Utopia Talk / Politics / Hey EP

WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 01:11:13 Since sam refused to answer them, and you felt the thread got trashed, I would welcome your perspective on the points I made in that thread; copy/paste "Those born as gods among men through talent/genius/ambition should be fully rewarded for their endeavors. " the classic anti-meritocracy conservative myth. People cant become that good or bad through their conditions, theyre born that way, its fixed in nature. Youre either born elite or youre not anf if youre not you should be content with the exciting life goal of being the best at flipping a burger. "If you want to be a burger flipper then be the damn best burger flipper on earth (she uses this example in one of her books). " What a horrible example, such a nasty perspective. Its at the heart of slavery, racism, sexism. "You were born to sweep my floors, you cant escape what you were born to do, so your moral duty is to sweep them as well as you can. Opposing this, then, becomes waging class war. I, on the other hand, was born to be wealthy and live a much more enjoyable and free life, and since I was born to do that, my duty is to enjoy myself as best as I can." This is naturalized, set in stone, entitlement. I am entitled to more than you, because I was born for that and you weren't. so sam admits he believes in aristocracy, that all men are born unequal, the antithesis of what the founding fathers believed in. Sam also thinks that USA IQ average rising 20 points in 80 years is because, in evolution, genes change that much that quickly...and yet he also the thinks the opposite at the same time, that evolution cannot exist without social darwinism...any old pacifier will do, no matter how dumb the excuses are. Why would you think something so stupidly unscientific as realizing that 1st world nutrition vs 3rd world nutrition will make a HUGE difference on every muscle, every organ, the entire health of the human physicality - but not the brain? Youre pretending its only a little bit related and mostly, IQ is fixed in stone, when the facts show a HUGE relation, an incredible explosion of IQ for the entire populace when environmental conditions are improved. Its amazing how the human mind can compartmentalize obvious contradictions that stare you straight in the face. For thousands of years human IQ developed slowly, and then, with democracy and liberalization in the west that brought much better living conditions and education, IQ suddenly exploded. Not only does sam think correlation==causality, he also ignores correlation completely when it doesnt suit his belief that is completely constructed around him having a great life at the expense of someone having a shitty life waiting on him. If being born from the ruling class had anything like an effect as strong as environment has on IQ, the ruling classes would have been increasing at at least the same rate, 3IQpoints per decade, for thousands of years. Their IQ would have increased by 300 points each millenium...lol... Its funny how australia isnt completely criminal since they all come from 'criminal genetics.' Its funny how France arent a 3rd world country, what with them executing all their 'elite.' Its funny how there are any intelligent civilized men at all, what with mankind being born, anbd thus fixed as such in nature, genetically destined to be a dumb savage. Its also funny that if evolution was as sam thinks, a couple of men were born with a higher IQ and progressed from there, that the IQ development of their prodigy developed at a tiny, crawling rate, compared to the massive explosion that changed conditions caused (access to education, better health, etc) also, theres nothing indicating any correlation between the ruling class and IQ. The history of royalty utterly disproves that. Not to mention, it would mean Obama belongs to the very smartest, as do congress, etc. Why arent the people you think are the smartest ruling the USA, if you think thats a natural evolution? How come 'dumb' people took their 'natural place'? I could go on for days listing point by point the massive flaws in your rationalizing and your excuses for your entitlement. Even your theory that the wealthy intelligent(which includes all the hillary clintons, the buffets, once again in complete contradiction to your beliefs) pass on their naturalized IQ, which all indicators show have a much, much less effect on the general populace than improved conditions fails, because as we all know, the Donald trumps (using sams framing of what is intelligence) very often dont marry and have kids with physics professors, they marry dumbass beauty pageants. yet another anti-american values conclusion of sams aristocracy is that the american dream is fixed, naturalized, as genetically impossible to nearly the entirety of the american population. Maybe one day I'll sit down and make a 100 page list of everything that is completely incompatible in this aristocratic fantasy world pretending its not just a thin superficial veneer for racist, sexist, imperialistic, white supremacy. You dont believe in science, you believe in science fiction (based in white supremacist, elitist fascism)
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 01:16:00 I should probably have numbered each line, so that when sam repeats what Ive already answered, I could point to, "line 13." "Line 41."
