Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 716
Juggler,
When you look at me, you see a huge mind and a huge ego; you ignore my huge ethical commitment, simply because it's convenient for you.
If you want to be taken seriously, the very first thing you should do is drop the idiotic position that you know better than others whaty they believe. You don't. Just because your mind is ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up, doesn't mean that everyone else must dance to your fiddle. If nothing else, consider this: people are different.
I have failed to explain it to your satisfaction, because there is no materialistic explanation you are willing to accept. This is your problem; it becomes my problem only when you claim that materialism is internally inconsistent because it cannot offer a coherent explanation of cognition, an explanation which you, peculiarly, judge in your metaphysical framework rather than in the materialistic one. This would be like you reading an essay written in Swahili, and proclaiming it terrible because you failed to understand it.
But you see, you saw reason as the sacrifical goat on the altar of this togetherness, which situation needsn't be the case. There are other belief systems -- humanism and pantheism come to mind -- which do not require you to take up faith as the price of social cohesion and cultural advancement.
When a significant number of the world's xians see xianity as the paradigm for building a better (truly better) society, I will change my opinion of it; but I don't see it happening, as xianity is IMO an exceedingly poor vehicle for such ideas. Quakers are probably xianity's sole worthwhile redeeming feature, but they are so ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ few and far between...
It would be a great world, if the people with my IQ and my ego (yes, I know exactly how big it is) also had my ethical commitment and my understanding of, and consequent aversion to, power over other people.
When you look at me, you see a huge mind and a huge ego; you ignore my huge ethical commitment, simply because it's convenient for you.
Arguably so -- and deep understanding of ethics, coupled with fundamental commitment to humanitarian values, is the best counterbalance to the potential destructiveness of ego.
Well, you are exactly as blind and deluded as I thought you to be, if you still haven't been disabused of the deluded belief that somewhere deep down, I believe in soul. I don't. No matter how unbelievable this may seem to you, my materialism is for real -- and your incredulity is a problem stemming from your lack of knowledge and your acculturated blindness, that than from my beliefs' incredibility.
If you want to be taken seriously, the very first thing you should do is drop the idiotic position that you know better than others whaty they believe. You don't. Just because your mind is ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up, doesn't mean that everyone else must dance to your fiddle. If nothing else, consider this: people are different.
Have fun.
Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 716
Christian,
It looks like you may be rigtht on this particular issue; but my point was that there is discrimination aghainst atheists, the anti-atheist social attitude, and as you I am sure know, the discrimination doesn't have to be legal in order to exist. The evidence of anti-atheist attitudes is still all around you.
The point is not that atheists are always genuinely ethical, but that genuinely ethical atheists can be known to be so, while xians cannot (arguably not even to themselves).
It's not unreasonable to say that one individual measure -- IQ -- may be critically different from actual intelligence in just the respect that would be related to religiosity. It's lunatic to claim that a wide range of distinct such approximations have exactly the same flaw, for then the question becomes: what the flyinf ◊◊◊◊ do you mean by intelligence, if all of these widely diverse measures are wrong in the same respect?
Think for a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ moment. Imagine that A performs higher than B on any intelligence-related test you devise; significantly better. IQ, GRE, emotional intelligence, three-aspect intelligence, whatever you think up, A does better. it would take a lunatic to not conclude that A is smarter than B.
The evil lies not in recognizing people's differences (that's the way that leads to installing cerebral dampeners in everyone's head, to make sure that we are all equal); the evil lies in associating such differences with distinct groups of people, and then in judging the said groups by their pre-assigned group valuations.
The evil is not in saying that the death row is full of blacks (a fact), but in saying that blacks are inherently criminally inclined; not in saying that atheists are on average smarter than xians, but in discriminating against one of the two groups based on that fact. Get it?
Interesting. Of course, this follows the scenario I outlined -- SCOTUS would rule for the wall of separation, but the State constitution would be a separate matter. In this particular case, the maryland constitution was amended to explicitly deny any and all religious test, but I couldn't find enough details to find out whether the Maryland legislature had to do so.
It looks like you may be rigtht on this particular issue; but my point was that there is discrimination aghainst atheists, the anti-atheist social attitude, and as you I am sure know, the discrimination doesn't have to be legal in order to exist. The evidence of anti-atheist attitudes is still all around you.
No, I am actually saying that for someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural, the impure motivations can generally be fished out by observation -- faux-altruistic atheist can easily be told apart from agenuinely altruistic one, which is not the case for xians.
The point is not that atheists are always genuinely ethical, but that genuinely ethical atheists can be known to be so, while xians cannot (arguably not even to themselves).
Go and re-read that link, bandejo. It is a summary of a very large number of studies, which studies used a wide variety of measures to approximate intelligence, IQ being only one o fthose. The different measures agreed with each other.
It's not unreasonable to say that one individual measure -- IQ -- may be critically different from actual intelligence in just the respect that would be related to religiosity. It's lunatic to claim that a wide range of distinct such approximations have exactly the same flaw, for then the question becomes: what the flyinf ◊◊◊◊ do you mean by intelligence, if all of these widely diverse measures are wrong in the same respect?
But it can be approximated; and being approximated by a wide variety of measures is nearly as good as actually measuring it. This is exactly what happened.
I didn't make valuatyions of people based on intelligence, you are lying again. I think that intelligence is a great asset, but a person with IQ 90 has exactly the same rights as a person with IQ 180; and human rights are the only way I can think of of "measuring" one's value as a person.
Negative reinforcement is the coupling of undesirable action with the effect which the subject desires to avoid.
We cannot measure intelligence directly, simply because we can't agree on what intelligence is; but we have various measures which we all agree measure certain aspects of intelligence, thus capturing some of its essence. When a variety of tests agree that person A scores higher than person B, it's safe to say that person A is more intelligent.
Think for a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ moment. Imagine that A performs higher than B on any intelligence-related test you devise; significantly better. IQ, GRE, emotional intelligence, three-aspect intelligence, whatever you think up, A does better. it would take a lunatic to not conclude that A is smarter than B.
The evil lies not in recognizing people's differences (that's the way that leads to installing cerebral dampeners in everyone's head, to make sure that we are all equal); the evil lies in associating such differences with distinct groups of people, and then in judging the said groups by their pre-assigned group valuations.
The evil is not in saying that the death row is full of blacks (a fact), but in saying that blacks are inherently criminally inclined; not in saying that atheists are on average smarter than xians, but in discriminating against one of the two groups based on that fact. Get it?
Really? And here I thought that you are the trolls' uncrowned king...
if your beliefs are false, that may take the heat off of you, but it doesn't make your beliefs true.
OK, sorry then. I still know US civics better than you, but at least you have an excuse.
This is my thesis: Intelligence is not measurable, therefore I'm denying the entire statement *Half the population in the US is below average intelligence*. The statement is nonsensical. (I have to thank my unnamed informant for the wording, it is hers/his). I will use him/her as an part of my proof that intelligence can't be measured.
Once I establish that, I will show why thinking other people are smarter than others is the root to the tree of pure evil.
The traditional theory on intelligence goes something like this:
Arguments why intelligence can't be measured
1. Each individual is smarter than another individual in at least one respect.
So, when I say I'm smarter than someone else (my IQ is higher than yours, you are saying you are only *smarter* in what the test is evaluating), you are speaking in relative terms. So relative that the render a generalization false. You can't be absolutely smarter than the other person and you can't be generally smarter than the other person.
2. There is no way to know the true potential (raw intelligence) of each individual.
The top speed of a car might be 200 miles per hour, but if there are no road where to develop this speed or the limit is 110, there is no way of knowing the true potential of the car.
If the most any car needs to perform well is 100 miles, and the weakest car can only develop 130 miles, the 200 miles becomes meaningless.
3. Although theoretically one could conceive that a set of test could be created to measure all types of intelligences as to form a standard for ranking people based on them. In practice, it is impossible (has been) to achieve.
To understand the scope of what would be needed, we must first familiarize ourselves with the theory of multiple intelligences:
Now imagine creating a set of test for each type, also imagine creating a set of test that measure the matrix of combinations from one type of intelligence to the others, say the combination of interpersonal intelligence and linguistic intelligence.
To measure true intelligence holistically, one would have to create tests taking into consideration the environment where the subject has develop proficiencies.
The problem also arises of how to *average out* the types of intelligences. Michael Jordan could complain that Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence should not be given equal value as Logical-Mathematical Intelligence because he has no need for physics concepts. If he ever did need them, he can hire tons of physicist to do the work for him.
Conversely Einstein could argue the exact opposite, on the grounds that humans don't need to see a basketball game. Oh and don't get my started on José Carreras, he wants the most valuation on Musical. Domingo seconds the motion.
4. Intelligences seldom act separately or in a vacuum and the time for decisions is usually long.
A test environment is nothing like the real world. A person is alone with no notes, reference material, or others to help him answer the questions. He has to rely on the information stored in his brain as he can recall it , analyze it, or similar. He also has a short time to complete the questions.
In the real world, one can research answers in many varieties of ways, including the counsel of experts, mentors or simple the input of another point of view. Also, seldom are time limits as constraining as in a test environment.
Someone with little knowledge and limited IQ can make masterful decisions if he has adequate support.
My unnamed friend can give me pointers on how to proceed, alert me of traps, and so forth. Our combined knowledge can make me a superior debater.
And that is a phenomenon I have seen in this forum. Argumentation that has been used successfully before by some is quickly adopted by other posters.
5. Emotional intelligence can only be truly tested in real life situations.
There is no way to test if someone is patient or resilient with a written test or with one real life experiment. To consider someone patient, one needs to see a consistent pattern of behavior where this quality is proved.
One would have to create a log of all these emotional traits measure them in a relevant time frame and score each and/or combinations. These would have to be then compared to other. And this also assumes one can classify as at least similar the circumstances that show the characteristics.
End of thesis (for now)
Paradox wrote:
The terms 'teaching' and 'punishment' are synonymous to you, aren't they?
Man, you really want to twist things for your on maquinations. You are not a sincere poster (at least not in this thread)
But, for the bigger audience. This is the same as saying, the purpose to do 15 reps for biceps is to burn the muscle (feel the burning sensation in the muscle, pain, this is where the expression, no pain no gain comes from). The objective is to have a well toned and muscular bicep. Is that clear enough for you. Or do you want to twist it yet again.
Victor, what is a bandejo?
Once I establish that, I will show why thinking other people are smarter than others is the root to the tree of pure evil.
The traditional theory on intelligence goes something like this:
Arguments why intelligence can't be measured
1. Each individual is smarter than another individual in at least one respect.
So, when I say I'm smarter than someone else (my IQ is higher than yours, you are saying you are only *smarter* in what the test is evaluating), you are speaking in relative terms. So relative that the render a generalization false. You can't be absolutely smarter than the other person and you can't be generally smarter than the other person.
2. There is no way to know the true potential (raw intelligence) of each individual.
The top speed of a car might be 200 miles per hour, but if there are no road where to develop this speed or the limit is 110, there is no way of knowing the true potential of the car.
If the most any car needs to perform well is 100 miles, and the weakest car can only develop 130 miles, the 200 miles becomes meaningless.
3. Although theoretically one could conceive that a set of test could be created to measure all types of intelligences as to form a standard for ranking people based on them. In practice, it is impossible (has been) to achieve.
To understand the scope of what would be needed, we must first familiarize ourselves with the theory of multiple intelligences:
Now imagine creating a set of test for each type, also imagine creating a set of test that measure the matrix of combinations from one type of intelligence to the others, say the combination of interpersonal intelligence and linguistic intelligence.
To measure true intelligence holistically, one would have to create tests taking into consideration the environment where the subject has develop proficiencies.
The problem also arises of how to *average out* the types of intelligences. Michael Jordan could complain that Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence should not be given equal value as Logical-Mathematical Intelligence because he has no need for physics concepts. If he ever did need them, he can hire tons of physicist to do the work for him.
Conversely Einstein could argue the exact opposite, on the grounds that humans don't need to see a basketball game. Oh and don't get my started on José Carreras, he wants the most valuation on Musical. Domingo seconds the motion.
4. Intelligences seldom act separately or in a vacuum and the time for decisions is usually long.
A test environment is nothing like the real world. A person is alone with no notes, reference material, or others to help him answer the questions. He has to rely on the information stored in his brain as he can recall it , analyze it, or similar. He also has a short time to complete the questions.
In the real world, one can research answers in many varieties of ways, including the counsel of experts, mentors or simple the input of another point of view. Also, seldom are time limits as constraining as in a test environment.
Someone with little knowledge and limited IQ can make masterful decisions if he has adequate support.
My unnamed friend can give me pointers on how to proceed, alert me of traps, and so forth. Our combined knowledge can make me a superior debater.
And that is a phenomenon I have seen in this forum. Argumentation that has been used successfully before by some is quickly adopted by other posters.
5. Emotional intelligence can only be truly tested in real life situations.
There is no way to test if someone is patient or resilient with a written test or with one real life experiment. To consider someone patient, one needs to see a consistent pattern of behavior where this quality is proved.
One would have to create a log of all these emotional traits measure them in a relevant time frame and score each and/or combinations. These would have to be then compared to other. And this also assumes one can classify as at least similar the circumstances that show the characteristics.
End of thesis (for now)
Paradox wrote:
The terms 'teaching' and 'punishment' are synonymous to you, aren't they?
Man, you really want to twist things for your on maquinations. You are not a sincere poster (at least not in this thread)
But, for the bigger audience. This is the same as saying, the purpose to do 15 reps for biceps is to burn the muscle (feel the burning sensation in the muscle, pain, this is where the expression, no pain no gain comes from). The objective is to have a well toned and muscular bicep. Is that clear enough for you. Or do you want to twist it yet again.
Victor, what is a bandejo?
PotatoStew
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2001
- Messages
- 78
Victor:
I didn't miss it, I just didn't think it was necessary to respond, because my main point (about the differing beliefs of atheists) was sufficient to invalidate your original statement. The side point about "worldly" motivations was just an added bonus.
Going back and rereading, I see now that you did admit that your claim, as originally worded was incorrect:
So I suppose I can address the new claim, and your point that I passed over in my last post...
Now it sounds like you are talking about individuals, rather than generalizing about groups, which is what your original statement sounded like. So let's assume that we're looking not at "Christians" and "materialist atheists" but at "a specific Christian" and "a specific materialist atheist".
You may be right, we could probably devise some sort of method for examining the atheists motives... a hidden camera, or a test or something like that. But we could do a similar thing for the Christian. You could for instance, ask me what I believed about ethical acts and punishment/reward in the afterlife (and I'd tell you what I said above: I have no beliefs that cause duress). Maybe you don't believe me. That's fine... I have no doubt psychologists could cook up some sort of profiling test that would let them rank my beliefs and rate the amount of duress my beliefs caused. It doesn't matter that the beliefs involved the supernatural... I am a natural creature, and my beliefs and opinions on (and therefore motivations from) supernatural matters are no different that those I have on natural, worldly matters.
The point is, that in looking at the Christian and the atheist you have to treat them both the same. If you are going to follow the atheist around, and spy on him to see how he behaves in private, then of course you'll be able to have more certainty about his motivations. But if you're going to do that, then it's only fair to try to determine the motivations of the Christian as well, in which case you will also have more certainty about his motivations. So I still contend that your statement is incorrect: there is no difference between the materialist atheist and the Christian in regards to the degree of certainty you can have about the amount of duress they are under from their beliefs when it comes to ethical acts.
I think you misunderstand the bewilderment. It isn't at the *motivation* to do what is good, rather it is at the *determination* of what is good. See my signature for more info.
I didn't miss it, I just didn't think it was necessary to respond, because my main point (about the differing beliefs of atheists) was sufficient to invalidate your original statement. The side point about "worldly" motivations was just an added bonus.
Going back and rereading, I see now that you did admit that your claim, as originally worded was incorrect:
So I suppose I can address the new claim, and your point that I passed over in my last post...
Now it sounds like you are talking about individuals, rather than generalizing about groups, which is what your original statement sounded like. So let's assume that we're looking not at "Christians" and "materialist atheists" but at "a specific Christian" and "a specific materialist atheist".
You may be right, we could probably devise some sort of method for examining the atheists motives... a hidden camera, or a test or something like that. But we could do a similar thing for the Christian. You could for instance, ask me what I believed about ethical acts and punishment/reward in the afterlife (and I'd tell you what I said above: I have no beliefs that cause duress). Maybe you don't believe me. That's fine... I have no doubt psychologists could cook up some sort of profiling test that would let them rank my beliefs and rate the amount of duress my beliefs caused. It doesn't matter that the beliefs involved the supernatural... I am a natural creature, and my beliefs and opinions on (and therefore motivations from) supernatural matters are no different that those I have on natural, worldly matters.
The point is, that in looking at the Christian and the atheist you have to treat them both the same. If you are going to follow the atheist around, and spy on him to see how he behaves in private, then of course you'll be able to have more certainty about his motivations. But if you're going to do that, then it's only fair to try to determine the motivations of the Christian as well, in which case you will also have more certainty about his motivations. So I still contend that your statement is incorrect: there is no difference between the materialist atheist and the Christian in regards to the degree of certainty you can have about the amount of duress they are under from their beliefs when it comes to ethical acts.
I think you misunderstand the bewilderment. It isn't at the *motivation* to do what is good, rather it is at the *determination* of what is good. See my signature for more info.
Paradox
Unregistered
P
Congratulations. With the aid of you 'unnamed informant' you have adopted the only logical 'out' from the position you found yourself in: demand that 'intelligence' is immeasurable. One word of caution, however: beware that your supports rest upon an appeal to ignorance. It's nonsense to say that one person is not smarter than another, what you are relying on is the incomplete psychological picture of how to properly test it. I suspect the modern PC concoction that tries to paint 'equality' onto everything is partly to blame for this stretching of the term 'intelligence' so that no one is left 'insulted'. It's called anti-intellectualism.
But I digress, we will see what you have to prop up your case.
IQ tests are directed specifically to test what is commonly accepted as 'intelligence'. Now, one thing it doesn't measure effectively, for instance, is credulity, but then again I never said IQ tests alone were the be-all/end-all of determining intelligence. That is your strawman. I cited 4 different types of common methods, followed by "..." to indicate that there are probably more.
Sure, the wider you stretch the shroud of 'intelligence' to encompass irrelevant issues, the more specific test will need to be incorporated to make the results appropriate. Split the whole into as many different parts as you like, but the parts can still be measured...and those measurements can be added together to paint the big picture.
This is irrelevant. Of course latent intelligence cannot be measured! Potential is probably one of the few aspect where there is no substantial difference between one person or another (barring prominent genetic setbacks). However, we are not concerned with "Will A be more 'intelligent' tomorrow than B." Sure, intelligence can change, as education factors in.
Well, which one is it? Do you want to make it an 'unknown' or an 'unknowable'? Aviation was impossible in the 1600s (has been), it sure wasn't generally 'impossible'. Isn't your tutor helping you along a bit better than this?
First, you forgot 'Potty-Trainee Efficiency' , "Flipping-Burgers Intelligence' and "Hopscotch Understanding'. I understand that intelligence doesn't necessary lie with just one or two simple faculties, but "Musical Intelligence"? It doesn't surprise me that "Gardner has never ruled out the possibility that additional intelligences may also exist"...it's easier to move the goalposts when you are free to incorporate new facets at will.
Second, why should we accept this fellow's delineation of 'intelligence'? (If this is what you have decided to appropriate for yourself, then fine.)
Third, let's take you list at face value. Does Gardner provide clear definitions of his 'intelligences'?
This isn't golf...we don't need to provide 'fair' handicaps to compensate for things like 'environment'. If someone is less intelligent because their environment has failed to provide them stimuli they would have needed to be on par with others, too bad. As you were so fond of pointing out back in the CP discussion, this is their reality...their tough luck. Seems like someone has a result already in mind before starting out on the research...
What the hell is 'Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence'? How many 'Oxymoron of the Year' awards did this fellow win with that gem? Michael Jordan's incredible proficiency as basketball is not an 'intelligence' of any sort, although his intelligence may factor into his playing ability (pattern recognition, grasp of basic physics, et cetera)
How could I not have seen it earlier. When balanced out, Mike's "Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence' cancels out Einstein's (everything else?) and they both are(/were) truly, equally intelligent.
You're just trying to redefine intelligence. Fine. Whatever you want it to 'mean' is fine by me. Just be so kind as to provide whatever definition of 'intelligence' you intend to use.
What do you call that? Rental Intelligence? Borrowed IQ? Sure, I have Stephen Hawking over my should helping me out while I take an IQ test, and sure enough it will be higher. Big surprise. This isn't a team sport we're trying to test.
Technique, marvelous as it may be, is doo-doo if one's premises are unsound.
Okay, I give you 8 points out of 10 for smooth transition from pertinent comments to superfluous text. Can we get back to the issue now?
Although I'm willing to consider 'emotional intelligence' as a credible factor in overall 'intellignce', we are not really here to test someone's 'resilience' or 'patience'. Once you pick where you want you 'realm of intelligence' to end, we can start making progress.
If I say I want to measure the acidity of oranges, would you start throwing in nectarines, tangerines and peaches in saying they are pertinent to the testing of fruit? We're not even speaking of intelligence anymore
Let's see if I can guess your intended recipe here:
1) Stretch the realm of intelligence thin enough to encompass any redeeming human characteristic.
2) Display said characteristics in a way that showcases how they can translate into 'qualities'.
3) Demand parallel between said qualities and 'quality of a person'.
4) Make the opposition answer if they believe that the quality (worthwhileness) of one person's life is fundamentally better than another's'. Let Strawman/Appeal to Emotion simmer, stirring gradually.
It was a question. If you felt it was a misrepresentation, you simply had to answer that the parallel I drew of your position was faulty, ideally with examples of why it was faulty. can you do that?
As I have understood it, your position is that the purpose of doing 15 reps of bicep excercises is to cause pain to one's arm.
That's surely what I garner from this:
Your own analogy of your position is flawed. Although now you're juggling the terms 'purpose' and 'objective' whereas before you used them for separate purposes. To quote Cary Elwes:
"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
[edited to add]
Algo que tu amiguito dijo de el?
Guest
Unregistered
G
Victor :
I'm still not sure you understood what I actually said, Victor. In fact I clearly stated that materialism was not internally inconsistent. It is also perfectly capable of explaining cognition. The only thing it does not explain is "what connects mind to brain". I don't want to cover this ground with you again, but I do want to make it clear that I did not say the materialism was inconsistent - just incapable of explaining existence, in this case "I am". I was a materialist for most of my life. It was this single failure to explain "I am" gives me reason to doubt its efficacy as a model for the mind. It is a model for the physical world. Of course if you wish to define the physical world as the entirety of existence then you are simply left with unanswerable questions. I do not believe those questions are truly unanswerable, just unanswerable within the materialistic framework. But who cares. Not me, anymore. Just want to be understood, these days.
Well, firstly I would say my route out of materialism led me through humanism and pantheism before I was finally forced to accept that I was a panentheist rather than a pantheist. There is a sacrificial goat somewhere around here though.
I very much wish the Christianity had been explained properly to me in the first place. I still would not have been a Christian, in all probablity, but I would not have ended up hating it quite so much and would not have rebounded quite so far to the other extreme. Extremes can be accomodated, but only in symmettrical, circular, equality. There is no "1" without a "-1", and neither without a "0".
I'm still not sure you understood what I actually said, Victor. In fact I clearly stated that materialism was not internally inconsistent. It is also perfectly capable of explaining cognition. The only thing it does not explain is "what connects mind to brain". I don't want to cover this ground with you again, but I do want to make it clear that I did not say the materialism was inconsistent - just incapable of explaining existence, in this case "I am". I was a materialist for most of my life. It was this single failure to explain "I am" gives me reason to doubt its efficacy as a model for the mind. It is a model for the physical world. Of course if you wish to define the physical world as the entirety of existence then you are simply left with unanswerable questions. I do not believe those questions are truly unanswerable, just unanswerable within the materialistic framework. But who cares. Not me, anymore. Just want to be understood, these days.
Well, firstly I would say my route out of materialism led me through humanism and pantheism before I was finally forced to accept that I was a panentheist rather than a pantheist. There is a sacrificial goat somewhere around here though.
I very much wish the Christianity had been explained properly to me in the first place. I still would not have been a Christian, in all probablity, but I would not have ended up hating it quite so much and would not have rebounded quite so far to the other extreme. Extremes can be accomodated, but only in symmettrical, circular, equality. There is no "1" without a "-1", and neither without a "0".
Victor wrote:
No, I am actually saying that for someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural, the impure motivations can generally be fished out by observation -- faux-altruistic atheist can easily be told apart from agenuinely altruistic one
Yes, I know this is exactly what you are saying. You are wrong. There is no way in practical terms (by observation) to know what the motivation of a atheist is to do altruistic deeds.
