bob000555

Poor rhetorical skills or not I think Abdul-Aziz’s point is a good one, I further believe that it is being discounted simply because we live in a society where any perceived criticism of women no mater how valid it may be is deemed to be politically incorrect and somehow automatically wrong (granted Abdul’s claim that women love mass killers is a bit strange to say the least). It is a scientific fact that in almost every species on the planet aggression and strength are used as a proxy for male genetic fitness. We have all evolved to find things that provided an advantage in prehistoric time attractive, from men’s attraction to berthing hips to large breasts capable of properly nourishing a child. It should come as absolutely no surprise that women are attracted to men who would have been capable of defending their mates and offspring or fighting for sustenance. Simple anecdotal evidence( “I personally am not attracted to ‘bad boys’”) does not constitute an invalidation of this principal, of course attraction is a complicated thing and many factors play into it but that is not to say that aggressive masculinity is not one of them. And please stop the ad hominem attacks, saying that Abdul-Aziz is making his argument because he has been turned down in favor of “bad boys” is not only incredibly rude but completely irrelevant to the argument; his motives have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his argument.

It’s actually a double replacement then a decomposition: CaCO3 + 2HCl -> CaCl2 + H2CO3 H2CO3 -> H2O + CO2 H2CO3(carbonic acid) is a diol acid and thus very unstable decomposing to CO2 and H2O very quickly at room temperature.

Solubility of solids and liquids in water increases with temperature solubility of gasses in water decreases with increased temperature. The answer is the solubility of calcium hydroxide increases with increased temperature.

I usually oppose government intervention but inbreed baby’s are rather bad in my humble opinion. I should think the determining factor is weather or not person has the right to cause a high risk of negative outcome for another person without their consent, said person being the inbreed baby.

Your question is very awkwardly worded; if the question is “Of what type of person might a psychologist ask the question ‘Do you ever feel like your on a mission?’” then my answer is as fallows. It sounds like a question from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory which is an empirically derived test, that is to say the questions on the test are simply those who’s answers where frond to correlate to any mental disorder. This leads to some rather bazaar questions however for example “When you read the newspaper do you only read the comics?”, people who answer yes suffer depression at a greater rate then the general population. The test can be administered to absolutely anyone and I’m not sure to which disorder that particular question is used to test for so the answer is absolutely any type of person.

I agree and shall no longer lend credit to this ridiculous conspiracy theory by continuing to reply. Abdul-Aziz if you say something with some scientific merit instead of calling every source that proves you wrong racist I will respond. The notion that absolutely everyone, including the author of the textbook on psychology, is conspiring to uphold a racist system is preposterous. Please if all your going to contribute is ridiculous appeals to emotion, straw mans and conspiracy theories, leave the forum

My analogy was correct because it compared Iraq and the United states as BOTH being neighbors, yours made the fundamental error of arbitrarily elevating one to the level of sate and lowering one to the level of citizen. There is nothing I am aware of in international law that allows for such a relation between sovereigns . Yes that’s exactly what I mean, thank you for seeing my point, just kidding. The UN previously had a nasty habit of becoming an organ for American unilateralism, which was as I pointed out morally object able. Unilateralism will always illegally violent sovereignty.

The fact that I took Barney Frank’s words on gambling and applied them to legalization implies some original thought. How does using the words of a more articulate person constitute and appeal to ridicule; I should think it constitutes not reinventing the wheal of rhetoric. But if the great god Pangloss insists: Are you seriously suggesting that the government restrict the rights of others so you don’t have to have the awkward situation of not associating with someone who’s actions your find immoral? Presently the government spends billion of dollars fighting a “war on drugs” against it’s own people which it can not possibly hope to win. If marijuana where legalized and taxed it would bring a boon in new government revenue, It is not the government’s duty to ban everything which is not useful, nor is it the government’s responsibly to dictate to it’s people what is safe and what is not.

A resolution is not the same as a social contract at all, not even vaguely close. A social contract is when a citizen gives away certain rights in exchange for certain securities. A resolution does no such thing. In fact a resolution is basically the opposite of a social contract, imposed by the ruler instead of the subject and the one’s of which you speak where completely without consent.