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Mar 06 01:17:43 I'm pretty sure it's a combination of nature and nurture. You can have the magic DNA to be a potential Einstein, but if you aren't exposed to the needed environmental conditions, that will lay dormant. Like those Canadian foxes or whatever that turn white in winter - no snow by a certain age, no white fox. So until someone is like 20, we need to absolutely be all sorts of what is called "socialist" and egalitarian and shit in order to ensure that every fox experiences snow.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Mar 06 01:19:02 I answered all those. You ignored my answers, probably because you didnt like the facts that went with them. You then went on to say that parenting and genetics are science fiction. You then made 8 posts in a row about how IQ is not related to wealth. I made one post reminding you that it was, at least partly, and then you ran away! rofl! brave sir tardfish ran away! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgCq7oQ-dZE
Sam Adams Member	Tue Mar 06 01:20:50 "I'm pretty sure it's a combination of nature and nurture. " indeed. This is the basic part of human sociology that our fuzzy studies retard here refuses to beleive in. Smart kids inherit the genes of their smart parents, AND their smart parents are good teachers. WHen confronted with this simple logic, our fuzzy studies hero change the subject. When the next subject also went against him, brave sir tardfish ran away.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 01:29:32 First: IQ as a concept has been disfigured. The way people like sam use it, its used to exclude almost the entirety of humanity, a new classification which serves the same purpose as using skin color to exclude most of humanity. I say this as someone who has always flattered himself thinking highly of his own IQ; e.g., this argument doesnt serve my personal preferences at all - but it is probably more realistic. An average, decent, productive human being probably doesnt need an IQ out of the ordinary for most corners of society, from wall street investors, to military commanders, to politicians, and even into academia. You can probably get good grades even in complicated scientific studies with a reasonable IQ. This is also suggested by the fact that the IQ explosion in leveling out now (suggested, not stated). Thats just to point out how the subject is biasedly framed to begin with. Secondly, if nature had provided a rate of IQ development equal to the rate of IQ development since the liberalization of the west, health, education etc suddenly made available to the general populace, roughly 3 IQ points per decade, then why dont humans have IQs in the 500-600s? Thirdly, do you agree that the sam aristocrat theory means that the vast majority of americans are genetically excluded from the american dream?
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 01:33:51 fourthly, as a matter of bewilderment to me, can you reconcile this with the essence of the founding fathers struggle?
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 01:35:05 I should probably add the traditional notion of the essence of the founding fathers struggle.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Mar 06 01:35:16 BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! The classic complaint for the lower class. But but but IQ doesnt really measure my ability! OMFG! I cant believe you were dumb enough to actually post that, tardfish. "if nature had provided a rate of IQ development equal to the rate of IQ development since the liberalization of the west" so you are agreeing that the industrial age and information age have trumped most forces of nature. Don't tell your global warming leftist pals about that. "the vast majority of americans are genetically excluded from the american dream? " Genetically, or educationally, yes.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Mar 06 01:37:29 The founding fathers were ok with aristocracy. My own aristocrat ancestor, who wrote the Virginia Bill of Rights that served as the rough draft for the Constitution, was an aristocrat. They were not ok with inherited titles of nobility that guaranteed land ownership and wealth even if the inheritor ended up being massively incompetent.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Mar 06 01:38:05 "But but but IQ doesnt really measure my ability" It measures ability to take standardized tests.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Mar 06 01:42:58 "Tue Mar 06 01:37:29 The founding fathers were ok with aristocracy. My own aristocrat ancestor, who wrote the Virginia Bill of Rights that served as the rough draft for the Constitution, was an aristocrat. They were not ok with inherited titles of nobility that guaranteed land ownership and wealth even if the inheritor ended up being massively incompetent. " ROFL! This answer just made tardfish' face turn red and his pussy probably got a bit red. He doesnt believe in aristocracy, nor does he believe in letting idiots fail. Ahhh, the poor deranged fuzzy mind of the socialist. Anyway, I concur with this EP post 100%, and now I am going to bed.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Mar 06 01:43:53 "It measures ability to take standardized tests." which is fairly well correlated with most other mental abilities.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Mar 06 01:45:50 When I first signed up for college and took the placement test, I tested into college algebra without ever having taken high school algebra by one question. I can point to the exact question: I know what 70ish is in C because I lived in Europe, not because at the time I could do (9/5)C + 32 or whatever it is. Me scoring well enough on that test was the result of me being good at tests, not at math. I tested into the highest English class one could test into because I was indoctrinated at a young age with the notion that "reading id fun". I still have no idea what the fuck a pronoun is, I just know that if "I can't picture someone writing this turn of phrase in a book I'd enjoy, then it shouldn't be in an essay I'm writing". So much for standardized tests.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Mar 06 01:57:29 "Me scoring well enough on that test was the result of me being good at tests, not at math. " I tested into the highest English class one could test into because I was indoctrinated at a young age with the notion that "reading id fun". I still have no idea what the fuck a pronoun is, I just know that if "I can't picture someone writing this turn of phrase in a book I'd enjoy, then it shouldn't be in an essay I'm writing". no, that is not a failure of the test. That is simply you learning from experience rather with exact equations and laws. Both are valid forms of learning. Unlike math majors, most people don't care about the reason you know something. What matters is that you do in fact know that thing. Ok, I had to wait till my model was done giving me time for one more post. Now it really is bed.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Mar 06 01:58:27 Also, it appears tardfish ran away again after you said that aristocracy is cool and the founders believed in the very capitalist ideal that the stupid should be given the opportunity to fail.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Mar 06 02:00:57 Uhhh I don't think I *endorsed* the founding fathers. I just called a duck a duck.
MrPresident07 Member	Tue Mar 06 02:01:53 Anybody that believes everybody is born equal is a dumbass.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 02:03:29 ep, yeah, Id agree that the way the tests are constructed has an influence, just seemed to be outside the scope of debate at UP for me to bring up. The power of framing words...
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 02:06:42 Another tangent topic which MrP brings up is the dismissal of traditional american values, all men are created equal is nonsense, bring me your huddles masses is socialism, and so on and on and on, while at the same time professing to be the defender of traditional american values. I have to confess it makes my head spin.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Mar 06 02:06:52 "no, that is not a failure of the test." If the options were a) 19 b) 21 c) 23 d) 25 you would be correct. It was supposed to test math skills and math knowledge, and not of "are you privileged enough to have been on a eurotrip?" .... and yet the options for "what is 70F in C" was some shit like a) 5 b) 21 c) 50 d) 105. May as well ask a question that is instantly easy if you've played golf, but otherwise requires math knowledge. Exactly the same thing.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Mar 06 02:11:30 (Americans: 70s is low 20s. 80s is high 20s. Everyone that has been outside of the United States knows this, no math ability required.)
Sam Adams Member	Tue Mar 06 09:45:20 Believe me, more than half of the US gets that wrong, even if they have been to foreign countries. People are stupid. Tardfish is also stupid. Running away again. You should kill yourself, tardfish. UP will never let you live this down. Even hot rod makes fun of you for running away.
Rugian Member	Tue Mar 06 11:53:20 I try to maintain a willful ignorance of US-to-metric conversion rates. Fuck that arbitrary base 10 bullshit. Europeans who live in European countries don't learn how to measure in inches and yards; why should I learn how to measure in meters and decimeters?
Garyd Member	Tue Mar 06 12:48:58 Iq isn't measure of ability. It is a measure of potential. EP if you have a functioning brain and know two small bits of information and some basic sixth grade math converting from Degrees C to dergrees F is fairly simple and you should have learned those two bits of information in grade school. Rugian you sound like my brother.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Mar 06 13:17:30 garyd, the 6th grade approach (half plus 32) is wrong.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Mar 06 13:18:17 rather, subtract 32 and cut in half. w/e, both are wrong.
mexicantornado Member	Tue Mar 06 13:21:28 Not everyone is born equal in ability and talent. Everyone is born equal under the law. A difference fagfish can't figure out, I guess.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Mar 06 13:28:16 tardfish is one of the dumbest people ever on UP.
Garyd Member	Tue Mar 06 13:45:34 The two pieces of infomation are the boiling point of water and the freezing point of water. I learned those in 6th grade in both celius and farenheit.0 and 32, 100 and 212. If you know those it is fairly easy to work out the formula The actual formula is F = 9/5C + 32 or C = 5/9(f-32)
mexicantornado Member	Tue Mar 06 13:50:01 Once again fagfish makes a thread, pronounces an argument, gets told it's a stupid argument and then the moron never returns to the thread he himself created.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Mar 06 14:06:02 rofl he is posting so actively in other threads yet ignoring this one. he did the same last night. He spend an hour making a line of 8 posts all saying there was no correlation between intelligence and family wealth, and I disproved him with one post and then he ran away.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Mar 06 14:43:29 tardfish why did you run away from this thread?
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Mar 06 15:00:02 good for you garyd, heres a star: *
Garyd Member	Tue Mar 06 16:02:01 Thanks. I credit my teachers.
chuck Member	Tue Mar 06 19:00:04 yeah, garyd's way is how I always thought about it. 0 = 32, 100 = 212, are all I remember; will work out formula or guesstimate from there based on context I need it for.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Mar 07 10:46:06 tardfish where are you?
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: