
An IQ test is a test of how long it takes for someone to complete the entire IQ test, individual tests don't have to be timed. For memory tests, a person could look at a sheet of paper, observe it, then simply not look back at the sheet of paper. Or a person could complete a complicated puzzle that is run on nothing but sheer memory. A person could try to devise something in their head, write it on sheet 1, then write what they have already devised on sheet 2 based on what their memory is of what they had devised on sheet 1. A person could also have to remember certain numbers, but the person being tested could be made to put a highlighter other those numbers within the test as a part of some puzzle, so the person being tested is not able to look back at a number that has been highlighted or marked with some deep colour. There are numerous ways. Surprisingly, you seem to have an IQ of 134, amazing considering your not that smart, or maybe I'm just severely underestimating my own intelligence and perhaps my IQ is far beyond just 134 (I never took my results from an IQ, so I don't know what my IQ actually is). Though I suspect that I am a complete genius. Obviously someone like me is certainly an utter Geniusâ„¢. Verbal ability is the ability to think of your feet, well, just time the whole IQ test then. Everything on an IQ test applies to being quick enough to answer, so timing the entire IQ test tends to be sufficient enough. And as a matter of fact, now days many IQ tests are actually on computers, so your point about IQ's just being on sheets of paper is now actually quite mute. Side: Agree
1
point
For memory tests, a person could look at a sheet of paper, observe it, then simply not look back at the sheet of paper.Or a person could complete a complicated puzzle that is run on nothing but sheer memory. A person could try to devise something in their head, write it on sheet 1, then write what they have already devised on sheet 2 based on what their memory is of what they had devised on sheet 1. A person could also have to remember certain numbers, but the person being tested could be made to put a highlighter other those numbers within the test as a part of some puzzle, so the person being tested is not able to look back at a number that has been highlighted or marked with some deep colour. There are numerous ways. I agree, and as I have said multiple times a test could be made to meet these requirements. My point is that one has yet to exist (or at least be prominent enough) Though I suspect that I am a complete genius. Obviously someone like me is certainly an utter Geniusâ„¢. "Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity" - Frank Leahy Verbal ability is the ability to think of your feet, well, just time the whole IQ test then. Verbal ability is the ability to think on your feet verbally. There would have to be a component of speech. And as a matter of fact, now days many IQ tests are actually on computers, so your point about IQ's just being on sheets of paper is now actually quite mute. My point on sheets of paper was simply rhetoric for a list of questions. Side: Disagree
1
point
A lot of puzzles now days do require memory, you just don't realise it. And the extent of short-term memory that you feel needs to be test isn't actually a part of IQ. To some extent memory is connected to intelligence, such as the ability to access that memory, but to the extent that you imply, it isn't connected to intelligence. Side: Agree
1
point
And the extent of short-term memory that you feel needs to be test isn't actually a part of IQ. And that is my point. IQ tests don't go far enough. To some extent memory is connected to intelligence, such as the ability to access that memory, but to the extent that you imply, it isn't connected to intelligence. You would need a fixed definition to determine intellect in order to make an assertion like that. Side: Disagree
1
point
1
point
Additionally, you have all but dropped the argument on whether or not people with low IQ's should be sterilized. The only assumption we can make from this is that you agree with my points on it, seeing as you've been ignoring that that is the main point of this debate. You cannot answer them simply because it is a flawed position to take, and you know that. Side: Disagree
1
point
1
point
Yes, I would. However, that is not a reason to take away their reproductive rights. What if they were to go to another country? While it is possible, it is difficult to undo sterilization. Not that that is my only objection to it, whether a person is an idiot or not is no reason to say that they cannot have kids. It's inhumane, and dehumanizing to say that if the government doesn't see you as sufficient then your bloodline should die there and you can't have kids. Side: Disagree
1
point
1
point
You misunderstood my point of going to a different country. My point was that if they were to go to a different country where sterilization was not a law then it would be difficult for them to have the procedure undone. And again, it is still a horrible idea to have the government decide based on a biased standard who gets to have reproductive rights or not. Side: Disagree
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
Say what about Sarah Palin? You said I was stupid like Sarah Palin after I said you were stupid like Sarah Palin. You then conveniently forgot I brought her up. You mean that she is your favourite fan? She is a fan of me? How does she even know me? You love butting your nose in, don't ya? You didn't seem to mind before. Try to make a coherent argument. I have and you were still confused. You should want me to be vague so you have an excuse. Side: Agree
1
point
I assumed you were talking about ghostheadx's response, not AveSatanas. You shouldn't have because I have made it very clear what we should be talking about. Well, ghostheadx is AveSatanas No. Plus, that would be irrelevant. There are 2 different accounts. Even if it was the same physical person. but what I meant was when he was posting as ghostheadx. Yes, well when he was posting as ghostheadx he wasn't making a joke. I think we had both thought of the wrong quote. No, just you. What does any of that have to do with what we were discussing in this debate? Side: Agree
1
point
It was all your fault. Wrong again stupid forgetful fucko. Your desire not to just back down after I said I got the wrong quote proves you have been terribly affected by my "snakiness". I did back down you dumb ass. You were completely unclear as to which quote you were referring to, Cartgirl. No, it was unclear to someone who is too stupid to know who Muhammad Ali was. I mentioned AveSatanas over and over. Side: Agree
1
point
You did back down? Did is past tense. I backed down. It doesn't look like it. Yeah, that's because you are continuing to claim something youalready admitted you were mistaken about. And why did you back down, may I ask? You admitted you were wrong. Look here, I've only been polite. It isn't polite to lie about what other people have said. Side: Agree
1
point
Your statements are all A to B and simplistic. You are asking whether you have "backed down" or finished moaning? You obviously DID not quit moaning, otherwise you would not have continued to DO so right now. DID is PAST tense. DO is PRESENT tense. You can DO something only in the PAST tense, if the action you are committing happens to be in the PAST tense. However, the action you are doing happens to be in the PRESENT tense. And it was you who claimed to not "back down", not me, right? Therefore, you have not "backed down" or quit moaning and whining. Thanks for revealing yet again your own lies. Side: Disagree
My statements are simplistic and you still can't understand them. Sad. You are asking whether you have "backed down" or finished moaning? No. Was there a question mark? You obviously DID not quit moaning, otherwise you would not have continued to DO so right now. I did until you continued forgetting what you had admitted. Therefore, you have not "backed down" or quit moaning and whining. Thanks for revealing yet again your own lies. I told you that I stopped backing down. Remember when you admitted that you were wrong about what we were discussing. Remember how you are now continuing to argue that you aren't interpreting the wrong statement. Why would I continue to back down if you are going to stop admitting you were wrong? Side: Agree
1
point
1
point
You shouldn't really refer to it as "backing down". What you meant was you didn't quit whining. There was not a moment when you have ever hesitated to stop whining. Ali Muhammed is some insignificant boxer, I don't pay much attention to him. We all know who he is, just like we all know who Sarah Palin is, yet most of us don't pay any attention to her. Side: Disagree
I did quit whining. Then you stopped believing you made the mistake that you admitted you made, so I went back to whining. That doesn't mean for the very brief moment where you admitted your mistake that I didn't back down. Muhammad Ali is the most famous boxer of all time. You are the insignificant one. You don't pay attention to anything. Everyone but you knows who he is. Side: Agree
1
point
No, just no. I admitted that perhaps we had gotten the wrong quotes and confused the quotes and failed to know which quotes we are both talking about, but you refused to accept this and tried hopelessly to berate me by saying that I somehow should have known. It was your responsibility, though, not mine however. You should have been more clear. Side: Disagree
Yes, just yes. You should have fucking known. I said exactly what quote we were talking about. I corrected you over and over. I knew it was my responsibility to tell you. It was your responsibility to listen and you didn't at all. I could not have been any clearer. You are that dense. Side: Agree
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
It is your responsibility if you want to have any reputation. Nothing you say will force me to listen to you. You can't make people listen to you. You have no authority at all, I have no obligation to listen to you. "You said it was my responsibility. Now you are taking away my authority." Responsibility is not authority. Side: Disagree
1
point
You gave me the responsibility to make sure that you were informed of the topic that I am discussing. You also don't want to listen to what I am saying. My interactions with you have helped my reputation since I have shown much restraint. Your reputation is horrible. Side: Agree
1
point
You don't have any authority to decide what I should belief. I'm not informed, you don't need to inform me of anything and you haven't tried. You're a hypocrite telling me about what a reputation should be. What restrain have you ever shown? Don't claim to be full of integrity after twisting everything round. Side: Disagree
I never said I should have authority to decide what you believe. You said I didn't even have the authority to have you listen to me. I like how you twisted around what authority I was talking about. If you aren't informed wouldn't it be nice for others to inform you? I tried plenty. Just because you are still uninformed doesn't mean I didn't try, especially if you won't listen to me. I said nothing hypocritical about reputation. You have no idea how much you deserve to be yelled at. I have held back quite a bit from what you really deserve. I haven't twisted anything. Side: Agree
1
point
You can't force people to listen to you. I already have heard everything you had said and yet you constantly insulted me. You can't make anyone agree with you, people have opinions of their own. "You have no idea how much you deserve to be yelled at. I have held back quite a bit from what you really deserve." There's that word again, "deserve". It's emotive and strong emotive language is normally used to force ones views upon another. Side: Disagree
You have already admitted that you haven't been listening to me. Stop lying about listening to me. I am not even at the stage of trying to get you to agree with me. I am trying to just get you to agree to discuss the same topic as me. You know, what you assigned as my responsibility. I used that language to point out that you should be yelled at, not that you should change your mind about your opinions. The problem is that your opinions involve ignoring facts. You should believe facts. Side: Agree
1
point
I am not even at the stage of trying to get you to agree with me. I am trying to just get you to agree to discuss the same topic as me. What topic do you want me to discuss? You want me to get in to a discussion involving your worthless smears? What discussion? Look at the topic of this thread and debate that. I am not even at the stage of trying to get you to agree with me. I am trying to just get you to agree to discuss the same topic as me. You know, what you assigned as my responsibility You said I should have listened to you, that is not my responsibility. If you want someone else to listen you must try to make sure they know you are worthy of being listened to. Respect is earned, you can't get people to respect you either. I used that language to point out that you should be yelled at, not that you should change your mind about your opinions. The problem is that your opinions involve ignoring facts. You should believe facts. The only reason you came to this debate was to prove that I ought to be yelled at? Is that it? I'm certainly not having this discussion. Side: Disagree
What topic do you want me to discuss? So, you haven't been listening. You want me to get in to a discussion involving your worthless smears? You mean truthful statements. What discussion? Muhammad Ali the boxer and what a joke is. Look at the topic of this thread and debate that. Fuck you. You change the topic. You said I should have listened to you, that is not my responsibility. Yes it is you stupid fuck. It is your responsibility to listen to someone if you assign that person the responsibility of telling you something. If you want someone else to listen you must try to make sure they know you are worthy of being listened to Try not to ignore people BEFORE you learn about them. Respect is earned, you can't get people to respect you either. So, you admit that the complete lack of respect you get on here is your own fault. Excellent. The only reason you came to this debate was to prove that I ought to be yelled at? No, to point out your misguided ways. Is that it? Nope. You asked for it. I'm certainly not having this discussion. Your MO. Never have the discussion you signed up for. Side: Agree
2
points
So, you haven't been listening I have listened well enough, but you have accused me of listening. Still doesn't prove that you can't get people to listen to you. You mean truthful statements. It's all about you, isn't it? Muhammad Ali the boxer and what a joke is. You don't know what a joke is. Tell me all about it. Yes it is you stupid fuck. It is your responsibility to listen to someone if you assign that person the responsibility of telling you something. You can ensure that somebody will listen to you by starting off the way you have a conversation in a respectful way, at the start you were disrespectful, so that gave me the right not to listen to you. Try not to ignore people BEFORE you learn about them. When did I ignore you? And the way you start off a conversation shows enough about what a person is really like. So, you admit that the complete lack of respect you get on here is your own fault. Excellent Really, I have a lack of respect? Nope. You asked for it. Don't try to be such a big boy. Your MO. Never have the discussion you signed up for. Yet again, another smear. Side: Disagree