How could a ever prove an atheist is doing it for ego gratification. I can't prove it. Because I can't prove it, it does not make it true that they do it for altruistic reasons. This is the argument from ignorance
Victor wrote:
The point is not that atheists are always genuinely ethical, but that genuinely ethical atheists can be known to be so
Argument from ignorance.
Victor wrote:
We cannot measure intelligence directly, simply because we can't agree on what intelligence is; but we have various measures which we all agree measure certain aspects of intelligence, thus capturing some of its essence.
We cannot measure beauty directly, simply because we can't agree on what beauty is; but we have various measures which we all agree measure certain aspects of beauty thus capturing some of its essence.
Victor, the motivation might be well intended, but the results lead down the path of evil.
Victor wrote:
The evil lies not in recognizing people's differences (that's the way that leads to installing cerebral dampeners in everyone's head, to make sure that we are all equal); the evil lies in associating such differences with distinct groups of people, and then in judging the said groups by their pre-assigned group valuations.
The evil begins by trying to differentiate people.
Victor wrote:
The evil is not in saying that the death row is full of blacks (a fact), but in saying that blacks are inherently criminally inclined;
With this comment, now I’m certain that you have no idea of the implications of what you believe. Pay attention to what I’m about to say Victor. Death row is full of blacks because of racism. There is a disproportionate amount of blacks in jail because of racism. The root of this evil is that whites (and other races too) see blacks as different, hey they are black. Who can deny they are different. I assure you, if humans where blind, racism would not exist. The root of racism is that we see them black.
The minute you label someone more intelligent than someone else, you open the door to a new kind of discrimination. With your intelligence and your commitment to humanism, I can’t understand why you don’t get it.
Victor wrote:
not in saying that atheists are on average smarter than xians, but in discriminating against one of the two groups based on that fact. Get it?
The only way to discriminate against one group is to stick a label on it. Get it? No (presumed) fact, no way to discriminate.
Paradox wrote:
It's nonsense to say that one person is not smarter than another, what you are relying on is the incomplete psychological picture of how to properly test it. I suspect the modern PC concoction that tries to paint 'equality' onto everything is partly to blame for this stretching of the term 'intelligence' so that no one is left 'insulted'. It's called anti-intellectualism.
You rebel against this idea. I can understand that. Your whole emotional foundation is based on belief that you are special because you are smarter than the general population. The pity party is in full gear.
Sorry, Paradox, you are not special, you are not smarter, and you are not better than anybody else. And you shouldn’t feel bad about that either.
Paradox wrote:
Sure, the wider you stretch the shroud of 'intelligence' to encompass irrelevant issues
It so easy to dissect your emotional needs Paradox. You want to diminish the importance of the traits you feel lacking in. That would make you less special, right?
Paradox wrote:
This is irrelevant. Of course latent intelligence cannot be measured! Potential is probably one of the few aspect where there is no substantial difference between one person or another (barring prominent genetic setbacks). However, we are not concerned with "Will A be more 'intelligent' tomorrow than B." Sure, intelligence can change, as education factors in.
Don’t say *we are not concerned*, *say I am not concerned*. Yes, I can also understand this as well. You want to feel special today, now. You want to be able to say “I don’t care if you can be better than me tomorrow, I’m better than you today, and that is all that matters”
Paradox wrote:
Isn't your tutor helping you along a bit better than this?
Yes, Paradox, I understand what you are saying, you don’t need anyone to help you, you can do all by yourself. You are smarter all by yourself.
Paradox wrote:
First, you forgot 'Potty-Trainee Efficiency' , "Flipping-Burgers Intelligence' and "Hopscotch Understanding'.
How could anyone have the audacity to say you are equal to someone that flips burgers. You are smarter than them.
Paradox wrote:
I understand that intelligence doesn't necessary lie with just one or two simple faculties, but "Musical Intelligence"? It doesn't surprise me that "Gardner has never ruled out the possibility that additional intelligences may also exist"...it's easier to move the goalposts when you are free to incorporate new facets at will.
Can you sing Paradox?
Paradox wrote:
Second, why should we accept this fellow's delineation of 'intelligence'? (If this is what you have decided to appropriate for yourself, then fine.)
Why do you keep using plural pronouns Paradox. Are you implying there is this elite group (the smarter ones club) that dishes out judgments. I can understand that, this notion makes you feel special, right?
Paradox wrote:
Third, let's take you list at face value. Does Gardner provide clear definitions of his 'intelligences'?
Yes, he does.
Paradox wrote:
This isn't golf...we don't need to provide 'fair' handicaps to compensate for things like 'environment'.
So I take you don’t believe in affirmative action. That was my prediction.
Paradox wrote:
If someone is less intelligent because their environment has failed to provide them stimuli they would have needed to be on par with others, too bad.
No, not to bad. You create social programs to compensate as to bring your fellow person (the one you believe to be inferior to you) to your level. You have heard of affirmative action, right?
Paradox wrote:
What the hell is 'Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence'? How many 'Oxymoron of the Year' awards did this fellow win with that gem? Michael Jordan's incredible proficiency as basketball is not an 'intelligence' of any sort, although his intelligence may factor into his playing ability (pattern recognition, grasp of basic physics, et cetera)
How good are you at sports?
Paradox wrote:
How could I not have seen it earlier. When balanced out, Mike's "Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence' cancels out Einstein's (everything else?) and they both are(/were) truly, equally intelligent.
And you wont see it any time soon. Now, to begin to understand how twisted your mind is on this subject, you have no idea how true this statement really is.
Oh, yes, black people are only good for playing sports. How could I ever say Michael Jordan is qualitatively as smart as Einstein. That is a blasphemy, right?
Paradox wrote:
What do you call that? Rental Intelligence? Borrowed IQ? Sure, I have Stephen Hawking over my should helping me out while I take an IQ test, and sure enough it will be higher. Big surprise. This isn't a team sport we're trying to test.
This would take away all your glory, right? You want to feel better all by yourself, right? Sorry Paradox, but life is a team sport. Incidentally this is one of the foundation of democracy.
Paradox wrote:
Okay, I give you 8 points out of 10 for smooth transition from pertinent comments to superfluous text. Can we get back to the issue now?
Yes, I understand it makes you feel good to think you are in the judge’s seat way up there, giving out scores to the pupils. It is a nice illusion, Paradox.
Paradox wrote:
Although I'm willing to consider 'emotional intelligence' as a credible factor in overall 'intellignce', we are not really here to test someone's 'resilience' or 'patience'. Once you pick where you want you 'realm of intelligence' to end, we can start making progress.
You are willing to consider. Well, I consider that without emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence is useless.
Paradox wrote:
Let's see if I can guess your intended recipe here:
1) Stretch the realm of intelligence thin enough to encompass any redeeming human characteristic.
2) Display said characteristics in a way that showcases how they can translate into 'qualities'.
3) Demand parallel between said qualities and 'quality of a person'.
4) Make the opposition answer if they believe that the quality (worthwhileness) of one person's life is fundamentally better than another's'. Let Strawman/Appeal to Emotion simmer, stirring gradually.
Let’s see if I can guess Paradox’s beliefs here:
1) It is not good for my ego to think that humans have an infinite range of intellectual qualities because then I won’t feel special and elite.
2) Because if they are shown to be qualitative, the foundation of my ego gratification falls apart.
3) And clearly I’m better because I’m smarter
4) And in my last one clearly show I deep down know Christian is right.
Paradox wrote:
It was a question. If you felt it was a misrepresentation, you simply had to answer that the parallel I drew of your position was faulty, ideally with examples of why it was faulty. can you do that?
You are trying to find fault in the words I’m using and not the meaning of what I’m saying. I think any person, the example I have given, can understands what I mean. You are trying to diminish my point by concentrating on the use of my words.
Paradox wrote:
Your own analogy of your position is flawed. Although now you're juggling the terms 'purpose' and 'objective' whereas before you used them for separate purposes.
No it is not flawed, it very easy to understand. You know, how a common man would explain it. But ok, you want to hear like an intellectual elite would explain it. Here it is:
Victor wrote:
Negative reinforcement is the coupling of undesirable action with the effect which the subject desires to avoid.
So CP is an undesirable action which effect’s the subject wants to avoid.
Forgive me, I’m a simple man with simple words. What Victor is saying is that negative reinforcement causes pain of some sort. CP is no exception.
And a time out causes pain, and a withdrawal of a privilege causes pain. I hope you see where I’m going with this.
Oh, and you want to know why positive reinforcement was not on the list. Because I don’t want to reward my daughter for her negative behavior. But, I wanted you to feel good for just a bit.
Paradox wrote:
Algo que tu amiguito dijo de el?
You might want to want to stick with English. That translates to: Something your little friend said about? I still don’t know what bandejo means.
No, I am actually saying that for someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural, the impure motivations can generally be fished out by observation -- faux-altruistic atheist can easily be told apart from agenuinely altruistic one
Yes, I know this is exactly what you are saying. You are wrong. There is no way in practical terms (by observation) to know what the motivation of a atheist is to do altruistic deeds.
How could a ever prove an atheist is doing it for ego gratification. I can't prove it. Because I can't prove it, it does not make it true that they do it for altruistic reasons. This is the argument from ignorance
Victor wrote:
The point is not that atheists are always genuinely ethical, but that genuinely ethical atheists can be known to be so
Argument from ignorance.
Victor wrote:
We cannot measure intelligence directly, simply because we can't agree on what intelligence is; but we have various measures which we all agree measure certain aspects of intelligence, thus capturing some of its essence.
We cannot measure beauty directly, simply because we can't agree on what beauty is; but we have various measures which we all agree measure certain aspects of beauty thus capturing some of its essence.
Victor, the motivation might be well intended, but the results lead down the path of evil.
Victor wrote:
The evil lies not in recognizing people's differences (that's the way that leads to installing cerebral dampeners in everyone's head, to make sure that we are all equal); the evil lies in associating such differences with distinct groups of people, and then in judging the said groups by their pre-assigned group valuations.
The evil begins by trying to differentiate people.
Victor wrote:
The evil is not in saying that the death row is full of blacks (a fact), but in saying that blacks are inherently criminally inclined;
With this comment, now I’m certain that you have no idea of the implications of what you believe. Pay attention to what I’m about to say Victor. Death row is full of blacks because of racism. There is a disproportionate amount of blacks in jail because of racism. The root of this evil is that whites (and other races too) see blacks as different, hey they are black. Who can deny they are different. I assure you, if humans where blind, racism would not exist. The root of racism is that we see them black.
The minute you label someone more intelligent than someone else, you open the door to a new kind of discrimination. With your intelligence and your commitment to humanism, I can’t understand why you don’t get it.
Victor wrote:
not in saying that atheists are on average smarter than xians, but in discriminating against one of the two groups based on that fact. Get it?
The only way to discriminate against one group is to stick a label on it. Get it? No (presumed) fact, no way to discriminate.
Paradox wrote:
It's nonsense to say that one person is not smarter than another, what you are relying on is the incomplete psychological picture of how to properly test it. I suspect the modern PC concoction that tries to paint 'equality' onto everything is partly to blame for this stretching of the term 'intelligence' so that no one is left 'insulted'. It's called anti-intellectualism.
You rebel against this idea. I can understand that. Your whole emotional foundation is based on belief that you are special because you are smarter than the general population. The pity party is in full gear.
Sorry, Paradox, you are not special, you are not smarter, and you are not better than anybody else. And you shouldn’t feel bad about that either.
Paradox wrote:
Sure, the wider you stretch the shroud of 'intelligence' to encompass irrelevant issues
It so easy to dissect your emotional needs Paradox. You want to diminish the importance of the traits you feel lacking in. That would make you less special, right?
Paradox wrote:
This is irrelevant. Of course latent intelligence cannot be measured! Potential is probably one of the few aspect where there is no substantial difference between one person or another (barring prominent genetic setbacks). However, we are not concerned with "Will A be more 'intelligent' tomorrow than B." Sure, intelligence can change, as education factors in.
Don’t say *we are not concerned*, *say I am not concerned*. Yes, I can also understand this as well. You want to feel special today, now. You want to be able to say “I don’t care if you can be better than me tomorrow, I’m better than you today, and that is all that matters”
Paradox wrote:
Isn't your tutor helping you along a bit better than this?
Yes, Paradox, I understand what you are saying, you don’t need anyone to help you, you can do all by yourself. You are smarter all by yourself.
Paradox wrote:
First, you forgot 'Potty-Trainee Efficiency' , "Flipping-Burgers Intelligence' and "Hopscotch Understanding'.
How could anyone have the audacity to say you are equal to someone that flips burgers. You are smarter than them.
Paradox wrote:
I understand that intelligence doesn't necessary lie with just one or two simple faculties, but "Musical Intelligence"? It doesn't surprise me that "Gardner has never ruled out the possibility that additional intelligences may also exist"...it's easier to move the goalposts when you are free to incorporate new facets at will.
Can you sing Paradox?
Paradox wrote:
Second, why should we accept this fellow's delineation of 'intelligence'? (If this is what you have decided to appropriate for yourself, then fine.)
Why do you keep using plural pronouns Paradox. Are you implying there is this elite group (the smarter ones club) that dishes out judgments. I can understand that, this notion makes you feel special, right?
Paradox wrote:
Third, let's take you list at face value. Does Gardner provide clear definitions of his 'intelligences'?
Yes, he does.
Paradox wrote:
This isn't golf...we don't need to provide 'fair' handicaps to compensate for things like 'environment'.
So I take you don’t believe in affirmative action. That was my prediction.
Paradox wrote:
If someone is less intelligent because their environment has failed to provide them stimuli they would have needed to be on par with others, too bad.
No, not to bad. You create social programs to compensate as to bring your fellow person (the one you believe to be inferior to you) to your level. You have heard of affirmative action, right?
Paradox wrote:
What the hell is 'Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence'? How many 'Oxymoron of the Year' awards did this fellow win with that gem? Michael Jordan's incredible proficiency as basketball is not an 'intelligence' of any sort, although his intelligence may factor into his playing ability (pattern recognition, grasp of basic physics, et cetera)
How good are you at sports?
Paradox wrote:
How could I not have seen it earlier. When balanced out, Mike's "Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence' cancels out Einstein's (everything else?) and they both are(/were) truly, equally intelligent.
And you wont see it any time soon. Now, to begin to understand how twisted your mind is on this subject, you have no idea how true this statement really is.
Oh, yes, black people are only good for playing sports. How could I ever say Michael Jordan is qualitatively as smart as Einstein. That is a blasphemy, right?
Paradox wrote:
What do you call that? Rental Intelligence? Borrowed IQ? Sure, I have Stephen Hawking over my should helping me out while I take an IQ test, and sure enough it will be higher. Big surprise. This isn't a team sport we're trying to test.
This would take away all your glory, right? You want to feel better all by yourself, right? Sorry Paradox, but life is a team sport. Incidentally this is one of the foundation of democracy.
Paradox wrote:
Okay, I give you 8 points out of 10 for smooth transition from pertinent comments to superfluous text. Can we get back to the issue now?
Yes, I understand it makes you feel good to think you are in the judge’s seat way up there, giving out scores to the pupils. It is a nice illusion, Paradox.
Paradox wrote:
Although I'm willing to consider 'emotional intelligence' as a credible factor in overall 'intellignce', we are not really here to test someone's 'resilience' or 'patience'. Once you pick where you want you 'realm of intelligence' to end, we can start making progress.
You are willing to consider. Well, I consider that without emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence is useless.
Paradox wrote:
Let's see if I can guess your intended recipe here:
1) Stretch the realm of intelligence thin enough to encompass any redeeming human characteristic.
2) Display said characteristics in a way that showcases how they can translate into 'qualities'.
3) Demand parallel between said qualities and 'quality of a person'.
4) Make the opposition answer if they believe that the quality (worthwhileness) of one person's life is fundamentally better than another's'. Let Strawman/Appeal to Emotion simmer, stirring gradually.
Let’s see if I can guess Paradox’s beliefs here:
1) It is not good for my ego to think that humans have an infinite range of intellectual qualities because then I won’t feel special and elite.
2) Because if they are shown to be qualitative, the foundation of my ego gratification falls apart.
3) And clearly I’m better because I’m smarter
4) And in my last one clearly show I deep down know Christian is right.
Paradox wrote:
It was a question. If you felt it was a misrepresentation, you simply had to answer that the parallel I drew of your position was faulty, ideally with examples of why it was faulty. can you do that?
You are trying to find fault in the words I’m using and not the meaning of what I’m saying. I think any person, the example I have given, can understands what I mean. You are trying to diminish my point by concentrating on the use of my words.
Paradox wrote:
Your own analogy of your position is flawed. Although now you're juggling the terms 'purpose' and 'objective' whereas before you used them for separate purposes.
No it is not flawed, it very easy to understand. You know, how a common man would explain it. But ok, you want to hear like an intellectual elite would explain it. Here it is:
Victor wrote:
Negative reinforcement is the coupling of undesirable action with the effect which the subject desires to avoid.
So CP is an undesirable action which effect’s the subject wants to avoid.
Forgive me, I’m a simple man with simple words. What Victor is saying is that negative reinforcement causes pain of some sort. CP is no exception.
And a time out causes pain, and a withdrawal of a privilege causes pain. I hope you see where I’m going with this.
Oh, and you want to know why positive reinforcement was not on the list. Because I don’t want to reward my daughter for her negative behavior. But, I wanted you to feel good for just a bit.
Paradox wrote:
Algo que tu amiguito dijo de el?
You might want to want to stick with English. That translates to: Something your little friend said about? I still don’t know what bandejo means.
Paradox
Unregistered
P
No, sir. I susupect it is you who has emotional ties to your position. this way, you can be 'just as intelligent' as the percentage of the population that is smarter than you without doing any real work...precisely because you think you are somehow less worthwhile of a person because of it.
You have this torrid inability to differentiate 'special' and 'smarter'. I never said I was special. No one is 'special', the concept is a description of one's personal appraisal (often misguided). I don't infer that because I may be smarter than your average pew-sitter than it mean I deserve a better quality of life or some such nonsense.
I suppose you are anti-sports too, eh? I mean, major league player A is getting paid 8 million dollars a year, when he is truly 'equally as proficient in baseball' as double A player X who's making 100,000 a year. It is this differentiation that is the root of all evil,according to you, correct?
For a commentary concerning this fallacy written by someone who is smarter than I (*gasp* did I just smack my ego in the face, according to you?
) read up here:http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Rationally_Speaking/01-05-anti_intellectualism.htm
The final straw of a dying position: claim psychological instability in your opponent.
Your smear campaign is more ridiculous than you realize.
You are a frighteningly desperate fellow.
I think I may have changed my stance on CP...you've clearly either received too many or too few whacks in your youth.
Amazing! Your ability to misunderstand the simplest if phrases is mind-boggling. You have no position left, anymore.
Noooo! don't make me answer than...I might have to admit I'm not 'musically smarter' than someone else! *gasp* My ego can't take it.. AAaaaaaghgghh!
Nope, it's okay. Stay with your mythology that makes you feel like you've got all of life's answers without having to actually think them through yourself. Like a child that cannot live without its rattle...
Hey? what happened? You forgot to throw in your gratuitous "but you wouldn't consider his definitions worthwhile because you're obviously smarter, right?"
Interesting, we can isolate the particular questions/issues that you can actually answer by whether you have excluded a nonsensical reference to you emotional analysis.
As the tally goes, your batting average is: 2 for 7! (I was generous with your 'can you sing' response, since you didn't specifically mention anything about me 'being smarter'.)
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊."
Does that make you feel 'special'? That you have these remarkable precognitive powers?
Affirmative action does not make anyone smarter, you dolt.
I'm flattered that you're so obsessed with me to have to redirect every issue to my proficiency with it. Sheesh...one would wonder where I got this 'ego' from!
What mental institution did you escape from? Seriously...it takes an idiot to write the above.
Oh yeah! Well Martina Navratilova said...
Remarkable. The man that can fart from his mouth.
What you think of cognitive intelligence is not the issue! Saying baseball isn't important doesn't mean that Alex Rodriguez isn't a better player than you.
Does being 'right' make you feel 'special? (See this elementary school lunacy can go both ways!)
Here's a tissue...wipe those tears from you face.
Oye, pendejo...lee de nuevo lo que dije. Your translation is wrong. If your friend(s) in El salvador can't help you with, there are plenty of spanish speaking people on the forum who would assist you.
Someone throw this guy a life-saver or something.
Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 716
Juggler,
So, have you dispensed with the lunatic assumption that all materialists deep down believe in soul, and reject materialism in their hearts?..
It's impossible to explain cognition materialisticalyl without simultaneously connecting it to matter (brain), because that's where all materialistic explanations ultimately lead, and the connection thus can be established through matter..
So yes, by asserting that materialism doesn't explain self-awareness, and cognition more generally, you are asserting that the existing explanation of mind is inconsistent with the observed evidence. In short, by denying materialistic theory of mind, you deny materialism's consistency.
So, have you dispensed with the lunatic assumption that all materialists deep down believe in soul, and reject materialism in their hearts?..
WHOOSH!
It's impossible to explain cognition materialisticalyl without simultaneously connecting it to matter (brain), because that's where all materialistic explanations ultimately lead, and the connection thus can be established through matter..
So yes, by asserting that materialism doesn't explain self-awareness, and cognition more generally, you are asserting that the existing explanation of mind is inconsistent with the observed evidence. In short, by denying materialistic theory of mind, you deny materialism's consistency.
Then blame your lack of knowledge, rather than a perfectly fine philosophical system. What's more, you assume that just because you didn't understand the explanation, there isn't a valid one. How quaint.
Why don't you start by doing the same -- accept the fact that I, and many others, don't harbor a belief in soul or god or dualism or whatever, at any depth?..
I've been a pantheist for as long as I could actually hold a coherent belief system -- since long before I knew the term, certainly; the rest of my belief system changed, but the fundamental pantheistic attitude always remained. I am still a pantheist, of course.
Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 716
Christian,
Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences is just one theory of intelligence; and while it's useful in that it isolates various important mental abilities, it's a huge misnomer to call them "intelligence".
The words' meaning is determined by usage, you see. Come up to a random person and ask them who they think is more intelligent -- Einstein (excelling at Spatial Intelligence and Logical-Mathematical Intelligence) or Michail Jordan (excelling at Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence and Interpersonal Intelligence). I am sure you realize exactly what the answer will be.
Most of Garnder's "intelligences" aren't -- they are important cognitive abilities, certainly, but naming them "intelligence" is incorrect. More importantly, since I was using the standard English meaning of "intelligence" when I made my assertion about intelligence/religiosity correlation, simply redefining the word does nothing.
Oh yeah, there's a number of other theories of intelligence, too. I can list at least three off the top of my head, and they are all far more in agreement with my usage than with yours.
When we do comparisons like this, actualities matter, not potential. Merely having potential is not enough (ever saw Gattaca?)
Face it, it's trivial to compare two people of drastically different cognitive abilities, and decide who is smarter. Hell, forget Michael Jordan -- I dare you to compare Einstein to your average McDonald's employee (Jordan after all has masters in something or other); and if you can't figure out that Einstein is smarter, ask any person out there, and you will get the answer.
And anyway, even if you define intelligfence as ability to cope with and control the real world, you can still have people who are more intelligent than others -- known to be so by their superior achievement. Of course, that way lies the belief that anyone who "made it" is by definition superior -- a new aristocratric order.
Unfortunately, many references in the link I provided relied not on test results but on actual real-world performance. Nice try though, better luck next time.
Combined, you are certainly better than you alone (your ignorance isn't as blinding any longer), but frankly, still far below the par.
Now mind you, this is not to say that test scores are useless -- for if we are toi accept your friend's point about test scores being biased towards certain kinds of intelligence, that leaves you asserting that xians, as a rule, are worse at taking tests but better at un-timed problem solving (they would have to be better, in order for you to be able to claim that the comparison is undetermined); a ratrgher bizarre assertion which is not supported by any data, and in act contradicted by such.
To speak about altruism usefully, we must distinguish some motivations from others; specifically, people generally recognize the action as not being altruistic when it's motivasted by external reward. Therefore, we can safely say that internal motivators don't detract from an act being altruistic.
Now, back to your objection... I am at a loss to imagine someone who does good deeds for ego gratification, without the said ego gratification being external; and if we do imagine syuch a person -- the one who feels good about themselves by doing good deeds -- then I really don't see a problem here. Just remove the button-pushing word "ego" from your statement, and this artificial negative connotation vanishes like morning dew. Kewl, huh?
<hr><hr>
Researchers have found that physical beauty has certain hard-coded elements -- we are born recognizing certain physical properties as beautiful, sich as waist/hip ratio, facial bone structure, skin condition, etc. While standards of physical beauty vary greatly, they also have a common universal core; so yes, it's not impossible to take two people and say that one is more beautiful than the other (just compare Adrian Paul to Quasimodo, I am sure you will have no trouble telling who is more beautiful).
Your denial of reality sickens me, no matter now noble (but misguided) your cause is.
That was my point -- that the evil is in taking a fact and misinterpreting it for discriminatory purposes, not in recognizing the mere facts!
Most death row inamtes are black, intelligence is correlated with religiosity -- simple facts. The former does not mean that blacks are inherently more criminal, and the latter does not mean that xianity makes people dumb.
You SOOOO lost here, dude...
You have gazed into the abyss too long, untermensch.
Positive reinforcement is reward for doing good, bnegative reinforcement if punishment for doing bad.
How the ◊◊◊◊ do you get the cojones to debate in public, if your conceptual groundworkis so ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ pathetic? Talking to you is like talking to a middle-school student, sometimes!
<hr><hr>I noticed an interesting (and expected) pattern. In your drive to get away from the unpleasant facts, you have dug yourself in far deeper, because you already took the first steps down the road to three distinct distopias:
Edited to fix bad formatting
That's no proof, send your "informant" back to school.
Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences is just one theory of intelligence; and while it's useful in that it isolates various important mental abilities, it's a huge misnomer to call them "intelligence".
The words' meaning is determined by usage, you see. Come up to a random person and ask them who they think is more intelligent -- Einstein (excelling at Spatial Intelligence and Logical-Mathematical Intelligence) or Michail Jordan (excelling at Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence and Interpersonal Intelligence). I am sure you realize exactly what the answer will be.
Most of Garnder's "intelligences" aren't -- they are important cognitive abilities, certainly, but naming them "intelligence" is incorrect. More importantly, since I was using the standard English meaning of "intelligence" when I made my assertion about intelligence/religiosity correlation, simply redefining the word does nothing.
Oh yeah, there's a number of other theories of intelligence, too. I can list at least three off the top of my head, and they are all far more in agreement with my usage than with yours.
First of all, this is not at all a given -- it's entirely possible that some individual is smarter than some other individual in all respects. Really.
Potential is not the same as raw intelligence. Raw intelligence is what people display when they perform various taskls requiring intelligence; raw intelligence is hard to measure, but it's actualized, not potential. Potential does matter, but nor for the purpose of saying who is smarter -- just as when we ask who is stronger, we compare the people's actual strength rather than their genetic potential. A natural-born athlete who leads the life of a total slob may have more potential than a hard-working average person, but he will still be weaker/slower/whatever.
When we do comparisons like this, actualities matter, not potential. Merely having potential is not enough (ever saw Gattaca?)
You don't have to measure them all. You just have to measure enough. Real world is not math, and intelligence is not a pure partial order system.
Face it, it's trivial to compare two people of drastically different cognitive abilities, and decide who is smarter. Hell, forget Michael Jordan -- I dare you to compare Einstein to your average McDonald's employee (Jordan after all has masters in something or other); and if you can't figure out that Einstein is smarter, ask any person out there, and you will get the answer.
being able to hire tons of physicists doesn't make one smarter, dude; just as me being able to hire a singer doesn't make my singing ability any better. Get on with the program.
And since when is intelligence defined as the equivalent of survival skills?.. Mind you, this is a rhetorical question -- I know that some psychologists do so, but their usage is wildly at odds with the English language.
And anyway, even if you define intelligfence as ability to cope with and control the real world, you can still have people who are more intelligent than others -- known to be so by their superior achievement. Of course, that way lies the belief that anyone who "made it" is by definition superior -- a new aristocratric order.
Ah, finally, a semi-coherent objection! here's a candy bar, good boy.
Unfortunately, many references in the link I provided relied not on test results but on actual real-world performance. Nice try though, better luck next time.
Combined, you are certainly better than you alone (your ignorance isn't as blinding any longer), but frankly, still far below the par.Arguably true, and arguably emotional intelligence is indeed an aspect of what people commonly recognize as "intelligence". Fortunately, as I said above, the link I provided relies on real-life performance as well, not just on test scores.
Now mind you, this is not to say that test scores are useless -- for if we are toi accept your friend's point about test scores being biased towards certain kinds of intelligence, that leaves you asserting that xians, as a rule, are worse at taking tests but better at un-timed problem solving (they would have to be better, in order for you to be able to claim that the comparison is undetermined); a ratrgher bizarre assertion which is not supported by any data, and in act contradicted by such.
Why don't you just have your unnamed friend join the thread? I am not a big fan of talking to dumb terminals.
Sure there is -- we can control for the environmental factoras, and hence we can fish out such motivations.
So? Altruism is always based on some selfish impulse -- people feel better about themselves in some manner upon performing the altruistic deed. Just because the person, for example, ejoys a "warm glow" upon helping a little old lady cross the street, and does it for the joy of knowing that he helped someone, doesn't mean that he isn't a true altruist.
To speak about altruism usefully, we must distinguish some motivations from others; specifically, people generally recognize the action as not being altruistic when it's motivasted by external reward. Therefore, we can safely say that internal motivators don't detract from an act being altruistic.
Now, back to your objection... I am at a loss to imagine someone who does good deeds for ego gratification, without the said ego gratification being external; and if we do imagine syuch a person -- the one who feels good about themselves by doing good deeds -- then I really don't see a problem here. Just remove the button-pushing word "ego" from your statement, and this artificial negative connotation vanishes like morning dew. Kewl, huh?
<hr><hr>
That's argument from knowledge (or rather, knowability), dumdum.
Ah, marvelous. Let's talk about physical beauty, since we are talking about attributes of people.
Researchers have found that physical beauty has certain hard-coded elements -- we are born recognizing certain physical properties as beautiful, sich as waist/hip ratio, facial bone structure, skin condition, etc. While standards of physical beauty vary greatly, they also have a common universal core; so yes, it's not impossible to take two people and say that one is more beautiful than the other (just compare Adrian Paul to Quasimodo, I am sure you will have no trouble telling who is more beautiful).
Right. And since some people are smarter than others, let's avoid evil by installing universal neurological dampeners, to make sure that everyone's level of cognitive ability is equal.
Your denial of reality sickens me, no matter now noble (but misguided) your cause is.
◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ DUH!
That was my point -- that the evil is in taking a fact and misinterpreting it for discriminatory purposes, not in recognizing the mere facts!
Most death row inamtes are black, intelligence is correlated with religiosity -- simple facts. The former does not mean that blacks are inherently more criminal, and the latter does not mean that xianity makes people dumb.
You SOOOO lost here, dude...
Like I said, you are SOOOO lost here, dude...
Duh -- but that's not sufficient to discriminate. If you are seriously advocating removing any concept that might potentially lead to discrimination (that's what concepts are for, to be applied), then you are advocating a PC version of 1984 -- well-meaning but fundamentally evil.
You have gazed into the abyss too long, untermensch.
POsitive reinforcement rewards positive behavior, dude.
Positive reinforcement is reward for doing good, bnegative reinforcement if punishment for doing bad.
How the ◊◊◊◊ do you get the cojones to debate in public, if your conceptual groundworkis so ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ pathetic? Talking to you is like talking to a middle-school student, sometimes!
<hr><hr>I noticed an interesting (and expected) pattern. In your drive to get away from the unpleasant facts, you have dug yourself in far deeper, because you already took the first steps down the road to three distinct distopias:
- Gattaca (potential is all that matters)
- New aristocracy (those who rule, do so because they are by definition superior)
- PC 1984 (let's excise from language all terms which can possible lead to discrimination!)
Edited to fix bad formatting
Is it intelligence or is it education that is correlated with religion?
I was reading a couple of interesting articles in this month Free Inquiry (one is available on online http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_22_3.htm), that discuss some of the reasons for religious belief declining in the "Western" world alongside with the increase of education. (Apart from the USA.)
If intelligence was the correlation we'd be looking at explaining why there has been a significant change in human intelligence over just the last 100 years. (Since IQ seems to be rising over the last century this could be true and there are hypothesis that do try to explain this observation e.g. better general nutrition for the whole population.)
Interestingly I would say that a possible explanation for the increase in IQ/intelligence is Christian's "potential intelligence" at work. E.g. as education improves and accurate information is more readily available more and more people are able to utilise more of their "potential" intelligence. After all without knowledge and information intelligence is severely hampered.
It would seem that with more and better education religiosity reduces, which must be a worry for some.
Christian:
Your premise seems to be that we need to ignore that every person is unique but it is a fact that some people are more able then others and therefore some people are less able.
Your view seems to be that it is “elitist” and “evil” to make discriminations based on this difference of ability. However I believe that some people should have less or different rights based on their abilities. Let me give you just one example:
A serial killer is caught – society rules that his rights will be reduced and decides to curtail his freedom and put him in prison for life. This is done to protect the rest of the population. What society is saying is that this person has less ability to exist in society then a non-serial killer and society takes what we believe appropriate action is against him by reducing his rights compared to a non-serial killer, based on his ability to live in society.
The other alternate is to say he has the same rights as non-serial killers to live in society even though his has less ability to do so and allow him to continue to commit his murders.
(Edited for spelling and punctuation)
Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 716
Darat,
both, actually. if you lok through http://www.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/texts/intelligence.txt , you will see examples of both factors negatively correlating with religiosity.
While the IQ scores have risen, as you note, explaining that is almost completely unrelated to explaining the intelligence/religiosity correlation.
That is a very likely explanation for the increase in mean IQ scores and somesuch, yes.
Paradox wrote:
For a commentary concerning this fallacy written by someone who is smarter than I (*gasp* did I just smack my ego in the face, according to you? ) read up here:
As I’ve said before, you are a dishonest poster. You introduced the strawman and now the magic trick appears(you and Victor must be related). My position has never been anti-intellectualism.
Paradox wrote:
Affirmative action does not make anyone smarter, you dolt.
Oh, yes it does. By giving minorities or the environmentally challenged, the opportunity to hold positions where they can learn new skills, become more educated and productive, the vicious cycle is broken. In effect, the future generations of those families becomes smarter.
Paradox wrote:
Here's a tissue...wipe those tears from you face.
Thank you. I needed it.
Paradox wrote:
Oye, pendejo...lee de nuevo lo que dije. Your translation is wrong. If your friend(s) in El salvador can't help you with, there are plenty of spanish speaking people on the forum who would assist you.
No Paradox, my translation is absolutely correct. I doubt there are any Spanish speaking people in the forum who are as proficient as myself in written Spanish (and that is not because I’m smarter, is just that I spend a lot of time with it).
Oh, that’s what you wanted to say. Great, you can curse in Spanish too. Anger management classes might help you to increase your emotional intelligence.
Victor wrote:
send your "informant" back to school.
Somehow I don't think he/she will feel offended by your comment.
Victor wrote:
The words' meaning is determined by usage, you see. Come up to a random person and ask them who they think is more intelligent -- Einstein (excelling at Spatial Intelligence and Logical-Mathematical Intelligence) or Michail Jordan (excelling at Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence and Interpersonal Intelligence). I am sure you realize exactly what the answer will be.
The words' meaning is determined by usage, you see. Come up to a random person and ask them who they think is more intelligent at basketball-- Einstein (excelling at Spatial Intelligence and Logical-Mathematical Intelligence) or Michail Jordan (excelling at Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence and Interpersonal Intelligence). I am sure you realize exactly what the answer will be.
Victor wrote:
First of all, this is not at all a given -- it's entirely possible that some individual is smarter than some other individual in all respects. Really.
Yes, in theory it is possible I suppose. I would venture to say, there isn’t a single instance where this is true. Really.
Victor wrote:
Potential is not the same as raw intelligence. Raw intelligence is what people display when they perform various taskls requiring intelligence; raw intelligence is hard to measure, but it's actualized, not potential. Potential does matter, but nor for the purpose of saying who is smarter -- just as when we ask who is stronger, we compare the people's actual strength rather than their genetic potential. A natural-born athlete who leads the life of a total slob may have more potential than a hard-working average person, but he will still be weaker/slower/whatever.
When we do comparisons like this, actualities matter, not potential. Merely having potential is not enough (ever saw Gattaca?)
I will disagree here completely. To me intelligence is the combination of current proficiencies and potential ones. Someone in my country can be a piano prodigy in potentia, yet because he is unable to attend Julliard, the will (can) never learn the techniques to better his skills. But, he is still a piano prodigy.
And there isn’t a problem in stating that someone is smarter than someone else, the problem is stating it in absolute terms.
