I'm the most intelligent person on /pol/ right now. I'm making this thread so that people can put forth questions that they would like an answer to. Serious inquiries only, stupid posts and 'why are you responding to this stupid post' will be ignored.
caveat lector to all who enter
Is it gay to fuck your gf's dad in the ass, if it's purely dominance related?
>>79668359
>Most intelligent
>American
Pick one
>>79668475
Is it gay to jerk it to a description of the aforementioned occurrence?
>>79668359
New fag...saged
And you happen to be a Phd which you forgot to mention.
>>79668666
Witnessed
If you were really that smart you wouldn't need validation from an anonymous website, dickhead. go suck your own dick elsewhere
So intelligent that you posted your shit thread to an inappropriate board?
You are impressive
>>79668707
In the modern era, moreso than perhaps ever before, degrees are only relevant to rubes and employers. As a device which ought to verify one's knowledge of a subject they are of poor quality.
>>79668847
/pol/ is essentially just /s4s/ with less of a dada streak, the board is treated poorly by the staff and moderation of 4chan, to the end I assume of distancing themselves from having culpability for its existence and also attempting to reduce the validity/focus of the board itself.
>>79669070
WHY ARE YOU RESPONDING TO THESE STUPID POSTS YOU ACTUAL LOW IQ DOLPHIN FLOGGER!
>>79668359
Why do intelligent people tend to be so pretentious?
>>79669441
Because you confuse intellect with pretense.
>>79669322
Because I chose to.
>>79669441
I think we assign that status to them because of the ambiguity of intelligence/knowledge. Claiming that you are something "without proof" is seen negatively in western society, however the claim of intelligence does not bear proof well, so those who make the claim often don't face the same burden of proof as others would. (e.g. I'm an astronaut, I'm a lawyer, I am an olympic medalist, etc.)
>>79668359
Will the dollar ever collapse? If it will then when? Why there are so many people shilling for gold and who is behind them?
>>79668359
How do you know that you're the most intelligent person on this board?
If you are the most intelligent why are you still alive ? the best choice to scape absurdity is suicide
>>79668666
Dark Kek speaks
>>79669693
because he's a retard, there's 200k people on this board, he isn't a fucking inventor.
>>79669638
You have no free will
>>79669669
>dollar
Why ruskies are so obsessed with dollar? R u jelly or something?
>>79668475
It's not gay if it's rape.
>>79669877
You're right, it was a rhetoric question.
>>79669693
Because I think beyond ideologies where others think into them. I know the limits of what can be expressed with language and the benefit of those expressions. I'm not here to teach or lecture, I'm just here to have fun creating a lichtung in the board.
>>79669669
I think in order to answer that you have to examine the petrodollar system and the underlying economic structures behind that. The U.S. dollar is much bigger than the U.S. itself the more you learn about it. It's not a standard for the U.S. but rather a standard of military trade, which is to say that the stability is not assured by financial systems but rather by global trends of trade and then again assured through militaristic presence. If it collapses it will not be because of the U.S. but rather because of the global market trends. (and a decline is the only likely scenario in that regard, anyway)
>>79669775
Because anything can be posited from absurdity. Chosing not to participate is for uncreative people.
>>79668359
>I'm the most intelligent on here
How so?
>>79670274
I'm not here to support ideologies.
>>79668359
Why are you so arrogant?
>>79669930
It looks like a weak spot, and a lot of us hate USA. Also I think that since most countries use dollar for international trade and you keep printing more of them, you hurt other countries. I think the whole world feeds your niggers and pays for your military hardware, and I want that to stop.
>>79670460
Why does it matter to you?
>>79670524
I'm just curious, and the thread tells me to ask questions.
you're just using big words to say nothing you faggot
>>79668359
if i had my male Haunter possess and girl and have sex with her possessed body, is that gay and/or rape?
>>79670221
>>79669070
>>79670221
Well I would disagree some what about degrees being somewhat useless, as that depends one the degree in question.
Secondly, knowing boundaries is all well and good but to then say that I like to think outside the box whilst placing people into groups. That's dumb, if anything you should start using these guys as pawns or at least looking for a potential mate/rival so life doesn't get so bland.
And finally thirdly ideologies, they are all the same mate, just a different path to obtain the same goal.
"When I went to the oracle, I was called the wisest of all, not because I knew a lot but because I knew nothing"
>>79670221
>Because I think beyond ideologies where others think into them. I know the limits of what can be expressed with language and the benefit of those expressions. I'm not here to teach or lecture, I'm just here to have fun creating a lichtung in the board.
Even if you did, how would you know you are the only one?
>>79670675
Hmmm. I dare say my isn't that ponderous, hhhm. Yes quite.
I'll have to ponder further lest I put the wrong thought forward!
>>79670663
I agree with you.
OP's words feel totally empty and superficial.
I really don't think he's the smartest person on /pol/.
>>79670656
Make him your bitch.
>>79670656
Is gay to fuck a man
>>79670940
i'm the smartest person on /pol/ actually
Who are the greatest living philosophers?
>>79669508
Um, how about no? There are plenty of very friendly smart people, and there's plenty of uppity, condescending smart people. Pretty easy to tell the difference.
>>79670656
yes u r fuckin a dude's butt XD
>>79668359
>I'm the most intelligent person on /pol/ right now
Nope
>>79668359
What's the name of that rule about someone always being better than you?
>>79670999
It's me you fucking retard.
I'm the smartest person on /pol/
>>79670940
I thought your pea brain would work it out from my post and usage of the word "superficial", but I guess you can't wrap your head around it.
>>79668359
>>79669070
>>79669638
>>79670221
>>79670320
>>79670524
you don't know shit about electrical engineering faggot
>>79668359
How is babby formed
How is babby formed?
>>79670999
No
I'm the smartest person on /pol/ at the moment
>>79671257
What's the square root of 144?
>>79671224
>How is babby formed?
In a special cake tin.
>>79670836
The idea that everyone in the world is thinking and operating on the same level as everyone else is sentimentalist trash that only someone who is critically offended at the lack of agreement they receive in regards to what they believe would produce. Beyond the realm of specialized knowledge in which someone knows more or less about some niche topic because of years of intimate experience with said topic, there is an area which the ability to conceptualize is far from universal. Because our conceptions of intelligence are so biased towards economic production however, we only accept a few into this status.
>>79669638
Why do 'intelligent' people try to use fancy foreign words when they talk? Don't they realize that it only ever pisses everybody off because its like jerking yourself off for being so smart?
Don't you think if they were smart, they'd talk like a normal fucking person so as to ensure the best social cohesion and to properly connect with those around them?
@79671224
>21:32:37
Learn to spell, retard
>>79671257
>>79670999
>>79671208
NO IM THE SMARTEST PERSON ON /pol/
>>79671443
You didnt even answer his question retard
>>79671634
Hate to burst your bubble bong, but I'm the smartest person on /pol/.