You can ensure that somebody will listen to you by starting off the way you have a conversation in a respectful way, at the start you were disrespectful, so that gave me the right not to listen to you. I was not disrespectful at the start. You started it. Before I ever insulted you you said: "I just wasn't sure and just took your stupidity for granted. I find you rather arrogant." Side: Agree
2
points
I was not disrespectful at the start. You started it. Before I ever insulted you you said: "I just wasn't sure and just took your stupidity for granted. I find you rather arrogant." I only said those comments because you were telling me what I ought to be talking about like you were somehow the boss, when the thread said otherwise. It's due to the language you use and your choice of words as well. You need to avoid using strict language too often, it's not just because of the insults you have thrown at me. Side: Disagree
I only said those comments because you were telling me what I ought to be talking about like you were somehow the boss, when the thread said otherwise. I told you what you ought to be talking about after you wrongfully told me what I ought to be talking about. You were talking about the wrong thing and I was respectfully trying to tell you that you were talking about the wrong thing. It's due to the language you use and your choice of words as well. I didn't use words that would be considered disrespectful at that point. You need to avoid using strict language too often, it's not just because of the insults you have thrown at me. Your language was worse since you were using strict language and telling me to do something wrong. Side: Agree
1
point
1
point
1
point
Oh, I got it now. You think talking about the things you actually know about ("I") is not telling the truth, and discussing what someone else is doing that you don't actually know about is truth. Yeah, that is wrong. You gotta try to tell the truth, it's not all about you. Truth is, I know about myself. Side: Agree
1
point
The whole discussion is not all about you, you may know yourself, but that doesn't mean you can judge other people. I never said it was all about me. I stated true statements about myself and you called me a liar because I talked about myself. You're too interested your judgements of other people. What are you actually interested in? You haven't revealed it yet. Side: Agree
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Is that an ad hominem? :) "Control freak" is a good reply to all of your ad hominins, accusations and smear. You told me whether I had any right to ask questions and you demanded I didn't, according to you. That is the essence of being a control freak. Not all questions are a part of debating. Your question was not an argument. I had asked whether you genuinely believed that people with low IQ's harmed society and you proceeded to tell me that I was not debating properly. I feel I had asked something perfectly relevant. People aren't answerable to you, otherwise you would be given that recognition. Side: Disagree
"Control freak" is a good reply to all of your ad hominins, accusations and smear. Do you feel like I am trying to control you? You told me whether I had any right to ask questions and you demanded I didn't, according to you. What? I never said anything like that. You asked a question and the answer happened to be insulting. I was simply answering a question. I had asked whether you genuinely believed that people with low IQ's harmed society and you proceeded to tell me that I was not debating properly. That's not why I was accused of an ad hominem. I did not say you weren't debating properly simply because you asked about whether low IQ's harmed society. I thought that was a perfectly fine question to ask and I answered it. I feel I had asked something perfectly relevant. Did you ever think that me answering the question meant that I believed it was relevant too? People aren't answerable to you, otherwise you would be given that recognition. Your imagination is getting away from you again I am afraid. Side: Agree
1
point
Do you feel like I am trying to control you? I don't feel anything. It isn't "feel". What I know is that you are out of your way clearly to control and order other peoples responses, you need to stop being so bossy. What? I never said anything like that. You asked a question and the answer happened to be insulting. I was simply answering a question. That appears bossy, yet again. An insult isn't really an answer to a question. I wanted to know whether you actually believed that it would harm society in general if stupid people were allowed to breed. It shouldn't really have anything to do with me posting on the internet. OK, you said that since I was only apparently trolling create I was not really causing anybody any physical harm even though you proposed I was an idiot? Well, what if I was an idiot? How would you know that I haven't caused people harm in the real world? Whether not I or some idiot had harmed someone in real life has absolutely nothing to do with whether I have posted something somehow perceived as inflammatory on the internet. That's not why I was accused of an ad hominem. I did not say you weren't debating properly simply because you asked about whether low IQ's harmed society. I thought that was a perfectly fine question to ask and I answered it. Did you not say that I was not debating properly and I told you that I had merely asked you a question and you had told me that asking questions isn't debating? That's as far as I remember it. Side: Disagree
I don't feel anything. It isn't "feel". What I know is that you are out of your way clearly to control and order other peoples responses, you need to stop being so bossy. I am really sorry that I try to keep you on topic. I know that it makes you feel terrible when ever you actually join in a conversation. That appears bossy, yet again. What the fuck does the word bossy mean to you? I only talked about what I was doing. An insult isn't really an answer to a question. When the question is "why don't you like me?" the answer is very likely to be insulting. I wanted to know whether you actually believed that it would harm society in general if stupid people were allowed to breed. It shouldn't really have anything to do with me posting on the internet. What was wrong with my answer of "no"? OK, you said that since I was only apparently trolling create I was not really causing anybody any physical harm even though you proposed I was an idiot? That fits in with my belief system. I have made it clear that I don't think that idiots definitely cause harm. Well, what if I was an idiot? How would you know that I haven't caused people harm in the real world? Whether not I or some idiot had harmed someone in real life has absolutely nothing to do with whether I have posted something somehow perceived as inflammatory on the internet. This conflicts with your overall argument. My argument is that we should treat people who are harmful as harmful. You want to treat idiots as harmful before finding out if they are harmful. If I can't determine how harmful you are from your intelligence in your posts, how can you determine if someone is harmful from answering questions in a test? Did you not say that I was not debating properly and I told you that I had merely asked you a question and you had told me that asking questions isn't debating? Correct, I did not say that. That isn't the series of events that took place. I have told you over and over that you aren't debating properly and none of that was ever during a conversation we had about you asking questions. You asked a question and I answered it in an accurate, but insulting way. The question was not related to the debate topic. It was not an argument, it was simply a question. I never said that there was anything wrong with asking that question. I said that since it was not part of the debate, my response can't be considered an ad hominem by definition. Keep asking questions, but don't ask anything you don't want to get the answer to (That's advice, not a rule I am forcing upon you). That's as far as I remember it. Not good for the guy who has admitted to a bad memory. Side: Agree
1
point
I am really sorry that I try to keep you on topic. I know that it makes you feel terrible when ever you actually join in a conversation. How Cocky and Pedantic. What the fuck does the word bossy mean to you? I only talked about what I was doing. You seemed to be talking about what my responses should be. You're too critical. When the question is "why don't you like me?" the answer is very likely to be insulting. We're not talking about that question. We are talking about when I had asked you why I believe people with low IQ's should be sterilised. You clearly are spinning yourself up and confusing yourself. Spin right round in circles. What was wrong with my answer of "no"? That wasn't what you had said originally. Your hands in cookie jar as you say this. That fits in with my belief system. I have made it clear that I don't think that idiots definitely cause harm. You haven't really provided any evidence for your claim. This conflicts with your overall argument. My argument is that we should treat people who are harmful as harmful. You want to treat idiots as harmful before finding out if they are harmful. If I can't determine how harmful you are from your intelligence in your posts, how can you determine if someone is harmful from answering questions in a test? Yet again, you make it out like it's all about me. It isn't. It is about whether you think idiots in general are harmful in the real world. "If I can't determine how harmful you are from your intelligence in your posts, how can you determine if someone is harmful from answering questions in a test?" You can determine how harmful someone is in the real world by reading their posts, but someone is incapable of being harmful on an internet forum, obviously. All I had said is that you had provided no evidence of how an idiot is harmful in the REAL WORLD. We aren't talking about online. Correct, I did not say that. That isn't the series of events that took place. I have told you over and over that you aren't debating properly and none of that was ever during a conversation we had about you asking questions. You had told me about a few times that I wasn't debating properly, but you have no validity to CRITICISE or INSIST that I am not, when I clearly am. (That's advice, not a rule I am forcing upon you). Insulting, Critising and Insisting upon something with Stern Language is not advice. You're insult about me being an idiot on a debating site being proof that idiots do not harm the real world is meaningless. You can only harm someone offline, not online. Invalid argument. If YOU don't have any evidence, just don't go down that root. Side: Disagree
You seemed to be talking about what my responses should be. You're too critical. I am too critical if you are right. But, as I pointed out, you were wrong. I was not talking about what your responses should be. We're not talking about that question. Great, another time you joined in on a conversation and didn't know what you were talking about. We are talking about when I had asked you why I believe people with low IQ's should be sterilised. Why were we talking about that? You asked the question and I fucking answered it. Why are you now complaining that I didn't answer your question? Did I answer the question earlier or not? You clearly are spinning yourself up and confusing yourself. No, stupid forgetful fucko, I am still the only one between us who actually knows what we are talking about. Spin right round in circles. You certainly do. That wasn't what you had said originally. Your hands in cookie jar as you say this. Then, how was I able to find this: blizzardbird(124) Disputed 1 point Anyway, do you believe people with low IQ's ought to be sterilised? 22hrs ago Side: Agree Cartman(12063) 1 point No. Even though I hate you, I don't think people like you should be sterilized. You haven't really provided any evidence for your claim. We have already established that it is ok to speculate and leave it at that. Me not providing evidence doesn't mean I said something that didn't fit in with what I said previously. Yet again, you make it out like it's all about me. It isn't. It is about whether you think idiots in general are harmful in the real world. I think that they aren't. Is it ok for me to talk about what I believe, or will you hold that against me? You can determine how harmful someone is in the real world by reading their posts, but someone is incapable of being harmful on an internet forum, obviously. Ok. I thought you were saying that you couldn't determine someone was harmful in real life. All I had said is that you had provided no evidence of how an idiot is harmful in the REAL WORLD. We aren't talking about online. Fuck you. That is of course not all you fucking said. You had told me about a few times that I wasn't debating properly, but you have no validity to CRITICISE or INSIST that I am not, when I clearly am. You clearly are not. You don't give a flying fuck about what is actually said. Insulting, Critising and Insisting upon something with Stern Language is not advice. Well, I wasn't being insulting, criticizing, or insisting anything, so it was advice. I didn't want you to think it was insulting, criticizing, or insisting because you like to project. You're insult about me being an idiot on a debating site being proof that idiots do not harm the real world is meaningless. You can only harm someone offline, not online. True. I didn't mean to imply that was any sort of proof. I was also making the assumption that you weren't harming anyone offline. If YOU don't have any evidence, just don't go down that root. Fuck you. I went down the same route you did. Side: Agree
1
point
Then, how was I able to find this: blizzardbird(124) Disputed 1 point Anyway, do you believe people with low IQ's ought to be sterilised? 22hrs ago Side: Agree Cartman(12063) 1 point No. Even though I hate you, I don't think people like you should be sterilized. "No. Even though I hate you, I don't think people like you should be sterilized." That statement is exactly what's wrong. What would you think if somebody gave you a response like that? It just deflects from the topic. How do you know that I as a supposedly stupid person does not cause harm in the real world? Wait, we've actually discussed this already and you still don't get it... We have already established that it is ok to speculate and leave it at that. Me not providing evidence doesn't mean I said something that didn't fit in with what I said previously You weren't speculating, speculating is adding your own imagination and thought to what is unknown. You were just throwing in two entirely irrelevant statements while trying to make them look relevant. No imagination involved. Nothing that involved proper thought. Just a cheap turn around and twist of words. I think that they aren't. Is it ok for me to talk about what I believe, or will you hold that against me? That's ok. Ok. I thought you were saying that you couldn't determine someone was harmful in real life. Oh, right, oh well. Well, I wasn't being insulting, criticizing, or insisting anything, so it was advice. I didn't want you to think it was insulting, criticizing, or insisting because you like to project. Whatever. Tiring and vain talk. True. I didn't mean to imply that was any sort of proof. I was also making the assumption that you weren't harming anyone offline. Obviously I don't go out of my way to be some anti-social revolutionary, but I like to be very direct with people in the real world and I never leave discussions till I feel it is solved and the other person understands why. Anyway, what evidence prior to me stating this did you have suggest that I did not cause fatal accidents in the real world? Fuck you. I went down the same route you did. Let's try to debate what constitutes intelligence. In what opinion what do you believe intelligence consists of? Side: Disagree
