Leaderboard

“Rittenhouse" by Portuguese illustrator Andre Carrilho

They were originally designed to measure those with severe cognitive issues and brain damage to see where their abilities lie and provide focussed assistance. It was meant for a limited set of disabled people, not to look at the full gamut of human abilities, which of course is vast. A fish that can't climb trees is not 'unintelligent'. It annoys me greatly that millions of people likely erroneously label themselves as thick, and others who attain high scores as 'better' overall than those with lower scores. MENSA is a vanity organisation imo.

BlightedFox has been banned for continuing to soapbox and abuse after we said he couldn't push his books & videos here.

Maybe you are not so hot on the skillset that's being measured, which is very narrow. Your strengths likely lie in other skills and abilities that are not covered in those tests..

Of course but the money to go around is limited, and therefor the first prioity is the vicitm. I have related one specific horrific case with the little girl and the monster. It's cases like this, where justice and society are attempting to show some understanding and rehab, only to have it thrown back into society's face. All this bloke has done is made it harder for bail and parole conditions to be extended to other probably deserving accidental criminals....I don't want to bore people but we had another example of a person yesterday in Sydney. It isn't isolated instances and again all they are doing is making it harder for the young accidental first timer. The other point of course is the cry of removing emotion and emotove reasoning. Is that really possible? or really desirable? It was emotion ( that I mentioned somewhere the other day) that lead to Australia's tough gun laws. How can any judge/jury not feel emotion in some of the worst horrific crimes one could imagine. How do we gauge mental fitness or impairment, which btw was the judgement for a murderer in another case in Melbourne yesterday. He still of course will be locked up for quite a while. If detaails of these two recent cases are required I'll gladly give the links.

Only if they planned to share them with me

Matt. 1:18-20 tells us Jesus didn't have a birth father from the tribe of Judah also descended from King Solomon and King David, which were the prerequisites for the Jewish Messiah, as recorded elsewhere in the Bible. I've always been curious about the reaction to someone claiming to be Jesus come back for the second time. Plenty have made the claim over the centuries, so wouldn't it require some sort of evidence, like walking on water or turning the water into wine and then walking on it? And if this latest Jesus could show miraculous powers on command, in a testable, reproduceable, and predictable way, then does anyone need faith anymore?

You should seek help from a qualified mental health professional. You’re clearly dealing with a lot of difficult issues right now.

People buy from people they like. This is a generlisation, but you can readily find research articles confirming the tendency at your university library, or on Google Scholar. It is also true whether you are buying a new washing machine, a political argument, or a social thesis. With that in mind you may wish to reflect on how much your agressive, self-righteous, discourteous posts are making you popular. "Aha", I hear you say, "I am not here to be liked." But why are you here? Normally one makes an argument in the hope of persuading others of the value, or wisdom of that argument. Being rude and overbearing does not encourage the reader to read associated posts with an open mind - not when their author has shown so much evidence of having a closed one. The good news is that most of us grow out of teenage angst, but if you are already in your thirties I fear time may be running out for you. Now, back on the ranch, how about a concise exposition of your thesis?

That's what's so puzzling with a couple here ( not all) no one is denying that a reasonable justice system should also focus on rehabilitation, and some compassion, particularly with young first timers...but when attempts of compassion and rehabilitation is thrown back in your face, or when horrific violent crimes are commited, then its time to lock em up and throw away the key. Instead, we get political/philosophical driven crap about the victim and how its society's fault.

