The Hazards of Belief

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

If you keep calling me a bigot can I start calling you a cuck?

I didn't call you a bigot, I pointed out that you post bigotry.

As for calling me a cuck, did you figure out what it means yet? Or are you mindlessly parroting a meme you read somewhere?

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't call you a bigot, I pointed out that you post bigotry.

As for calling me a cuck, did you figure out what it means yet? Or are you mindlessly parroting a meme you read somewhere?

Minor distinction really and a matter of perspective.

I know what it means, its an all purpose descriptor/insult that perfectly describes the nu-male(liberal to a fault, pc, meek, virtue signalling, etc etc, pro internationalist, socialist etc etc). The perfect counter-punch to cries of "bigot" or what have you, entirely apt.

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Minor distinction really and a matter of perspective.

Well, no. You post bigotry; I point that out. If you insist that that makes you a bigot, fine by me.

I know what it means, its an all purpose descriptor/insult that perfectly describes the nu-male(liberal to a fault, pc, meek, virtue signalling, etc etc, pro internationalist, socialist etc etc). The perfect counter-punch to cries of "bigot" or what have you, entirely apt.

Yeah, that's some pretty meaningless parroting right there. Basically, it's an insulting term for people who don't agree with your bigotry.

I can see why you like Donald Trump so much: if you can't think of an intelligent remark, fall back on an insult. Hurr durr.

PopePalpatine

That noise is familiar. You can just feel the insecurity.

JPNelsforearm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That noise is familiar. You can just feel the insecurity.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, no. You post bigotry; I point that out. If you insist that that makes you a bigot, fine by me. Yeah, that's some pretty meaningless parroting right there. Basically, it's an insulting term for people who don't agree with your bigotry.

I can see why you like Donald Trump so much: if you can't think of an intelligent remark, fall back on an insult. Hurr durr.

Much in the same way screaming bigot is an insult for those who dont agree with your utopian worldview. You cannot have it both ways, that merely saying "bigot(ry)" is "not an insult", its an "intelligent remark", whilst cuck is merely an "unintelligent insult".

Calling someone a bigot, or a cuck falls into the same bracket, they are both insults in lieu of an actual counterpoint.

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Much in the same way screaming bigot is an insult for those who dont agree with your utopian worldview.

I don't have a "utopian worldview", whatever that even means (you're awfully fond of saying things that don't actually mean anything, other than intending them as insults).

I'm pointing out that claiming that third-world countries are inevitably less developed than western countries because of the genetic makeup of the people who live there is bigotry. It's bordering on hate speech. And yes, I know you like to argue that hate speech doesn't exist - a convenient argument, given your views.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't have a "utopian worldview", whatever that even means (you're awfully fond of saying things that don't actually mean anything, other than intending them as insults).

I'm pointing out that claiming that third-world countries are inevitably less developed than western countries because of the genetic makeup of the people who live there is bigotry. It's bordering on hate speech. And yes, I know you like to argue that hate speech doesn't exist - a convenient argument, given your views.

Anyone who promotes and agrees with mass immigration, taking it as one example, has a utopian worldview.


How is that bigotry? Its a statement of fact. Numerous studies done on the matter. IQ is genetic, and those regions have a lower IQ, which leads to them being third world countries. Even taking Ireland as an example, the reason we have a failing public health system, corruption etc etc is genetic, our average IQ levels across the board, pretending that if we swap some arbitrary political system or politicians for one another, and it will solve anything, is delusional. A country is the sum of its people.

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Anyone who promotes and agrees with mass immigration, taking it as one example, has a utopian worldview.

Yeah, that's just you making up definitions for words in order to use them in an insulting manner.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, that's just you making up definitions for words in order to use them in an insulting manner.

No, its someone who is denial of the negative outcomes of mass immigration, its utopian, a a belief that everything will come right, no matter what, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, terrorism, mass rape, mass unemployment, segregation, identity politics, increased crime etc etc.