That statement is exactly what's wrong. What would you think if somebody gave you a response like that? I would at least think they did answer the question. It just deflects from the topic. It didn't actually. LibProlifer chimed in and she took us off track. How do you know that I as a supposedly stupid person does not cause harm in the real world? I don't know. I assumed you would tell us if you were. Wait, we've actually discussed this already and you still don't get it... Doesn't this statement just deflect from the topic? You weren't speculating, speculating is adding your own imagination and thought to what is unknown. You were just throwing in two entirely irrelevant statements while trying to make them look relevant. No imagination involved. Nothing that involved proper thought. Just a cheap turn around and twist of words. So, you are admitting that you are a stubborn piece of shit that doesn't listen to what anyone else has to say. This is why people think you are an asshole. You claim you want a discussion, but you don't actually listen to what the other person said. Anyway, what evidence prior to me stating this did you have suggest that I did not cause fatal accidents in the real world? I have no evidence that you aren't a walking accident. Would you like to admit that you are a walking accident? It would help your argument. Let's try to debate what constitutes intelligence. In what opinion what do you believe intelligence consists of? I think intelligence involves how well the brain can handle information. Side: Agree
1
point
I would at least think they did answer the question Would you feel enlightened, or that any real progress has been made? It didn't actually. LibProlifer chimed in and she took us off track LibProlifer just felt something was unfair and made one comment. It is both you and me who had decided to respond based on LibProlifer's comments. You have TrumpsHair on your side, remember? Doesn't this statement just deflect from the topic? Not really, I thought the statement was a bit late, actually. I don't know. I assumed you would tell us if you were. I have already. So, you are admitting that you are a stubborn piece of shit that doesn't listen to what anyone else has to say. This is why people think you are an asshole. You claim you want a discussion, but you don't actually listen to what the other person said. Any advice on how to change this "bad habit" of mine? Please, don't let it become just an insult. See my point? I think intelligence involves how well the brain can handle information. What determines how well the brain can handle information and what do you feel is the best way to test this? Side: Disagree
Would you feel enlightened, or that any real progress has been made? A little progress. LibProlifer just felt something was unfair and made one comment. And, since she was wrong, you should have ignored her. It is both you and me who had decided to respond based on LibProlifer's comments. No. I responded based on LibProlifer's comment, you responded to something else entirely. That's how we got off track. You have TrumpsHair on your side, remember? You don't want LibProlifer on your side. You should ignore her for your own benefit. I have already. You admitted to being a walking accident? Any advice on how to change this "bad habit" of mine? Yes. Stop pretending you know everything. Once you stop pretending to know everything, you will find out that other people know stuff. Once you find out that other people know stuff you just need to start listening to them. Please, don't let it become just an insult. Fortunately, it wasn't just an insult. You would know that if you actually read what I wrote. See my point? No. I didn't even know you attempted to make one. What determines how well the brain can handle information and what do you feel is the best way to test this? Handling information is seen with how well you respond to information given. I think IQ tests do a good job testing it. We would just need a couple extra tests for other things like verbal communication. Side: Agree
1
point
A little progress. Most people wouldn't. It doesn't actually prove anything, nor does it provoke thought, therefore no progress has been made. And, since she was wrong, you should have ignored her. It's not your place to say she was wrong, nor is it your place to say that I should have ignored her. It's not your place to imply that she shouldn't have made that comment. By accusing her of being both in the wrong and derailing the conversation, you are implying that she should not have spoke up for what she believes. Yes, you said she was wrong and therefore in the wrong. Don't try any word games, don't try to be pedantic be with me. No. I responded based on LibProlifer's comment, you responded to something else entirely. That's how we got off track. You responded to LibProlifers comment, you made a comment to her and about her. Entirely. She merely spoke up for herself. "you responded to something else entirely" Something else entirely other than Prolifers comment? I guess that includes the debate at hand. I don't recall adding anything to Prolifers statement if that is what you are implying. Key word, implying. I don't imply things like you do. And I have every right to comment in response to your comments. You don't want LibProlifer on your side. You should ignore her for your own benefit. I'll decide that. And show respect for HER, she's a female. Yes. Stop pretending you know everything. Once you stop pretending to know everything, you will find out that other people know stuff. Once you find out that other people know stuff you just need to start listening to them. Another excuse and another guilt trip. Rationalization, yet again. Gonna give me any advice on how to do all of this? Come on, then. Fortunately, it wasn't just an insult. You would know that if you actually read what I wrote. I know what an insult is. Insinuations and all that. Key word, imply. Rationalisations and excuses for saying things. I don't listen to that talk. No. I didn't even know you attempted to make one. You're clearly not a gentleman. Handling information is seen with how well you respond to information given. I think IQ tests do a good job testing it. We would just need a couple extra tests for other things like verbal communication. IQ tests do a reasonable job at testing verbal communication. IQ tests are to do with handling information? In other words that is to do with how well our brains connect together. IQ tests should be focused more on the core of testing our brain connections, rather than measuring how quick someone is verbally. Side: Disagree
Most people wouldn't. It doesn't actually prove anything, nor does it provoke thought, therefore no progress has been made. I am not most people. I am smarter than the average bear. I have been waiting for an answer like that from you. If you ever answered a question even with an insult I could continue the conversation. It's not your place to say she was wrong, nor is it your place to say that I should have ignored her. That statement makes no sense. If it isn't my place to tell her she is wrong, then it isn't your place to tell me I am wrong for pointing out she is wrong. Therefore, I was ok to tell her she was wrong. It's not your place to imply that she shouldn't have made that comment. She shouldn't have made the comment since she misuses fallacies all the time. By accusing her of being both in the wrong and derailing the conversation, Since she was wrong, and you got derailed there is nothing wrong with me pointing that out. you are implying that she should not have spoke up for what she believes. She stated something as a fact that was not a fact. It wasn't her belief. Yes, you said she was wrong and therefore in the wrong. Don't try any word games, don't try to be pedantic be with me. You sound very controlling here. You responded to LibProlifers comment, you made a comment to her and about her. Entirely. Yes. I said that. She merely spoke up for herself. So, because she spoke up fer herself you can twist it to whatever you feel like? Something else entirely other than Prolifers comment? I guess that includes the debate at hand. Yes. So you derailed the argument. I don't recall adding anything to Prolifers statement if that is what you are implying. Key word, implying. I don't imply things like you do. Do you not understand what I mean by you responding to something else entirely? How can you respond to something else entirely if you actually responded to what she said? And I have every right to comment in response to your comments. Again, I am not trying to stop you. Keep responding. But, if you derail the conversation by responding you are responsible for derailing the conversation. I'll decide that. Wow. Stubborn to the very end I guess. And show respect for HER, she's a female. Oh, so your are sexist. Nice. You feel that women are weaker I take it. Another excuse and another guilt trip. Rationalization, yet again. Another example of you claiming to know something you don't actually know. Looks like you really listened to that advice. Gonna give me any advice on how to do all of this? Pretend that the people you are talking to aren't trying to lay down a guilt trip. I know what an insult is. Insinuations and all that. Key word, imply. JUST an insult. I know it was insulting. I didn't say it wasn't an insult. Rationalisations and excuses for saying things. I don't listen to that talk. Of course you don't listen. I have already pointed that out. You're clearly not a gentleman. I am a gentleman when it is warranted. Was your point earlier that I wasn't a gentleman? IQ tests do a reasonable job at testing verbal communication. Nope. Everything tested is written down. IQ tests are to do with handling information? In other words that is to do with how well our brains connect together. What do you think it tests? IQ tests should be focused more on the core of testing our brain connections, rather than measuring how quick someone is verbally. Which connections? Side: Agree
1
point
I am not most people. I am smarter than the average bear. I have been waiting for an answer like that from you. If you ever answered a question even with an insult I could continue the conversation. " If you ever answered a question even with an insult I could continue the conversation." The fact that this conversation has digressed so much is evidence that your point is clearly wrong. That statement makes no sense. If it isn't my place to tell her she is wrong, then it isn't your place to tell me I am wrong for pointing out she is wrong. Therefore, I was ok to tell her she was wrong. She was expressing herself. She was just standing up for what she believes. You were just insisting upon something, it's not your place to tell people they are wrong for expressing their beliefs. She shouldn't have made the comment since she misuses fallacies all the time. That's for me to decide. Since she was wrong, and you got derailed there is nothing wrong with me pointing that out I keep all my posts simple and to the point and I state all my points very clearly, I can assure you, I wasn't derailed, mr. She stated something as a fact that was not a fact. It wasn't her belief Yet again, your telling people what they should believe. You sound very controlling here. If you think that I am being controlling by taking a stand, then you need to understand that word better. So, because she spoke up fer herself you can twist it to whatever you feel like? The poor girl can say what she likes. What she said is her business, I have no right to judge her. Since I agreed with her then so be it. Do you not understand what I mean by you responding to something else entirely? How can you respond to something else entirely if you actually responded to what she said? "How can you respond to something else entirely if you actually responded to what she said?" I don't know, you said I somehow did, not me. Again, I am not trying to stop you. Keep responding. But, if you derail the conversation by responding you are responsible for derailing the conversation You're just bringing yourself down, here. You don't understand how it comes across when you tell other people what they should believe. Wow. Stubborn to the very end I guess. Stubborn? I guess I've got my barriers. Oh, so your are sexist. Nice. You feel that women are weaker I take it. Of course women are weaker. You can't treat a women in the same way as you can treat a man. You will understand one day, maybe. Another example of you claiming to know something you don't actually know. Looks like you really listened to that advice. You definitely want me to listen to your advice. You can't make anyone. I've heard you, anyway. Pretend that the people you are talking to aren't trying to lay down a guilt trip I think this is the end of the road. You deliberately refuse to make sense. I don't want any of your advice. You make poor therapy. Of course you don't listen. I have already pointed that out. That's your opinion. I am a gentleman when it is warranted. Was your point earlier that I wasn't a gentleman? Instead of asking me what my earlier point was, try to make up your own mind. Of course you're not a gentleman, do you think I implied otherwise? Nope. Everything tested is written down. Verbal ability such as the ability to construct sentences and words can be written down. We aren't talking about pronunciation tests. Just the ability to use words. That is the main point of verbal. Doesn't need to be said out loud, as long as it is written. Which connections? The abilities of all of our brain connections can be tested through IQ tests. Side: Disagree
The fact that this conversation has digressed so much is evidence that your point is clearly wrong. Quite the contrary. It proves that you are stubborn and will continue with a conversation without ever trying to get to the point. Which means getting you to answer a question at all would be great progress. She was expressing herself. She was just standing up for what she believes. You were just insisting upon something, it's not your place to tell people they are wrong for expressing their beliefs. She was expressing her belief as a fact. I presented facts as a counter argument. She is wrong to think what she thought was a fact. If she wants to continue believing she can, but she will be presented the facts when she does. That's for me to decide. You already did when you condemned the person who took us off course. I keep all my posts simple and to the point and I state all my points very clearly, I can assure you, I wasn't derailed, mr. You don't keep your posts simple. You don't state things clearly, and this conversation started because you said we were derailed. 3 strikes, you're out. If you think that I am being controlling by taking a stand, then you need to understand that word better. I don't understand your use of the word. I understand the dictionary though. The poor girl can say what she likes. What she said is her business, I have no right to judge her. Since I agreed with her then so be it. You just got through saying it was your job to judge it. I don't know, you said I somehow did, not me. No, you said you did both. You're just bringing yourself down, here. You don't understand how it comes across when you tell other people what they should believe. That's true since I haven't been telling anyone what to believe. Of course women are weaker. You can't treat a women in the same way as you can treat a man. You will understand one day, maybe. No, I treat women equally, you sexist pig. You definitely want me to listen to your advice. You can't make anyone. I've heard you, anyway. You actually said you haven't heard. I think this is the end of the road. You deliberately refuse to make sense. I apologize for using the same words as you. I don't want any of your advice. Stop asking for my advice then you stupid forgetful fucko. This is why everyone thinks you are an asshole. Instead of asking me what my earlier point was, try to make up your own mind. Of course you're not a gentleman, do you think I implied otherwise? Ooh, excellent. You just gave me the ability to determine what your point was for you. Bad move. Your point earlier was that you are a blatant liar who doesn't know anything. You shouldn't let me make your point for you. Verbal ability such as the ability to construct sentences and words can be written down. We aren't talking about pronunciation tests. Just the ability to use words. That is the main point of verbal. Doesn't need to be said out loud, as long as it is written. I and many others disagree. I think an oral test is needed. There is a lot of effort involved with writing something down that could be unrelated to the brain's ability to handle words. The abilities of all of our brain connections can be tested through IQ tests. Which connections are those? Side: Agree