The answer to this question lies entirely in US history. Native American Genocide (what humble beginnings) US Colonialism/Imperialism began pretty much the moment we were no longer under British control (it has never stopped) Expansionary practices always involved atrocity, mass murder, and the cultural/social/economic rape of the ensnared nations. If we were going to criticise the Brits/etc... For their misdeeds, we would instantly be hypocrites to not acknowledge our own atrocities that were committing at that time, and have continued to this day. German mass genocide was too public and too exposed to be ignored. So the hypocrisy was necessary. The whole debacle happened as the whole world watched, and regular people were never going to take a different stance on such vile, and wretched crimes against humanity. Britain and the colonialist nations also existed in a different time in information dissemination. In those times, it was a lot easier to control the narrative. And atrocity after the fact doesn't seem to gain public interest nearly as much. Conservatives can pretend it never happened, and liberals can ignore it. Pictures coming from cameras taken last week are a lot harder to ignore, people feel connected to events happening in the now. Germany also, was a total failure. They were perfect scapegoats for right-wing trash across the planet. The evil enemy that isn't "US." The fascism of the 3rd Reich could be hand waved at political opponents of any flavor, and the meme's could roll for a hundred years. Controlling the information as it seems, is more important than the truth, when an uninformed populous is concerned. Maybe we really ask the bigger question?! How is it that Americans are so ignorant to our nation's long history of atrocity and human rights violations to many, many nations around the world? (spanning our entire history) It's almost like people go to Banana Republic to buy overpriced t-shirts, and they completely miss the irony. #UnitedFruitCompany US foreign policy has been almost entirely human rights violating for our entire history. Maybe the moral of the story, is that ALL of the violations are of equal evil, and bad. And the bad-faith disgusting argument "Daddy, Daddy, they did it too." is wretched!!!! --- Consider the bad-faith argument about the impending doom of "refugee caravans at the border." El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Maybe, just maybe, you go read about US interventionism and actions towards those 3 nations for many, many years?!?!?!? The propping up of mass murdering militia groups, The propping up of puppet dictators and despots, The wholesale rape of indigenous peoples' lands and resources (not to mention the rape and murder of those people) -And that is just the tip of the iceberg that is the history of US foreign policy affairs... (You won't find many Latin nations we didn't fuch over) Spreading Democracy, as it seems, is just a phrase they use when they actually mean "You will do as we say."

So, what justice should be served for the atrocity recently committed by Darrel Brooks in the Wisconsin parade killings? This criminal allegedly had a long list of previous aggressive and violent crimes and was facing further charges while being released from jail 2 days earlier on bond. This is the sort of despicable monster that myself, Beecee and others are talking about. While others want us to feel sorry for such an animal, give him chances over and over for "rehabilitation". Yeah, well that worked out well didn't it? Many innocent people killed and injured. How many more incidents like this does it take before we wise up and realise that rehabilitation for everyone just doesn't work. Some people are just unfixable!!!

A 2 hr video and you want, no demand people to watch it? I did do the next best thing though and googled this Hedges turkey....yeah just as I thought....a bloodt presbyterian minister, and worked at the christian science monitor. Yeah thatnks for your preaching but no thanks... I'm here for the science and to learn, not to listen to some damn mythical hysterical nonsense.

I would add a couple of caveats to that. First, perceived immigration rate is often very different from actual rates. Surveys through the world have shown that in most countries immigration is vastly overestimated (e.g. in the US and UK 2018 values indicate that the share of immigrants is about 14% in both countries, but folks assume that it is actually 36-32%). And related to that, how visible (this includes also how visibly "foreign" the immigrants are). There are different ways to measure acceptance of immigration, and asking e.g. whether you are in favour of more immigration can yield different results from asking whether you would like to have immigrants as neighbours. Asking the former many countries with traditionally high levels of immigration have overall more positive attitudes, though there are some outliers with e.g. Japan recently have become very much in favour of more immigration despite (or because of) low immigration rates. The UK is surprisingly high in terms of seeing immigration as a strength (in line with relatively high immigration rates) but is only middling (but still above average) in the acceptance score (asking e.g. about immigrations becoming neighbours or marrying one). Some studies indicate that acceptance is not strongly related to immigration rate (or is positively correlated). Rather, the way immigration is debated in terms of policy seems to heavily influence perception. E.g. in countries where debates are almost exclusively about economic cost (in many European countries, for example) resistance against immigration is high (though it could be a chicken and egg situation). In others where it is framed as a larger part of economic opportunities, it is generally more positive. But some areas (e.g. Italy and to some degree Germany) have a profoundly schizoid situation where immigrants are accepted on an economic basis with high participation in the labor market as business owners etc. but are often culturally rejected. Invisible immigrants are sought after, but if they become visible (in any number), they are often seen as a threat. It is an interesting, but complex dynamics.