T. IQ 160 person
>>79671499
Maybe they aren't trying to appeal to everyone. What I think you're getting at has truth in it though. If someone is only able to express themselves by using a complex vocabulary while creating simplistic concepts they are a fool. However imposing some sort of limit on speech to simple terms to create complexity is like building a sandcastle one grain at a time. It's possible but can be achieved much better by using larger pieces, even if those pieces by themselves increase the complexity.
>>79671499
But also there is the sense in which it's easy to be unaware of what is considered "complex", within reason of course.
How soon will we be sending successful manned missions to Mars? How far do you think space travel will advance during our lifetime?
Is the Cold War starting up again?
Is the next economic recession in America inevitable?
What do you think of a career in banking? (Operations, not working in branches) if not, where should I work if I have a double major in finance and marketing?
>>79671443
Thats weird because i never said that everyone operates on the same level, for a superintelligent person, you somehow managed to miss my point.
I get what you mean with the niche topic, but there can also be a couple of other people who study that niche topic, they could also be on this board. There can also be people on this board who have intimate experience with other niche topics. My only question was, how do you know that you're the most intelligent person on this board? You don't, just admit it. You're assuming it because in your view it's statistically unlikely that other people would know what you know, but it's not impossible, is it.
OP IS A FUCKING DUMB BITCH, A DUMB LITTLE BITCH. SO IM GOING TO PUT THIS IN WORDS HE AND ALL YOU OTHER JACK STALIONS CAN UNDERSTAND
OP IS A CUNT
>>79671810
XD XDD XD FUG U I'M SMADDEST PERSON ON 4CHINZ XDDD XD
>>79670320
You clearly don't understand ideology, for if you did you'd understand people are ideologically anti-ideological.
>>79671965
>How soon will we be sending successful manned missions to Mars? How far do you think space travel will advance during our lifetime?
It depends on how well the various space agencies are funded, the public support behind the effort, and the political climate towards funding. I don't think it will advance much at all during our lifetime.
>Is the Cold War starting up again?
It's been going on a second time for over a decade, close to two. However it's no longer feasible to be direct, so the modern Cold War is mostly expressed through proxy war efforts, and cultural/social/financial manipulation. It's much less militaristic.
>
Is the next economic recession in America inevitable?
Yes.
>What do you think of a career in banking? (Operations, not working in branches) if not, where should I work if I have a double major in finance and marketing?
It depends on what you want out of your career. It's not really a question that has any good answer.
Who do you plan to vote for in November for President?
What about senate/house?
>>79672380
>Who do you plan to vote for in November for President?
No one, the result is not meaningful.
>What about senate/house?
The results are not meaningful.
when you read a book by a philosopher or other inteligent people, they use "big" words. BUT, you can still perfectly understand it.
It is clear, quick, and to the point.
It's as if they are talking using only "little" words.
THEN YOU HAVE OP
WHO BLATHERS HIS SHITE WITH OPEN JOWL SPEWING HIS NEVER ENDING NONESENSE!
ITS HOLLOW ITS EMPTY AND ITS JUST PLAIN EMBARRASSING YOU MASSIVE CUNT!
>>79671443
I find one flaw with this arguement. Is that when one conceives an idea, it is not always economic in terms of conception. therefore I want you to explain the concept of an artist who draws and sculpts images for the love of art, cranks out portrayed after portage for the love of it for years. After twenty years he has mastered his art, doesn't live to comfy, but is happy with his life.
Tell me m8 after this period of time and upon observing natural beauty at is base level, is his knowledge of the world not valid to yours just because he chose a different path to you?
Or are you just a lazy neat with a 2inch that just won a pub quiz and is cocky?
On par with some of the best examples from r/iamverysmart.
Excellent work OP you've truly convinced us of your greatness.
>>79672486
A great example of this are the seminal works of Heidegger and Kant. Well done, you.
>>79672582
It's not economic in terms of conception but rather in terms of reputation or validity that I'm talking about. Even the 'great artists' who were poor their whole lives are only noted as 'great' because of the current value associated with and assigned to their works. There is always an economic system behind the status of intelligence if you look.
Not OP, but I'll tell you guys a secret that nobody ever seems to talk about.
Intelligent people can quickly ascertain the intellectual levels of others.
For example--- let's say an average person (IQ 100) talks to someone who's mentally retarded (IQ 70). The IQ-100 person knows immediately that the IQ-70 person is "slow". This is common enough.
Well, this is also how IQ-130+ people feel towards "average" people. You are slow and simple to us. We may entertain your "small talk" or we may simply avoid you, but we know you are functioning at a significantly lower level.
Feels lonely, man.
>>79672465
Why is it not meaningful?
The true mark of intelligence is the ability to create new ideas, 99% of individuals regurgitate the same ancient ideas that have been memetically implanted into their behavior from generational accumulations. The OP is among the pleb 99% as evident by his banal posts.
>>79672891
Why thank You babycake!
>>79668359
>I'm the most full of himself person on /pol/ right now
Fixed that for you
>>79672907
Because op is sitting in bed experiencing a "mental break".
Is it shakin' yet op?
are you also nihilistic and with a wicked sense of humor?
>>79672906
Then you should just blow your brains out in the street
>>79672906
>Tfw 120+ IQ
>Not 130+
>Can barely relate to average people, but enjoy talking to them
Wew lads I lucked out
@79673088
Not an argument
>>79668359
Can a mind survive isolated from others or is lack of human interaction a sure road to mental illness?
>>79672176
Kys
>>79672891
Again you are also not grasping the concept. I never said he sold his artwork.
The greats will allways be great because they, for a single second, shaped the whole world to look through their eyes at existence.
You are not awoken, you are basically a massive jew.
>>79672907
The votes themselves are meaningful and that system functions decently. However the results are subject to manipulation on two sides once the elections complete. Either the candidate is financially supported by some group and acts in their interest, or they have to contend with the candidate they oppose in an election being funded by the interests which they oppose, and then further having to contend with other candidates who can be coerced to act against them once in office. (I will fund your opposition if you don't do X or Y, etc.)
It's not that the "system is broken" but rather that any system which attempts to cater to everyone is doomed by its nature. Voting for a candidate is an attempt to cause the system to cater to your favor, which, ultimately, will fail. It's not meaningful because of that.
Of course, that it isn't meaningful does not imply that it has no effect on anything, but rather that both effects are of a similar nature.
>>79673088
I'm the most powerful man in the world!
>>79673288
You'll never fit in, cuck
>>79673288
>tfw at college and people can't understand why I don't want to go get drunk with them five days a week
>meanwhile, I can't comprehend why that's all they want to do
state schools were a mistake
>>79673278
But then I would cease to exist, senpai. And watching the folly of the human race is better than non-existence.
