Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Things the PC brigade don't want to hear or admit

Options
1…1516182021…25

Comments

  • Options
    #512
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    Hobosan wrote: »
    In the spirit of the thread title perhaps you could name the continent with the lowest levels of literacy?

    Or are you only brave enough to quote Hicks when it denigrates Southern Caucasian Americans?

    Literacy certainly takes a role. As does illiteracy.
    Redneck hicks and republicans don’t own the monopoly on being stupid and pig ignorant. Jesus look at this thread if you doubt that.
    They do however own a considerable market share of the reputation of being utterly and willingly stupid. Free speech is great. You get to call thick as sh!t stupid cvnts exactly what they are.


  • Options
    #513
    beejee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭beejee


    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    You’re totally wrong but nothing strange there.
    Still waiting for you to answer what is the right endgame? What is the goal? You’ve ran away from the question twice now. Can you answer?
    Or is it off script?


    You're gas :)

    I did write a lengthy reply, but it was deleted due to some website **** up. And it requires a lengthy reply. E balls am I going to write it again on a mobile.

    Short sweet version that's easy to pick apart... The end game of conservatism is survival, whether literally or through more nebulous areas such as culture, identity, (which would both be tied to tradionalism to varying degrees). It's not to say that change is always a terrible thing, but it is always to be met with rational scepticism.

    At the same time the idea is to improve quality of life and reject that which lessens it.

    Where it gets interesting is where you draw boundaries. People naturally look out for themselves. Next would be family, community... Starts to become a hazy subject for people when you get to national level.

    But countries were formed on the basis of "best for its inhabitants". Equality for all is an impossibility. If equality were spread across the world there would be a handful people not in desperate poverty. Not enough to go around. So for conservatives, in this particular regard, the buck must stop at your own border, and increasingly, those within it who are not native.

    Anything that weakens the unity of a country is very dangerous considering the phase of history we are moving into. Abortion, gay rights, rightly or wrongly, introduce huge division within society, for example.

    Overall, although insufficiently explained here, the idea is to make the best of your situation for you and yours. It is practical and achievable.

    Now, what's the end goal of liberalism? I would especially like to know where all the material (money, facility, resource) is supposed to come from, how it's supposed to defend diversity of humanity while forcing people to live together and abandon their ways, and how you circumvent the inherent, defining characteristic of all life forms, namely, competition, how can you accept everything as normal without a standard?

    (circumventing reality via fantasy doesn't count)


  • Options
    #514
    beejee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭beejee


    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    Literacy certainly takes a role. As does illiteracy.
    Redneck hicks and republicans don’t own the monopoly on being stupid and pig ignorant. Jesus look at this thread if you doubt that.
    They do however own a considerable market share of the reputation of being utterly and willingly stupid. Free speech is great. You get to call thick as sh!t stupid cvnts exactly what they are.

    That's fine. Stupid people exist. But doing stupid things is what "makes" you stupid.

    What do you say to people who identify as animals? Would they be worse than stupid, equally stupid? Is that a sensible thing to you?

    It's a fringe thing, but it's certainly a whole community of people with conventions and such. And they 100% are aligned with liberals. Why is such an out-there idea connected with liberals?

    Am I allowed to call them freaks, because they are? Just as you can call stupid people stupid?


  • Options
    #515
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    beejee wrote: »
    You're gas :)

    I did write a lengthy reply, but it was deleted due to some website **** up. And it requires a lengthy reply. E balls am I going to write it again on a mobile.

    Short sweet version that's easy to pick apart... The end game of conservatism is survival, whether literally or through more nebulous areas such as culture, identity, (which would both be tied to tradionalism to varying degrees). It's not to say that change is always a terrible thing, but it is always to be met with rational scepticism.

    At the same time the idea is to improve quality of life and reject that which lessens it.

    Where it gets interesting is where you draw boundaries. People naturally look out for themselves. Next would be family, community... Starts to become a hazy subject for people when you get to national level.

    But countries were formed on the basis of "best for its inhabitants". Equality for all is an impossibility. If equality were spread across the world there would be a handful people not in desperate poverty. Not enough to go around. So for conservatives, in this particular regard, the buck must stop at your own border, and increasingly, those within it who are not native.

    Anything that weakens the unity of a country is very dangerous considering the phase of history we are moving into. Abortion, gay rights, rightly or wrongly, introduce huge division within society, for example.

    Overall, although insufficiently explained here, the idea is to make the best of your situation for you and yours. It is practical and achievable.

    Now, what's the end goal of liberalism? I would especially like to know where all the material (money, facility, resource) is supposed to come from, how it's supposed to defend diversity of humanity while forcing people to live together and abandon their ways, and how you circumvent the inherent, defining characteristic of all life forms, namely, competition, how can you accept everything as normal without a standard?

    (circumventing reality via fantasy doesn't count)


    I appreciate the redone thanks. I’m at the bar I’ll respond in the morning if I go home


  • Options
    #516
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Hobosan wrote: »
    Like I said earlier, a centuries old field of validated science that PC types will not entertain for a second.

    Of course, they're happy to smear the 'right' with the low IQ brush.

