Virgos are not effeminate Pt. 2 (Page 2)

I know that wheelie, it was putting things into Notso's train of thought is all! 🙂

Hence the reply by Notso.....sigh...

Oh, stop sighing. I get it, ok?


Actually I got it after notso's post but then it was a bit too late..

Sorry doggie, but I used NOTSO's thoughts. I simply expanded the meaning a bit.

But having the cerebral ability of a water balloon, I will not expect you to understand that. It would be paramount to asking a rock to sove a caluluc problem.

With the small exception that if I had money on the table, the odds would be for the rock.

And obviously, neither does anyone else here, as I am not the only one chuckling like a hyena at the stupidity that rolls off you like rain water on an oil slick.

Please Dear, do go on....

Oh DYR, you know how it goes. Get so worked up sometimes can't even smell your own damn name right. LOL

"He did squirm out of here quickly after the last rebuttle."

I squirmed?

Let's have a look at some facts-

Message posted by: branh0913 on 8/24/2006 3:44:27 PM

Message posted by: Yama on 8/24/2006 3:54:58 PM

Message posted by: Yama on 8/24/2006 4:13:51 PM

...I waited twenty minutes, that's called quickly?


Anyway Bran, do you believe IQ has anything to do with genetics?

Yama, what bugs me even more, is after I'm returning home from a nice enjoyable 8 hour shift at the bank, is that you cited Wikipedia... Wikipedia is such a reliable resource *rolls eyes*...

No, survivul=success, it's the only thing close to objective we have to judge things by, having money ensures survival more than not having money.

Survival? Money? Money does not ensure survival, it's a false sense of security, it's a crutch...

And survival? Think on a cosmic level, we are nothing on a cosmic scale, our lifespans are nothing but a blink of the cosmic eye (if that).

Are you saying the rich genius Jews are going to build a space ship in order to survive as the Earth's life fades away? (yeah, we're talking billions of years here ..or.. when us humans destroy everything with our Gods supporting our decisions) I personally think the human race will wipe itself out way before anyone finds a solution to life after Earth.

After Israel's mini war with Hezbolah, I'm sure the human race as a whole has a long lifespan *rolls eyes*... With Iran developing its nuclear capability... we're so sure to survive long enough to come together as a whole to solve the solution to continuity after the Sun's core collapses and wipes out Earth after the ensuing explosion takes place.

Now 5 billion years is alot of time, maybe we aren't doomed to kill ourselves, and technology could concievably be great enough for us all to get off of Earth in order to carry on, but where would we go?

I'm sure your Nobel prize Jews from 4,000 C.E. will have a plan (if we make it that far, we still have to figure out how we're going to get past the current energy crisis).

(Note: I am not at all antisemetic, it's just that you (Yama) are making the Jews sound like the greatest race on this planet, every time someone made some race out to be the superior race, genocide followed, which I guess is logical, because if you "know" your race is superior, then what's the point of keeping around the other races? (We call this logical fallacy a "slippery slope"))

Can't we all just agree that we're all human, regardless of race? And your definition of intelligence is a bit oversimplified.

Oh, and I won't bother to cite sources because I figure most of this is common knowlege mixed with my opinion, therefore, a useless citation would only make a fool of myself.

Yep Dyr, it is supposed to be calculus! I type way too fast for my own good most days! But on this site I rarely take time to edit.

Computer Science and Electronics. I have worked in both, but most extensively in telecomm and broadband. So I have worked with networking and switch technology as we moved into the Voip world. Began with avionics electronics and evolved into computer science, and now I am into industrial controls for building automation and security, in Program Management. So a few years back I finished a Bachelors in Business because I wanted out of the field and settle into managing since I was managing the projects anyway. But I miss the field work, and at times get bored with endless meetings!

I actually despise the structure and politics of corporations, but if you have to pay the bills you may as well grab something that pays better, I say. You?

"Yama, what bugs me even more, is after I'm returning home from a nice enjoyable 8 hour shift at the bank, is that you cited Wikipedia... Wikipedia is such a reliable resource *rolls eyes*..."

I also linked to a 40 pages scientific papaer, that "The Economist" and "The New York Times" saw feel to write about.

"Are you saying the rich genius Jews are going to build a space ship in order to survive as the Earth's life fades away? (yeah, we're talking billions of years here ..or.. when us humans destroy everything with our Gods supporting our decisions) I personally think the human race will wipe itself out way before anyone finds a solution to life after Earth."

Now you are just twisting what I'm saying, I specifically said that having money ensured surivival more than not having money. Come on-argue that point.


"(Note: I am not at all antisemetic, it's just that you (Yama) are making the Jews sound like the greatest race on this planet, every time someone made some race out to be the superior race, genocide followed, which I guess is logical, because if you "know" your race is superior, then what's the point of keeping around the other races? (We call this logical fallacy a "slippery slope"))"

I'm what?
If I wrote that northen European people were the strongest, that the east African were the best at marathons, or that the east Asians are shorter than average, do you think that anybody would have said anything?
What is the great difference between intelligence and height?(for example)
Both are features that are controlled by than one specific gene and are effected by the enviroment, yet I don't see anyone claimig that height isn't genetic, but maybe that's because the jews aren't the tallest people, huh?

And try to remember the original debate, where I used those points trying to fight prejudice.

"I also linked to a 40 pages scientific papaer, that "The Economist" and "The New York Times" saw *fit to write about."

Err...the italics kinda got outta control.😛

"Both are features that are controlled by *more than one specific gene and are effected by the enviroment"

"And try to remember the original debate, where I used those points trying to fight prejudice."

Yama, I'm sorry I distracted you, I was less interested in your original debate and more interested in your definition of success, which I feel is completely ignorant. So I took a few of your ideas from the original debate, as well as increased the timeline to a cosmic scale, to point out how foolish your "money ensures survival" idea is.

Put a group of people in the wilderness after a plane crash or some other event like that, even if they have a bunch of money, that money will not increase the likelyhood of their survival in a position where they must fend for themselves. They would actually have to have something called survival skills... Survival skills increase your likelyhood of survival, not money.

And really, I don't see where you're actually trying to fight prejudice? If anything, it seems as if you're citing all these resources in order to get the rest of us to have a prejudice towards Jews. See, prejudice does not always have to have a negative connotation, it simply means you have a predetermined idea of someone based off of generalizations.

And your resources... Propaganda 101.

"I'm what?
If I wrote that northen European people were the strongest, that the east African were the best at marathons, or that the east Asians are shorter than average, do you think that anybody would have said anything?
What is the great difference between intelligence and height?(for example)
Both are features that are controlled by than one specific gene and are effected by the enviroment, yet I don't see anyone claimig that height isn't genetic, but maybe that's because the jews aren't the tallest people, huh?"

If you wrote any of those statements, I'm sure you would have had fewer comments, because those are mostly physical characteristics, physical characteristics are much easier to differentiate. You are pointing out intelligence, which is a non-physical characteristic. Intelligence is also something hard to be defined, one person's definition of intelligence can be completely different from another's. That's just like trying to define existence, there's so many different ideas that can be used to describe it, and I'm not urging you to cite a dictionary definition, that would just be pathetic. If you depend on sources too much it shows no creativity, no insight, and little trust in your own thought process.

"Yama, I'm sorry I distracted you, I was less interested in your original debate and more interested in your definition of success,"

The problem was that you pretty much called me a jewish supremacist.

"Put a group of people in the wilderness after a plane crash or some other event like that, even if they have a bunch of money, that money will not increase the likelyhood oftheir survival in a position where they must fend for themselves. They would actually have to have something called survival skills... Survival skills increase your likelyhood of survival, not money."

Money ensures better health-care, food, and better protection, are you seriously going to sit there and argue that outside of "hperbolic" situation having money doesn't mean higher chance of survival?

"And really, I don't see where you're actually trying to fight prejudice? If anything, it seems as if you're citing all these resources in order to get the rest of us to have a prejudice towards Jews. See, prejudice does not always have to have a negative connotation, it simply means you have a predetermined idea of someone based off of generalizations."

You are totally ignoring my points about genetics, which is understandable, since you can't really argue against them.

"And your resources... Propaganda 101."

Propaganda that was published in the "New-York Times"?

Excuse me, but I've got to go rofl now.😛


And FYI-twisting your opponents words, ignoring his points, and clearly proclaiming bias does not a valid argument makes.

"If you depend on sources too much it shows no creativity, no insight, and little trust in your own thought process."

So I should just make stuff up than?
It seems you're annoyed that I have valid sources to back my claims up, while you have nothing.

"If you wrote any of those statements, I'm sure you would have had fewer comments, because those are mostly physical characteristics, physical characteristics are much easier to differentiate."

IQ=Intelligence quota.
And I reckon the brain is no longer considered part of the physical body?

"If the shoe fits. You definitely come across as one."

Your cognitive abilities are defected-and therefore, so are your opinions.

Yama, of course the "New York Times" never publishes anything that is even close to propaganda... *rolls eyes*

lol

"Yama, of course the "New York Times" never publishes anything that is even close to propaganda... *rolls eyes*"

I see, so even though it was published in at least two major magazines, produced evidence, and is logical, because is doesn't fit your bias, it must be propaganda?
And will you please explain to me what is the point of this "propaganda"?

Seriously though, don't you believe in natural selection?
If you can breed dogs for size, horses for spead and chickens for egg-laying capacity, then why isn't it possible to breed humans for intelligence?

*speed

"IQ=Intelligence quota."

IQ is a pisspoor method of measuring intelligence, Branh stated this, and I agree, so stop pulling out the IQ score as a definition of intelligence.

"And I reckon the brain is no longer considered part of the physical body?"

The brain is, but consciousness is not, awareness is a feature of consciousness and relates to intelligence, hence, intelligence is not a physical characteristic. If you just want to say anyone who has a big brain is smart, just say so... That be like saying everyone with a big dick knows how to use it.

"IQ is a pisspoor method of measuring intelligence, Branh stated this, and I agree, so stop pulling out the IQ score as a definition of intelligence."

It is a flawed tool, but it is the best tool we have, anyway, it's only one of about 5 different evidences I've produced, but apparently, 50% + of world chess champions,% 28 of nobel prize winners(not to mention other awards), highest per capita production of scientific works...none of it is any indiacator of intelligence...😛

"The brain is, but consciousness is not"

Look, everything about humans is physical(at least until you produce evidence of a soul) so intelligence is a physical feature.

"I see, so even though it was published in at least two major magazines, produced evidence, and is logical, because is doesn't fit your bias, it must be propaganda?"

My bias is that intelligence can be developed by anyone, the guy I talked about who is "as dumb as a box of rocks" could develop intelligence if he chose to go that route, but what's the point if he's already happy where he's at? Your bias is that intelligence is directly linked to genetics. Differences of opinion thats all. But of course you have "reliable sources" to back your opinion up, where I just have faith in humanity that they can develop intelligence and that no race is truely predestined to have higher intelligence per capita naturally. Of course you bring out money, money increases the opportunity for the development of intelligence. But still, intelligence doesn't equate to success.

"And will you please explain to me what is the point of this "propaganda"?"

I think Branh explained it well earlier.

From wiki:
"The role of genes and environment (nature vs. nurture) in determining IQ is reviewed in Plomin et al. (2001, 2003). The degree to which genetic variation contributes to observed variation in a trait is measured by a statistic called heritability. Heritability scores range from 0 to 1, and can be interpreted as the percentage of variation (e.g. in IQ) that is due to variation in genes. Twins studies and adoption studies are commonly used to determine the heritability of a trait. Until recently heritability was mostly studied in children. These studies find the heritability of IQ is approximately 0.5; that is, half of the variation in IQ among the children studied was due to variation in their genes. The remaining half was thus due to environmental variation and measurement error. A heritability of 0.5 implies that IQ is "substantially" heritable."

But I guess it means nothing, since it's from wikipedia, and it's about IQ, and of course, you just choose to disregard anything that can measure intelligence, since it is not beneficial to your argument.😛


"I think Branh explained it well earlier."

Really? cause it seems to be counter-productive. It wasn't mentioned that Cochran is jewish, and producing such research isn't exactly politically correct, and why would the "New-York Times" and "The Economist" wnat to spread this jewish propaganda? Do you think most of their staff is jewish? Most of their readers, perhaps?

and why would the "New-York Times" and "The Economist" *want to spread this jewish propaganda?

For money. 😉

"If you depend on sources too much it shows no creativity, no insight, and little trust in your own thought process."

Heh, I'm still laughing about this one.😛

"For money."

I truly hope that you are joking.

Ah, Yama... someday you will be enlightened as to my motives in this debate.

"Ah, Yama... someday you will be enlightened as to my motives in this debate."

Isn't it about equality?


Anyway, my original point was that IQ is somewhat genetic, so the "IQ and intelligence" discussion is somewhat of-topic, not that I mind it.

*off

"If you depend on sources too much it shows no creativity, no insight, and little trust in your own thought process."

Heh, I'm still laughing about this one.


It's actually a valid statement, it's fine to cite sources, but just don't rely on them too much, especially when detailed information of the samples they used are not given.

For instance, you can state your opinion then cite a source. Or you can go overboard. Citing a bunch of sources is like saying "You're wrong and I'm right because I found all these sources that agree with me". I'm sure I could find a bunch of sources and statistics to support my line of reasoning, but to me, this debate doesn't warrant that.

It's alright to challenge the validity of studies, in fact, that's how society progresses, by either building on research or challenging it.

And don't take me the wrong way, I'm not trying to attack you, when I equated you to a Jewish supremecist, it was an observation I made to make a point, to challenge you to think differently. And I will probably never agree with those studies as I am a firm believer of equality. Given equal opportunity anyone can be successful regardless of their race.

And survival = success still gets me, on a long enough time line, the survival rate of everyone is 0.

"It's actually a valid statement, it's fine to cite sources, but just don't rely on them too much, especially when detailed information of the samples they used are not given."

*shrug* English is my second language, so I can't express my self at the level of those studies, anyway, I can't say I care all that much about this discussion-it was a very minor point in the first thread.

Anyway if still you want an explanation-during medieval times jews were forced into economic professions, professions that demand a higher IQ than most other professions, so the more intelligent jews prospered while those of lower intelligence die off, as there were no social-security back than, it's amazingly simple, logical, and supported by evidences. It's a of natural selection.

"It's alright to challenge the validity of studies, in fact, that's how society progresses, by either building on research or challenging it."

I agree, but you've got to have something other than your opinion to back you up, I could just as well call Darwin's studies biased, etc...

"And don't take me the wrong way, I'm not trying to attack you, when I equated you to a Jewish supremecist, it was an observation I made to make a point, to challenge you to think differently. And I will probably never agree with those studies as I am a firm believer of equality. Given equal opportunity anyone can be successful regardless of their race."

So, do you believe that an Indian has an equal chance to beat an east African in a marathon?

Sure, so long as the Indian trains at a level to compete with the east African.

"And survival = success still gets me, on a long enough time line, the survival rate of everyone is 0."

"In the long term-were all dead."
^I like this quote as well.😛
But seriously, what better measure of success do you know?
This is pretty much the only thing people will agree on-survival is better than death.

"Sure, so long as the Indian trains at a level to compete with the east African."

Well, I'm not going to cite a source, as I saw it on tv-but east Africans, or at least Kenyans have a different body structure that enables them to run while spending less energy than other people.
I guess this is just Kenyan propaganda?

"It's a *case of natural selection."

...ugh...

Tell me, Virgop, do you believe in evolution?

""Sure, so long as the Indian trains at a level to compete with the east African.'

Well, I'm not going to cite a source, as I saw it on tv-but east Africans, or at least Kenyans have a different body structure that enables them to run while spending less energy than other people.
I guess this is just Kenyan propaganda?"

Are you saying that nobody on earth could train to compete at the same level? Or is it more direct, saying that no Indian could?

"This is pretty much the only thing people will agree on-survival is better than death."

And I'm not so sure survival is better than death, it depends on the circumstances.

"Tell me, Virgop, do you believe in evolution?"

And why would my suggestion that if someone went through endurance traning so they could compete and possibly win against an east African marathon runner suggest I don't believe in evolution?

"But seriously, what better measure of success do you know?"

Success is subjective, not objective, that's why there is no good measure of it. Suggesting money and survival as measures of success can apply to one, but definately not apply to others.

"And I'm not so sure survival is better than death, it depends on the circumstances."

Let's just say the vast majority of people believe so.

"And why would my suggestion that if someone went through endurance traning so they could compete and possibly win against an east African marathon runner suggest I don't believe in evolution?"

It didn't, I just want to make a point using evolution, according to the theory of evolution species evolve and change to fit their environment, as different races live in different environments, they develop different strengths and weakness', so, since the ashkenazi jews environment encouraged IQ growth(since those of higher IQ had a much higher chance to survive), ashkenazi jews have a genetically higher IQ.

"Success is subjective, not objective, that's why there is no good measure of it."

Pretty much everything is subjective, real-life isn't a mathematical equation, yet we must use the tools that we have, so some things that are subjective should be agreed upon by most people-no one would call a rich person a failure just because he is rich, the same couldn't be said on a poor person, the same point applies to an alive/dead person.

Might I suggest a film you might enjoy (if you haven't seen it already): GATTACA (1997) has Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, and Jude Law.

I saw it, twice, and I think you are doing the HUGE mistake of preceiving statistical data as abosolute, or perhaps you just think I believe so, for example-the case I've presented before-an Indian can beat a Kenyan at a marathon, but his chances are lower than those of the Kenyan to beat him.

*absolute

Yes, I'll admit, that was my perception of you. That you think statistical data is absolute. But if this isn't the case, then disregard some of my posts that "challenge" you to think differently.

Remember, this whole thread has started because in the last thread I've argued against the prejudice of astrological elements, I've given racism as an example to show Aprilbaby how wrong it is.😛(I don't blame you for forgetting, she forgot it herself😛)

That was so long ago, Yama. 😛 Besides, I think we said it was fine to generalize about astrology.

Oh well, it's that time of day again... off to help make the U.S. economy run.

Bye, it was nice debating with you.🙂