Lord Antares

Or maybe they cannot find them. Maybe they will find intelligent life on other planets. Maybe a meteor will destroy earth in 20 years. Maybe the big bang is an incorrect model. Maybe Bush did 9/11. I object to this thread still persisting. You're insulting people who come here to discuss science. You're talking nonsense. You have no evidence for anything. You intentionally refuse to even look for evidence or calculate it in some form. You're basing your conclusions on sample sizes of a few people you know. You're the exact opposite of what a real researcher is. Get serious.

Obviously, we won't believe unsupported, assertive garbage. Don't act lik the victim here. Poor you, people are asking for evidence for a scientific claim. You are basically being bullied here. And then you go on to cite your own unproven ''data'' as evidence to prove your own ''data'' in some weird paradox. This is getting ridiculous.

I'm not sure. For example, many people would consider intelligence as pure logical thinking and ability to solve and deal with math, i.e. logic. But there are lots of highly intelligent (by this definition, very logical and sharp minded) people who are very clumsy and would fail in many practical or physical tests. They would not be able to solve a practical situatiation as well as someone ''less intelligent''. So are they less intelligent than what their tests show? Well, I think not. I think they act very poorly under pressure which has nothing to do with their intelligence in my opinion. So when I say you can usually tell when someone is intelligent, I mean you can tell by their reasoning skills, the logic that they use, language etc. I don't necessarily mean anything else. It's even easier for unintelligent people. So I don't know whether we're talking about the same thing or not.

It is very convenient for you not to consider any IQ test as valid since it will never invalidate your theory by default. When your ''theory'' gets compared to a real test statistic and fails, you can just say that those tests aren't accurate. It frustrates me how illogical you're making this. out to be. You refuse to compare your (worthless) results with real data and instead choose to cite your own ''theories'' as evidence. Do you understand how dumb this is? You made up a theory (unfounded in anything) that people born on certain dates must have some arbitrary IQ. Then you go on to place people's IQs based on your completely unfounded wild guess as if it were proven. First you need evidence for such a claim, not your keen observations made on half a dozen people. It's like if I made a claim that all Russian people are geniuses, then when someone asked me ''how do you know this Russian person is genius'', I said ''well, because he is Russian and therefore genius according to my theory.'' This is exactly what you're doing. I'm surprised how you don't understand why people aren't taking you seriously. Well, yes, but it depends on how exactly you define intelligence. You could be completely right or completely wrong.

Why is wrong? If it is so obviously wrong, you can surely demonstrate how it can increase torque. And what does it mean for a gear to ''hold strength''? I watched your video what you're saying isn't really coherent. You're all over the place.

Ha. I've always wondered why some people are compulsive liars. I've never been able to understand that. I can understand why people kill or rape, but I can't understand compulsive lying. At least you put it into some perspective. I also had a friend who was (very likely still is) a pathological liar and everything you said reminds me of him. He would change every detail and lie about such small, insignificant things, that it's fascinating to me from a psychological standpoint. I rejected him as a friend because of this. I hope you realize why this is so. I hope you realize you come off as a disgusting, fake and untrustworthy person when you are a compulsive liar. I hope you can understand why no one wants to have a friend like that.

You have these absurd questions about marriage that I'm starting to think aren't all that hypothetical. The way you think about marriage is ridiculous and trust me, if you keep thinking like this, you will be happy to get away with any marriage at all, let alone your weirdly specific perfectionist marriage that you wish you get the "most benefit" out of.

You sounds like you're still going through insanity.

What? Just ignore the e-mail. What not-so-nice things are you talking about? What are you worried about?

Thanks for this. To know that you quit so (relatively) easily after so many years is encouraging to me. I agree that by far the most important thing is wanting to quit. If you really don't want to smoke anymore, you won't. Inb4 you never post again.

What does that mean? You mean you stop being angry after some time? Obviously, anyone sane is going to do that. No one healthly is going to hold a grudge against a person online for the rest of their life because they insulted them...

No offense taken but why does that not help in your case? Why don't you divert your own focus when you get angry?

Really? Recently you've criticized me for getting angry at being woken up every morning. You were telling my that I should ignore it and divert my focus elsewhere. How is your case different? Also, no offense, but ''inner peace'' isn't an actual term. It means something different to everybody. It's comes off as a bit pretentious that you would school people on it if they don't have the same view on it as you do. I would define inner peace as being content with who you are and where you are in life. Being at peace with yourself. You can agree or disagree with me but that doesn't make me right or wrong.