1
point
Quite the contrary. It proves that you are stubborn and will continue with a conversation without ever trying to get to the point. Which means getting you to answer a question at all would be great progress. Yet there is no basis for this claim. She was expressing her belief as a fact. I presented facts as a counter argument. She is wrong to think what she thought was a fact. If she wants to continue believing she can, but she will be presented the facts when she does. You didn't just say she was wrong, you said she shouldn't have made that comment. You already did when you condemned the person who took us off course I condemned her? I don't remember that. You don't keep your posts simple. You don't state things clearly, and this conversation started because you said we were derailed. 3 strikes, you're out. I didn't say that I was derailed nor led off track. My focus is completely in tact. What I said was that you trying to force your unrelated ideas on me was actually destroying the thread, derailing the thread from the main topic and disrupting it. You have derailed the whole thread of course. Like you are now, by constantly nit-picking and accusing. That is derailing and disrupting the thread, not me. And I don't have to put up with such nonsense. I don't understand your use of the word. I understand the dictionary though. That's your problem, not mine. You just got through saying it was your job to judge I'll decide whether I was let off track, I will decide whether I think LibProlifer was intervening. I'll decide if I found her offensive or if I saw her being offensive. Don't try to turn me against her or anyone for that matter. I'll think what I like. I'll think what I like I'll decide that Got it? We aint ya pawns mate. I'll decide that for myself. No, you said you did both. I don't understand you. That's true since I haven't been telling anyone what to believe. Then just leave it as that. I don't care whether you think you come out as innocent or not. I don't care who you think started it. Let's clean up after ourselves. No, I treat women equally, you sexist pig. So you would harshly scold a women in the same way you would a man? I find that unfair. You actually said you haven't heard I've heard it plenty. You still can't force people to listen to you though. Still can't get me to change what I believe is right. leave it at that. I apologize for using the same words as you. Yeah. Roughly the same words. Not quite. I see a difference. Ooh, excellent. You just gave me the ability to determine what your point was for you. Bad move. Your point earlier was that you are a blatant liar who doesn't know anything. You shouldn't let me make your point for you. It was kinda rhetorical, but I was expecting you to fill in the blanks regardless. I'm not bothered by whether you insert some silly argument into it at all. Sometimes it's best to get the other guy to do the other guy talking. Like with you. My point was that I am a blatant liar? Nothing new stated under the sun. Ain't convinced. I and many others disagree. I think an oral test is needed. There is a lot of effort involved with writing something down that could be unrelated to the brain's ability to handle words. This applies to anything. Like having to fill in a puzzle. Which connections are those? The brain has several connections. One for several numerical compartments. As well as one each for each mental state/emotion compartment. As well as one for the memory compartment. The brain also has lots of different cells which interconnect across the varied range of colours that the brain can sense and collect. The higher IQ, the more connections in the brain there are. Higher brain structure is caused by a greater order of cells within the brain being open to each other. Different parts of the brain within a dumber person are less open to each other. In an intelligent person they are more open to each other. Such as the part of the brain that deals with shapes with shapes is connected to certain areas of the tuning part of the brain within a cleverer person, whereas in a stupid person this happens not to be the case. That's just a few examples of the brain connections. Side: Disagree
Yet there is no basis for this claim. The fact that it is true makes a pretty good basis. You didn't just say she was wrong, you said she shouldn't have made that comment. That was in response to you saying that whoever derailed us did something wrong. All I did was say she was wrong, and you attacked me for it. I condemned her? I don't remember that. You said whoever derailed us did something wrong. I didn't say that I was derailed nor led off track. My focus is completely in tact. You said the conversation was derailed. You are part of the conversation. What I said was that you trying to force your unrelated ideas on me was actually destroying the thread, derailing the thread from the main topic and disrupting it. And, since you are part of the thread it is derailing you. Plus, it wasn't me who did that. You have derailed the whole thread of course. No, LibProlifer did. Like you are now, by constantly nit-picking and accusing. I am explaining to someone who doesn't grasp reality what is actually going on. And I don't have to put up with such nonsense. At least I am not making up pure bullshit. That's your problem, not mine. The guy who uses the dictionary has the problem? Is this the Twilight Zone? I'll decide whether I was let off track, I will decide whether I think LibProlifer was intervening. Will you decide in a judging way? I'll decide if I found her offensive or if I saw her being offensive. You will judge if she was offensive? Don't try to turn me against her or anyone for that matter. It is more fun to turn you against yourself. I'll decide that for myself. Yes, but how long will you stick with the decision? I don't understand you. I know. Then just leave it as that. I don't care whether you think you come out as innocent or not. I don't care who you think started it. Let's clean up after ourselves. Stop nitpicking and accusing me. Side: Agree
1
point
The fact that it is true makes a pretty good basis. That is something that you need to learn to communicate in a nicer way. That was in response to you saying that whoever derailed us did something wrong. All I did was say she was wrong, and you attacked me for it. I believe it was you who claimed she had done something wrong. You reproached her and told her that by simply making one comment she had derailed the entire discussion (another form of blaming). You said the conversation was derailed. You are part of the conversation I made a point about whole how the whole thread itself was being derailed by you. I said nothing about this little spatter that you had created. No, LibProlifer did. The Blame Game. Narcissistic on your part. Busted. I am explaining to someone who doesn't grasp reality what is actually going on Rationalizations. At least I am not making up pure bullshit. Projection. Finger Pointing. The guy who uses the dictionary has the problem? Is this the Twilight Zone? Use it, then apply the dictionary correctly. Will you decide in a judging way? I'll make up my own mind, paddiewaddle. You may not like the answers but I'll still decide for myself. You will judge if she was offensive? I'm a witness aren't I? I didn't feel offended by it. And I know that I'm a compassionate person. It is more fun to turn you against yourself. Twisting. Mind Games. Deceitful Glee. Yes, but how long will you stick with the decision? I don't think that matters. I'll stick by anything as long as I believe I'm following my heart. Side: Disagree
That is something that you need to learn to communicate in a nicer way. Bullshit. Name one person on this website that you have listened to. I believe it was you who claimed she had done something wrong. I claimed she said something wrong. You claimed that whoever derailed the conversation did something wrong. You reproached her and told her that by simply making one comment she had derailed the entire discussion No, I put most of the blame on you. But, since you are unable to blame yourself it would mean that she is solely responsible. I made a point about whole how the whole thread itself was being derailed by you. And you are wrong. I said nothing about this little spatter that you had created. This is all about what you created. We were just fine until you went off course. The Blame Game. Narcissistic on your part. Busted. You need to learn what the word means for it to really be a part of your vocabulary. Use it, then apply the dictionary correctly. I have and you still don't get it. I'll make up my own mind, paddiewaddle. You may not like the answers but I'll still decide for myself. Avoiding another question. I'm a witness aren't I? I didn't feel offended by it. And I know that I'm a compassionate person. Another unanswered question. Twisting. Mind Games. Deceitful Glee. Nope, nope, nope. Three strikes, you're out. I don't think that matters. I'll stick by anything as long as I believe I'm following my heart. It does matter because we have seen your heart change within a debate and you start defending a different position than you previously defended. Side: Agree
1
point
Bullshit. Name one person on this website that you have listened to. TrumpsHair, Admiralacon, WastingAway. Of course we may disagree with each at times. I claimed she said something wrong. You claimed that whoever derailed the conversation did something wrong. Through constantly trying to twist things round, you have caused disruption. LibProlifer had merely made one comment and you had picked on her for it. You never stop to voice your foolish opinions. No, I put most of the blame on you. But, since you are unable to blame yourself it would mean that she is solely responsible. No matter what, you still don't blame other people who played no part in it. You had used a very poor excuse right now. No, she isn't solely responsible for something that she had not interfered in. It is the people who had caused it who were solely responsible. You created some silly little putter in your own little mind and now we are going back and forth because of it. I don't think LibProlifer was responsible for any of that. And you are wrong. What is it with you calling others wrong constantly for voicing their opinions? This is all about what you created. We were just fine until you went off course. Look back at your very first comment you had made on this debate and tell me who was wrong. You need to learn what the word means for it to really be a part of your vocabulary. You need to stop trying to make a point. I have and you still don't get it. That's right. I don't get it. This is a good indicator telling you that you should actually stop. Avoiding another question. You haven't asked any questions. You just make statements. Another unanswered question Why not go answer then it then? Nope, nope, nope. Three strikes, you're out. Don't try to be Mr Bossypants. It does matter because we have seen your heart change within a debate and you start defending a different position than you previously defended. I just don't see it myself. You still haven't persuaded me of anything. You've got to stop pushing things. Side: Disagree
TrumpsHair, Admiralacon, WastingAway. Of course we may disagree with each at times. Oh. I must have only seen the countless disagreements. Through constantly trying to twist things round, you have caused disruption. Wrong again. I have not twisted anything. And, you are causing the disruption. LibProlifer had merely made one comment and you had picked on her for it. I told her how she was wrong. I gave a simple explanation for how she was wrong and left it at that. Any further disruption must be caused by you not recognizing that. You never stop to voice your foolish opinions. Yeah, I am too busy explaining facts to you. No matter what, you still don't blame other people who played no part in it. She did play a part in it. You had used a very poor excuse right now. You should love the idea that you aren't completely responsible. No, she isn't solely responsible for something that she had not interfered in. So, you are claiming all the credit. Got it. It is the people who had caused it who were solely responsible. So, you admit you are solely responsible. You created some silly little putter in your own little mind and now we are going back and forth because of it. False. You created an entire conversation that never happened and expected me to go along with it. I don't think LibProlifer was responsible for any of that. You don't think. What is it with you calling others wrong constantly for voicing their opinions? That's not how opinions work. Look back at your very first comment you had made on this debate and tell me who was wrong. You are wrong. That was easy. You need to stop trying to make a point. This is your problem. You are supposed to be making points on a debate website. That's right. I don't get it. This is a good indicator telling you that you should actually stop. I should stop because you are too dumb to comprehend? You haven't asked any questions. You just make statements. The little curved line with the straight part and a dot (?) is called a question mark. The words that come before the question mark constitute a question. Get it? See, that was a question. Why not go answer then it then? Fine. You are judging LibProlifer. You are judging her in a positive way, so you don't think you are judging her. But, you said judging her at all was bad. Don't try to be Mr Bossypants. It is a baseball reference. Sorry. I just don't see it myself. You still haven't persuaded me of anything. You've got to stop pushing things. Of course I haven't persuaded you of anything, all you want me to do is stop trying to persuade you. Side: Agree
1
point