Victor wrote:
Face it, it's trivial to compare two people of drastically different cognitive abilities, and decide who is smarter. Hell, forget Michael Jordan -- I dare you to compare Einstein to your average McDonald's employee (Jordan after all has masters in something or other); and if you can't figure out that Einstein is smarter, ask any person out there, and you will get the answer.
Face it, it's trivial to compare two people of drastically different cognitive abilities, and decide who is smarter. Hell, forget Michael Jordan -- I dare you to compare Einstein to your average McDonald's employee on who is smarter at the fast food production process(Jordan after all has masters in something or other); and if you can't figure out that average McDonald’s employee is smarter, ask any person out there, and you will get the answer.
Victor wrote:
being able to hire tons of physicists doesn't make one smarter, dude; just as me being able to hire a singer doesn't make my singing ability any better. Get on with the program.
Yes, it does. All human ventures that are great are collaborative. The combination of the proficiencies of individuals make the one’s accomplishments possible.
Victor wrote:
And since when is intelligence defined as the equivalent of survival skills?.. Mind you, this is a rhetorical question -- I know that some psychologists do so, but their usage is wildly at odds with the English language.
I don’t know what you have been arguing for, but the whole purpose of my argumentation is that the purpose of proficiencies is to be more successful in life.
When you say atheists are smarter than Christians, what I understand you to be saying is that atheists are more successful than Christians in life.
If you just mean to say, the average IQ of atheist is higher than that of Christians, then fine, I would say big deal. And I would add, that does not make them more successful in life.
Victor wrote:
Unfortunately, many references in the link I provided relied not on test results but on actual real-world performance. Nice try though, better luck next time.
So what, it doesn’t mean the real-world performances were tested correctly or that they are significant in any way.
I could say that a mandated atheist’s State (USSR) failed miserably and a profoundly religious State is the most powerful nation the world has ever known, and that wouldn’t mean it is proof that Christians are more successful in real life than atheists.
Victor wrote:
Arguably true, and arguably emotional intelligence is indeed an aspect of what people commonly recognize as "intelligence". Fortunately, as I said above, the link I provided relies on real-life performance as well, not just on test scores.
Again, the same observation.
Victor wrote:
Why don't you just have your unnamed friend join the thread? I am not a big fan of talking to dumb terminals.
You see how your beliefs translate to discrimination.
Victor wrote:
Sure there is -- we can control for the environmental factoras, and hence we can fish out such motivations.
You theorize in the possible ways this can be done, but man it isn’t done. So you can’t say atheist can be known to be altruistic. Yes, of course, if we were omniscient, we could. Yes, if you put hidden cameras (as Potato suggested) everywhere the atheist went, we probably could. But, that isn’t done.
In other words Victor, when you say you donates to Christian charities for altruistic reasons, I have to take your word for it on both counts.
Victor wrote:
Ah, marvelous. Let's talk about physical beauty, since we are talking about attributes of people.
Researchers have found that physical beauty has certain hard-coded elements -- we are born recognizing certain physical properties as beautiful, sich as waist/hip ratio, facial bone structure, skin condition, etc. While standards of physical beauty vary greatly, they also have a common universal core; so yes, it's not impossible to take two people and say that one is more beautiful than the other (just compare Adrian Paul to Quasimodo, I am sure you will have no trouble telling who is more beautiful).
Yes, I was sure you could make the jump. This is racist, and I’m sure you can’t see why. And I won’t try to explain because you just wont listen. And funny you mention quasimodo, some people would say quasimodo is most beautiful.
It is not me who is digging himself deeper.
Victor wrote:
Duh -- but that's not sufficient to discriminate. If you are seriously advocating removing any concept that might potentially lead to discrimination (that's what concepts are for, to be applied), then you are advocating a PC version of 1984 -- well-meaning but fundamentally evil.
And again the same magic trick. (aren’t you getting tired of using the same one. (strawman)
Victor wrote:
POsitive reinforcement rewards positive behavior, dude
Exactly that is what I mean.
Victor wrote:
Positive reinforcement is reward for doing good, bnegative reinforcement if punishment for doing bad.
Excellent.
Victor wrote:
How the ◊◊◊◊ do you get the cojones to debate in public, if your conceptual groundworkis so ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ pathetic? Talking to you is like talking to a middle-school student, sometimes!
And do you see why your beliefs lead to discriminate. You rather have all the ignorant people cast aside. They shouldn’t debate in the JREF, right?
And your beliefs also lead to intolerance. You believe that ignorance (lack of education) is an insult. Your biggest insult to others is calling them ignorant, like if this were an evil trait. Oh and you believe ignorant people should not have an opinion. You say, go read a book or two before opening your mouth.
It is not negative to be ignorant, it might be disadvantageous but not negative. And ignorance is not equivalent to less intelligent.
We see the world in a completely different way. You teach your children to curse at ignorant people. I teach mine to feel blessed that she can understand why some people say what they say.
I sometimes go to the countryside, many peasants in my country. Some of them make offensive comments at me. I don’t curse at them for it, I say “Let me forgive this man, he doesn’t know better. He hasn’t had the opportunities I’ve had. Surely, if he knew what I know, he would act differently.”
You are my best evidence that what I say is true. You are clearly superior in this format, but I’m sure that the other posters who are as proficient as you can understand exactly what I’m saying.
They can understand that I’m not advocating illiteracy, or that I don’t understand that some people are smarter than others. They do understand that what I’m warning about. Elitism including that based on intelligence is evil.
Victor wrote:
I noticed an interesting (and expected) pattern. In your drive to get away from the unpleasant facts, you have dug yourself in far deeper, because you already took the first steps down the road to three distinct distopias:
1. Gattaca (potential is all that matters)
2. New aristocracy (those who rule so so because they are by definition superior)
3. PC 1984 (let's excise from language all terms which can possible lead to discrimination!
Can resist, three more strawmen.
Darat wrote:
Is it intelligence or is it education that is correlated with religion?
That I could accept as a valid theory ( I would agree with it, but I would not see anything wrong with it)
Darat wrote:
Interestingly I would say that a possible explanation for the increase in IQ/intelligence is Christian's "potential intelligence" at work. E.g. as education improves and accurate information is more readily available more and more people are able to utilise more of their "potential" intelligence. After all without knowledge and information intelligence is severely hampered.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. For someone else contributing to the thread.
Darat wrote:
Your premise seems to be that we need to ignore that every person is unique but it is a fact that some people are more able then others and therefore some people are less able.
I have no problem with this at all. Victor and Paradox have been obfuscating my position. But thank you for letting me clarify it. Yes, I’m certain that people are better than other at different things.
Someone might be better at math than another, and the one is better should be able to enjoy the benefits of any advantage that this gives him.
And I would agree with the statement that the actualized intelligence of person A is greater than person B in math. But I cannot agree that person A is more intelligent than person B. I hope you can see the difference.
Darat wrote:
Your view seems to be that it is “elitist” and “evil” to make discriminations based on this difference of ability
My view is that the discrimination that arises from that distinction is evil. The discrimination that arises from you serial killer example is not evil, it is beneficial.
The discrimination that Victor proposes, result in stuff like censorship, second-class categorizing, and chastising.
I understand this is a reaction from what he feels it is being done to him. But, that does not excuse him. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I also condemn that Christians or any other religious group discriminate against atheists in any way shape or form.
For a commentary concerning this fallacy written by someone who is smarter than I (*gasp* did I just smack my ego in the face, according to you? ) read up here:
As I’ve said before, you are a dishonest poster. You introduced the strawman and now the magic trick appears(you and Victor must be related). My position has never been anti-intellectualism.
Paradox wrote:
Affirmative action does not make anyone smarter, you dolt.
Oh, yes it does. By giving minorities or the environmentally challenged, the opportunity to hold positions where they can learn new skills, become more educated and productive, the vicious cycle is broken. In effect, the future generations of those families becomes smarter.
Paradox wrote:
Here's a tissue...wipe those tears from you face.
Thank you. I needed it.
Paradox wrote:
Oye, pendejo...lee de nuevo lo que dije. Your translation is wrong. If your friend(s) in El salvador can't help you with, there are plenty of spanish speaking people on the forum who would assist you.
No Paradox, my translation is absolutely correct. I doubt there are any Spanish speaking people in the forum who are as proficient as myself in written Spanish (and that is not because I’m smarter, is just that I spend a lot of time with it).
Oh, that’s what you wanted to say. Great, you can curse in Spanish too. Anger management classes might help you to increase your emotional intelligence.
Victor wrote:
send your "informant" back to school.
Somehow I don't think he/she will feel offended by your comment.
Victor wrote:
The words' meaning is determined by usage, you see. Come up to a random person and ask them who they think is more intelligent -- Einstein (excelling at Spatial Intelligence and Logical-Mathematical Intelligence) or Michail Jordan (excelling at Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence and Interpersonal Intelligence). I am sure you realize exactly what the answer will be.
The words' meaning is determined by usage, you see. Come up to a random person and ask them who they think is more intelligent at basketball-- Einstein (excelling at Spatial Intelligence and Logical-Mathematical Intelligence) or Michail Jordan (excelling at Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence and Interpersonal Intelligence). I am sure you realize exactly what the answer will be.
Victor wrote:
First of all, this is not at all a given -- it's entirely possible that some individual is smarter than some other individual in all respects. Really.
Yes, in theory it is possible I suppose. I would venture to say, there isn’t a single instance where this is true. Really.
Victor wrote:
Potential is not the same as raw intelligence. Raw intelligence is what people display when they perform various taskls requiring intelligence; raw intelligence is hard to measure, but it's actualized, not potential. Potential does matter, but nor for the purpose of saying who is smarter -- just as when we ask who is stronger, we compare the people's actual strength rather than their genetic potential. A natural-born athlete who leads the life of a total slob may have more potential than a hard-working average person, but he will still be weaker/slower/whatever.
When we do comparisons like this, actualities matter, not potential. Merely having potential is not enough (ever saw Gattaca?)
I will disagree here completely. To me intelligence is the combination of current proficiencies and potential ones. Someone in my country can be a piano prodigy in potentia, yet because he is unable to attend Julliard, the will (can) never learn the techniques to better his skills. But, he is still a piano prodigy.
And there isn’t a problem in stating that someone is smarter than someone else, the problem is stating it in absolute terms.
Victor wrote:
Face it, it's trivial to compare two people of drastically different cognitive abilities, and decide who is smarter. Hell, forget Michael Jordan -- I dare you to compare Einstein to your average McDonald's employee (Jordan after all has masters in something or other); and if you can't figure out that Einstein is smarter, ask any person out there, and you will get the answer.
Face it, it's trivial to compare two people of drastically different cognitive abilities, and decide who is smarter. Hell, forget Michael Jordan -- I dare you to compare Einstein to your average McDonald's employee on who is smarter at the fast food production process(Jordan after all has masters in something or other); and if you can't figure out that average McDonald’s employee is smarter, ask any person out there, and you will get the answer.
Victor wrote:
being able to hire tons of physicists doesn't make one smarter, dude; just as me being able to hire a singer doesn't make my singing ability any better. Get on with the program.
Yes, it does. All human ventures that are great are collaborative. The combination of the proficiencies of individuals make the one’s accomplishments possible.
Victor wrote:
And since when is intelligence defined as the equivalent of survival skills?.. Mind you, this is a rhetorical question -- I know that some psychologists do so, but their usage is wildly at odds with the English language.
I don’t know what you have been arguing for, but the whole purpose of my argumentation is that the purpose of proficiencies is to be more successful in life.
When you say atheists are smarter than Christians, what I understand you to be saying is that atheists are more successful than Christians in life.
If you just mean to say, the average IQ of atheist is higher than that of Christians, then fine, I would say big deal. And I would add, that does not make them more successful in life.
Victor wrote:
Unfortunately, many references in the link I provided relied not on test results but on actual real-world performance. Nice try though, better luck next time.
So what, it doesn’t mean the real-world performances were tested correctly or that they are significant in any way.
I could say that a mandated atheist’s State (USSR) failed miserably and a profoundly religious State is the most powerful nation the world has ever known, and that wouldn’t mean it is proof that Christians are more successful in real life than atheists.
Victor wrote:
Arguably true, and arguably emotional intelligence is indeed an aspect of what people commonly recognize as "intelligence". Fortunately, as I said above, the link I provided relies on real-life performance as well, not just on test scores.
Again, the same observation.
Victor wrote:
Why don't you just have your unnamed friend join the thread? I am not a big fan of talking to dumb terminals.
You see how your beliefs translate to discrimination.
Victor wrote:
Sure there is -- we can control for the environmental factoras, and hence we can fish out such motivations.
You theorize in the possible ways this can be done, but man it isn’t done. So you can’t say atheist can be known to be altruistic. Yes, of course, if we were omniscient, we could. Yes, if you put hidden cameras (as Potato suggested) everywhere the atheist went, we probably could. But, that isn’t done.
In other words Victor, when you say you donates to Christian charities for altruistic reasons, I have to take your word for it on both counts.
Victor wrote:
Ah, marvelous. Let's talk about physical beauty, since we are talking about attributes of people.
Researchers have found that physical beauty has certain hard-coded elements -- we are born recognizing certain physical properties as beautiful, sich as waist/hip ratio, facial bone structure, skin condition, etc. While standards of physical beauty vary greatly, they also have a common universal core; so yes, it's not impossible to take two people and say that one is more beautiful than the other (just compare Adrian Paul to Quasimodo, I am sure you will have no trouble telling who is more beautiful).
Yes, I was sure you could make the jump. This is racist, and I’m sure you can’t see why. And I won’t try to explain because you just wont listen. And funny you mention quasimodo, some people would say quasimodo is most beautiful.
It is not me who is digging himself deeper.
Victor wrote:
Duh -- but that's not sufficient to discriminate. If you are seriously advocating removing any concept that might potentially lead to discrimination (that's what concepts are for, to be applied), then you are advocating a PC version of 1984 -- well-meaning but fundamentally evil.
And again the same magic trick. (aren’t you getting tired of using the same one. (strawman)
Victor wrote:
POsitive reinforcement rewards positive behavior, dude
Exactly that is what I mean.
Victor wrote:
Positive reinforcement is reward for doing good, bnegative reinforcement if punishment for doing bad.
Excellent.
Victor wrote:
How the ◊◊◊◊ do you get the cojones to debate in public, if your conceptual groundworkis so ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ pathetic? Talking to you is like talking to a middle-school student, sometimes!
And do you see why your beliefs lead to discriminate. You rather have all the ignorant people cast aside. They shouldn’t debate in the JREF, right?
And your beliefs also lead to intolerance. You believe that ignorance (lack of education) is an insult. Your biggest insult to others is calling them ignorant, like if this were an evil trait. Oh and you believe ignorant people should not have an opinion. You say, go read a book or two before opening your mouth.
It is not negative to be ignorant, it might be disadvantageous but not negative. And ignorance is not equivalent to less intelligent.
We see the world in a completely different way. You teach your children to curse at ignorant people. I teach mine to feel blessed that she can understand why some people say what they say.
I sometimes go to the countryside, many peasants in my country. Some of them make offensive comments at me. I don’t curse at them for it, I say “Let me forgive this man, he doesn’t know better. He hasn’t had the opportunities I’ve had. Surely, if he knew what I know, he would act differently.”
You are my best evidence that what I say is true. You are clearly superior in this format, but I’m sure that the other posters who are as proficient as you can understand exactly what I’m saying.
They can understand that I’m not advocating illiteracy, or that I don’t understand that some people are smarter than others. They do understand that what I’m warning about. Elitism including that based on intelligence is evil.
Victor wrote:
I noticed an interesting (and expected) pattern. In your drive to get away from the unpleasant facts, you have dug yourself in far deeper, because you already took the first steps down the road to three distinct distopias:
1. Gattaca (potential is all that matters)
2. New aristocracy (those who rule so so because they are by definition superior)
3. PC 1984 (let's excise from language all terms which can possible lead to discrimination!
Can resist, three more strawmen.
Darat wrote:
Is it intelligence or is it education that is correlated with religion?
That I could accept as a valid theory ( I would agree with it, but I would not see anything wrong with it)
Darat wrote:
Interestingly I would say that a possible explanation for the increase in IQ/intelligence is Christian's "potential intelligence" at work. E.g. as education improves and accurate information is more readily available more and more people are able to utilise more of their "potential" intelligence. After all without knowledge and information intelligence is severely hampered.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. For someone else contributing to the thread.
Darat wrote:
Your premise seems to be that we need to ignore that every person is unique but it is a fact that some people are more able then others and therefore some people are less able.
I have no problem with this at all. Victor and Paradox have been obfuscating my position. But thank you for letting me clarify it. Yes, I’m certain that people are better than other at different things.
Someone might be better at math than another, and the one is better should be able to enjoy the benefits of any advantage that this gives him.
And I would agree with the statement that the actualized intelligence of person A is greater than person B in math. But I cannot agree that person A is more intelligent than person B. I hope you can see the difference.
Darat wrote:
Your view seems to be that it is “elitist” and “evil” to make discriminations based on this difference of ability
My view is that the discrimination that arises from that distinction is evil. The discrimination that arises from you serial killer example is not evil, it is beneficial.
The discrimination that Victor proposes, result in stuff like censorship, second-class categorizing, and chastising.
I understand this is a reaction from what he feels it is being done to him. But, that does not excuse him. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I also condemn that Christians or any other religious group discriminate against atheists in any way shape or form.
I have no problem with this at all. Victor and Paradox have been obfuscating my position. But thank you for letting me clarify it. Yes, I’m certain that people are better than other at different things.
Someone might be better at math than another, and the one is better should be able to enjoy the benefits of any advantage that this gives him.
And I would agree with the statement that the actualized intelligence of person A is greater than person B in math. But I cannot agree that person A is more intelligent than person B. I hope you can see the difference.
I feel this is splitting hairs. It seems you are hung up about the use of the word “intelligent” as a descriptor for a particular attribute that is used to define a person’s ability.
However whatever parameter definition you chose to use, e.g. ” intelligence” or “physical prowess” somewhere along the line you will have to say “person X is better then person Y at A”. Therefore to say “Person X is more intelligent/musical/physical then Person Y” is an inescapable natural consequence of us all not being exactly the same.
My view is that the discrimination that arises from that distinction is evil. The discrimination that arises from you serial killer example is not evil, it is beneficial.
Beneficial for whom? – Not the serial killer, and this is the central problem with your position, as it is all relative; we and this includes yourself use the “X is more intelligent then Y” type argument to make judgments all the time.
Society functions on this as a basic premise. If it didn't then the serial killer should not be discriminated against because “Serial Killer X is less able then Non-serial killer Y”. Indeed if you use a broader definition of intelligence (emotional intelligence+ IQ intelligence + potential intelligence + X + Y= overall intelligence) then we can rephrase the serial killer point as:
“The Serial Killer is less intelligent then other members of society therefore we imprison him for life.”
So you do propose discrimination based on intelligence.
The discrimination that Victor proposes, result in stuff like censorship, second-class categorizing, and chastising.
I understand this is a reaction from what he feels it is being done to him. But, that does not excuse him. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I also condemn that Christians or any other religious group discriminate against atheists in any way shape or form.
I would be very surprised from reading what Victor has wrote that he holds the view that it is right that people should be discriminated by intelligence, well no more then you and I do anyway.
(Edited for spelling and even worser English then normal.)
Someone might be better at math than another, and the one is better should be able to enjoy the benefits of any advantage that this gives him.
And I would agree with the statement that the actualized intelligence of person A is greater than person B in math. But I cannot agree that person A is more intelligent than person B. I hope you can see the difference.
I feel this is splitting hairs. It seems you are hung up about the use of the word “intelligent” as a descriptor for a particular attribute that is used to define a person’s ability.
However whatever parameter definition you chose to use, e.g. ” intelligence” or “physical prowess” somewhere along the line you will have to say “person X is better then person Y at A”. Therefore to say “Person X is more intelligent/musical/physical then Person Y” is an inescapable natural consequence of us all not being exactly the same.
My view is that the discrimination that arises from that distinction is evil. The discrimination that arises from you serial killer example is not evil, it is beneficial.
Beneficial for whom? – Not the serial killer, and this is the central problem with your position, as it is all relative; we and this includes yourself use the “X is more intelligent then Y” type argument to make judgments all the time.
Society functions on this as a basic premise. If it didn't then the serial killer should not be discriminated against because “Serial Killer X is less able then Non-serial killer Y”. Indeed if you use a broader definition of intelligence (emotional intelligence+ IQ intelligence + potential intelligence + X + Y= overall intelligence) then we can rephrase the serial killer point as:
“The Serial Killer is less intelligent then other members of society therefore we imprison him for life.”
So you do propose discrimination based on intelligence.
The discrimination that Victor proposes, result in stuff like censorship, second-class categorizing, and chastising.
I understand this is a reaction from what he feels it is being done to him. But, that does not excuse him. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I also condemn that Christians or any other religious group discriminate against atheists in any way shape or form.
I would be very surprised from reading what Victor has wrote that he holds the view that it is right that people should be discriminated by intelligence, well no more then you and I do anyway.
(Edited for spelling and even worser English then normal.)
Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 716
Christian,
In life skills, actuality is what matters -- unactualized potential is no different from lack of potential. Therefore, if intelligence is a life skill or a collection thereof, it cannot incorporate potential as a part of its composition.
If nothing else, you position is internally inconsistent, because you are fighting against facts and reality; this is a common problem with people who, like you, place what they wish to be above what is.
Din't you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ notice that you had to qualify your statement, you had to write "smarter at the fast food production process"? Doesn't that clue you in on what the word 'smarter' mean?!.
No, probably not. OK, consider this: Person X is the strongest man in the world, physically. Let's say that he holds the world record in all weightlifting forms, undisputedly so. Now, you come up and say: "But, but, person Y is stronger at burger flipping" You used the word "stronger" there -- but that in no way affects its common meaning, and it in no way implies that Y is stronger than X in any relevant respect!
You simply used the word "smarter", I used "stronger", but they are all nothing but stand-ins for "better" -- and it's the rest of the sentence (burger-flipping) that describes the actual skill we are talking about. It has nothing to do with intelligence. Your statement is like saying that a person X, a sound sleeper, is "smarter/stronger/faster/tougher/etc. at sleeping" than person Y.
As I said, me being able to hire a singer does not increase my "musical intelligence". Duh.
The concepts acquire meaning through differentiation -- we know what they mean based on the regards in which they are differenty from other concepts, as well as the ones in which they are similar. By trying to abolish such meaningful lines of differentiation, you are trying to destroy meaning -- to remove the ability to make certain statements (such as "A is smarter than B"). Completely, utterly Orwellian.
Intelligence is only one of many life skills. Just one. It's entirely possible to be brilliant and be a failure in all discernible effects -- if you are lazy for example, or if you lack interpersonal skills, etc. (the aforementiones William Sidis, world's most intelligent man, had a severe case of the latter failing). Saying "X is smarter" absolutely does not translate into "X is more successful in life", unless the translator is an idiot or a cheesy ideological hack.
If the latter condition held (and I don't believe it does -- I am doing this merely for your edification), you could have drawn your conclusion from certain causal models of intelligence/religiosity correlation; namely, either of of the two direct causal models -- I causes R, or R causes I (the latter more so than th eformer). However, there is a third model -- X causes both I and R -- and unless we can exclude such a model (which we can't), there is no logical reason to claim that intelligence's life-success effect means that atheists are more successful than xians.
In short, your ignorance (of elementary statistics, in this case) traps you once again.
Well, guess what: any difference can lead to discrimination. it's possible to discriminate against people based on their eye color, but that dopesn't mean that we should proclaim that there is no differences between "blue" and brown" (we should instead say that eye color is not acceptable basis for discrimination in any situation but the one actually requiring specific eye color).
Anyway, your use of the term "discrimination" here is ridiculous. While that word has come to bear unqualifiedly negative connotations, that's not all it means.
We discriminate all the time. You discriminate each time you chose to eat at a restauirant A instead of B. Each time a more qualified applicant is hired instead of a less qualified one, a discrimination takes place; each time you choose who to be friend with and who to not be friend with, you discriminate. Correct discrimination based on appropriate traits is not only good, it's necessary -- the alternative is having firefighters who are afraid of flames and can't carry a limp body out of the fire, physicists who can't do calculus, and garneders with black thumbs.
No, discrimination is bad only when it's done inappropriately -- when for example you assume that blacks as a group are more criminally inclined, and thereafter treat each black person you meet as a criminal (as opposed to, say, refusing to hire a black FBI agent for the purpose of being a spy in China, which is appropriate discrimination). This sort of "discrimination", with the negative connotations that are usually perceived to go with it, occurs when you discriminate incorrectly -- based on traits that are ascribed to a person, rather than known to be possessed by that person; or when you discriminate based on known trait which have no causal connection to the purpose of discrimination (such as refusing to have gay scout leaders, because they ostensibly lack "upright moral character").
A little anecdote for you. Some time ago, four women in Chicago launched a suit against Chicago Fire Department for refusal hire them; their claim was gender discrimination. What turned out to be the fact is that these four women failed the physical fitness test, while other women who passed it were hired. Firefighters have to be strong enough to be able to break down a door, scale a mountain of rubble, drag out a limp body, etc. -- and discriminating against the physically unfit, by hiring only those capable of performing the said tasks, is not only normal, it's desirable. After all, we don't want an unconscious person in a burning building to be found by a firefighter who can't get you out of there, do you?..
First you claimed that it's impossible to say that some people are smarter than others, then you said that they may be smarter in actuality but not in potential, and now you have reversed your original claim altogether, while having avoided actually admitting that you have done so. Your grasp of logic may be abysmal, but your demagogic ability certainly isn't.
Now mind you, I am not saying that you are advocating any of those three. However, it's obvious that in your haste to avoid what you perceive as evil (but which isn't), you have made the necessary conceptual steps which make those three distopias to particularly repugant.
Go rent a clue, dude.
Nevermind the obvious silliness of this statement -- how the ◊◊◊◊ do reconcile this assertion with your assertion that intelligence is a survival skill, whe only actuality matters in life? You don't get to be a star athlete by being potentially (but not actually) athletic, you don't get to be a good businessman by having potential (but not actual) understanding of the martket, and you don't get a PhD by bein potentially (but not actually) able to understand, learn, and improve upon massively complex bodies of knowledge.
In life skills, actuality is what matters -- unactualized potential is no different from lack of potential. Therefore, if intelligence is a life skill or a collection thereof, it cannot incorporate potential as a part of its composition.
If nothing else, you position is internally inconsistent, because you are fighting against facts and reality; this is a common problem with people who, like you, place what they wish to be above what is.
Only because the term "prodigy" specifucally connotes potential. However, that prodigy will never become musical genius without actually being able to do music as one -- his potential does not make his actuality any greater; convesely, a person of average giftedness who achieves a lot through sheer perseverence, isn't any worse in actuality than equally achieving person who had greater potential.
And what would those "absolute terms" be?
And idiocy like this is why I "discriminate" against you -- not because you are a xian.
Din't you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ notice that you had to qualify your statement, you had to write "smarter at the fast food production process"? Doesn't that clue you in on what the word 'smarter' mean?!.
No, probably not. OK, consider this: Person X is the strongest man in the world, physically. Let's say that he holds the world record in all weightlifting forms, undisputedly so. Now, you come up and say: "But, but, person Y is stronger at burger flipping" You used the word "stronger" there -- but that in no way affects its common meaning, and it in no way implies that Y is stronger than X in any relevant respect!
You simply used the word "smarter", I used "stronger", but they are all nothing but stand-ins for "better" -- and it's the rest of the sentence (burger-flipping) that describes the actual skill we are talking about. It has nothing to do with intelligence. Your statement is like saying that a person X, a sound sleeper, is "smarter/stronger/faster/tougher/etc. at sleeping" than person Y.
Yes, but a group's ability to achieve certain ends does not add to the individual abilities, it just aggregates them.
As I said, me being able to hire a singer does not increase my "musical intelligence". Duh.
Yes, of course -- and intelligence is only one of such. There is intelligence, charisma, strength, health, coordination, etc. -- they are all different proficiencies. You had to effectively lump them together and make "intelligence" an umbrella for all proficiencies, in order to make a claim that Jordan's gift is in "body-kinesthetic intelligence".
The concepts acquire meaning through differentiation -- we know what they mean based on the regards in which they are differenty from other concepts, as well as the ones in which they are similar. By trying to abolish such meaningful lines of differentiation, you are trying to destroy meaning -- to remove the ability to make certain statements (such as "A is smarter than B"). Completely, utterly Orwellian.
Are you ◊◊◊◊◊◊ in the head?.. From which ass did you pull such a moronic conclusion out of?
Intelligence is only one of many life skills. Just one. It's entirely possible to be brilliant and be a failure in all discernible effects -- if you are lazy for example, or if you lack interpersonal skills, etc. (the aforementiones William Sidis, world's most intelligent man, had a severe case of the latter failing). Saying "X is smarter" absolutely does not translate into "X is more successful in life", unless the translator is an idiot or a cheesy ideological hack.
Average intelligence of atheists is higher than that of xians, not just IQ -- and no, that does no ttranslate into them being more successful in life, even if intelligence automatically entailed success.
If the latter condition held (and I don't believe it does -- I am doing this merely for your edification), you could have drawn your conclusion from certain causal models of intelligence/religiosity correlation; namely, either of of the two direct causal models -- I causes R, or R causes I (the latter more so than th eformer). However, there is a third model -- X causes both I and R -- and unless we can exclude such a model (which we can't), there is no logical reason to claim that intelligence's life-success effect means that atheists are more successful than xians.
In short, your ignorance (of elementary statistics, in this case) traps you once again.
Sure, and we could all be brains in vats. You are grasping at straws here.
I discriminate against you because you are a willfully blind ignoramus, not because you are a xian; see below.
No, I can't. These are universal human standards of beauty -- they are held by African plainsmen, South American Indians, Chinese, Europeans, etc. There is nothing racist about saying that all races and ethnicities prefer ~0.85 waist/hip ratio in men, and like healthy skin. In fact, if you are wondering (which I doubt you are), those universal physical beauty traits are based on survival adaptation -- they are all indicators of health and physical reproductive fitness.
On the inside, perhaps -- which was why I specifically spoke of physical beauty. Sure, there may be a few fetishists who regard such physical deformities as appealing, but their existence has no bearing on the validity of my point.
Labelling a point "strawman" does not diminish its validity unless you can prove that it's a strawman -- which you of course haven't. In fact, I think it was a perfectly valid point, since you obviously are in favor of restructuring language in such a way as to remove the possibility of even meaningfully talking about certain differences, on the basis of those differences possibly leading to discrimination.
Well, guess what: any difference can lead to discrimination. it's possible to discriminate against people based on their eye color, but that dopesn't mean that we should proclaim that there is no differences between "blue" and brown" (we should instead say that eye color is not acceptable basis for discrimination in any situation but the one actually requiring specific eye color).
Actually, I'd rather have them educated, but you obviously aren't interested in that.
Anyway, your use of the term "discrimination" here is ridiculous. While that word has come to bear unqualifiedly negative connotations, that's not all it means.
We discriminate all the time. You discriminate each time you chose to eat at a restauirant A instead of B. Each time a more qualified applicant is hired instead of a less qualified one, a discrimination takes place; each time you choose who to be friend with and who to not be friend with, you discriminate. Correct discrimination based on appropriate traits is not only good, it's necessary -- the alternative is having firefighters who are afraid of flames and can't carry a limp body out of the fire, physicists who can't do calculus, and garneders with black thumbs.
No, discrimination is bad only when it's done inappropriately -- when for example you assume that blacks as a group are more criminally inclined, and thereafter treat each black person you meet as a criminal (as opposed to, say, refusing to hire a black FBI agent for the purpose of being a spy in China, which is appropriate discrimination). This sort of "discrimination", with the negative connotations that are usually perceived to go with it, occurs when you discriminate incorrectly -- based on traits that are ascribed to a person, rather than known to be possessed by that person; or when you discriminate based on known trait which have no causal connection to the purpose of discrimination (such as refusing to have gay scout leaders, because they ostensibly lack "upright moral character").
A little anecdote for you. Some time ago, four women in Chicago launched a suit against Chicago Fire Department for refusal hire them; their claim was gender discrimination. What turned out to be the fact is that these four women failed the physical fitness test, while other women who passed it were hired. Firefighters have to be strong enough to be able to break down a door, scale a mountain of rubble, drag out a limp body, etc. -- and discriminating against the physically unfit, by hiring only those capable of performing the said tasks, is not only normal, it's desirable. After all, we don't want an unconscious person in a burning building to be found by a firefighter who can't get you out of there, do you?..
True, and true -- but my problem is not with ignorance per se (everyone is ignorant of something at some time), but rather with the willful, stone-headed, in-your-face flag-bearing arrogant ignorance of the sort you are displaying. Your basic values may be in the right place to some extent (except for your lack of valuation of truth and knowledge), but you are profoundly clueless, you are happy being clueless, and you fight anyone who challenges your profound ignorance, rather than taking an opportunity to remedy it.
No, you instead advocate irraitonality and refusal to think critically -- you advocate them with your views, by placing ideology ahead of truth.
OK, some some people are more intelligent that others. I think your long backpedaling process has finally come to its logical conclusion.
First you claimed that it's impossible to say that some people are smarter than others, then you said that they may be smarter in actuality but not in potential, and now you have reversed your original claim altogether, while having avoided actually admitting that you have done so. Your grasp of logic may be abysmal, but your demagogic ability certainly isn't.
As I said, simply labelling a point "a strawman" doesn't make it so. In fact, I specifically pointed out the instance of each in your previous post -- your claim about potential (Gattaca), your claim about life skills (aristocracy), and your desire to redefine terms so as to avoid th epossibility of discrimination (1984). If you wish to refute the charges, please to do specifically.
Now mind you, I am not saying that you are advocating any of those three. However, it's obvious that in your haste to avoid what you perceive as evil (but which isn't), you have made the necessary conceptual steps which make those three distopias to particularly repugant.
These two statements are irreconcilable, unless you start redefining words again, claiming that "smart" and "intelligent" have drastically different meanings.
The view that some people are smarter than others is only one of many components that go into making a bigoted worldview. Another component is discrimination based on perceived group properties (such as automatically giving atheists better jobs simply because they are atheists, and thus assumed ot be smarter than xians). Still, that fact hasn't prevented you from making all sorts of outlanding claims -- such as that my views are Hitler-like, that they are discriminatory, etc.
Go rent a clue, dude.
*popping in with first post*
I've followed this thread a bit and figured I'd ask a question.
I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, so I'm not going to even try to 'intellectualize' here....however, I guess I would like to pose the question to you, Christian, why are you debating this topic so hard? Is it to 'win' something here? I know, I know, it might be kinda fun...but really...what will you gain? I don't mean to sound condenscending in any way, I just wondered if you've really thought about it much. If you happen to change Victor or Paradox's stance on CP...what will be gained other than they will feel it's okay to spank their kids...without feeling as if they are being abusive?
~crittle
*popping out*
I've followed this thread a bit and figured I'd ask a question.
I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, so I'm not going to even try to 'intellectualize' here....however, I guess I would like to pose the question to you, Christian, why are you debating this topic so hard? Is it to 'win' something here? I know, I know, it might be kinda fun...but really...what will you gain? I don't mean to sound condenscending in any way, I just wondered if you've really thought about it much. If you happen to change Victor or Paradox's stance on CP...what will be gained other than they will feel it's okay to spank their kids...without feeling as if they are being abusive?
~crittle
*popping out*
Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 716
Crittle? The same one? welcome!
((Vic))
'Tis me. Thanks for the welcome! Saw your name in here and just had to smile!
I probably won't be around too much though, can never seem to find the time for this sort of thing. I was invited to read this thread so I thought I'd hang out a bit and see if I could add a little something.
Hope you are well and see ya around!
~crits
'Tis me. Thanks for the welcome! Saw your name in here and just had to smile!
I probably won't be around too much though, can never seem to find the time for this sort of thing. I was invited to read this thread so I thought I'd hang out a bit and see if I could add a little something.
Hope you are well and see ya around!
~crits
Crittle wrote:
I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, so I'm not going to even try to 'intellectualize' here....however, I guess I would like to pose the question to you, Christian, why are you debating this topic so hard? Is it to 'win' something here? I know, I know, it might be kinda fun...but really...what will you gain? I don't mean to sound condenscending in any way, I just wondered if you've really thought about it much. If you happen to change Victor or Paradox's stance on CP...what will be gained other than they will feel it's okay to spank their kids...without feeling as if they are being abusive?
Man, you are so right. There is nothing to be gained here. I keep telling myself that. Excellent advice.
I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, so I'm not going to even try to 'intellectualize' here....however, I guess I would like to pose the question to you, Christian, why are you debating this topic so hard? Is it to 'win' something here? I know, I know, it might be kinda fun...but really...what will you gain? I don't mean to sound condenscending in any way, I just wondered if you've really thought about it much. If you happen to change Victor or Paradox's stance on CP...what will be gained other than they will feel it's okay to spank their kids...without feeling as if they are being abusive?
Man, you are so right. There is nothing to be gained here. I keep telling myself that. Excellent advice.