Utter ridiculousness you cant justify making an entire populous pay the price for their [unelected] leader’s stupidity. The comparison of Iraq to a convicted felon is ridiculous because felons, as citizens, submit to their nations laws via the social contract; there was no such relation between Iraq and the UN, in fact the UN charter specifically stipulates that member states retain sovereignty. I’m not even sure Iraq was a member of the UN at the time.

“I would hope we emancipate ourselves from the superstition that that which is legal is necessarily honorable . My old friend Mr. Jackson seems to suggest that as it’s perfectly to contract syphilis but it don’t mean that society is in favor of syphilis. As a matter of fact it’s perfectly legal to vote for Jesse Jackson that doesn’t make it reputable now does it? We’re not talking about conferring a social sanction on taking drugs, we’re talking about how to deal with the drug problem.” - William F Buckley “Has it become the role of this congress to prohibit any activity that an adult wants to engage in voluntarily if it does not add to the GDP or make us more competitive? What kind of social-cultural authoritarianism are we advocating here?” - Barney Frank Phonographic memory can be so useful… Edit: I acutely found the Barney Frank speech and the whole thing is relevant…just replace the word “gambling” with “marijuana” .

Perhaps the best false analogy I’ve seen recently. Comparing a sovereign nation to a convicted felon is laughable in the first place. Ignoring that US citizens submit to US law by the social contract the nation of Iraq submitted in no way. The us is not the world’s justice system, but just another of it’s citizens. The argument that our power justifies our “world police” ideology makes about as much sense as saying that Bill Gate’s(now Warren Buffet but that’s besides the point) wealth gives him the right to demand you submit to his searching your house. A better analogy would by my neighbor invading his neighbor’s house analogy. Even if it were a just analogy a con has been convicted by a jury of his peers and a court of laws handed down a sentence, part of that sentence is begin required to submit to searches by his parole officer. If the officer finds grounds to do so the judge can retroactively extend the sentence for the original crime to the degree allowable by law. If the state wishes to make a new charge it must go to another trail where the burden of proof is agene on the state. It isn’t as though parole is completely involuntary either every con if the so chose could opt out of parole and go to prison, but this option is so rarely exercised it only nominally exists.

People have the right to waste their money on anything they want, I’m opposed to their getting welfare in the first place but that include welfare money. And as I said people have the right to modify their minds however the so chose including making themselves paranoid or lazy. If you really don’t like it stop associating with them. If pot money goes to fund crimes stop the crimes not the pot you argument is equivalent to saying we should ban all oil because money from oil goes to fund spilling oil into Prince Edward Sound, its much simpler to simply prevent spills. By the way I have yet to see a violent pot head they tend to sit on the couch and eat cheese curls. The only way you could really make them violent would be to take their cheese curls.

I don’t know if it’s against the forum rules to link to this but if it is just say so and I’ll take it down… Penn and Teller can explain it better then me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEyKAzXqVkA But the jist of it is that if a person has the right to harm their own body as much as they want as long as they know the risks: it is not the government’s job to baby sit us. And hello what damage to society has pot ever casued we’re not talking about heroin here. The grateful dead’s music may be painful but it could hardly be called harm to society.

No I believe it’s a case of “How can a country call its self free if its citizens can’t put whatever they want in their bodies, if they don’t even have the freedom to control their own state of mind chemically?” and a case of “Why should we shred the tenth amendment over a weed?”

I really doubt marijuana is at the top of Obama’s priority list, and even if it was I doubt he would have the support necessary for decriminalization. Christian moralists would swoop in and make a big fuss about how legalizing pot would be the end of the world. If pot is legalized by anyone it will likely be the Supreme Court on the grounds that a ban violates the tenth amendment and it’s up to the states to decide. I’m all for legalization.

Just like Americans did with the real war you took my invalid justification for invading a person’s house and replaced with a more morally justifiable explanation… and I was considering starting a “Psychology of Political Science” thread though it would probably belong in the psych section of the Medical Sciences section of the forum.

Ah pangloss this passage from my psych textbook may well be about you: “Cognitive dissonance: Relief from tension” “So far we have seen that actions can affect attitudes, sometimes turning prisoners into collaborators, doubters into believers, mere acquaintances into friends and compliant guards into abusers. But why? One explanation is that when we become aware that our attitudes and actions don’t coincide we experience tension or cognitive dissonance. To relive this tension, according to cognitive dissonance theory proposed by Leon Festinger, we bring our attitudes into line with our actions. It is as if we rationalize “If I chouse to do it I must believe it.” The more concerned and more responsible we feel for a troubling act the more dissonance we feel. The more dissonance we feel, the more motivated we are to fine consistency, such as changing out attitudes to help justify and act.” “The US invasion of Iraq was mainly premised on the presumed threat of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. As the war began only 38% of Americans surveyed said the war was justified if Iraq did not have WMD (Gallup 2003) and nearly 80% believed such weapons would be found (Duffy 2003, Newport and others 2003). When no WMD where found many Americans felt dissonance which was heightened by our awareness of the war’s financial and human costs, by scenes of chaos in Iraq and by inflamed anti-American and pro-terrorist sentiments in some parts of the world.” “To reduce dissonance some Americans revised their memories of the main rational for going to war, which now became liberating and oppressed people and promoting democracy in the Middle East. Before long the once minority opinion became the majority view: 58 percent of Americans said the supported war even if there were no WMD(Gallup, 2003). “Weather or not the find weapons of mass destruction doesn’t matter” explained Republican pollster Frank Luntz “because the rational for the war changed.” It was not until late 2004, when hopes for a flourishing peace waned, that Americans’ support for the war dropped below 50 percent." Psychology by Doctor David Meyers, 8th edition, Worth publishers, New York, New York, pages 731-732

Since when can the burden of proof ever legitimately be on the accused? I claim you have WMDs in your home. Me and my buddies have passed resolution saying the burden of proof is on you, so prove to me that you don’t have any or I’m going to invade you house, oh btw your a terrorist untill you prove your not.

Good god Abdul-Aziz’s argument is essentially a series of straw man, and logically empty arguments. The straw-mans are almost always along the lines of attempting to “refute” and argument simply by calling the arguer a racist or crypto-Nazi. Even if the respected psychologists whom he considers racists or Nazis because their research contradicts his beliefs where racists or Nazis it would not disprove their research or even discredit it. In fact some of the Nazis where such good scientists that the US risked causing an international incident to smuggle Nazi scientists into the US in Operation Paperclip. These scientists proceeded to do such obviously “racist/male dominate” things as fathering the space program (Wernher Von Braun). Secondly he counters peoples arguments by simply saying the are “missing the [ill-defined] point” the proceeding to change or reaffirm his original argument. When a person asserts an “if a then b” relationship if someone points out a counterexample you can not proceed to simply change the argument and then act as though nothing happened you have to choices you can either admit your wrong or add a clause “c” to your argument so that it becomes “if a then b, if and only if c” such that c invalidates the counter example. It appears that the only “c” would be “if and only if it supports Abdul-Aziz’s argument”. Abdul’s primary argument appears to have changed throughout the discussion starting out as attempting to invalidate the entire concept of IQ then sifting to saying that IQ is fine as long as it is used for “it’s original intent”(which is laughable considering in his original post Abdul claims the concept of IQ was invented by “racist, sexist bigots”) I move that this thread be moved to pseudoscience and speculations for the fallowing reasons: Despite massive evidence to the contrary including a quote from the definitive textbook on psychology the original poster has refused to acknowledge the high degree of heritability involved in intelligence. The original poster is attempting to rewrite the generally accepted practices of psychology insisting that a trait can not be considered heritable unless the specific genes involved can be found, further claiming that it is not a statistically derived measurement. The definition of heritability according to “Psychology” eighth edition by Doctor David G. Meyers is “The proportion of variability among individuals that we can attribute to genes. The heritability of a trait may very depending on the range of populations and environments studied.” Absolutely no mention of the of the necessity of finding specific gene involved is mentioned either in the definition or in the chapter on “Behavioral Genetics and Evolutionary Psychology.” Despite repeated insistence that stop doing so the original poster has attempted to use insults and emotions as scientific arguments. These have ranged from straw mans attempting to discredited studies by calling the researcher a “neo-Nazi” to deliberately insulting posts accusing fellow forum members(namely me) of neo-Nazism(I am of Jewish descent and my relatives where forced to flee Russia during the German invasion.) In all I would say that the chance that the original poster is a troll is very high.