Inner peace is when you claim you have inner peace but repeatedly argue with other members on a forum.

You can guess (with some degree of certainty) generally how smart one can be. It's not hard to see when someone is smart or dumb but what is hard is guessing an exact number based on your amateurish and limited experience with people. Guessing in such a way and calling it research is downright laughable. Seeing how you ignored my request of the calculation which would immediately disprove your "hypothesis" and some other people's suggestions, it is safe to say there is no reason to continue this thread.

And? We're not discussing science. We're discussing ethics (or whatever). So what does one's credibility matter and how does one even have more credibility in ethics?

To be fair, I agree 100% with Dimreeper in that you're not helping your case when citing this website. What does their support or dissent have to do with anything at all? What sort of citation or proof is that? It doesn't make much sense to me. I mean, I agree with you to a certain extent, especially since we found common ground in the discussion, but this part is meaningless.

Yes, we were doing a literal mathematical calculation. But since you bring up the philosophy of probability: I've heard this type of argument before and it is 100% nonsensical to me. It is exactly like this: If you had a quintillion balls each numbered from 1 to quintillion, you picked one and commented ''Wow! What a coincidence that you picked that one since the odds of picking this exact one were 1 in quintillion. How remarkable!'' It is simply because every possibility has incredibly small odds of happening in scenarios such as these. Any possible way the earth and life or the universe might have turned up would have yielded unbelievably small odds of happening. The problem is you're considering the scenario which DID happen as special. What are the odds of there being a bird in this specific town in the world which was chased by humans and blown away by the wind which blew at this exact force and the bird ultimately got hit by a yellow Toyota truck with the exact X license plates at 2:36 PM on a Sunday of October, 2017.? The odds are practically impossibly small, yet it happened today. So how is that possible? Do you see the problem with this kind of logic?

The confusing part is, it's not just him. A couple of people have made similar comments. It's baffling. I was actually wondering if he was just fucking with me. I don't think he quite understand what the purpose of a hypothetical mathematical problem is.

Do you know what mathematics is? Because you seem to struggle with what a hypothetical mathematical problem is. Do you think I don't understand that a monkey doesn't have infinite time at its disposal? You seem to be mistaking me for a complete idiot. A monkey is a metaphor for true, unbiased mathematical randomness, something both you and I agree doesn't exist. Obviously. Randomness is a misunderstood term. It doesn't exist in its true form. It's only a measure of our ignorance. So we would give 50/50 odds of a coin landing either way, even though it has nothing to do with chance. We've even talked about this particular issue before and I've opened threads on it.

Thank you. You've acknowledged and addressed what I was asking at last. I think you're actually right. I don't think you're right that it SHOULD be more offensive than other synonymous words, but it's the reason it IS.

But if used an example which was purely random, then I wouldn't be using a metaphor at all, would I? Again, this is a mathematical problem, not a practical one. If someone asked you what were the odds of a random person rolling a 3 on a die, you would answer ''1 in 6'' and not ''well why is the person doing that? You should consider what are the chances of him being willing to participate in this? What of the very small odds that he dies before he completes the throw'' etc. etc. WTF already touched on what you are saying, but this is not what we are discussing. We were discussing mathematics.

No, I don't. Why would I do that? I simply wish to tell the person he has low intelligence. I wouldn't say that to a disabled person, of course. What I want you to explain is why you would persecute the word ''retarded'' and not the words ''moron'' or ''idiot''? They all mean the same things. All of these used to be medical terms referring to mentally slow people? So why does the word ''retarded'' bear so much taboo and the other words don't? I've asked this many times throughout the thread, without proper answer. Why can I call someone an idiot and not a retard? Why isn't simply calling someone stupid insulting to the people of low intelligence? This is contradictory to me. This isn't an attack, it's just a logical question.

Yes, he's being contradictory, as I've pointed out. He has mentioned both cases. That's why I asked what we are talking about exactly. But I think it's logical to conclude we are not talking about the case you're talking about. Everyone on this forum will agree that one shouldn't insult mentally challenged people on that basis alone. Everyone agrees with that so it's not an issue. His OP suggests otherwise.

I think, by using his logic, I could write down the number 0.000...01 which is lesser than his 0.000...1 number! I am not breaking any rules he isn't. If he can put a 1 at the ''end'' of the infinite sequence, why can't I put 01? I know neither of these numbers are valid, but it just further demonstrates why this concept is invalid.