>>79672366
>Smartest person on /pol/
>doesn't know space exploration is a hoax
>doesn't know that he lives on a motionless flat plane
>isn't a geocentrist
top jej
>>79673435
How did you know?
>>79673489
Did you know alcoholism is a mark of high intelligence?
>>79668359
Why aren't you donating to foregen to regenerate not only your own foreskin but for every other human male in the world?
>>79673307
It's not a road to "mental illness" per se but rather that the individual becomes so inable to relate to others that it's seen as "illness". What we call "mental illness" is largely just "lack of ability to integrate/relate".
>>79673316
I never said that I was a fan of that being the case.
>>79673308
I already did...
*spooky musical jingle*
>>79673526
>Highly intelligent
>Non-contributing observer
Pick one.
Measuring an object isolated in nothingness is impossible.
>>79673526
It won't stay the same forever darling
>>79673411
>not voting 3rd party so you can improve their chances to be eligible for national campaign funding
Even if your candidate loses you can still have a meaningful impact.
>>79673550
>using ""top jej"" in 2019
top fef
>>79673641
Actually that's called a social disorder.
>>79673411
Interesting fact, the austrian referendum was found to be manipulated. I thought there is something suspicious about being so close to 50%, which looked as if someone tried to push the vote down just as much as they have to.
It got quickly explained by the fact that they found 77k votes to be manipulated.
>>79671815
ehh, I guess so dawg.
Idk, talking in complex language can allow a person increased flexlibility in what they're trying to communicate. It can allow them to reach a greater specificity in what they're trying to say.
But ehh, why do you think using complex language makes you so great man? It's not that much of a step up, and most of the time it doesn't really make a difference in what you're trying to communicate.
>>79672906
I think you're just autistic, man. There are many geniuses who love interacting with people; you're just trying to puff up your ego by talking about how your anti-social behavior and how avoiding people makes you so great.
Yeah, talking about the complex workings of international finance with Igor the retard probably wouldn't be fun, but horsing around with him would probably be great fun. So yeah, even if you are demonstrably 'working on another level' compared to Igor the retard, you're still an autist.
>>79673783
ses desu
>>79673783
My mistake ofcourse, lol variations are not my area of expertise I do not have the niche knowledge of them.
>>79673783
Made me fef
>>79673795
That's generally how it's done but generally any fraud is done in accordance to polling numbers in a controlled amount which can be defeated by unexpected factors, such as unanticipated low turnout for the expected fix or unusually high turnout for what is to be defeated.
>>79673858
>ses
Disgusting.
>>79668359
when do I use the proper Noun "England" or "Britain" in my sentence structure?
>>79673826
>But ehh, why do you think using complex language makes you so great man?
I don't think that. I just like that it makes people mad as fuck while at the same time it doesn't inconvenience people who understand it all the same.
>>79674108
Hahaha why do you lie?! You are a' asshole
I have a serious question OP.
What is your world-view?
>>79674108
lmao fair 'nuff then man
Are you a virgin?
Do you believe that celibacy is requisite to maintain the kind of intelligence you have?
>>79674341
>>79674108
what, wrong image
sorry man not trying to flip you off
>>79673783
okay mr. Smartypants
in your opinion, do genetic differences explain part of the IQ variation across racial/ethnic groups
>>79674108
Having a large vocabulary can chunk information to express and/or think of ideas ect ect. Getting an extensive vocabulary for 160+ IQ (towards Mega society range) does one study a dictionary all day, read from high-level areas, or what? This is assuming you have the highest IQ here when I've tested at 154
>>79674034
That's how they did it, it was only suspicious at first but then after they double checked, it turns out there have been some discrepancies in the number of votes. I suppose that some votes got missing.
Oh it's an absolute corrupt system, i very much suspect they tried the same during the brexit vote.
so close to 50% again, it just smells fishy, but it looks like they used the same technique as in austria.
>>79668359
Was 911 an inside job? By what group(s)? For what purpose(s)?
>>79674045
Great Britain is the land, United Kingdom is the political structure that controls the land. England, within the United Kingdom, is the political structure in that area of Great Britain, of which there is also Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
Op answer me this completely truthfully won't you
Why haven't you killed yourself yet. I know you've thought about it.
What's your IQ? Even though IQ is a shitty measurement of intelligence, I'm curious.
And really how long do you think this will keep you occupied? Months?
Soon you'll just be disgusted by somthing again.
>>79674563
Great Britain doesn't include Ireland.
>>79674438
It's more personally frustrating to have to package speech in such a way that I know how the person receiving its presentation will react in a certain way rather than speaking freely. (this sentence, for instance, was re-written a few times in my head to present it as I assumed it would be best-received, and, much like other posts I've written so far, is not purely how I am thinking, but rather how I am choosing to present my thinking in order to elicit a certain response)
>>79675228
Yeah that's cool, but where did you pickup some rarely-used vocabulary words?
>>79674550
assad
you already know why.
>>79673826
It really just comes down to the ability to relate to people. I can relate to certain smart people, but it's just not possible with average people. Comments go over their head. Not just references, but actual ideas, that they cannot grasp. It's the situation where more often than not, attempts at conversation are met with, "Huh, weird" or a 180-degree change of topic about something superficial. It's not possible to form a bond or a strong relationship. At least, from my side of things.
I'm middle-aged. I've had plenty of friends in life but only a tiny few with whom I felt a connection.
And, you know, I've never given a fuck about sports or any of that lowbrow shit, so it's not like I want to befriend people just so I can chase a ball around, or go out drinking.
>>79675228
you aren't answering particularly interesting questions
Explain the Bosnian war so that even a dimwit like me could understand it.
>>79675461
>Comments go over their head. Not just references, but actual ideas, that they cannot grasp.
You have betrayed yourself.
A person of intelligence knows his subjects well enough to break them down to their simplest forms and effectively relate them to others.
The onus is on the lecturer to properly convey his thoughts and ideas, not on the receivers to accurately interpret ambiguous, or overly complex, ideas.
>>79675534
Of course not. He's afraid he'll over reach. Spread himself to thin.
He already said how he decides what to say.
If it's too much too quick then it will all fall apart.
Stop building this thing around you op and just speak. But you won't.
Because you're really not that smart.
>>79675741
I hope you're prepared for a regurgitated answer sourced directly from Wikipedia.
>>79675534
I've noticed he keeps ignoring my comments.
A little intimidated maybe?
>>79673411
Yeah we already know that but isn't it good to kill all the Mexican so that we can get some hope and prolong our existence on this planet?
>>79674801
IQ works as a system of identification, but not as a system of definition. It can tell you that X or Y is a smart or stupid person, but not how smart, or how stupid they are. The boundaries, especially in outlying cases (such as Richard Feynman) become increasingly meaningless upon close inspection. There's also the issue of individual fluctuation, and how seriously people approach the attempts to quantify them.
>>79675992
Yeah, but what's your IQ?
>>79675992
Lets not also overlook that intelligence and stupidity are not mutually exclusive.
>>79675813
You can get people to say that they understand or agree but it's impossible to know whether or not the concept in itself is ever really understood, and the ambiguity as to whether or not it has increases with the simplicity of the explanation given.
>>79675899
It's saddening that Wikipedia has become some people's sole source of information isn't it?
>>79676146
Definitely, which is also one of the contributing factors to the lack of validity IQ has. Idiots can have genius ideas and smart people aren't immune to behaving stupidly. (and often will choose to in certain cases)
Yeah but can you do this?
BBRBRBRBRBBRR
>>79675813
Not all ideas are simple, friend.
You cannot expect someone with Down's Syndrome to grasp calculus equations, no matter how much you simplify the ideas.
I made a simply analogy to help you understand.
>>79675461
well, I guess that's fair. but
>Comments go over their head. Not just references, but actual ideas, that they cannot grasp.
uhh do you remember an example of a concept that you were trying to talk about that they just didn't understand?
I've never really experienced a time when someone I was talking to was unable to understand a concept, or where I was unable to understand someone else
then again most of the people I've known and interacted with are pretty smart, maybe you're just in an area with lots of dumb people?
>>79668359
Is Western Civilization of any value to you? Explanation of your results are of value to me.
>>79675741
reminder that Nixon won Vietnam, and that the Democrats blocked any attempt to intervene when the North Vietnamese invaded the South a 2nd time
>>79668359
If you are around campus, there is a meeting starting at John's statue in the yard at 11:11
You also happen to be 15, right?
>>79668359
What is the difference between Nietzsche's assessment of the Jewish condition being "Existence at all costs" and his "Whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger", if humans are really willing themselves to power?
>>79668359
Who's your favorite philosopher and why?
What's your favorite film and your favorite piece of music?
>I'm the most intelligent person on /pol/ right now.
We'll be the judge of that!
>>79671321
The age at which pussy is tightest.
>>79676384
Or maybe he's just a sperg who likes to think he's smart.
>>79670221
>the limits of what can be expressed with language and the benefit of those expressions
Tell me more.
>>79676204
Firstly, it IS possible to ascertain whether or not a particular concept has been received and understood by an interlocutor by asking him/her to accurately relate that concept back to you.
Secondly, I mentioned ambiguity simpliciter, whether derived from errors of defect or excess i.e. an over-simplification or over-complication.
The fact remains, the burden of communication lies with the pitcher, not the receiver.
>>79676384
I was referring to acquaintances of average intelligence.
Friends of higher intelligence had no trouble understanding complex ideas. So, in that respect, I knew it was not simply a failure on my part to convey things properly.
(And no, specific instances were not memorable.)
>>79676232
>>79676232
I actually think Wikipedia is a great way to get acquainted with a subject and learn a bit about it. For just fun learning about when something happened, who was involved, etc it actually does a great job of making the information accessible and digestible. You can't expect a layperson to delve headfirst into the primary literature of something like GPCR mediated signal transduction after all.
However, if you've studied a topic in-depth you start to realize the shortcomings of the site and that the editors of certain pages are pretty biased in how they present information. For genuinely learning about something you've got to delve into the real literature.
>>79676448
It's the least inwardly violent system so there is some value there. However that lack of inward violence and tribulation also contributes to its continual collapse and causes power vacuums in every facet of society, socially, economically, you name it.
In other words, by itself, it does not provide much inherent value but as a contrasting system, and solely as a contrasting system, it affords a delicate balance. The successes of Western Civilization shape the world, and its failures are tapered by the rest.
You have your audience op.
But are you satisfied with this level of proof?
You ignore all questions that could help gage your intelligence.
Leaving everyone to assume that you are above average, but not very high. And that you have a good memory, but that your critical thinking and average thoughts are mediocre. Most likely poor.
>>79668359
Is it better for people to have more economic and social freedom, or to have a bigger government and people to have less economic and social freedom (or any combination of the two) I know I have my opinions and although I don't believe you know you're the smartest person on the board i do believe that you are of above average intelligence, much like myself, and I would like to hear your opinions on the matter.
>>79676367
I've always found IQ tests to be akin to bathroom measuring contests, and refuse to take one.
>>79676768
>it IS possible to ascertain whether or not a particular concept has been received and understood
That's not really true. What if they merely parrot the words back to you? You would have to determine a method for them to APPLY that knowledge or concept, which is difficult if it's not strictly mathematical.
>>79676805
I believe it is useful as a starting place. Most people simply choose to leave the topic at that, and then laud their basic understanding as absolute.
>>79676849
Hollow
>>79677010
A bit semantical -it's pretty obvious when somebody is merely parroting- but you're right.
>>79668359
>implying
You don't know who is and who is not on /pol/ right now for certain. It is not smart of you to assume.
>>79676560
>Who's your favorite philosopher and why?
I don't really have one. I don't think that ideas should suffer an attachment to an individual.
>What's your favorite film
The Terrorizers (1986) and Il Conformista (1970). I'm not really sure if I could pick between the two.
>piece of music?
For me it is Beethoven's 9th.
>>79676849
What is your ideal civilization, politically, economically, socially? Keep in mind the unwashed IQ 100 masses.
>>79676768
Communication is a dance, not a battle.
>>79677304
What if the person really thinks they got it? Really thinks they understand?
And if there's no easy way to test it, then it's not so easy to know.
You could have a complete disconnect and never really be sure of anything because of it.
>>79677304
Humans are big on deception. If they don't understand something, they will go to great lengths to hide the fact. This leads to all sorts of mishaps and problems, of course. But for some reason, they won't simply admit when they don't know the answer, or comprehend an idea.
It's stupid and frustrating, and just seems ridiculous, but... that's the nature of average people.
>>79677510
>For me it is Beethoven's 9th.
Pfft. Tasteless philistine, the 8th was his best.
>>79677571
I'd be curious to see what would happen if we could live in a luxury-based economy rather than a subsistence-based economy. However, without serious consideration in regards to the limits to growth this isn't feasible. (and our current system isn't either, but we seem more accepting of a crash rather than of a controlled decline)
>>79677807
My musical appreciation is defined by aesthetic experience and not by compositional complexity.
>>79668359
this guy's a liar, I'm the most intelligent person on /pol/ right now
ask me anything
>>79677785
You can't sew crops among rocks.
Before one can learn or understand anything, the willingness to do so must be present.
>>79676849
Between the day of your birth and the day of your death what do you hope to accomplish? Will it be of greater value than say an old poor man who had found happiness? In other words, is there any higher value than one who can comfortably say they are happy with how their life went in their final moments?
>>79677942
Same here, I was ribbing you btw.
No u.
>>79677510
>The Terrorizers (1986)
Looks cool! I've only seen Yi-Yi and A Brighter Summer Day, which were both very good.
What are you thoughts on eugenics?
>>79678035
That sounds perilously close to the "everbody is equal" fallacy. An average sub-Saharan African might be "willing" to learn calculus, but no amount of instruction will make him proficient. Like all physical traits, intelligence is genetic.
>>79668359
Will we get to something like cyberpunk technology in our lifetime? Like Huds implanted into our eyes and augmented bodies?
Globalism or nationalism?
>>79678116
that's not a question.
see, I know these things because I'm smart
>>79678248
There's really no way of knowing. Too many people are concerned with the idea of there being a "best" sort of thing to appreciate while simultaneously being inable to decry what is obvious trash.
>>79677993
Please, will you attempt to refute St. Aquinas' First Mover argument?
>>79678358
Eugenics is a terrible idea which initially seems appealing to people who deal with rubes. The problem is that the economic systems we have in place -require- rubes to a great extent in order to perform mundane tasks. You would need strict population control in addition to eugenics in order to make the system successful, and then a great deal of automation beyond that. Moreover, the specifics as to what to control are difficult to define.
>>79678403
I believe so. Biological engineering as a field is on the cusp of great strides.
>>79677510
>I don't really have one.
I was hoping you were lying through your teeth with this statement but...
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2WkKSS6ET0
I don't know what I was expecting. Another faggot pseudointellectual on 4chan.
>I don't think that ideas should suffer an attachment to an individual.
YEAH MAN LIKE, IDEAS, THEY GOTTA BE FREE AND STUFF. faggot
>>79668359
here is a well earned (You)
>>79678388
>>79678577
>Extreme outlier
>Petty straining of gnat-shit
Dubs on both of these contrarian little squeals.
lmao
>>79677594
Reading your posts through this thread. You take me as a man who's studied communication as a form, but never as a concept (despite how as an intelligent man you take more into the eye as a concept rather than identity).
You do not fail at communication as a form of back and forth, however you've failed at the concept of communication as a dance. Although you have full right to refuse dance/communication with people as you wish, you've merely shown you're a terrible dance partner with a lot of solo moves.
I'm honestly disappointed op. You are disappointing.
Everything you say leaves such a bad taste in my mouth.
>>79668359
Do you believe in free will?
>>79671810
163
learn truth faggot
>>79678631
his assumption that there can't be an infinite chain of movement is just that: an assumption, which cannot be taken as axiomatic and thus can't be the basis for a logical proof of God's existence.
Also, even if you take that assumption as true, it's something of a non-sequitur to infer that the prime mover is sentient, and an even bigger one to assume that it is the Christian god.
What's a good replacement for state and god?
>>79679319
>Do you believe in free will?
O-ooh, this is a hard one. Let's see if he responds.
>>79679319
To a very limited extent.
>>79679485
In terms of what?
>>79678782
Is the age of automation upon us or is it a reddit meme? Should we be worried?
>>79679598
Society. Living together. Getting along together
>>79679598
In terms of state and god, dufus.
Hey op
Are you a hypochondriac? What could you imagine that'd be like?
Were you aware that you featured prominently in a novel OP?
>>79679395
Even if there is an infinite chain of movement, lifeless objects can not move themselves.
Moreover, a creator can not imbue his creation with something he does not possess himself.
>>79679504
Have you studied LeBon?
>>79679504
Oh really? I'd be interested in your paradigm. Please go deeper, tell us more. To prove I'm not trolling you or anything, I'll make a contribution.
Often people try to disprove determinism, and thus in their mind, prove free will, with quantum mechanics, however, there are two problems with this.
The first being is that just because we cannot predict quantum movements does not mean that they are not fixed, and it does not mean that they don't abide by rules, and it does not mean that they were not always going to happen the way they did. In other words, we may just need to further our understanding to predict them.
The second issue is that even if randomness did exist in some form, we still do not have control over that.
So rather you take the deterministic route or the determinism route you don't end up with free will. The only route you could go with is some metaphysical paradigm which basically says its beyond our understanding.
Should Quebec be independent?
>>79679920
>a creator can not imbue his creation with something he does not possess himself
Why?
>>79680068
indeterministic route*
>>79679920
>lifeless objects can not move themselves.
you can be alive without being sentient
> a creator can not imbue his creation with something he does not possess himself.
why?
>>79680148
>Millennials
Because you can't give something to somebody you don't already possess. You can give a creation greater amounts of abilities/attributes you already possess, but not something you don't already have. All human creation is a chimera of things we already have/know.
>>79679805
Entertainment and distraction. Panem et circenses.
>>79679737
Dumb reddit meme.
>>79679908
That novel is actually awful.
>>79680541
>human creation
I don't believe we know the full limits of human creation so who knows, you might be wrong there.
And also, why do you assume all creation mimics human creation. Or that all creation is the same.
You assume way to much and then go on as if it's fact.
>>79668359
Opinion on minimum wage?
Opinion on immigration?
Opinion on basic income?
>>79670513
US produces more food than it consumes. Could be self sufficient in most fields. Has enough fuels to be isolated for 400 years at current levels. The United States does not need the world.
>>79668359
Recommend me some good books. From any genre or time period. Just tell me the best books and authors, plz.
>>79680741
Seeing our less desirable qualities embodied by others, fictional or not, oftentimes makes us uncomfortable. I'm sure with a mind like yours though you took such illuminating reflection in stride and used it to tone down your baseless pretension and crass arrogance :^).
So op
How many people would you be willing to kill. You personally.
>>79680808
It's common sense. You can not pass down something you don't already have. If you could think outside the context of physical reality, instead of reorganizing, or making chimerical parodies of it, you would be one of the greatest geniuses of all time.
Think of an imaginary monster for example, you can only come up with a chimerical organization of creatures and objects you already are aware of.
But have you considered the universal is a people, a group of individuals in general, an existent whole, the universal force. It is of insurmountable strength against the individual, and is his necessity and the power oppressing him. And the strength that each one has in his being-recognized is that of a people. This strength, however, is effective only insofar as it is united into a unity, only as will. The universal will is the will as that of all and each, but as will it is simply this Self alone. The activity of the universal is a unity. The universal will has to gather itself into this unity. It has first to constitute itself as a universal will, out of the will of individuals, so that this appears as the principle and element. Yet on the other hand the universal will is primary and the essence – and individuals have to make themselves into the universal will through the negation of their own will, [in] externalization and cultivation. The universal will is prior to them, it is absolutely there for them – they are in no way immediately the same.
>>79680946
>>79678782
>>79677822
These slightly answer my questions.
>>79681188
>chimerical organization of creatures and objects
Meant to type "reorganization".
Where's my response OP.
>>79668359
ok OP:
1. If Hitler won would the world be a better place right now
2. If Hitler won would we still have climate change problems and overpopulation
3. If Hitler won would all women be sluts like they are today
Thanks
>>79680681
You don't think commonly accepted definitions of good and evil are important?
>>79681188
>common sense
Who's "common" sense? Yours, mine, some type of being you couldn't even begin to understand?
I get what you mean but it's just not concrete. You can't base anything off it alone.
>>79678782
Incorrect. Eugenics targeting higher intelligence and personalities which are good for society would, in-turn, make society better. There will still be 'rubes'; however, they will just be more intelligent rubes. Going by today's standards having a society with an average IQ of 140, scientists having 180+, factory workers having 120 IQ, ect. The efficiency of the world would increase dramatically whether its a janitor cleaning a school, moving boxes in a warehouse, trimming lawns, or engineers designing much better projects.
OP is a presumptuous faggot.
It's one thing to say you're intelligent. It's patently retarded to assume you're the most intelligent. Only a fool would underestimate an untold mass of anonymous posters. Coupling basic observational skills with flowery rhetoric doesn't change that.
>>79680068
The whole concept of quantum uncertainty (especially in relation to what you're speaking about) is entirely overblown and moreover entirely misplaced. Just as a fact science has no place in philosophy and has even less place as being used for the basis of a philosophical argument. The issues therein are such that one isn't making a claim that has value in its reasoning but rather in its verifiability, which is to say that the 'quantum' shenanigans largely hinge on whether or not that is the case, and not on whether or not one is making a well-reasoned argument.
I think the truth is far more simplistic, in that we have the free will to pick between vastly limited choices, blurring the lines between 'freedom' and 'destiny'. The nuance lies in what influences us to choose between these limited choices, and whether or not even -those- choices are made freely. However in terms of logic it's difficult if not impossible to assert that these limited applications of will are not made freely, albeit it wouldn't be unreasonable to say so.
"If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons."
>>79681381
Possibly, lets think of thresholds on self awareness. The higher the IQ, the higher the threshold. A janitor with a 120 IQ would probably be far more likely to be depressed and consider suicide than a dumber one. Of course that's an assumption, but so is the way you just scaled that hierarchy and assumed it would behave in the same way.
>>79668359
What are the most important books you have read?
Have you ever met your equal?
Have you ever met a woman who was your equal?
>>79681347
Sure you can. When have you ever given something you never had to somebody?
In reality, man has no ability to create, only to reorganize and restructure. Think about it, all of our creations come from natural materials, or a synthesis thereof.
>>79681620
Depression and suicide are more-so personality traits than intelligence I'd argue. Even to a point of opposite correlation as the janitor would further realize his contribution to his society; clean school for kids, less disease as a whole, setting up a better learning environment with desk positioning, wallpapers, other creative ideas of the such.
>>79681330
No because they are constantly deviated from in the first place. What we accept commonly as 'good' or 'evil' doesn't control behavior, it creates structures of deceit. Which isn't to say it has no effect whatsoever but rather that the effects are -far- from absolute in any sense, and moreover, can be polluted by the deceitful.
Take your nation, Sverige, for instance. Sverige holds that altruism is virtuous. However, the pollution of this virtue is such that you are torn between helping others by bringing them to your land, or helping those within your land. Neither are ethically speaking -correct- within your system, which causes chaos because of bad actors who participate within that virtue system.
Would we have MORE or LESS free will in a non-deterministic universe, i.e. one in which a llama might show up to your workplace one day wearing a pink suit?
Pretty obvious that a deterministic universe is the only type of universe where any semblance of free will can exist.
You have the free choice to go to the nearest nail salon while hand-standing on a tie-die skateboard. You do have free will, at least of some kind.
Even if you're choosing from a limited pool of options, it's better than choosing from a limitless pool of options (i.e. the pink-suited llama thought experiment)
How will humanity deal with the coming energy and water hyper-crisis?
>>79681723
>le eco-friendly meme
>>79681101
I just thought it was a shitty book. Thinking 'Twilight' (as an extreme example) is written like crap doesn't mean that I'm annoyed that I dislike some vague thing it embodies.
>>79681512
Solid response. The only issue is I could see someone saying that your opinion on this limited will is based on your feels, since there is no evidence or explanation for your claim. I do understand philosophy being separated from science though, so that could nullify it.
>>79682019
>deal with
>implying
i kekd, well done, canada bro
>>79681906
And they would also, in turn, realize how much better off others were which would breed jealousy. Don't be daft, it would be a mess.
>>79681723
This is all on the assumption that all "creation" must be the same.
Or that just because somthing hasn't happened yet, means it will never happen.
It's not as if I can prove you wrong but come on, you can't prove you're right.
So why are you so willing to treat it as though it is concrete.
>>79682022
>>le eco-friendly meme
What do you mean by this? I'm hardly eco-friendly according to any Leftist's standard.
>>79682153
Depression comes from realization of being non-useful to society; not being absent of worth as a comparison. A janitor can still have worth even more-so with a high IQ as a tool to much more.
>>79682074
Yeah the whole notion that philosophy has to encompass some holistic system in which 'science is right!' is a crummy idea foisted onto the field by uncreative morons. One of the reasons the academy is in constant decline.
What should I get my wife's son for his birthday?
>>79682158
No, it's observable reality.
If it were opposite we'd be creating new elements rather than discovering or synthesizing them.
>>79681188
Explain the existence of the transistor then.
>>79682235
I was Jewing any lurkers who see products eco friendly products as meritorious in some form. All things are essentially eco friendly because they are simply reorganizations of preexisting resources.
>>79682428
>observable reality
Again this is just another term that really doesn't mean what you want it to.
How do you know what you're observing is what everyone else observes? Or, even if we all observe the same things that doesn't mean we all are right.
>>79682439
Something, made out of natural, and, or, synthesized materials that amplifies electricity.
Pretty simple, anon. A transistor is a reorganization of natural materials to amplify a natural occurring power source man that has learned to harness.
>>79681706
>What are the most important books you have read?
Plato's Republic and the Book of Songs.
>Have you ever met your equal?
In some areas my better. In the areas I'm concerned with, no.
>Have you ever met a woman who was your equal?
Never in any field, although I have met many who fancied themselves as such.
Speak about jews stealing the epic of gilgamesh from ancient sumer
>>79682367
The issue that you have with what you claim is that you have to continually posit less certain things as rebukes to skepticism, which generally indicates an unstable system.
>>79682475
I guess. Eco-friendly literally means nothing to me. Man should use what resources he has for the betterment of his soul, family, and society.
>>79681954
Free will is naturally an issue of time, space, and memory as well. You would have more purely free will in a non-deterministic universe, but it would be meaningless because ironically there would be no means by which to quantify it.
>>79681914
Player Piano by KV
In that shit he talks about something along the lines that an intelligent person can learn anything in six months.
So what's your thought on that high intelligences is more being able to grasp concepts quicker than someone of lesser. Any asshat can memorize shit and spew it out whenever needed.
Also I believe I read somewhere that genius admit when they don't shit of a subject but will show willingness to learn it, if needed. But then again I'm kinda fucking retard.
>>79682019
>deal with
It won't, top fef.
>>79682740
The scientific method.
>>79668359
WHATS YOUR DICK LOOK LIKE?
>>79677510
Do you have a favorite opretta?
>>79668359
nice weeb art fagoot
>>79682775
Explain the underlying conceptual foundation that would cause the design to be undertaken for creation.
>>79683085
I would argue that intelligence is rather the ability to recognize and correct one's mistakes more rapidly. What does he mean by learning, as well? Does he mean that an intelligent person can master something in six months or merely comprehend it fully? Such a definition is ambiguous and seems to rely a lot on personal experience rather than observation or reasoning.
>>79682895
It's a break-down of logic for you to understand. More simplification:
>Your argument: Eugenics for intelligence will not work in a society due to depression resulting from intelligence. (from working menial jobs)
>Rebuke: Incorrect as a higher intelligence not only makes one more aware of comparing to others; but, much more importantly being aware of one's own potential to contribute to society. Depression is a state resulting of being useful to society, and not resulting from a comparison to other people.
Your premise is flawed as you incorrectly identified the source of depression in human beings to the winner/loser relationship.
>>79681914
Good point, but your example doesn't fit in to the scenario that we're talking about, of a society where there is no state or god.
There is no altruism going on here in Sweden. The refugee crisis is just a big plundering operation aimed at spending all tax payer money on useless overpriced services from our politicians' and their friend's many private companies that either smuggles asylum seekers, accommodates them, feeds them, processes them or protects their rights.
What happened here in Sweden can only happen in a state where the system is set up for easy plundering. Without a state there would be no one to finance the refugee industry and there would be nothing to plunder.
>>79683154
No, not really. The format isn't conducive to anything interesting in my opinion.
>>79683094
Ok, then use the scientific method to prove the original claim
And no, not by saying use "common sense" or "observable reality".
But you won't because you can't. You've decided that right now what you can know will never be surpassed.
People 500, 1000, or 10,000 years ago probably felt the same way.
But you believe in an abrahamic God, so of course you take opinions and assumptions to be fact.
>>79683204
Creativity, which is not synonymous with creation.
Man doesn't bring transistors into existence, rather we reorganize preexisting elements into a device.
>>79683380
It's not really a rubuke, though, because it has to posit something in order to function as such. It's functionally the same as saying "but that won't be a problem". You can't readily assert it won't. Too many assumptions have to be made in order for it to function, in other words.
>>79683742
What do you think of Nietzsche's dichotomy of Apollonian and Dionysian art?
>>79683415
This doesn't discount the people within your country who do genuinely believe they are doing good, however, which is the main flaw I think you have to address. A society with no state or god will still exist within some sort of manufactured paradigm because of the nature of language and interaction.
>>79668359
Refute this intelligent, constructive liberal argument:
Every conservative or person on the Alt-Right is a DUMB NIGGER FAGGOT RACIST RAPIST FUCK FUCK NIGGER NIGGER SPICK FAGGOT KIKE CHINKY CHINK GOOK FUCKER LITERALLY HITLER WHITE FUCKING FUCKING WHITE MALE
>>79683847
Don't you mean Hölderlin?
>>79683455
Haha, getting frustrated?
You can use the scientific method to prove the original claim.
Take 100 different samples of various inanimate objects, put each of them in a plexiglass box 100 times, observe and record the amount of times they move themselves, and make sure not to forget to record the distance they've moved.
Looks like you're the one talking religious mysticism here.
>>79683973
No Friedrich Nietzsche.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian
>>79683742
Your idea have just as many presumptions in predicting the future. The difference here is that your premise is based on a false notion that with a higher IQ people working menial jobs would start shooting themselves. Furthering into this, eugenics for personality and intelligence would also lower crime rate, increase charity, negate propaganda from taking effect, and solving problems more-so in society. All factors today which are related to genetic disposition towards intelligence and personality characteristics.
Is there a higher power like a god?
Which religion is the closet to being logical?
Are an atheist?
>>79684004
Your burden of proof is obviously much much lower than mine.
I'm not smart enough to prove you wrong, or know for sure either way. But I do know that so far you have proved nothing. And that your certainty is very odd.
>>79684269
>Is there a higher power like a god?
No.
>Which religion is the closet to being logical?
Buddhism or Deism
Are an atheist?
No
>>79684178
I don't understand how one can be an atheist and not a eugenicist, which is the logical and rational conclusion of atheism. For if atheism is true, eugenics would be a form of altruism as it attempts to elevate the human race beyond it's current state of being.
>>79684058
>posts MTV libshit propagnada
Not a fucking argument. If you are the most intelligent person on this board why cant you make an argument against being non-sensical and totally rude to people.
A liberal said to me, "Calling a white male worthless degenerate neanderthal, and telling him to kill himself is the most intelligent political argument to ever be uttered in the last 1000 years".
Disprove his argument constructively, and without using your emotion, and then you can prove yourself as the most intelligent person on this board.
>>79684495
>refute absurdity
Lol, there's nothing to refute. The reason I posted the "MTV libshit propagnada" as you put it is because there isn't anything there to refute, just someone acting emotionally. You can only appeal to something like that on an emotional level, not a logical one.
>>79684426
The average IQ is continually raising so there's no need other than time involved. I also have respect for other people and their choices.
Additionally eugenics is impossible to realistically impose on citizens. What society would want it? Nazi Germany? How well did that turn out?
>tfw OP is just parroting everything I and many others concluded years ago now.
Congratulations OP you're not a lobotomized pleb, which altough good, is not impressive.
saged
>>79684374
>But I do know that so far you have proved nothing.
You're right!
One can not prove the existence of God -such a thing is heresy btw- only to demonstrate it is both reasonable and rational to have faith in His existence.
>>79683913
I don't see anything wrong with people wanting to help other people in need. Believe it or not but I share almost the exact same values as all the crazy cucks here. I think the source of all our problems here is taxation. If we didn't have a treasury that our politicians could plunder from then they would never have the incentive to brainwash my countrymen this much and turn them into such a destructive force. I want to be a libertarian even though I know that it can just never work. You need some sort of higher principles that people should be discouraged from straying too far from.
>>79684751
>it is both reasonable and rational to have faith in His existence.
>>79684721
I don't advocate nor support eugenics. Just trying to stay honest, it seems like if man really is just a soulless creature, and good and evil don't exist, he might as well apply his genius to dialectically improving his state of being by culling/sterilizing less endowed soulless creatures.
>>79684751
This whole discussion was pointless.
You pick a point in the sky and build everything around it, no matter how complicated the explanation will get. No matter how little sense it makes. And more importantly no matter how little proof you have.
You are so certain of things because it allows you not to think.
>>79668359
Why are you such a pugnacious little fagget?
>>79684721
>average IQ is rising
It doesn't work that way.
>>79684943
Go back, read our exchange, and try to refute me.
>>79685015
I've clearly thought about things much more than you have. You're the one implying a certain mysticism in which inanimate objects can move themselves, and that man has the power to bring elements into existence.
>>79681620 That's not even taking into account that smart people can be lady
as fuck too.
>>79684779
The point is that those 'higher principles' are just as easily corrupted.
>>79684677
If you can only appeal to an emotionally controlled argument with your own emotionally controlled argument, then that just sounds like fighting fire with fire. Can you make an argument to why fighting fire with fire is an intelligent solution.
Also, how can someone argue against intelligently against all violence? Isn't violence an irremovable part of human nature? Self-proclaimed intelligent people (not talking about you) seem argue to why violence is necessary it seems.
>>79685028
Well it can under certain parameters. The average IQ rose by 30 points from 1900 to 2012 so that it is definitely a gain. Question is if it will continue.
>>79685004
>it seems like if man really is just a soulless creature, and good and evil don't exist, he might as well apply his genius to dialectically improving his state of being by culling/sterilizing less endowed soulless creatures.
Just because I don't believe in souls doesn't mean I view people as just tools
>>79685088
Just throw an argument at me
>>79679354
187 here are you even trying faggot?
>>79685088
You need Christianity to have meaning. It's artificial. You've built it into yourself because you are lacking any real desire or emotion. You are "soulless".
You would rather sit for eternity in a garden than do all the great things people have done, help achieve all the amazing things we've achieved.
All the empires, and architectural feats. All the discoveries across the earth and into space. All the understanding we now have is utter garbage to you.
You would rather sit in a garden for all eternity.
I would gladly kill every last member of the abrahamic religions. You are human garbage.
>>79684721
>How would you impose eugenics
Clearly Eugenics to be applied would not take a 100% affect. To maximize effect though you can give incentives such as after scoring low on an IQ test you can sterilize yourself for money from the government. (also plays into the "who wants kids in 2016" theme) Can also sterilize people without their consent. The difficulty with sterilizing without consent is who you entrust to do so. Corruption in government tends to be unavoidable for the most part. So from here you take IQ averages for areas then reduce sperm count in the area to reduce chances of procreating.
>t seems like if man really is just a soulless creature
Don't get the wrong idea. Religion (Christianity) is amazing for the stupid people in society. Makes them not act on urges based on only being able to think individualistically.
>>79685476
>emotionally controlled argument
That is your mistake. They aren't arguments.
>>79685683
Huh. That was actually what I wanted to hear. Thanks for putting up with the banter. You're a swell goy.
>>79685468
Yes but living in a libertarian society and having something to uphold those principles, whether it's religious scripture or a god or a king or a constitution, that's the closest we can get to a society that has the potential to be fault free. Don't you agree?
>>79685870
The banter must flow.
>>79685631
>To maximize effect though you can give incentives such as after scoring low on an IQ test you can sterilize yourself for money from the government.
Not enough people would participate to have an actual effect
>Can also sterilize people without their consent
Have fun getting overthrown
>>79685879
No, because again, principles can be abused and corrupted to lose their meaning. You can't think of a principle that I wouldn't be able to use against you.
>>79680068
>just because we cannot predict quantum movements does not mean that they are not fixed
Even if an all sensing, all predicting mechanism could prove to us it could predict everything it would have weaknesses.
Either it knows all and doesn't need to verify predictions, thus it hasn't proven to itself that it is all knowing, what it has is indistinguishable from ignorance.
Or it doesn't really know all and needs to verify predictions in which case it can be overwhelmed by wondering if it knows something like the hash of all previous hash values put together including the final hash - unless it has the power to duplicate universes including itself to just to prove to itself that everything is determined *so far*.
Determinism slightly disproved.
>>79685825
So you want me to refute the First Mover?
>>79685626
Damn, man.
And I wasn't even trying to trigger you.
Here's a protip: An indefensible belief is not worth possessing.
>>79686076
No, nobody has done that to date.
Would you argue with the fact that inanimate objects can't move themselves, and man has no power to bring elements into existence --only to reorganize or synthesize preexisting ones?
>>79686222
I'm not triggered.
You simply choose to believe with all the certainty in the world.
I'm just not sure how an adult man could stoop so low. I really think it's just because you don't want to think. You can tuck it away and fill your head with happy thoughts.
>>79686020
Ok give me your best shot. Remember that we're in the scenario that I painted here >>79685879. A libertarian society with a god or king or constitution of sorts that says these things:
>Non-aggression pact.
>3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
>4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
>5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
>6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
>7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
>8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
>9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
>10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
>11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
>12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
>13 Thou shalt not kill.
>14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
>15 Thou shalt not steal.
>16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
>17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
>>79686420
>Man has no power to bring elements into existence
I won't insult your intelligence. I assume you just worded that incorrectly
https://www.reference.com/science/list-man-made-elements-7987b8fe80f489
>Inanimate objects can't move themselves
How is this relevant exactly?
>>79686657
Whoever is responsible for upholding these commandments punishes you if you break them.
>>79684412
Can you tell us more about your theism and what experiances and books led you to that conclusion?
Do you find this argument convincing
>http://pastebin.com/9XxNnSU6
>>79686488
That's right, I believe with a certainty man can not bring new elements into existence without synthesizing preexisting elements, and that inanimate objects don't move themselves.
Please, show me a rock that moves on it's own, and name an element man has brought into existence without synthesizing preexisting elements.
You're just demonstrating that atheists are more into mysticism than religious people, so we can continue this discussion till the thread expires as far as I'm concerned.
>>79686705
Not trying to insult your intelligence, but do you know the difference between synthesis and creation?
>>79686922
>man can not bring new elements into existence without synthesizing preexisting elements
Ok I misread your prior post.
If I have read all of your comments and understood them clearly and completely, does that mean that I am intelligent? Or have you formulated all your comments in such a way that even a person of average intelligence could comprehend them?
Why are you NOT responding to this stupid post?
>>79686705
>How is this relevant exactly?
How was the universe created without a creator?
An unintelligent blob of mass moved and organized itself into the universe?
>>79687259
>>79687259
>An unintelligent blob of mass moved and organized itself into the universe
I'd say some form of quantum fluctuation is more likely than a piece of mass or a God.
Do you have issues with that?
>I'm the most intelligent person on /pol/ right now
YOU ARE A VILE NIGGER
>>79687639
Yes, a quantum fluctuation signifies a form of order predating the Big Bang. A framework of physics so-to-speak that allowed the Big Bang to occur and subsequently organize into the universe as we know it now.
Your argument implies an orderless nothing all of a sudden had a tremendous spike in energy (why? from where? Deus ex Machina anyone?) which created all mass and organized itself into the universe.
![1277360935176[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/W3ZBJIQ.png "1277360935176[1]")