I have only seen one forum where the rigor is more enforced then here. It isn't a better forum as a result. The more sensible application applying here is to my liking. I have also had the unfortunate pleasure of being a part of another "recognised" science forum for many years, where the rigor is near non existent. It more or less ran on the principle of quantity over quality. Plus it only really had one or two experts in various fields, which gave me more of a chance with the sciences, in my more layman's style. That still applies here of course, but with far more experts and professionals to explain in more rigorous fashion. I see it as a reasonable mix. With the rather large number of professionals here, I'm certainly learning all the time, with the hard sciences. And I prefer to take a "middle ground"perhaps slightly left leaning with the softer sciences, and political opinions. Admittedly that midle ground, slightly left leaning approach, can have some disagreements. But even in that I'm learning much more with the methodology of debate, particularly with the more philosophical approaches of some, as against the more stable methodology of science and the rigor involved. All in all, I'm (so far) enjoying my stay. 😜

I like that there is a little bit of mess because it indicates that individual freedom of thought is well-catered for, up to a sensible point. There are 'better' forums in the sense that rigor is more enforced, but I think they are more for the dedicated and academic that want it strict. Also, I think everyone naturally comes in with different levels of objectivity. Some new ones might start out shallow, as you say, but gain insight with exposure to more experienced debaters/critical thinkers. The ones that don't learn almost always move on, either voluntarily or with assistance.

The rules have been hammered out over the years with membership input, but the owners always wanted a place for discussion and debate where critical thinking, mainstream methodologies, and reasoned arguments were heard. I don't think that's changed. When someone posts with a fairly shallow opinion on any subject, I've always relied on the membership to provide a deeper and more insightful perspective that may help the OP understand and form a broader, deeper stance. Politics can give us much more than opinion; discussing it HERE can give us several reasoned, well-informed, concisely presented opinions.

The atmosphere of Venus is mostly CO2, so it’s heavier. Venus also has a strongly circulating ionosphere, which creates a magnetic field - it’s not an internal source.

That assessment is your opinion; and you are entitled to it. ( as you haven't provided any evidence for your assertions ) All JP wants, is to be able to have his own opinion. ( and not be told what his opinion is, by others ) Why are you so offended by other's ideas ? Cosmic horror ? Indifferent and hostile universe ? Yeah, somebody's brain is broken ... You see what I mean about Psychology not being a science, CharonY? Does the garbage posted in this video have any scientific basis ?

Easy, INow. It seems that when JP discussess biology he is rightfully condemned by all for being outside of his area of expertise, and CharonY does point out some valid objections to his understanding of biology. Yet when he discussess human behaviour, and our thinking/emotional state, an area where he is a prominent accredited expert, being a much published Psychologist,you guys still insist he doesn't know what he is talking about. When did you, and the others, get your degree in Psychology ?? ( what's good for the goose, ... 🙂 )

There are different "flavors" of atheist, but pretty much all of them simply mean "not theist." It's right there in the word... A (not) - theist. But there is weak atheism: I don't believe in god or gods. And there is strong atheism: I actively believe there are NO gods. These are subtly, but importantly different. There's also agonistic atheism (I don't believe, but cannot know for sure), and agnostic theism (I do believe, but cannot be sure I'm right). Anyway... looks like our OP was just here to spam us anyway, and I have strong beliefs about spammers.

Yeah good question I sometimes ask myself. Perhaps it's the WWW and Internet? Your question can be summed up I believe with simply, why do people believe in conspiracies? On this 20th day of the year of our lord 2021, people still think we never went to the Moon...and that the Earth is flat. Check it out, I'm not exaggerating. Perhaps it gives them a sense of power, that they "supposedly" know the truth, and us poor sheep just follow the status quo. And of course its not just the USA, we in Australia are also inflicted with these types of ratbags. Most [probably including me] just turn a blind eye and think OK, let them be, they aint doing anyone any harm. I then sort of think, well isn't that what the German people were thinking before Hitler seriously started his stuff. I don't know, thankfully I have lived most of my life and am now in the twilight part, although then my concern is for my boy, and his children, and his children's children. Perhaps science through in its effort in getting us to the Moon again, and then onto Mars, may brighten things up. I hope so!

Wont change my style only to make you happier.

Just STFU! Consider me not in this topic anymore. You people are insufferable. Are you drunk? Yeah, yer probably drunk. (spelling and such poor searching is kinda an indicator) https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/15438.Chris_Hedges?from_search=true&from_srp=true IDK, maybe this guy's writing history makes your response look vapid, and wanton too... Such Titles as: -American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America -The Death of the Liberal Class -America: The Farewell Tour He has spent the better part of his career (after being a long time war correspondent) studying this political culture self annihilation occurring in the US. You quite clearly have done none as such. *Hedges is a very well traveled journalist. And your search abilities are almost non-existent. Don't pretend you know what you're talking about with that level of critical approach. Adios, I will be responding to no more of you folks in here... (I don't debate ignoramuses) *I know better than to scream at walls. Goodbye!

What a load of illiterate dribble. (yes I cut most of it, no that doesn't really matter, I'm referring to the entire lot of garbage) Contrarian from ignorance? I add, you subtract. I add, you subtract. I add, you subtract. I add, you subtract. I add, you subtract. I add, you subtract. I add, you subtract. I add, you subtract. I add, you subtract. I add, you subtract... Rinse and repeat! Intelligence uses the additive method. Considering at no point in being here has anybody added [thing 1] to anything I've written (or bothered to engage with any of it substantively), you can understand how I think you're all a bunch of ignoramuses. --- I love the inferred ad hominem argument... I am neither retired, nor old. And I have been many things beyond just that which you proclaim is the profession of a lesser individual. I am better read than you. That is plainly obvious. And you continue to prove it repeatedly. With whatever BS semantic posturing trash this is. --- You mock philosophy even though politics is almost all philosophy. (perhaps you should go find a hobby you can actually comprehend) Or did you miss that part where almost all political ideations originated from the best philosophers? Yeah, that's apparently lost to those who don't know how to read. --- Thank you for proving the entire point I was making without missing a beat. You are incredibly obtuse. I doubt you know the orthodox theories, much less being able to engage with heterodox ones... That much is obvious. Why are you even in here? You pretend to know better having never read anything... Is this forum nothing but the ignorant and illiterate, so far reaching from even a basic reading level on political theory? I mean, good gawd WTF? You people are wholly disappointing. No wonder political ignorance and stupidity is propagating so feverishly in the world. Nobody reads a goddamned thing about any of it. And somehow, you think you know what you're talking about... Maybe when professors complain about the level of ignorance shown by their students to refrain from uncomfortable topics, this is how they feel. --- Go ahead, and nit pick some more stupid, for the semantic dumb again... I no longer care. Literate people are apparently a problem for you... (and that's rather telling) I apologize for speaking too far above your reading level. I understand that this can be difficult. But you don't deserve respect that you didn't earn (nobody does). Not engaging with topics and information in a substantive way kinda makes your disrespect inevitable. You earned it. Have fun in your echo chamber. Don't pretend you're actually engaging in intelligent discourse, nobody who has read more than you will ever be allowed in. And that's pretty much a recipe for stupid. They can moderate the hell out of me, I certainly don't give a damn. I know how much I've read, I know how little you've read. And I can plainly see how ignorance defends itself from knowledge. Adios Monsior Cupcake!!!! (I'll go back where intelligent and literate people reside now, it ain't here!)

Synopsis: Earth is covered in water, then a rouge interstellar dust cloud covers the surface. Because of Earth's faster rotational rate, centrifugal force keeps this dust layer floating above the water. Earth's water at this time is comprised of a higher percentage of 'heavy water' (D2O). The water's higher density works in conjunction with the centrifugal force to maintain the supercontinent, Pangea. As Earth's rotation slows, finally a point is reached where gravity overcomes the floating supercontinent. The supercontinent fractures, beginning its fall. Fissures break open expelling water from the deep, launching it up to the stratosphere and producing a flood that covers the planet. Chemical reactions between ozone and the heavy water exasperate the deluge. Parts of the supercontinent settle in clumps, forming what will later be continents. These new continents along with the ocean floors become subject to seismic/tectonic activity from the inner Earth. This planetary cataclysm changes the percentage of heavy water. The resultant normal water initiates the hydrologic cycle. Rainbows symbolize the promise not to flood the Earth again. Any thoughts...

I don't care about your likes, and dislikes for information dissemination. That is entirely irrelevant. I don't care about your desire for your dictatorial rules in the exact and only means of which you will engage with information. That is also irrelevant. You refused to engage with what I wrote after attacking the notion of addressing a video lecture, and THEN proclaimed everything I wrote as saopboxing, so you could entirely ignore that as well. IGNORANCE. Perfectly acted out. I have never seen anybody so ignorant and wantonly, act as though their ignorance is defensible, and that it makes them the more intelligent and virtuous person. Such amazingly incompetent dismissal and pathetic hand waving. I will NEVER submit to your RULES. I will never engage under you criterion. I'm better read than you, and your wanton ignorance is the proof of that. You did an excellent job of of outing yourself. You didn't even bother nit picking, as you didn't even bother reading a damn thing. You are not a debater. You act in bad faith, and ignore anything which might challenge your less literate preconceived notions of reality. You are not an intellectual. Stop pretending you are.