EPTWhy I think Im smart - Page 8
| Blogs > firehand101 |
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
| ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
The Young Turks is bullshit. | ||
|
Zeetee
United States153 Posts
On April 17 2012 16:07 Vod.kaholic wrote: Can we judge people on there spelling to? *their *too holy fucking fail.... | ||
|
vaL4r
Germany240 Posts
On April 17 2012 15:48 firehand101 wrote: I think I have figured out how to judge someone's intelligence at a glance So how exactly does this work - do I understand this 2point system correctly? .1 religious or not? yes = -intelligence , no = +intelligence According to which the maximum intelligence rating is given to Atheists who do not watch fox news, whereas the lowest possible rating goes to religious people who also watch fox news on a regular basis Then there is a medium intelligence rating which can be obtained by beeing either an Atheistic fox news viewer or Amish. This is fucking amazing I will give you one star | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
On April 19 2012 01:55 TORTOISE wrote: In conclusion, I deem zalz the winner. Who are you to declare a winner? Most likely you're just doing so because his statements correspond to your predisposed attitude toward the subject. Sam and kukaracha have the sensible side here, it's silly when people conflate the whole of rationality with the limited realm of empiricism. | ||
|
firehand101
Australia3152 Posts
On April 19 2012 10:26 ninazerg wrote: You have a right to your opinions, except for one. The Young Turks is bullshit. And how so? i think their telling of the news is just pure straight up, no bullshit attached. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On April 19 2012 16:39 firehand101 wrote: And how so? i think their telling of the news is just pure straight up, no bullshit attached. judging by this post u are either or a troll or dumb | ||
|
Excellen
Netherlands3 Posts
| ||
]343[
United States10328 Posts
| ||
|
Divinek
Canada4045 Posts
On April 19 2012 17:56 ]343[ wrote: yet another poorly thought-out blog, brought to us by "guy who got kicked out of chat channels and whined about it' You imply any thought at all | ||
|
firehand101
Australia3152 Posts
this guy is peeeeeerfect for my case | ||
|
slam
United States923 Posts
That was the joke.... holy fucking fail.... | ||
|
firehand101
Australia3152 Posts
On April 19 2012 13:37 vaL4r wrote: So how exactly does this work - do I understand this 2point system correctly? .1 religious or not? yes = -intelligence , no = +intelligence According to which the maximum intelligence rating is given to Atheists who do not watch fox news, whereas the lowest possible rating goes to religious people who also watch fox news on a regular basis Then there is a medium intelligence rating which can be obtained by beeing either an Atheistic fox news viewer or Amish. This is fucking amazing I will give you one star Hahahahaa this made me laugh so hard  | ||
|
TheAntZ
Israel6248 Posts
puberty was a crazy time man | ||
|
JellowLight
60 Posts
On April 20 2012 07:15 firehand101 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCo6BVPGDh0&feature=related this guy is peeeeeerfect for my case Ok, so you just stated that you think that people are not intelligent if they believe the fox news. Then you are giving your source which is a comedie show. This guy is obviously joking (its his job) and you take this serieus. I think if I combine this two things then we can assume that you are in fact not intelligent. You also stated that people who believe in a religion are not intelligent because they don't do their research. I wanna bet you didn't do any research. You can respond to that with " I don't have anything to research because I don't believe in anything". Well, from the point of view of everyone that is religions you are in fact not intelligent because you didn't do your research. Conclusion is that you are in not that intelligent as you may think. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 19 2012 14:09 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Sam and kukaracha have the sensible side here, it's silly when people conflate the whole of rationality with the limited realm of empiricism. Yes, that's it, well put. It is a conclusion of empirical science (and a priori mathematics) that some things cannot be accessed empirically in finite time (c.f. complexity classes in computation, emergence, incompleteness). Therefore, the most rational position would be to accept the fact that metaphysical ground (or fundamental Being) may not be accessible completely through empirical inquiry. This does not mean that it is wholly unknowable, the same way that the dynamics of complex systems are not accessible to Enlightenment rationality but may be accessed through the application of more sophisticated paradigms. For a somewhat related and fascinating discussion of computer science vs. computer theory, scroll down to the april 22 2004 entry: http://number-none.com/blow/rants.html The whole site is fantastic, jonathan blow is a smart dude. | ||
|
Phant
United States737 Posts
| ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
Ravenimus
Australia11 Posts
| ||
|
Coramoor
Canada455 Posts
On April 19 2012 16:39 firehand101 wrote: And how so? i think their telling of the news is just pure straight up, no bullshit attached. if you want to be smart, read the news from every possible angle, from rt and al jazeera to cnn, msnbc to fox news, then figure out what is consistent and what actually makes logical sense from that, that's the only way you get the truth if you follow american news | ||
| ||