There are literally thousands of traits that have a high degree of heritability for which the specific causal gene has yet to be found, these traits range from handedness(left handed or right) to schizophrenia. It is hypothesized that this is because the traits are the result of the complex interaction of many genetic systems. As for you claim about twin studies can you point to a single reliable source that discredits them. It is not often that articles published in prestigious peer reviewed journals(which are the only kind of studies that end up in the definitive text book on a subject) are based on “long discredited” methods. The bell curve is not a racist tool it is a statistical tool used to display the outcomes of studies. Just because you find those outcomes objectionable does not invalidate them. And come off it psychological text books don’t site studies by neo-Nazis. The land of science does not care with whom a person associates it does not invalidate there study in any way. Come off your high horse and stop arguing with the textbook. Oh stop it. The content of science may be cultural influenced but the content of science does not effect the actuality of science; weather or not we chose to acknowledge the genes can hobble or strengthen us we cannot prevent them from doing so.

Here is what the psychology text book has to say on the subject: “Genetic influences on Intelligence: Do people who share the same genes also share comparable mental abilities? As you can see from figure 33.1, which summarizes many studies the answer is clearly yes. In support of genetic contributions to inelegance researchers site three sets of findings:” ”Across 10,000 twins, the intelligence test scores of identical twins reared together are virtually as similar as those of a person taking the test twice(Lykken, 1999; Plomin, 2001). (The scores of fraternal twins, who typically share only half their genes, are much less similar.) Likewise the test score of identical twins reared apart are similar enough to lead twin researcher Thomas Bouchard(1996) to estimate that ‘about 70 percent of intelligence score variation can be attributed to genetic variation.’ Other researchers offered estimates from 50 to 75 percent.” “Brain scans reveal that identical twins have very similar gray matter volume. More ever unlike fraternal twins their brains are virtually the same in areas associated with verbal and spatial intelligence(Thompson and others, 2001)” “Are there genes for genius? Comparisons of the genes of people of high versus average intelligence have produced slow progress in identifying the many genes that contribute to cognitive ability. By inserting an extra gene into fertilized mouse eggs researchers have, however, produced smarter mice – mice that excel in at learning and remembering the location of a hidden underwater platform or at recognizing cues that signal an impending shock(Tsien, 2000). The gene helps create a neural receptor involved in memory.” Psychology Eighth Edition By Dr. David Myers pg 454 Given complete equality of opportunity the only thing affecting those choices would be genetics.

Your argument remains nebulous, you have acknowledged that genetics play a significant role in determining intelligence and no one has denied that environment plays an equally important role. Your argument seems to be that because IQ and g illustrate a principle that you don’t like (that humans are NOT equal) the principal must be wrong, this is just not how the scientific method works. No, because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that biology does not bend to human ethics makes you a radical mired by ideology. Not only that but given complete equality of opportunity the only thing that would effect outcomes would be genetics.

No one ever said intelligence is entirely genetic; your arguing with your self. And to say that intelligence is not at all influenced by genetics is preposterous. Multiple studies have shown that intelligence is more strongly correlated in identical twins then fraternal, that when infants are adopted at birth their intelligence remains correlated to their biological parents inelegance at a much later date.

So your denying the existence of varying intelligence levels and claiming that anyone who argues for their existence is a “crypto-fascist” racist? Your argument is nebulous at best.