Recent comments

Wahaha OP wrote

Reply to comment by smallpond in About IQ by Wahaha

As far as math goes, I was top of class. Not that it matters much. That's the neat thing about science. You don't need to be especially smart to get the basics and as long as someone else outlines the higher level stuff it's not that difficult to follow along.

Making science into dogma is stupid.

1

smallpond wrote

Reply to comment by Wahaha in About IQ by Wahaha

Without the brainpower to evaluate concepts independently, that's all you have. Sad thing is, whichever tribe you choose, you'll still be wrong.

You never did say how you did at math back at school - you know, when your ability to understand simple scientific concepts was tested objectively...

1

spektor wrote

Reply to comment by Wahaha in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

Murders of a particular race can be correlated with many factors--perhaps say poverty or drug usage or even extreme wealth or lately "being a rich Russian billionaire." Why those factors exist might be spiritual, economic, self-caused, other-caused, or a whole slew of sociao-political reasons. The bottom line is, if you want to see it as race alone, that's how you are going to see it, but that isn't really science talking. More likely, it is some "liberal academic conditoning" talking, which often masquerades as science.

1

spektor wrote

Reply to comment by Wahaha in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

What I defined are the pieces that constitute an actual scientific study. What you are trying to make a case for is correlation between murder victims and color. You are confusing "fact" with "Correlation" which is a huge scientific no no. You posted facts. The "pattern" to the numbers could come from any number of factors which may or may not be race related.

1

spektor wrote

If the article is supposed to be especially scary, I'm not sure it is any more scary than anything else Satan does. If you are staying in an evil hotel, you might wind up with some spiritual problems that you'd rather not have.

1

spektor wrote

Reply to comment by Wahaha in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

Nah. Those facts are a reflection of statistical measures of people who get murdered without any operational definitions defining what "murder" is. Skin color, on the other hand, is a measurable difference that people readily detect and foolishly base conclusions upon.

1

Wahaha OP wrote

Reply to comment by smallpond in About IQ by Wahaha

No, it's quite easy to verify existing concepts. You just have to repeat the same experiment and see if you get the same results. You don't need a high priest to tell you the truth. You can verify these things by yourself.

Sure, depending on the equipment needed you might lack the means to replicate the experiment personally, but there should be other labs with the necessary equipment around to verify the results.

Unfortunately these days replicating results seems not possible for a whole lot of things.

And as far as climate change goes it's even simpler. You just have to read a bunch of predictions for the next ten years, then wait twenty years and see if the predictions were true. As far as climate change goes, though, all the predictions of the past decades have been wrong. So you could be a total idiot and still know that it was predicted for the polar caps to melt by now and see that they haven't melted, so the prediction was wrong.

1

spektor wrote

Reply to comment by smallpond in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

Thanks for validating my "collective power". On the other hand, you aren't going to change a moron's mind so what you are saying is that you like wasting your time talking to morons who are going to do whatever it is they collectively do. You don't even get a share in the power in that scenario--you are just a total loss of life/time.

1

smallpond OP wrote

Reply to comment by spektor in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

Even the smartest guy on earth (obviously not me) has to spend all day talking to the intellectually inferior. Morons may be morons, but they have collective power and are important nonetheless.

2

smallpond wrote

Reply to comment by Wahaha in About IQ by Wahaha

but understanding and verifying existing concepts isn't that hard.

Ah, but it is, and you also need the critical thinking skills to recognize the limitations and flaws in scientific arguments. Remember back at school, when some kids would get 98% on math tests, and others would fail: that's not just because of late bloomers, it's because some people are just intellectually incapable of understanding scientific/mathematical concepts. Perhaps you're one of them?

0

smallpond OP wrote

Reply to comment by spektor in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

New rule: only smart people get to have free speech. (i.e. not you)

Well, that is your retarded argument in a nutshell. Which is the same argument as the censors and those fighting against free speech. I think you struck accidental lucidity.

1

spektor wrote

Reply to comment by Wahaha in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

No, that is someone's IDEA of the free speech argument. This isn't about what I "Like to hear". The classical argument is that you aren't, through free speech, allowed to yell out the word FIRE when there is no fire in a crowded theater. Such an action would cause probable death and panic. Therefore, the statement "your free speech doesn't go past your nose" is usually the metric because when you speak a thing, it enters into a larger arena than just your desire to say a given thing.

I'd argue racist statements are like yelling in that crowded theater when there is no fire. Just because you hate something or someone does not give you an automatic right to start raising an alarm about that someone or group of someones unless you have some kind of actual evidence. So, if I tell you you should be careful of the Chinese because of the Great Firewall and sleeper agents sympathetic to the communist party, that's different than if I say you should beware Chinese cause they gots yellow skins, and I hates me some yellow skins!

It isn't about what I want to hear, but it is about conveying information in a responsible way to a larger accountability than just saying whatever the hell comes into your mind. Most people censor themselves quite heavily, for instance, on a first date since they understand if they say things like "I want to be inside you" or "I want you inside me" most likely that isn't going to function in a way that moves to a second date and if it does, one has to wonder about the longevity of such a relationship since the sexual emphasis was so high and immediate...

0

Wahaha wrote

Reply to comment by spektor in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

No, that's the entire free speech argument. You don't need to protect the right of someone to say what you like to year. You only need to protect the right of someones saying things you do not like to hear.

2

spektor wrote

Reply to comment by smallpond in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

Verbose delusion is still delusion buddy. Just another 'free speech for me but not for thee' hypocrite. Supporting free speech means supporting people's right to say stuff you disagree with - you deserve the thought police.

Gee golly. You totally supported your argument with all those facts. I feel like we are on an equal footing and you are a "smart person" who has the authority to call me names because you are so, so smart! Good job, you!

You don't believe in free speech at all. People should be free to speak, not to conduct illegal acts, and speech should not be restricted because of some vague possibility that it will lead to illegal acts. That's the nonsense thought-police argument.

K. Since I don't believe in free speech, and I do believe you should shut the fuck up, I think you should shut the fuck up because you are dumb. New rule: only smart people get to have free speech. (i.e. not you) (Just for reference, this is wholly satire based on your bad reasoning)

1

Wahaha OP wrote

Reply to comment by smallpond in About IQ by Wahaha

Just not true. Science is open to everyone. You might not be able to contribute anything new, but understanding and verifying existing concepts isn't that hard.

Your mindset is essentially dogma. "Don't try to read the Bible yourself, we tell you what it says. Trust us."

1