EPTyup guys, you alone possess the brilliance to instantly spot the ridiculousness of one of the most important tests in psychology. it definitely doesn't have anything to do with you not understanding what an iq test's supposed to measure, not understanding how iq test results are supposed to be interpreted and not understanding the uses of even a simplified intelligence concept like the kind of intelligence an iq test measures.
Intelligence and disease and smart Singaporeans - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
yup guys, you alone possess the brilliance to instantly spot the ridiculousness of one of the most important tests in psychology. it definitely doesn't have anything to do with you not understanding what an iq test's supposed to measure, not understanding how iq test results are supposed to be interpreted and not understanding the uses of even a simplified intelligence concept like the kind of intelligence an iq test measures. | ||
|
NEWater
Singapore178 Posts
On July 11 2010 20:55 HnR)hT wrote: In other words, your parents' belief that Israel deserves to survive the relentless Jihad against it (because Israel does not have and has never had expansionist ambitions, and on the contrary has consented to endless withdrawals and partitions of the original Mandate Palestine, set up by the Leage of Nations for the "reconstitution of the Jewish National Home"; because the Jihad against Israel has not changed in its fundamental objective since the Nazi-Muslim cooperation to exterminate the Jews in the Middle East during the war, which was only foiled by Rommel's defeat at El Alamain and by the German catastrophe at Stalingrad; because Muslims, whose religion fosters hatred of non-Muslims and of Jews especially, and who are subject to incessant, murderously racist incitement in mosques and in mass media and will not relent in their genocidal designs against Israel unless Israel is overwhelmingly more powerful; one could go on forever), is supposed to prove something bad about your parents? You don't know better. You are just an arrogant and ignorant fool who has been thoroughly deceived. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Go back to your religion and huddle there. You have no place to make any comments on this when you're incapable of perceiving nuances in this world. | ||
|
Ahseyo
Sweden80 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On July 11 2010 21:06 Orome wrote: the ignorance level in this thread is reaching alarming heights again. yup guys, you alone possess the brilliance to instantly spot the ridiculousness of one of the most important tests in psychology. it definitely doesn't have anything to do with you not understanding what an iq test's supposed to measure, not understanding how iq test results are supposed to be interpreted and not understanding the uses of even a simplified intelligence concept like the kind of intelligence an iq test measures. So, explain... | ||
|
Subversive
Australia2229 Posts
On July 11 2010 19:58 Klockan3 wrote: Read the thread maybe? Here: I read the article which is usually sufficient. I followed the links etc. I almost always read through previous comments but seeing the general rants and arguments in this one I gave it a miss. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 11 2010 21:26 NEWater wrote: I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Go back to your religion and huddle there. You have no place to make any comments on this when you're incapable of perceiving nuances in this world. Apparently Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein, Jacques Ellul, Martin Luther King, jr., and Andrei Sakharov are all "incapable of perceiving nuances in this world." There's not a lot that irks me more than pseudo-intellectuals beating up on Israel in order to demonstrate their supposed cultural and intellectual sophistication. Don't comment on things you know nothing about. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 11 2010 23:49 Servolisk wrote: Another relentless HnR)hT logic free rampage... accidentally the greatest troll on earth. A pure personal attack with no information, no serious attempt to articulate an alternative view, no redeeming content whatsoever. This is seriously banworthy. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On July 11 2010 23:59 HnR)hT wrote: A pure personal attack with no information, no serious attempt to articulate an alternative view, no redeeming content whatsoever. This is seriously banworthy. OK but you would be banned too. :/ "You are just an arrogant and ignorant fool who has been thoroughly deceived." I guess your post had information but none of it was pertinent, I seriously hope you can see that. If you thought about your posts no one would need to point out the missing logic. I've seen you be instructed many times in political threads but you always stick to your dogma and crap posts. | ||
|
bleh
85 Posts
You're badly, badly misinterpreting what he referred to as "God" because you probably heard someone use the quote "God does not play dice" or one of his other 2-3 quotes that mention "God" and assumed this meant he actually believed in a God as perceived by organized religion. "In a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind, Einstein remarked, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."[91]" In a 1954 letter, he wrote, "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.” n 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." SPINOZA'S GOD: Spinoza believed God exists only philosophically and that God was abstract and impersonal.[1] Spinoza's system imparted order and unity to the tradition of radical thought, offering powerful weapons for prevailing against "received authority." As a youth he first subscribed to Descartes's dualistic belief that body and mind are two separate substances, but later changed his view and asserted that they were not separate, being a single identity. He contended that everything that exists in Nature (i.e., everything in the Universe) is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality,[11] namely the single substance (meaning "that which stands beneath" rather than "matter") that is the basis of the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect is only understood in part. His identification of God with nature was more fully explained in his posthumously published Ethics.[1] That humans presume themselves to have free will, he argues, is a result of their awareness of appetites while being unable to understand the reasons why they want and act as they do. Spinoza has been described by one writer as an "Epicurean materialist."[11] You're just repeating random snippets of information that you've heard somewhere at some point without understanding them or knowing what they mean. Einstein was not religious, he though it was primitive and childish and that God is a product of human imagination trying to justify the meaninglessness of its own existence. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 11 2010 21:26 NEWater wrote: I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Go back to your religion and huddle there. You have no place to make any comments on this when you're incapable of perceiving nuances in this world. What gives you the right so presumptuously to dismiss my assertion that Muslims are subject to murderous incitement? Why don't you go to memri.org or palwatch.org and actually see how the Muslim media talks about Israel and Jews? Or read what ex-Muslims who escaped that world, such as Nonie Darwish, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Mossab Yousef say? But all my sources must be "far right propaganda," so what's the point? | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 12 2010 00:03 Servolisk wrote: OK but you would be banned too. :/ "You are just an arrogant and ignorant fool who has been thoroughly deceived." I guess your post had information but none of it was pertinent, I seriously hope you can see that. If you thought about your posts no one would need to point out the missing logic. I've seen you be instructed many times in political threads but you always stick to your dogma and crap posts. Another raw personal attack with no redeeming content. When is above poster going to be banned? | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 12 2010 00:06 bleh wrote: Albert Einstein was not religious. You're badly, badly misinterpreting what he referred to as "God" because you probably heard someone use the quote "God does not play dice" or one of his other 2-3 quotes that mention "God" and assumed this meant he actually believed in a God as perceived by organized religion. "In a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind, Einstein remarked, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."[91]" In a 1954 letter, he wrote, "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.” n 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." SPINOZA'S GOD: Spinoza believed God exists only philosophically and that God was abstract and impersonal.[1] Spinoza's system imparted order and unity to the tradition of radical thought, offering powerful weapons for prevailing against "received authority." As a youth he first subscribed to Descartes's dualistic belief that body and mind are two separate substances, but later changed his view and asserted that they were not separate, being a single identity. He contended that everything that exists in Nature (i.e., everything in the Universe) is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality,[11] namely the single substance (meaning "that which stands beneath" rather than "matter") that is the basis of the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect is only understood in part. His identification of God with nature was more fully explained in his posthumously published Ethics.[1] That humans presume themselves to have free will, he argues, is a result of their awareness of appetites while being unable to understand the reasons why they want and act as they do. Spinoza has been described by one writer as an "Epicurean materialist."[11] You're just repeating random snippets of information that you've heard somewhere at some point without understanding them or knowing what they mean. Einstein was not religious, he though it was primitive and childish and that God is a product of human imagination trying to justify the meaninglessness of its own existence. Oh, brother. Only on TL.net (well, not really). I mentioned Einstein not because he was "religions" but because he was a ZIONIST--or a prominent and outspoken supporter of Israel. Seriously, it boggles the mind that what some people read in a post could be that far removed from the actual meaning and context of the post. edit: But then, I shouldn't be that shocked that people are so ignorant that they can read the post in question and it wouldn't even occur to them to make that connection =\ | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On July 12 2010 00:21 Orome wrote: lol, I was going to try to answer Servolisk, but I don't think this thread's going much further. Please do and ignore the tangent ^_^ | ||
|
DragonDefonce
United States790 Posts
On July 08 2010 19:08 The Storyteller wrote: I'd just like to point out that despite our high IQ, Singaporeans are unable to organise a TL.net meetup properly. That's because you don't have a Susie in Singapore. Pretty interesting read though | ||
|
bleh
85 Posts
Nice try on that back pedaling. You clearly thought he was religious, the entire context of the quoted post was an attack on the intelligence of the religious. I'll give you a hint: When you're in an argument and it's you vs everyone, it's probably because you don't know what you're talking about, not because you're smarter than everyone else. Sorry. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 12 2010 00:27 bleh wrote: except you quoted someone who said "go back to your religion and huddle there etc." and then listed a bunch of people who you obviously thought were religious to indicate that what he was saying about religious people was false. Nice try on that back pedaling. You clearly thought he was religious, the entire context of the quoted post was an attack on the intelligence of the religious. I'll give you a hint: When you're in an argument and it's you vs everyone, it's probably because you don't know what you're talking about, not because you're smarter than everyone else. Sorry. Actually, I know for a fact that most of those people are not religious (AFAIK only MLK and Ellul on that list were religious) so that couldn't possibly have been my meaning. What the fucking hell is wrong iwth you? edit: I'll give you a hint: When you're in an argument and it's you vs everyone, it's probably because you don't know what you're talking about, not because you're smarter than everyone else. Sorry. Usually that's true, but when you've spent a considerable amount of time and effort to seriously learn about a subject, and then the other people 1) demonstrate no actual knowledge at all, 2) half the time launch personal attacks, and 3) the other half of the time are so off base in misreading my posts that they have no clue what I'm even trying to say, then it pretty much nullifies the attempt to intimidate through sheer numbers. | ||
|
bleh
85 Posts
"Go back to your religion and huddle there. You have no place to make any comments on this when you're incapable of perceiving nuances in this world." with a list of names of people who can perceive nuances in the world. The obvious implication was to state that there are religious people who can perceive nuances in the world, you just were too stupid to actually figure out if those people were religious before saying it. | ||
|
bleh
85 Posts
Sorry. You're dumb, you shouldn't say words anymore, it's embarrassing. | ||
| ||