    And that's half the population of the United States...and Planet Earth.

    Well present it. No one has a clue what you're talking about. IQ science is validated. Why would you have a problem with it saying racists have low IQs and be happy if it says some races have lower IQs?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #517
    jaxxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,230 ✭✭✭jaxxx


    beejee wrote: »
    That's fine. Stupid people exist. But doing stupid things is what "makes" you stupid.

    What do you say to people who identify as animals? Would they be worse than stupid, equally stupid? Is that a sensible thing to you?

    It's a fringe thing, but it's certainly a whole community of people with conventions and such. And they 100% are aligned with liberals. Why is such an out-there idea connected with liberals?

    Am I allowed to call them freaks, because they are? Just as you can call stupid people stupid?


    *ahem


    Humans are animals.. .. .. just saying :pac:


    Actually.. .. .. animals in more ways than one actually :mad: God I hate people.. .. ..


  • Options
    #518
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    IQ science is validated

    What is this intended to mean?

    We know that some of the greatest innovators -- geniuses, probably -- throughout the history of mankind were people whose intelligence could not have been detected by IQ testing. Joyce, Picasso, Rimbaud, Sartre, Einstein -- their genius was dominated by their creativity, which is almost totally ignored by IQ testing.

    I know this is branching out into a separate discussion now, but it really shouldn't go unremarked that the concept of "IQ" is increasingly controversial and, perhaps, outdated.


  • Options
    #519
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    What is this intended to mean?

    We know that some of the greatest innovators -- geniuses, probably -- throughout the history of mankind were people whose intelligence could not have been detected by IQ testing. Joyce, Picasso, Rimbaud, Sartre, Einstein -- their genius was dominated by their creativity, which is almost totally ignored by IQ testing.


    Sartre and Einstein are believed to have had high traditional IQs from what analysts say.

    Picasso had one of 175.

    Rimbaud was a very successful student and had a fantastic memory.He won eight first prizes in the French academic competitions in 1869. He could compose verse in Latin.

    Joyce had a very traditional education. He went to Belvedere College. He studied Aquinas. He then went to UCD.

    Joyce was actually was a medical student for a while. But he didn't like it.


  • Options
    #520
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    What is this intended to mean?

    We know that some of the greatest innovators -- geniuses, probably -- throughout the history of mankind were people whose intelligence could not have been detected by IQ testing. Joyce, Picasso, Rimbaud, Sartre, Einstein -- their genius was dominated by their creativity, which is almost totally ignored by IQ testing.

    I know this is branching out into a separate discussion now, but it really shouldn't go unremarked that the concept of "IQ" is increasingly controversial and, perhaps, outdated.

    I can’t see the post your replying to. But are they suggesting other ethnicities have lower IQ?

    If so can you point them to the vastly more ancient Arabian and Chinese and Azetc and Incan and Mayan empires?
    The first two figured out advanced math and geometry long before anyone


  • Options
    #521
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    Sartre and Einstein are believed to have had high traditional IQs from what analysts say.
    I don't know what their IQs were, or if they even took any IQ test that would be recognisable today. I included Einstein and Sartre because they both failed formative examinations in their youth; Einstein and (I think) his high school exam, Sartre and his agrégation. Sartre came first in the same examination next year, when he finally grasped that his examiners shunned originality.

    Rimbaud definitely didn't take an IQ test. Picasso, if he took one, definitely cheated.

    The point is, IQ cannot measure creativity.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #522
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    I don't know about Einstein, I included him and Sartre because they both failed formative examinations in their youth; Einstein and (I think) his high school exam, Sartre and his agrégation. Sartre came first in the same examination next year, when he finally grasped that his examiners shunned originality.
    I think they were just a bit lazy ;)

    Actually no Einstein was way ahead of the math part but the other subjects didn't interest him. He found English etc boring. So he didn't bother.

    They both had very traditional high IQs.

    Also regarding sartre and too much originality. Its unlikely.

    It is a teaching qualification.


  • Options
    #523
    Bonniedog
    Registered Users Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭Bonniedog


    Le mot juste!

    And Joyce was multi linguist and had huge command of literary and historical and indeed theological knowledge.

    We are not talking about some Compton rappers here.


  • Options
    #524
    Bonniedog
    Registered Users Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭Bonniedog


    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    I can’t see the post your replying to. But are they suggesting other ethnicities have lower IQ?

    If so can you point them to the vastly more ancient Arabian and Chinese and Azetc and Incan and Mayan empires?
    The first two figured out advanced math and geometry long before anyone


    I don't think Asians would be cited as examples of low average IQ.

    Africans and their descendants would be, as attested to by their failure to contribute anything of significance to civilization, when they were in Africa as opposed to being acculturated elsewhere.


  • Options
    #525
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Einstein didn't fail, was myth coming out of different marking systems iirc


  • Options
    #526
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    I can’t see the post your replying to. But are they suggesting other ethnicities have lower IQ?

    No, someone made the statement that "IQ science is validated"

    Not that IQ testing is validated, or that any process is validated, but apparently that the underlying science should somehow be considered 'proven'. This from a self-professed scientist.