Oh. I must have only seen the countless disagreements. It's called debating. Wrong again. I have not twisted anything. And, you are causing the disruption You are clueless. I told her how she was wrong. I gave a simple explanation for how she was wrong and left it at that. Any further disruption must be caused by you not recognizing that. You can politely tell someone that you disagree without having to tell them that they shouldn't have made that comment. You may believe her opinion was wrong, but that doesn't mean she was wrong to comment. Yeah, I am too busy explaining facts to you. In other words you have too much free time on your hands and are going over the same points. She did play a part in it Not really. You told her off and confronted her and backed her up, in which you fired off. You should love the idea that you aren't completely responsible. I never said I was responsible, did I? It is you who is responsible. So, you are claiming all the credit. Got it Claiming all the credit for disrupting a thread? No, I think that would be you. You need to stop playing childish schoolboy mumbo-jumbo's. Doesn't make you sound clever. False. You created an entire conversation that never happened and expected me to go along with it. Yet again, look back at the very first comment in which you claimed I should get sterilised. You don't think. But you don't think that you are braindead? Word plays can go both ways, kid. That's not how opinions work. You're the master of opinions. You are wrong. That was easy. Had something stingy for breakfast? This is your problem. You are supposed to be making points on a debate website. Trying to make a point about yourself and showing off isn't a part of debating. Next time I see you come up with a good point, I will comment. I should stop because you are too dumb to comprehend? You need to learn when enough is enough. The little curved line with the straight part and a dot (?) is called a question mark. The words that come before the question mark constitute a question. Get it? See, that was a question. We can all put a question mark before a sentence and claim we have actually asked a valid sentence? I know what I'm talking about? I know for a fact that you are making a point? I don't see your point(?) Do you understand me now(?) The question mark thing. You're very pedantic. Fine. You are judging LibProlifer. You are judging her in a positive way, so you don't think you are judging her. But, you said judging her at all was bad. Pedantry. Just don't judge people non stop. Judging her is wrong, but merely sticking for a poor young lady who is being picked on isn't judging in my book. It is a baseball reference. Sorry. You're not claiming to be an expert in baseball now are you? Three strikes and your out is about baseball scores, I know what three strikes and your out means. Go ahead. Of course I haven't persuaded you of anything, all you want me to do is stop trying to persuade you. I hope you've finally got the message. Side: Disagree
It's called debating. Oh, you didn't understand another thing I said. Sad. You are clueless. Wrong again, sir. You can politely tell someone that you disagree without having to tell them that they shouldn't have made that comment. Actually, it turns out when you simply tell someone they are wrong, but make no mention of them not being allowed to make the comment a stupid fuck named blizzardbird will claim you did it anyway. You may believe her opinion was wrong, but that doesn't mean she was wrong to comment. Turns out I only told her she was wrong. In other words you have too much free time on your hands and are going over the same points. I have to go over the same points because you are too dumb to understand the first 50 times. Not really. You told her off and confronted her and backed her up, in which you fired off. More things that never happened. I never said I was responsible, did I? You have implied that you are by letting LibProlifer off the hook. It is you who is responsible. False. Claiming all the credit for disrupting a thread? Yes, you are finally catching on. No, I think that would be you. Your thoughts have been false in the past. Nothing new here. You need to stop playing childish schoolboy mumbo-jumbo's. That's the only thing you understand. Doesn't make you sound clever. Being clever doesn't convince idiots. Yet again, look back at the very first comment in which you claimed I should get sterilised. I never said that you should be sterilized. I said that I am against you proposing that you should be sterilized. But you don't think that you are braindead? Why would me thinking you don't think lead to the conclusion of me being braindead? You're the master of opinions. You don't have to be a master to recognize the difference between opinions and facts. Trying to make a point about yourself and showing off isn't a part of debating. Those are the only conversations you are able to handle. Next time I see you come up with a good point, I will comment. You comment all the time. Thanks. You need to learn when enough is enough. Why? We can all put a question mark before a sentence and claim we have actually asked a valid sentence? I know what I'm talking about? I know for a fact that you are making a point? I don't see your point(?) Do you understand me now(?) The question mark thing. You're very pedantic. Only a fucking idiot would claim that my questions in this debate incorrectly used a fucking question mark. You are simply a stupid forgetful fucko. Judging her is wrong, Unless you fucking do it, you cocksucker. but merely sticking for a poor young lady who is being picked on isn't judging in my book. Because you are a complete fucking fool. Instead of using a fake book, why don't you use a fucking dictionary. You're not claiming to be an expert in baseball now are you? No, you asshole. Three strikes and your out is about baseball scores, I know what three strikes and your out means. You are a fucking liar. I hope you've finally got the message. Yeah, I got the message. "blizzardbird is a fucking asshole" Message received. Side: Agree
1
point
Oh, you didn't understand another thing I said. Sad. I don't think a healthy mind ever would. Wrong again, sir. Wrong? Righto, mate. Actually, it turns out when you simply tell someone they are wrong, but make no mention of them not being allowed to make the comment a stupid fuck named blizzardbird will claim you did it anyway. Did you tell her that she was merely wrong? Because I saw you use lots of words to describe how she was wrong. Sounded like you lectured her on it, from what I hear. Turns out I only told her she was wrong. You said it with a lot of emphasis. Was she in jeopardy because of it? It sounded very dramatic. I have to go over the same points because you are too dumb to understand the first 50 times. Do you think you will make sense the 100th time? We all say "no" to that. More things that never happened. I really hope you don't write anyone's biography. You have implied that you are by letting LibProlifer off the hook LibProlifer wasn't guilty of your own mess up's. Mess up, fess up, they say. False. Let me ask you a question: True or False, You are able to tell what is True or False. Is this statement true, or false. Yes, you are finally catching on. You like to imagine it. Your thoughts have been false in the past. Nothing new here My thoughts do exist, you know. They can't be false. That's the only thing you understand. That's right. I don't understand anything further from what you're saying that schoolboy mumbo jumbo. Always room for a good laugh in the sun! Being clever doesn't convince idiots. Do you think you're clever? One thing I'm smart enough to know is that the answer you will give will probably be "yes, I am clever". Although part of me hopes you will show some humility. I never said that you should be sterilized. I said that I am against you proposing that you should be sterilized. "You just volunteered to be sterilized" Sounds like a similar theme First comment you made. An Ad Hominem like that? It's in everyone's face. Mess up, fess. Why would me thinking you don't think lead to the conclusion of me being braindead? It's called like for like. Responding in kind, boyo. You don't have to be a master to recognize the difference between opinions and facts. You're the master of opinions, therefore you ought to write book. I don't think you're the master of facts, don't try writing an Encyclopedia though. Come on, have a bit of humour. Those are the only conversations you are able to handle. I can handle a lot of things. Comes with experience. You comment all the time. Thanks. Not one that offers good reception for insightful remarks. Why? Because learning when enough is enough is a very basic and fundamental life lesson. Only a fucking idiot would claim that my questions in this debate incorrectly used a fucking question mark. You are simply a stupid forgetful fucko. Are you absolutely sure? Positive you can tell me I'm wrong while keeping your composure? No bad feelings? OK, I'll try to believe you. Unless you fucking do it, you cocksucker. "Unless you fucking do it, you cocksucker." Yuck. Don't say that. I'm not that much into you. Because you are a complete fucking fool. Instead of using a fake book, why don't you use a fucking dictionary. Pedantic. You judged her. It's a rule not to judge others. Which means pointing the finger. You judged her. I stuck up for her. No, you asshole. What a lovely compliment. Fitting for someone like me? Me thinks not. You are a fucking liar. "LIARRRRR"""!!!! Yeah, I got the message. "blizzardbird is a fucking asshole" Message received. I think you encrypted it wrong. Have a laugh for once. Side: Disagree
I don't think a healthy mind ever would. You are wrong. Again. Wrong? Righto, mate. Nope. Did you tell her that she was merely wrong? Yes, fuck face. Learn to read. Because I saw you use lots of words to describe how she was wrong. You really don't have any fucking idea how stupid you sound. You just said I did what I told you I did. Sounded like you lectured her on it, from what I hear. Make up your fucking mind. Is it ok to point out someone is wrong or not? Lecturing on what was wrong is not the same as saying she shouldn't have done it. You said it with a lot of emphasis. Oh no. I used emphasis. How terrible. Was she in jeopardy because of it? It sounded very dramatic. It is plain black text. You put the drama in. Do you think you will make sense the 100th time? We all say "no" to that. It made sense the first 99 times and makes sense the 100th time. You are just too dense to understand. I really hope you don't write anyone's biography. Biographies are supposed to be non fiction. Why would you want someone to lie in a biography? LibProlifer wasn't guilty of your own mess up's. Mess up, fess up, they say. You messed up and you won't fess up. You messed up so bad you had to rewrite Islamic history and you still won't fess up. You are able to tell what is True or False. True. You like to imagine it. You dumb shit. You just admitted that you understanding the conversation is all in my imagination. You are so dumb. My thoughts do exist, you know. They can't be false. So, you are saying that everything I have said to you would then be true since they are my thoughts and they can't be false. Agree or disagree? That's right. I don't understand anything further from what you're saying that schoolboy mumbo jumbo. Always room for a good laugh in the sun! Why do you keep insulting yourself? First comment you made. An Ad Hominem like that? It's in everyone's face. Mess up, fess. It was an Ad Hominem. I didn't mess up though. You don't respond to real arguments. So, if I make an Ad Hominem you can change what I said to whatever you feel like? Mess up, fess up. It's called like for like. Responding in kind, boyo. Just call me braindead, dumb shit. When you try to twist words you come off as an idiot. Come on, have a bit of humour. You have no sense of humor. I can handle a lot of things. Comes with experience. This conflicts with an earlier statement. Not one that offers good reception for insightful remarks. Not my problem. Keep responding though. Because learning when enough is enough is a very basic and fundamental life lesson. And yet you haven't learned it yet. You judged her. We judged her. Don't put it off on just me. You judged her. I stuck up for her. I didn't judge her at all if that's what you mean. I simply told her how she was wrong. Telling someone they are right when they are wrong is far worse than judging them. This is why you are so screwed up. You haven't been around enough people like me who will tell you the truth that you are an imbecile. I think you encrypted it wrong. Have a laugh for once. I laugh every time you insult yourself. Side: Agree
1
point
You are wrong. Again. You need to stop repeating yourself. Nope. Not interested. Yes, fuck face. Learn to read. You protest too much. I take your yes really means a no. You aint Einstein, boy, You really don't have any fucking idea how stupid you sound. You just said I did what I told you I did. "You just said I did what I told you I did." Of course you told her she was wrong. We both agree on that. And you admitted to that. But what you don't seem to admit is that you gone the step further and told her that she shouldn't have commented in this first place. You lack comprehension of semantic meaning. Make up your fucking mind. Is it ok to point out someone is wrong or not? Lecturing on what was wrong is not the same as saying she shouldn't have done it. It's ok to point out that someone is incorrect. But by claiming that she had derailed the thread you are blaming her. Which implies that she was wrong to post. Got it, boyo? Oh no. I used emphasis. How terrible Something you do in a rather unconvincing way. It is plain black text. You put the drama in There is a lot of aggression behind your posts. Is that what you mean by "plain black text"? I hope it's not a bizarre metaphor of yours. This will go over your head of course, but it was meant as a joke. It made sense the first 99 times and makes sense the 100th time. You are just too dense to understand. If it made sense the first 99 times and if it makes sense the 100th time, why are you still repeating yourself? I don't think your posts were meant to impress me, were they? Biographies are supposed to be non fiction. Why would you want someone to lie in a biography? Me wanting a liar to write a biography as opposed to you runs on the assumption that I believe you tell the truth. Don't play word games, it makes you look like a snobby little boy. You messed up and you won't fess up. You messed up so bad you had to rewrite Islamic history and you still won't fess up. Rewrite Islamic history? That's difficult. Most historians aren't even sure of what that entails. True. I will just say "you chose wrong" without backing it up. Someone rather CartMannerish to say. You dumb shit. You just admitted that you understanding the conversation is all in my imagination. You are so dumb. Certainly not. You imagining I am "catching on" and then supposedly "agreeing" is in your imagination alone. I don't think anyone quite "catches on" to what makes you blither such stupidity. Only somebody who agrees with you would "catch on" and understand a word you're saying I presume. I think only an idiot like yourself would ever relate to such stupidity that you possess. Is that what you mean by "catching on", clever clogs? So, you are saying that everything I have said to you would then be true since they are my thoughts and they can't be false. Agree or disagree? No, I don't, unsurprisingly. Whenever I play with your words (which is rare) I do it humorously. You like to think I mean it seriously whenever I play with your words. Why? Is it because you often do it seriously so much of the time, you think I'm doing it seriously as well? You're as dry as a rock. Why do you keep insulting yourself? Not making sense out of what you're saying isn't a bad thing, right Come up with something sensible. Time you get some of you're own medicine. It was an Ad Hominem. I didn't mess up though. You don't respond to real arguments. So, if I make an Ad Hominem you can change what I said to whatever you feel like? Mess up, fess up You're now accusing me of turning around what you are saying? Hypocrisy at it's finest. Just call me braindead, dumb shit. When you try to twist words you come off as an idiot. Lol. If you willingly call me braindead then I think you are the one that best suits that remark. All that goes around, comes around, boy. Don't say accuse somebody else unless you can stand being accused of the same thing. You have no sense of humor. "You have no sense of humor." Was that intended to make me laugh? lol This conflicts with an earlier statement. We all expected you to say this, Cartman. Booooo! Cartman on stage! oooo Not my problem. Keep responding though. Yes, I will respond if I want to. Ain't my call not to. And yet you haven't learned it yet. Have you? We judged her. Don't put it off on just me. You accused her of derailing the conversation, I didn't. That is what you judged her doing. Absence of a judgement is not a judgement. (I didn't judge her) I didn't accuse her of anything, therefore I did not judge her. I didn't judge her at all if that's what you mean. I simply told her how she was wrong. Telling someone they are right when they are wrong is far worse than judging them. This is why you are so screwed up. You haven't been around enough people like me who will tell you the truth that you are an imbecile. You accused her of derailing the thread. Is that not a judgement at all? I laugh every time you insult yourself. "I laugh every time you insult yourself"plop Lol, imagine you saying that with a laptop on your knees as you're sat on the toilet! Side: Disagree
You need to stop repeating yourself. You need to stop repeating yourself. I am sure you have many people repeating themselves with "you are wrong". I take your yes really means a no. No wonder you are always wrong. But what you don't seem to admit is that you gone the step further and told her that she shouldn't have commented in this first place. Because I didn't. You lack comprehension of semantic meaning. Says the guy who is making up new meanings for words. It's ok to point out that someone is incorrect. Not if you are talking to an asshole named blizzardbird. But by claiming that she had derailed the thread you are blaming her. Which implies that she was wrong to post. Got it, boyo? Her statement caused you to derail the argument. I will let you decide which one of you is responsible. But, my statement only implies that it was wrong for her to post if I also said that derailing the argument shouldn't be done. I never said that either. Something you do in a rather unconvincing way. Just because you are too dumb to be convinced doesn't mean I did something wrong. There is a lot of aggression behind your posts. Is that what you mean by "plain black text"? I hope it's not a bizarre metaphor of yours. This will go over your head of course, but it was meant as a joke. What part of your joke did you think was funny? If it made sense the first 99 times and if it makes sense the 100th time, why are you still repeating yourself? BECAUSE YOU ARE DUMB. I don't think your posts were meant to impress me, were they? No, they were meant to help you learn. Rewrite Islamic history? That's difficult. Most historians aren't even sure of what that entails. More lies. I will just say "you chose wrong" without backing it up. Someone rather CartMannerish to say. It is only CartMannerish if you were right. You aren't. Certainly not. Certainly did. I don't think anyone quite "catches on" to what makes you blither such stupidity. This means that no one ends up believing what you believe. No, I don't, unsurprisingly. It is unsurprising because it is another form of you taking both sides. Whenever I play with your words (which is rare) I do it humorously. You haven't said anything funny so far. You like to think I mean it seriously whenever I play with your words. Why? You don't twist my words. You constantly twist your own words. You're as dry as a rock. YOU AREN'T FUNNY. You're now accusing me of turning around what you are saying? You just admitting to twisting my words. Hypocrisy at it's finest. I HAVEN'T TWISTED ANYTHING YOU HAVE SAID. If you willingly call me braindead then I think you are the one that best suits that remark. But, you are too much of a pussy to actually call me it yourself. Don't say accuse somebody else unless you can stand being accused of the same thing. You are too dumb for words. Was that intended to make me laugh? lol Thank you for proving I was right. We all expected you to say this, Cartman. If you expect people to catch you conflicting your statements, why do you keep doing it? Yes, I will respond if I want to. Ain't my call not to. Is there anything you are consistent about. Have you? Yep. Responses from you will never get me there. You accused her of derailing the thread. Is that not a judgement at all? No. It wasn't an accusation, it was true. I was reporting that derailed the thread, not judging her. Lol, imagine you saying that with a laptop on your knees as you're sat on the toilet! Are you suggesting that your responses belong in the toilet? :) Side: Agree
1
point
You need to stop repeating yourself. I am sure you have many people repeating themselves with "you are wrong". If I am on a debate site then I think my main object should be to hear somebody occasionally tell me that I'm wrong. I can't debate with somebody who has the same views. I'm not familiar with anybody saying "you are wrong" as their insigna though. "Your" wrong seems to be your catch line. No wonder you are always wrong. You say that as if you weren't expecting a response. Of course you would say I'm wrong. Predictable. Because I didn't. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, they say. Says the guy who is making up new meanings for words. Is that what you say when your accusations against my use of words are refuted. Not if you are talking to an asshole named blizzardbird. Problem is, I'm not an asshole. Her statement caused you to derail the argument. I will let you decide which one of you is responsible. But, my statement only implies that it was wrong for her to post if I also said that derailing the argument shouldn't be done. I never said that either. You indicated that you really felt the need to talk about it. Just because you are too dumb to be convinced doesn't mean I did something wrong. I'll let everyone else decide that. Someone I hope you can agree to do without saying. And I'm sure we know why. What part of your joke did you think was funny? I've forgotten what the joke that I made was, lol. I'm allowed to forget, right? Just excuse me for a moment. Lol. BECAUSE YOU ARE DUMB. And in capital letters, too. Ouch. Why bother responding to me if I'm really that dumb. You tried to tell me off 100 times? Whew, I meant it figuratively, I never imagined you would literally blurt it out. But if you wanna literally say 100 times and I didn't get it, then fine by me. More lies. "LIARRRR" Lol. It is only CartMannerish if you were right. You aren't. You got that fact wrong. Since your all about "facts". Looks like you need to get a new encyclopedia. One you didn't scribble on. Certainly did. Pedantic, as usual. This means that no one ends up believing what you believe. Not if it falls back on your own head. Failed. It is unsurprising because it is another form of you taking both sides. It's not surprising you would say this. You like to politicalise everything. You haven't said anything funny so far. You have said funny things, but it's often at your own expense. You don't twist my words. You constantly twist your own words. Are you not twisting my words right now? Everything I say is about you, not me. YOU AREN'T FUNNY Bold and emphasized. See what I mean? This is unlike you -wink- You just admitting to twisting my words. You left one word out. You left out the word "accused". I said that you accuse me of twisting my own words. You're accusations are hollow, though. I HAVEN'T TWISTED ANYTHING YOU HAVE SAID. ALRIGHT ALRIGHT PANIC BUTTON!!!!!!! But, you are too much of a pussy to actually call me it yourself. Not if I've already called you it. You're braindead. There, that's the second time I've said it. What? I'm too much of a pussy to say it? You're brain dead (third time). You're the most common user of the words, "idiot", "moron", "fucko". So I see what you're trying to say. No need to brag about it. You are too dumb for words. Audience gasps... - - - - - What's that you just said about BlizzardBird? Thank you for proving I was right. It worked. Lol. If you expect people to catch you conflicting your statements, why do you keep doing it? Which people? There is no one else standing other use judging me. There's just you, standing on your own. What do we say about your merit? Is there anything you are consistent about. The whole life I life. Well, I'll rephrase it. I try. I sometimes succeed. Get's kinda boring though... ------- err Do you like being consistent? (Wait, what did I just ask)? Yep. Responses from you will never get me there. Of course. You've been on a long and tiring voyage through the land of truth. No. It wasn't an accusation, it was true. I was reporting that derailed the thread, not judging her. Took you long to say that remark. You definitely felt inclined to make it out like it wasn't you who was responsible. You're denial made it out like you also perceived it as wrong. Are you suggesting that your responses belong in the toilet? :) No, that's where your seat it. Side: Disagree
1
point
My IQ is certainly high enough to debate this such. People who have low IQ's end up causing confusion, they also end up making decisions that cause harm to others. People who have low IQ's make all sorts of mistakes that cause harm to others. People with low IQS lack empathy and compassion, imagination, etc. People with low IQ's waste money and are incapable of carrying out a job appropriately. Side: Disagree
My IQ is certainly high enough to debate this such. You haven't been debating. People who have low IQ's end up causing confusion, they also end up making decisions that cause harm to others. You have caused yourself massive confusion. People who have low IQ's make all sorts of mistakes that cause harm to others. Any evidence? Any reasoning for this? What kind of harm? People with low IQS lack empathy and compassion, imagination, etc. That isn't measured by IQ. People with low IQ's waste money and are incapable of carrying out a job appropriately. No. They have been seen to be able to handle simple jobs. And, who doesn't waste money? Side: Agree
1
point
You haven't been debating. I don't think that is up for you to decide anymore. You have caused yourself massive confusion. You seem to have been going round in circles chasing your tail, doesn't mean other people have. You're right, you do know yourself, but not others. Any evidence? Any reasoning for this? What kind of harm? People who have a low IQ have a lack of reasoning skills. The whole essence of intelligence is about reasoning. Anybody who lacks reasoning skills or the ability to calculate risks is bound to cause other people harm. It should be obvious. If you have deficit intelligence you are also deficit in sense, meaning common sense. A part of common sense if to be able to understand the heart behind the rules. If you can't reason, you simply can't do this. If you don't know the reason behind common sense, you can't apply it properly in day to day life. Certainly at least not teaching it to ones own children. Side: Disagree
I don't think that is up for you to decide anymore. Why? I am not the one who makes up blatant lies. You seem to have been going round in circles chasing your tail, doesn't mean other people have. You're right, you do know yourself, but not others. You have admitted that you were confused. I am talking about the stuff that you have admitted. People who have a low IQ have a lack of reasoning skills. The whole essence of intelligence is about reasoning. Anybody who lacks reasoning skills or the ability to calculate risks is bound to cause other people harm. More speculation on your part. Figures. It should be obvious. If you have deficit intelligence you are also deficit in sense, meaning common sense. Common sense is not so common. A part of common sense if to be able to understand the heart behind the rules. If you can't reason, you simply can't do this. If you don't know the reason behind common sense, you can't apply it properly in day to day life. Certainly at least not teaching it to ones own children. The other way around allows you to break the rules. If you are intelligent enough to understand the rules, you can devise ways to get around them. If you aren't intelligent, you might follow the rules simply because you are told you should. Side: Agree
1
point
You have admitted that you were confused. I am talking about the stuff that you have admitted. I never said I was confused. You're reading comprehension is down. I said you were threading your own confusing web of circles, not that it personally confused me, but it was at least confusing to you. More speculation on your part. Figures. I repeat what I had said, thank you very much: People who have a low IQ have a lack of reasoning skills. The whole essence of intelligence is about reasoning. Anybody who lacks reasoning skills or the ability to calculate risks is bound to cause other people harm. If you aren't intelligent, you might follow the rules simply because you are told you should. By rules what I meant was what is perceived to be the rules to common sense. There are many basic rules in everyday life such as road safety. If somebody doesn't understand basic common sense and road safety they can't follow all of the rules without knowing the heart of the rules. There is a reason behind these basic rules and you have to know them by heart. Someone who lacks intelligence might not be able to follow these through. Or what about rules that involve manual handling, handling of tools, etc? See what I mean by accidents? Also, if you are talking about the rules that apply when following through a certain task as part of someones job, then a stupid person will not understand the rules and will end up getting themselves hurt. No matter how much you lecture someone they may never understand how the rules actually work and when they break the rules, they would end up causing injury to not only perhaps themselves but possibly to other people. Side: Disagree
I never said I was confused. You're reading comprehension is down. Looks like more bad memory. I said you were threading your own confusing web of circles, not that it personally confused me, but it was at least confusing to you. Yeah, you were wrong when you said that. ... is bound to... SPEC - U - LA - TION If somebody doesn't understand basic common sense and road safety they can't follow all of the rules without knowing the heart of the rules. You need to understand that you might hit someone with your car in order to stop at a stop sign? Or what about rules that involve manual handling, handling of tools, etc? See what I mean by accidents? So, if you can't use tools, you are completely useless? Also, if you are talking about the rules that apply when following through a certain task as part of someones job, then a stupid person will not understand the rules and will end up getting themselves hurt. No matter how much you lecture someone they may never understand how the rules actually work and when they break the rules, they would end up causing injury to not only perhaps themselves but possibly to other people. Yeah, don't give them a job they can't handle. Side: Agree
1
point
Looks like more bad memory. Is that all you've got? You deliberately ignored me when I had said that "you had spun yourself a confusing circle of confusing" for yourself. Yes, you got caught up in your own words. SPEC - U - LA - TION I know what speculation is so you can stop being condescending. You C-L-E-A-R-L-Y are. Get it, hmm? Of course it is speculation, all debates are made of is speculation. What I said may be speculation, but you have yet to disprove what I had speculated on. So, if you can't use tools, you are completely useless? Tools and road safety are just examples. Of course if you don't know how to handle tools safely then you must be pretty thick. You don't have to use something effectively to have common sense, just as long as you know how to use something safely. You need to understand that you might hit someone with your car in order to stop at a stop sign? Yes. If you had a reasonable amount of common sense you might be able to tell if you were likely to hit someone based on if you were to stop at the stop sign or not. Or if you had common sense you could be able to tell what would be a greater risk when avoiding a collision if there were multiple hazards. Common sense if about the ability to reason and to weigh up risks. Yeah, don't give them a job they can't handle If you lack basic intelligence there aren't many jobs one could handle. Side: Disagree
Is that all you've got? You deliberately ignored me when I had said that "you had spun yourself a confusing circle of confusing" for yourself. Yes, you got caught up in your own words. You were the only one confused between the 2 of us. That means I should ignore your assessment that I was confused. I know what speculation is so you can stop being condescending. You C-L-E-A-R-L-Y are. Get it, hmm? Sorry. I honestly wasn't trying to be condescending. I was illustrating which part of your sentence was speculation since you repeated the sentence. Of course it is speculation, all debates are made of is speculation. So, when I called it speculation why did you simply repeat what you wrote? What I said may be speculation, but you have yet to disprove what I had speculated on. You can't admit simple facts. There is no reason to disprove your assertions. If you had a reasonable amount of common sense you might be able to tell if you were likely to hit someone based on if you were to stop at the stop sign or not. This proves my point. Now that we look at the intelligent person who knows what the goal is they may decide to not stop at the stop sign since no one is around to hit. Side: Agree
1
point
You were the only one confused between the 2 of us. That means I should ignore your assessment that I was confused. I am just not going to bother discussing who was confused. It's a pointless argument and it won't get us anyway. Sorry. I honestly wasn't trying to be condescending. I was illustrating which part of your sentence was speculation since you repeated the sentence. Apology accepted So, when I called it speculation why did you simply repeat what you wrote? It's because I didn't think you had gave a full reply. Yes, you said I was speculating, but I needed to know why my speculation may not have been completely accurate. How was the speculation that I had provided not accurate? I wanted to know your full opinion. This proves my point. Now that we look at the intelligent person who knows what the goal is they may decide to not stop at the stop sign since no one is around to hit. Not necessarily. Stupid people are capable making the same mistake and not seeing past the obvious. Just because someone is stupid doesn't mean the person will follow the rules. An intelligent person would know that it could be wise to stop at the stop sign even if no car is visible. An intelligence person would know that I car may go around the corner. A stupid person would also be unable to know how to avoid collisions in general and may end up colliding regardless of whether or not there is a stop sign due to their inability to calculate risks. A stupid person may be unable to control their speed or recognize tight or risky spots when driving. Both stupid people and clever people are capable of making mistakes, but it is absolutely likely that a stupid person would indeed make a mistake. Side: Disagree
It's because I didn't think you had gave a full reply. Yes, you said I was speculating, but I needed to know why my speculation may not have been completely accurate. How was the speculation that I had provided not accurate? I wanted to know your full opinion. I don't trust your life experience as a basis for truth. You did not provide any relevant information to sway me to consider your position. An intelligent person would know that it could be wise to stop at the stop sign even if no car is visible. You implied the opposite. Both stupid people and clever people are capable of making mistakes, but it is absolutely likely that a stupid person would indeed make a mistake. That isn't enough for me to sterilize them. Side: Agree
1
point
I don't trust your life experience as a basis for truth. You did not provide any relevant information to sway me to consider your position. How patronising. Don't look down at me, look up to me. I have a lot of insight to bring that you haven't yet had the change to learn. Don't worry, it will come eventually. You implied the opposite. Not really. A dumb person may or may not stop depending on his character. A dumb person may decide to stop if he conforms to rules without understanding the meaning behind them, thus stopping at a hazardous time and may not learn when to look out for cautious moments without signs to indicate anything. A dumb person who doesn't conform wouldn't be overally cautious. He would be reckless and go past the speed limit completely. An intelligent person would do none of these. That isn't enough for me to sterilize them It is if they are a danger to society. Let's discuss that. Side: Disagree
How patronising. Don't look down at me, look up to me. Why? I have a lot of insight to bring that you haven't yet had the change to learn. The problem is that it is mixed with misinformation, lies, and poor memory. for cautious moments without signs to indicate anything. We weren't talking about situations when there wasn't a sign. That's why you ended up implying that a smart person would just go through a stop sign. A dumb person who doesn't conform wouldn't be overally cautious. He would be reckless and go past the speed limit completely. We see smart people do that. If the dumb person is told don't go over a certain speed, they won't. Only people who are smart enough to "know" they can control their car at a higher speed will go faster. An intelligent person would do none of these. Intelligent people do these things already. It is if they are a danger to society. You know, people have different perspectives. I have a different perspective than you. You must not have the maturity to understand that. It is my perspective that is still not enough. You can't just say that my perspective would be different. Why are you trying to control my perspective? Let's discuss that. If they were really a danger to society we would see a lot of problems with our society since there are a lot of unintelligent people. I don't see those problems. Side: Agree
1
point
We weren't talking about situations when there wasn't a sign. That's why you ended up implying that a smart person would just go through a stop sign. It doesn't matter. I've clarified what I had meant, ok. We see smart people do that. If the dumb person is told don't go over a certain speed, they won't. Only people who are smart enough to "know" they can control their car at a higher speed will go faster. Just because someone is dumb doesn't mean they will obey rules. It depends on whether they are conformist dumbasses. Yes, a lot of intelligent people make mistakes too, they are just able to learn from properly, as well as being clever enough to fix their mistakes, or at least try. Intelligent people are also capable of knowing when they are taking a risk and how to effectively handle themselves when making a risky decision. Imbeciles can't, really. Intelligent people are less likely to make dangerous mistakes as well Intelligent people do these things already Intelligent people can make mistakes, but not those types of mistakes. Intelligent people are capable of making inaccurate judgements, but dumb people are incapable of making any judgements at all. Having the ability to make a well thought out judgement doesn't mean the judgement always works, but dumb people can't even make well thought out judgements at all. Sometimes well thought out judgements fail, but anything can. It's like saying to the cowboys, "don't use guns, because they can fail", when they happen to be much more effective than the bow and arrow. If they were really a danger to society we would see a lot of problems with our society since there are a lot of unintelligent people. I don't see those problems. Common and dumb people on crack get up to all sorts of dumb shit. As well as jobless morons. People who get sacked frequently due to a lack of brains also have been proven to be damaging to a company. Side: Disagree
Intelligent people are less likely to make dangerous mistakes as well I think intelligent people would be smart enough to be able to not let stupid people make those mistakes. but dumb people are incapable of making any judgements at all. That isn't true for all the people you want to sterilize. but dumb people can't even make well thought out judgements at all. They can make well thought out judgments for smaller amounts of time. Common and dumb people on crack get up to all sorts of dumb shit. As well as jobless morons. People who get sacked frequently due to a lack of brains also have been proven to be damaging to a company. Well, I might be persuaded to sterilize those people, but that isn't because of IQ. If they do those particular things I can see repercussions, but not for simply having a low IQ. Side: Agree
1
point
I think intelligent people would be smart enough to be able to not let stupid people make those mistakes. Stupidity is so deep and infinite. You can't prevent stupidity. That isn't true for all the people you want to sterilize. How do you know? They can make well thought out judgments for smaller amounts of time Dumb people can't make the same brain connections as intelligent people. Well, I might be persuaded to sterilize those people, but that isn't because of IQ. If they do those particular things I can see repercussions, but not for simply having a low IQ One of the biggest factors of being car-smashing thug as opposed to a cunning, clever and seasoned dealer is due to IQ. People who resort to being stuck in petty crime and feel they can't break out of it have a lack of something called "genius". People who can't afford their crack addiction have a lack of something called "genius. Side: Disagree
Stupidity is so deep and infinite. You can't prevent stupidity. Prevent the mistakes you stupid forgetful fucko. How do you know? I have seen people with IQ under 100 that are able to think things through. Dumb people can't make the same brain connections as intelligent people. True, that's why they can only think short term. One of the biggest factors of being car-smashing thug as opposed to a cunning, clever and seasoned dealer is due to IQ. It is also one of the biggest factors between the janitor and the seasoned dealer. People who resort to being stuck in petty crime and feel they can't break out of it have a lack of something called "genius". People who can't afford their crack addiction have a lack of something called "genius. There are way more unintelligent people who aren't on crack than you think. Side: Agree
1
point
Prevent the mistakes you stupid forgetful fucko. Don't try to get cocky with me. The best way to prevent a mistake is by cutting off the source of the mistake. You complete idiot. About time I said that. I have seen people with IQ under 100 that are able to think things through. Elaborate please. True, that's why they can only think short term Of course. That doesn't mean they are good at thinking short term. An intelligent person can make the same connections that a stupid person makes as well as far more. It is also one of the biggest factors between the janitor and the seasoned dealer. Yes. Janitors. Cleaning duties. In an ideal modern world we probably are now less likely to actually need cleaners, especially if the world is filled with self responsible intellectuals. In the modern world thinks can be cleaned far more quickly without janitors. And a janitor/cleaner could merely be a small part of a larger job, like an intelligent supervisor, who happens to do a lot of the cleaning. Or maybe some busy shop worker who could be employed to do a lot of the cleaning. The world could clean up after itself without the need for stupid people to do those jobs. I've shown a lot of contempt for stupid people, haven't I! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Worthless things! There are way more unintelligent people who aren't on crack than you think. It's just an example of the damage and trouble that idiots get into. Side: Disagree
Don't try to get cocky with me. I am not trying to be cocky, I am trying to get you to read what I actually wrote. The best way to prevent a mistake is by cutting off the source of the mistake. The source of the mistake is allowing stupid people to do something that would cause the mistake, not to murder the stupid people. You complete idiot. About time I said that. You can't even read asshole. Elaborate please. I know a guy who was average intelligence who was able to be a stock broker on Wall Street. Of course. That doesn't mean they are good at thinking short term. I am saying they are good enough to avoid being sterilized. An intelligent person can make the same connections that a stupid person makes as well as far more. Yes, intelligent people are better, but they can't do everything. Yes. Janitors. Cleaning duties. In an ideal modern world we probably are now less likely to actually need cleaners, especially if the world is filled with self responsible intellectuals. We are not in an ideal modern world. In the modern world thinks can be cleaned far more quickly without janitors. Then why does every business use janitors? And a janitor/cleaner could merely be a small part of a larger job, like an intelligent supervisor, who happens to do a lot of the cleaning. If they were intelligent they would get someone else to do it. Or maybe some busy shop worker who could be employed to do a lot of the cleaning. Yeah, just wear a broom so you can sweep up as you walk around. The world could clean up after itself without the need for stupid people to do those jobs. So, now you want to get rid of stupid people and force smart people to do menial tasks. Now, I definitely don't like your idea. Is there anything else you want to force smart people to do? I've shown a lot of contempt for stupid people, haven't I! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Worthless things! You aren't worthless, just try to do stuff. It's just an example of the damage and trouble that idiots get into. Fine. I just don't like your prejudice on general principles. Happy now? Side: Agree
1
point
I am not trying to be cocky, I am trying to get you to read what I actually wrote. OK, alright. The source of the mistake is allowing stupid people to do something that would cause the mistake, not to murder the stupid people. It would be very difficult to stop stupid people making mistakes. They would have to cease to be stupid if that was the case. You can't even read asshole. In other words I can't spell. LOL. Couldn't resist. I know a guy who was average intelligence who was able to be a stock broker on Wall Street. Being a stock broker is a dedicated job that requires an average mind. It's not for stupid people. Yes, intelligent people are better, but they can't do everything If you set you mind to anything, the possibilities are endless. This is not so for stupid people, however. Then why does every business use janitors Probably due to the major distractions in businesses and company buildings, people are distracted from all the cleaning. I blame it on dumb people for causing so much distraction. It is quite a wise thing to say that the idiotic distract the intelligent from their sane duties. No more morons, no more distractions, then an ideal world would be restored. Yeah, just wear a broom so you can sweep up as you walk around. No, just use the tried and tested technique. Clean up and sweep up when you've finished a task or finished for the day. It doesn't take long. Fine. I just don't like your prejudice on general principles. Happy now? Ok, OK. No damage done. Side: Disagree
It would be very difficult to stop stupid people making mistakes. They would have to cease to be stupid if that was the case. Or be given tasks where it doesn't matter if you cease being stupid. Being a stock broker is a dedicated job that requires an average mind. It's not for stupid people. You want to sterilize average people. If you set you mind to anything, the possibilities are endless. This is not so for stupid people, however. They literally can't do everything. There aren't enough smart people to get the job done. Probably due to the major distractions in businesses and company buildings, people are distracted from all the cleaning. Which distractions would those be? I blame it on dumb people for causing so much distraction. Aww, more things to blame dumb people for. Sad. It is quite a wise thing to say that the idiotic distract the intelligent from their sane duties. That is one of the least wise things I have ever heard. No more morons, no more distractions, then an ideal world would be restored. We have never had an ideal world. You can't restore something that never existed. No, just use the tried and tested technique. Have idiots do it. Clean up and sweep up when you've finished a task or finished for the day. No one does that. It doesn't take long. Imagine how much you could save by not paying the intelligent worker his salary for 15 minutes every day and just pay a dumb person 1/4 that amount for him to do it 4 times faster. Side: Agree
1
point
Or be given tasks where it doesn't matter if you cease being stupid. No job is suitable for imbeciles. They deserve no cleaning jobs. You want to sterilize average people I never said that. Intelligent people as opposed to stupid people being allowed to copulate is something that I had stated. But I had never said anything about average people copulating. Of course average people have a free pass to copulate! Average is still decent! A free pass for all people decent! They literally can't do everything. There aren't enough smart people to get the job done. You mean whether they can complete all tasks put forward to them, as opposed to achieve anything they set their minds to? I see. Dumb people would become no extra help, either. Which distractions would those be? Altercations, accidents, hurt feelings clouding the decent people due to the boorish morons sharing the same office buiding, etc. Aww, more things to blame dumb people for. Sad What's up? Feel upset? HA! That is one of the least wise things I have ever heard. Why? We have never had an ideal world. You can't restore something that never existed. Restoration means bringing something back to it's original configuration. The earths configuration has been messed up prior to the conception of the world. Have idiots do it. They aren't needed. No one does that. Children put away their toys after playing with them. Workmen put their tools back to where they belonged after using them. Office workers put their files away and turn off all computers. If you spill a drink on the flour, clean it up. Builders and skilled labourers like plumbers clean the houses and workshops, construction sites, etc, after finishing for the day. People do house work at home all the time. If a toilet blocks, especially if you did it, plunge the toilet with a plunger. Tidy ones workspace. See what I mean? And what about hovering and dusting? Everyone could do that all together to get the job done, takes no time at all, even for one person. Several workmen or office workers doing it and it takes no time at all. Imagine how much you could save by not paying the intelligent worker his salary for 15 minutes every day and just pay a dumb person 1/4 that amount for him to do it 4 times faster. People can't, aren't and shouldn't be paid extra just to always clean up after themselves. Side: Disagree
No job is suitable for imbeciles. How can they screw up a cleaning job? They deserve no cleaning jobs. Please don't use words like "deserve". They are only used to try to change someone's beliefs. I never said that. Intelligent people as opposed to stupid people being allowed to copulate is something that I had stated. But I had never said anything about average people copulating. Of course average people have a free pass to copulate! Average is still decent! What IQ do you draw the line for sterilization? Dumb people would become no extra help, either. Planet Earth proves that wrong. Altercations, accidents, hurt feelings clouding the decent people due to the boorish morons sharing the same office buiding, etc. I don't think intelligence gets rid of those things. Why? It completely lacked any wisdom. Restoration means bringing something back to it's original configuration. The earths configuration has been messed up prior to the conception of the world. I can't believe that someone who wrote this could possibly be for the sterilization of stupid people. And what about hovering and dusting? Everyone could do that all together to get the job done, takes no time at all, even for one person. I am sorry, but it does take time. Everything takes time. People can't, aren't and shouldn't be paid extra just to always clean up after themselves. Oh, so you believe in slavery. Side: Agree
1
point
How can they screw up a cleaning job? I highly doubt an idiot can do a thorough job. And besides, we don't need idiots to do the cleaning. Please don't use words like "deserve". They are only used to try to change someone's I will use the word "deserve", thank you. No one deserves to be paid to clean up after themselves. We should always clean up after our own messes voluntary. Cleaning after oneself is an integral aspect of life yet is so often overlooked. What IQ do you draw the line for sterilization? Either 90 or 100 may surface. Planet Earth proves that wrong. In some ways, the animals that are helpful in this world are often far more helpful to mankind than the intelligence of the morons. So much mankind can love from nature that an idiot would never teach you. I don't think intelligence gets rid of those things. Increasing it is a huge step forward. I am sorry, but it does take time. Everything takes time. Everything takes time, so take your time. Time is worthwhile to be spent. Don't rush, enjoy the moments. Nothing more relaxing and engaging like cleaning up after oneself. Cleaning helps to get us all on the right track. Cleaning is a good medicine for the mind and body. Nothing wrong with taking ones time to clean. Oh, so you believe in slavery. Just managers rules, clean up after oneself. Side: Disagree
1
point
100 is average intelligence you stupid fucking asshole. 100 is exactly in the middle of the scale. But the range of what is considered average is probably around 90-110. I think I can now expect to call you an asshole. Don't call me that. what is wrong with me Cartman? I'm not evil am I? Side: Disagree
1
point
0
points
I only said those comments because you were telling me what I ought to be talking about like you were somehow the boss, when the thread said otherwise. You've done exactly that over and over to other people. It's due to the language you use and your choice of words as well. You need to avoid using strict language too often.. Like right there. Side: Agree
2
points
0
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
" I only said those comments because you were telling me what I ought to be talking about like you were somehow the boss, when the thread said otherwise. You've done exactly that over and over to other people. It's due to the language you use and your choice of words as well. You need to avoid using strict language too often.. Like right there. " Side: Agree
1
point
" I only said those comments because you were telling me what I ought to be talking about like you were somehow the boss, when the thread said otherwise." "It's due to the language you use and your choice of words as well. You need to avoid using strict language too often.." Seems ok to me. Like to point out how I could have worded it better? Side: Agree
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Stop repeating yourself. Can't I break the rules just once? Oh what the heck, I'll just get on with it. Stop repeating yourself. Not really. Stop repeating yourself. Cr'zy. Stop repeating yourself. Ok, done, I've repeated myself a few times now. Success is my benchmark. Side: Disagree
1
point
1
point
It's never your fault is it? Talk about projection. You have actually blamed me for you making a mistake. How is it not true? The exact opposite is true. Are you going to start yet again another argument? I am trying not to by just telling you the plain truth that what you said is not true and just leaving it at that. Side: Agree
1
point
2
points
2
points
2
points
1
point
2
points
People who are lacking in intelligence only damage society. People who lack intelligence tend to leave a damaging imprint on society. Intelligence is the pin of value. Even empathy is based on intellect. People who lack intelligence actually damage businesses and families, they don't construct them, nor do they aid them. Side: Agree
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I do not enjoy a world of stupidity. My IQ is pretty high (above average). However, without dumb people what's the point of being smart. If there were no stupid people, then there would be no such thing as a smart person. Are you implying that you enjoy the power status of having an IQ within 10-20 points of 100. Side: Agree
If there were no stupid people, then there would be no such thing as a smart person. Oh my goodness, that's what I was saying! Are you implying that you enjoy the power status of having an IQ within 10-20 points of 100. My IQ is around 140 to 150. That's probably higher than yours. Side: Disagree
1
point
Oh my goodness, that's what I was saying! No, you disagreed, idiot. Just because something would suddenly cease to be the case doesn't mean their is no need for it. There has always been a need for smart people. My IQ is around 140 to 150. That's probably higher than yours. No, my IQ is probably much higher than yours. How do you know that your IQ is 140 to 150? Don't you know for definite? Saying that your own IQ is approximately a certain amount is pretty stupid, did you forget what your IQ was after testing, or have you just guessed your IQ without being tested for it? MORON. Side: Agree
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I am obliged to say heredity isn't working in a way that if both parents have gene X, that means their children will have gene X, neither will the next generation. Heredity is mostly criss-crossing the genes. You check it by yourself. If both parents will very low IQ, their children's IQ will be in proportion of 1:2:1, which means 25% of the children will be retarted, 50% of them will have above-level intelligence (not genius-like though) and last 25% will have average IQ. Side: Disagree
1
point
First of, the stupid parent passes down stupidity genes, which passes down stupid brain connections. Stupidity is caused by over-emphasis on brain connections that are very close to each other. Connections within certain parts of the brain that happen to be deemed the most relevant to each other is the cause of stupidity. When two very close functioning parts of the brains meet, stupidity occurs and an unoriginal idea comes from it. It's all about brain connections. Then we have the intelligent parent. The genes of the intelligent parent causes the person to come up with more intelligent brain connections. Intelligence is caused when brain connections happen that are relatively further away from each other. When two "irrelevant" parts of the brain connects, a more inventive and well mixed thought occurs, this is the cause of an original mind. When two parts of the brain that are deemed the least likely to be irrelevant, then a new spin on the world occurs. This is how "Genius" is founded (Something which I suspect that I myself might actually be). However, the thing is, when dumb brain connections and intelligent brain connections merge, something terrible occurs. Since over-emphasis on the connections in the brain that causes idiocy happens simultaneously with the clever connections, the clever connections of the brain ends up getting pushed back in the hippocampus in memory form and comes out as incoherent nonsense as it starts to shoot the emotional parts of the brain through the hippocampus, causing a thought that is skewed and emotional in nature rather than being connected by logic and reason. When an otherwise sensible connection in the brain is diverted to memory form and comes out the wrong way, it no longer enters the neo-cortex processing at all and is diverted from a brain connection and channelled into a mere memory. So in other words, when an intelligent connection happens, it ceases to be an intelligent connection and starts to turn into sheer memory and emotional diarrhea. This is what happens when an intelligent connection mixes with a stupid connection. So when you say something intelligent to a dumb person, they dismiss it as stupid and place over-emphasis on the obvious and absurd, as opposed to understanding this clever idea. Say something clever to an idiot and it would go through the other end of their bums in their rear, as opposed to in their brains. Also, what happens if over-emphasis is placed on the most close, or "relevant" connections in the brain, the brain will dismiss the more intelligent connections in the brain. The brain constantly gets rid of excess waste and mass waste in the brain and will only keep the connections it deems it needs in the brain in order to keep the brain clean and to clear the head up a bit, so to speak. In other words, the brain will get rid of excess waste in the brain by getting rid of the connections in the brain that it deems irrelevant. However, after the brain clears up excess brain matter, it happens to allow the old connections to re-emerge as memory, or to go back in the head at an entirely different and unnecessarily arranged manner and ceases to hold the original idea that the brain intended on having. When this happens, the brain will then place over-emphasis yet again on the dumb connection and the re-arranged and otherwise clever connection in the brain will get merged with the unoriginal connection and combine with the re-arranged connection actually going counter to what the original thought actually had said and the brain starts to make logical contradictions more often. I have thought of this idea all by my self. I am obviously intelligent. Side: Agree
This would be highly problematic, even leaving the ethical concerns aside for the moment and continuing with this line of reasoning, considering we do not currently have knowledge of any one test capable of capturing a person's intellectual abilities and potential in any definitive format. We know of certain types of tests that can ball-park specific aspects of intelligence and knowledge, but this is light-years away from what you are suggesting here. Also, we know that a persons intelligence is not 100% inheritable but rather makes up about 50-80% of the puzzle. Therefore, how do you accurately determine who has the highest hereditary intelligence factor rather than nurtured abilities? Do you have a solution to this predicament? Also, at what age would such a test be administered? Side: Disagree
|