That someone would continue supporting such a policy leads to a few conclusions, they are either self loathing, a globalist sociopath, or they are so wedded to their liberal political ideals that they would rather cling to a vision(utopian) of the result of those ideals, rather than the tangible results, which are uniformly negative.

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

No, its someone who is denial of the negative outcomes of mass immigration, its utopian, a a belief that everything will come right, no matter what, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, terrorism, mass rape, mass unemployment, segregation, identity politics, increased crime etc etc.

It could be worse. I could be the sort of person who spouts discredited racist nonsense about people from other countries being inherently inferior. Untermenschen, you might say.

But, I'll tell you what: why don't you find a post of mine where I say that "everything will come right, no matter what". Because that's a view I can't remember ever holding, never mind expressing.

That someone would continue supporting such a policy leads to a few conclusions...

You haven't described a policy, much less demonstrated that I support it. As for leading to conclusions, I think you misspelled "leap".

marienbad

fran17 wrote: »

I'm confirming that just as eighteenth century philosophers invented the "dark ages" they also created the "enlightenment" as means to confirm that Europe had finally been freed from Roman Catholic suppression on freedom and knowledge.Any modern scholar today will look with deep suspicion on both of these terms.
Regarding scientific advancement in the centuries preceding the fraud of the enlightenment,well an overwhelming amount of evidence exists now.The first universities of Europe,Bologna,Paris,Oxford,Vienna etc. all enjoyed huge privilege from the church.They were the envy of all during this time.Theology and Scholasticism forwarded the advancement of science throughout the period that was fraudulently know as the dark ages.Among many others,human physiology made huge advances.Nicolaus Copernicus,attributed with the start of the scientific revolution,was a Catholic canon from Poland who received his education in Italy from the best scholastic professors of the time.Roger Bacon,a Franciscan,produced the Opus Majus on behalf of pope Clement IV.William Ockham,another Franciscan,noted for the Ockham razor principal.I could go on all day.Isaac Newton rightfully stated "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"
The church supported many republican governments in early Italian city states.The Magna Carta was hugely influenced by the church and this fact has been shamefully airbrushed during the so called age of enlightenment.All revolutions have resulted in horrific violence being inflicted on the church and clergy.During the French revolution the church accepted the elimination of the tithe and seizure of all property but still were deemed an enemy and faced attempts to eliminate them completely.The church was never an enemy of democracy but merely worked with the hand they were dealt.The term "divine right of kings" which was wrongly accredited to Roman Catholicism was in fact a Protestant doctrine from the seventeenth century.
Paganism survived for many centuries and eventually sank into obscurity through time,anything else is merely revisionist nonsense cooked up during the "enlightenment".

What a load of selective tosh ! and you really should look up the background to the Newtown quote - it is not saying quite what you think it is .

marienbad

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Even taking Ireland as an example, the reason we have a failing public health system, corruption etc etc is genetic, our average IQ levels across the board, pretending that if we swap some arbitrary political system or politicians for one another, and it will solve anything, is delusional. A country is the sum of its people.

Are you seriously saying we have a lower I.Q level in Ireland , if so based on what ? That Cork Uni study of a few years ago ?

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

It could be worse. I could be the sort of person who spouts discredited racist nonsense about people from other countries being inherently inferior. Untermenschen, you might say.

Just because you dont agree with it doesnt make it discredited, I have yet to be refuted, only banned for stating scientific fact, "race" or "inferiority"(your words) has nothing to do with inbreeding. You could take any community in the world, with the highest IQ,genetic health etc, and with control of their mating cycle, reduce their IQ and raise genetic defects through selective breeding of close relations. That stating this fact is somehow deemed beyond the pale, and I can get a lifetime ban, without ever being challenged, says it all.
I mean, even as a child I understood this when I had hamsters and guinea pigs, the fact adults on this forum cannot, is mind boggling.

But, I'll tell you what: why don't you find a post of mine where I say that "everything will come right, no matter what". Because that's a view I can't remember ever holding, never mind expressing. You haven't described a policy, much less demonstrated that I support it.

Its more the fact you defend that policy(overtly or by implication) in most thread, at every opportunity, Im not going to trawl through your posts.

As for leading to conclusions, I think you misspelled "leap".

Nope, read the sentence in full..

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Nope, read the sentence in full..

The sentence where you suggested that my rejection of your racism was due to self-loathing? Once is enough to read your drivel, thanks.

JPNelsforearm

marienbad wrote: »

Are you seriously saying we have a lower I.Q level in Ireland , if so based on what ? That Cork Uni study of a few years ago ?

Yes, we do, an average, have one of the lowest IQ's in Europe.
Lynn and the finnish guy, cannot recall his name.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

The sentence where you suggested that my rejection of your racism was due to self-loathing? Once is enough to read your drivel, thanks.

No, didnt say that. I said you are wedded to your utopian ideals in the face of facts.

That someone would continue supporting such a policy leads to a few conclusions, they are either self loathing, a globalist sociopath, or they are so wedded to their liberal political ideals that they would rather cling to a vision(utopian) of the result of those ideals, rather than the tangible results, which are uniformly negative.


Racism? Where have I posted anything racist on Boards, ever?

marienbad

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Yes, we do, an average, have one of the lowest IQ's in Europe.
Lynn and the finnish guy, cannot recall his name.

I think you may be misreading that study though , the difference is very little as far as I recall and not enough to attribute the incompetence to us that you do .

Furthermore as far as I am aware this result is quite common in all areas of high and long term immigration or migration, as the best and brightest are usually the ones to leave . But it might be only as far as London

Similarly if you extracted Dublin from your study the IQ would be even lower in the remainder , and if you extracted London Berlin of NY from their hinterland the same would happen .

I am sure the IQ of Singapore Hong Kong and city states like that is through the roof .

I am not too sure the conclusions you are coming up with are correct.

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Racism? Where have I posted anything racist on Boards, ever?

That's almost funny.

JPNelsforearm

marienbad wrote: »

I think you may be misreading that study though , the difference is very little as far as I recall and not enough to attribute the incompetence to us that you do .

Furthermore as far as I am aware this result is quite common in all areas of high and long term immigration or migration, as the best and brightest are usually the ones to leave . But it might be only as far as London

Similarly if you extracted Dublin from your study the IQ would be even lower in the remainder , and if you extracted London Berlin of NY from their hinterland the same would happen .

I am sure the IQ of Singapore Hong Kong and city states like that is through the roof .

I am not too sure the conclusions you are coming up with are correct.

Maybe, but I cannot see any other reason for it, IQ dictates, there is no reason for us to have squandered economic largesse other than a lack of mental competency. Every reason comes back to incompetency, and the reason for that is low IQ, which is largely genetic.

True, I definitely think immigration and brain drain has a lot to answer for as regards IQ. On average 2/3 of Irish people who emigrated held a degree compared to the 40odd% who stayed behind, now have that happening over centuries...

Maybe not, but I have yet to see a compelling argument that completely discounts the role of IQ and genetics(accounting for diet socio-economics etc) in why a society is structured the way it is.

We can see this effect in Ireland in a microcosm, look at travelers, genetically the same as your or I, yet higher incidence of genetic disease and and lower IQ(and all the problems that brings, crime, unemployment, violence), that is due to the intermarriage within the community.
http://rarejournal.org/rarejournal/article/view/36/104

So within Ireland we have a group that has lower IQ due to them engaging in the inverse of what happens in cities. Reducing themselves from the mean across the board through deliberate(unknowingly) action.

The "city effect" or reverse is still limited by genetics

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's almost funny.

Just because you do not agree with something, does not make it racist.

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Just because you do not agree with something, does not make it racist.

Correct. Racism is racism, whether I agree with it or not.

PopePalpatine

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Just because you dont agree with it doesnt make it discredited, I have yet to be refuted, only banned for stating scientific fact, "race" or "inferiority"(your words) has nothing to do with inbreeding. You could take any community in the world, with the highest IQ,genetic health etc, and with control of their mating cycle, reduce their IQ and raise genetic defects through selective breeding of close relations. That stating this fact is somehow deemed beyond the pale, and I can get a lifetime ban, without ever being challenged, says it all.

What if I told you that environment, not genetics, was the prime factor in someone's intelligence, which in turn isn't just restricted to IQ?

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Correct. Racism is racism, whether I agree with it or not.

I agree. So defining racism as posting you find objectionable, eg; Me, posting scientific fact on the effects of inbreeding, something that is not restricted by geography or race/ethnicity and could apply to any group of humans who so chose to engage in said behavior, is not racism.

marienbad

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Maybe, but I cannot see any other reason for it, IQ dictates, there is no reason for us to have squandered economic largesse other than a lack of mental competency. Every reason comes back to incompetency, and the reason for that is low IQ, which is largely genetic.

True, I definitely think immigration and brain drain has a lot to answer for as regards IQ. On average 2/3 of Irish people who emigrated held a degree compared to the 40odd% who stayed behind, now have that happening over centuries...

Maybe not, but I have yet to see a compelling argument that completely discounts the role of IQ and genetics(accounting for diet socio-economics etc) in why a society is structured the way it is.

We can see this effect in Ireland in a microcosm, look at travelers, genetically the same as your or I, yet higher incidence of genetic disease and and lower IQ(and all the problems that brings, crime, unemployment, violence), that is due to the intermarriage within the community.
http://rarejournal.org/rarejournal/article/view/36/104

So within Ireland we have a group that has lower IQ due to them engaging in the inverse of what happens in cities. Reducing themselves from the mean across the board through deliberate(unknowingly) action.

The "city effect" or reverse is still limited by genetics

There are loads of reasons why we have squandered our opportunities . and there are loads of books written on the subject of post colonial cock ups which are much more credible explanations than your leap into genetics .

To be honest it comes across as fitting the 'facts' to your theories.

JPNelsforearm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What if I told you that environment, not genetics, was the prime factor in someone's intelligence, which in turn isn't just restricted to IQ?

Im just using IQ as a measurement, obviously there is more to intelligence than IQ alone, however in broad terms its an acceptable barometer.

I'd agree, though I would say its still going to be limited by genetics, which is what 30/40% of your total intelligence? Look at the studies on twins, what was it, a 5-10% difference in some cases due to environment

JPNelsforearm

marienbad wrote: »

There are loads of reasons why we have squandered our opportunities . and there are loads of books written on the subject of post colonial cock ups which are much more credible explanations than your leap into genetics .

To be honest it comes across as fitting the 'facts' to your theories.

Name one.

My sole theory is that intelligence is genetic and intelligence dictates your actions to a large extent, with environment coming a close second. Look at the studies of prisoners, violence and IQ, the lower the IQ, the higher the propensity for violence. These are studies done in the West.

marienbad

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Name one.

My sole theory is that intelligence is genetic and intelligence dictates your actions to a large extent, with environment coming a close second. Look at the studies of prisoners, violence and IQ, the lower the IQ, the higher the propensity for violence. These are studies done in the West.

do we really want to open this can of worms ?

JPNelsforearm

marienbad wrote: »

do we really want to open this can of worms ?

No, its miles off topic tbf:D

fran17

marienbad wrote: »

What a load of selective tosh ! and you really should look up the background to the Newtown quote - it is not saying quite what you think it is .

Sorry but that literally makes no sense.Your accusing me of being selective because I selected examples to prove my point in relation to the myth of the "dark ages"
And in relation to Newton,his metaphor was used precisely as originally quoted by Bernard of Chartres.Bernard of Chartres being one of the leading scholars of the cathedral school of Chartres in the eleventh and twelfth century.Founded by the catholic church through bishop Fulbert and producing some of the finest scholastic minds of its time.