    I really doubt the veracity of that claim.


  • Options
    #527
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Einstein didn't fail, was myth coming out of different marking systems iirc

    Fail what?

    He failed the Entrance Exam for Zurich Polytechnic, or whatever it was called. He didn't fail mathematics, which is what is commonly suggested.


  • Options
    #528
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Fail what?

    He failed the Entrance Exam for Zurich Polytechnic, or whatever it was called. He didn't fail mathematics, which is what is commonly suggested.


    He didn't apply himself. Which is what he admitted himself.

    He was just lazy.


  • Options
    #529
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users Posts: 10,628 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Einstein didn't fail, was myth coming out of different marking systems iirc

    He did in that episode of “Tiny Toons” where Plucky Duck got Einstein’s brain power but still failed his maths test.

    Although, they probably called it “math”.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • Options
    #530
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    The quote mentioned high school so i thought we were on about that maths one all right


  • Options
    #531
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    He didn't apply himself. Which is what he admitted himself.

    He was just lazy.
    Looks like ILYV has closed the case.

    IQ tests are definitely sufficient to capture the cognitive capacities of all critical thinkers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #532
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users Posts: 10,628 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    bluewolf wrote: »
    The quote mentioned high school so i thought we were on about that maths one all right

    I believed it for years because of that damned cartoon.

    I wonder if ATNM was a “fan” too?

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • Options
    #533
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Also the agrégation is a teaching qualification as well as an exit exam.

    Sartre was the one who claimed he was failed for being too original not his teachers or the people marking the exam. I suspect he was just embarrassed and being original was code for making stuff up.

    If you are teaching you have to be intimately familiar with the material you are teaching.

    He won FIRST PRIZE the second time he took it.


  • Options
    #534
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Looks like ILYV has closed the case.

    IQ tests are definitely sufficient to capture the cognitive capacities of all critical thinkers.
    Newp

    IQ is 99 percent hard work.

    Anyone could be a member of mensa imo if they worked to be so.


  • Options
    #535
    beejee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭beejee


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    Newp

    IQ is 99 percent hard work.

    Anyone could be a member of mensa imo if they worked to be so.

    They'll even take those 98th percentile dunces, but it's still impossible for a 50 iq to get through, let alone anyone.

    You could certainly bump yourself up a few points through targeted effort, but you might as well be saying anyone could beat Usain bolt in a race with some effort.

    Not gonna happen


  • Options
    #536
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    beejee wrote: »
    They'll even take those 98th percentile dunces, but it's still impossible for a 50 iq to get through, let alone anyone.

    You could certainly bump yourself up a few points through targeted effort, but you might as well be saying anyone could beat Usain bolt in a race with some effort.

    Not gonna happen
    I got into mensa if i can anyone can!

    Its not the equivalent of an athletic race.

    Yes there are some people with unique challenges for learning. But for most of us. We are just lazy.


  • Options
    #537
    beejee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭beejee


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    I got into mensa if i can anyone can!

    Its not the equivalent of an athletic race.

    Yes there are some people with unique challenges for learning. But for most of us. We are just lazy.

    That's the entire point of standardisation, it's not a goal, it's a differentiating factor.

    You only realise the difference when faced with it. An old mentor of mine had a PhD from Oxford when he was 15 or 16, just being around him made me realise the gap. It ain't something you can do, effort or not


  • Options
    #538
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    I got into mensa if i can anyone can!

    Its not the equivalent of an athletic race.

    Yes there are some people with unique challenges for learning. But for most of us. We are just lazy.


    Followed your posts for a long time. I’m not doubting your Mensa membership. If you say so.
    You have some very serious challenges of your own though to be honest.


  • Options
    #539
    beejee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭beejee


    He might have been 14, come to think on it.

    A more accurate description for these types of measurement is that if Mr 100 can get to 110 with effort, then equally Mr 170 can get to 180 with equal effort. The gap is the basis of the measurement.

    If the entire population of the planet was gifted 10 extra iq points, Mr 100 would remain at 100. The gap is maintained.


  • Options
    #540
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    What is this intended to mean?

    We know that some of the greatest innovators -- geniuses, probably -- throughout the history of mankind were people whose intelligence could not have been detected by IQ testing. Joyce, Picasso, Rimbaud, Sartre, Einstein -- their genius was dominated by their creativity, which is almost totally ignored by IQ testing.

    I know this is branching out into a separate discussion now, but it really shouldn't go unremarked that the concept of "IQ" is increasingly controversial and, perhaps, outdated.

    It’s not really. There’s a fairly strong association with IQ and success in intellectual or mental roles. It doesn’t claim to measure creativity.

    I’m not sure if Joyce or Einstein did IQ tests but they’d probably do pretty good. Sartre maybe not so much.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #541
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    I can’t see the post your replying to. But are they suggesting other ethnicities have lower IQ?

    If so can you point them to the vastly more ancient Arabian and Chinese and Azetc and Incan and Mayan empires?
    The first two figured out advanced math and geometry long before anyone

    The Arabs didn’t figure out geometry before the Greeks for sure, who weren’t the first either.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement