Please post all off-topic comments for the week in this thread. They will not be post in the main articles.
I once saw a clip from a very old episode of the soap opera The Young and the Restless, that was so powerful, I never forgot it.
A greedy landlord planned to bulldoze some low income apartments to make room for more expensive ones. As a result, a bunch of poor senior citizens were being forced to move out.
One of them came to his office.
“You think you got it all figured out,” she said to him. “Well one of these days, someone smarter than you are is gona come along and give you a taste of your own medicine, and skin you right down to the bone! Then you’ll be poor like the rest of us. Only, you’ll be all alone. At least we have each other!”
The rich landlord looked slightly frightened by the old lady’s prophecy.
“Because if there’s two things you learn growing old,” she said as she walked out of his office, “one is nobody ever has anything all figured out, and the other is…”
She grabbed the cardboard cut-out of the fancy buildings he was planning to build and weakly broke it in half over her knee.
“nothing lasts forever”
Pumpkin Person 
Incredible!
And they guy was booked for complaining about it!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh man.
Does the President have the power to ban people from muslim countries coming in the constitution?
Yes.
Do the jews decide who comes to america?
Yes.
Why do so many people hate jews?
See Question 1.
No they don’t, and the existence of the abuse of discretion standard alone proves as much: judges may reasonably differ in their application of the law per the law itself.
Original intent is a fantasyland rhetorical gambit….
Jews hack exploits in the system….they didn’t make the exploits.
doesn’t matter.
ROME wins.
1) One example is the study i presented on schizophrenia being a side effect of increased brain complexity. Propensity probability is what gives justification to the idea of relative validation. I wouldn’t take science lessons from Afro, Science isn’t math, and just because you can’t be 100% sure of a relationship between variables does not warrant epistemic agnosticism. Ad hoc does not justify hand waving, falsifiability does tho
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2008-9-8-r124
2) Small n is not an issue when multiple studies arrive at the same result. Let’s not pretend that I haven’t already cited studies that used connectome data or just large ns that still vindicate me. PFIT is definitely not the only hypothesis or theory or even the only parameter when it comes to IQ construct validity. Either way I’ve refuted every objection you had to the construct validity of IQ:
2a: IQ Is variable like most physiological systems
2b: IQ does not need 1:1 repeatability.
2c: Metabolic regulation, cerebral bloodflow, functional connectivity, neuron density, neuron complexity, brain size, Synaptic plasticity all have causal effects on IQ
2d: All forms of measurements are circularly constructed.
2e: Experience dependency makes the separation of genes and evironment a false dichotomy, at least concerning the brain. Subsequently, social class and educational attainment are not confounds to IQ tests, but instead are byproducts and vice versa.
All points I’ve provided citations to, I can repost them if you’d like, followed by quotes. All points are connected too. Until you can address this, your criticism is unwarranted and any attempts at ad nauseam will be ignored.
maybe swank is right.
maybe scalia was not a prophet.
maybe he was just another greaseball.
NOT!
well….if you believe original intent is the only conceivable jurisprudence…
“What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended.”
You will sometimes hear [originalism] described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don’t care about the intent
the irony is that what you view as the only conceivable jurisprudence is perhaps the most ‘activist’ jurisprudence around. the personal moral inclination of the judge is yuge with probably the most famous principle of ‘intent’ interpretation: the ‘golden rule,’ you follow what the words mean unless the words would work an (in the judge’s mind) unjust result contra (in the judge’s mind) public policy. a similar rule, the ‘mischief rule,’ is even more permissive to that end…
a good lawyer or jurist makes order from chaos — more importantly, convinces you that there was no chaos in the first place. scalia changes the law while convincing you that the law merely was always this way.
he was an artist!
1) How does the observation disconfirm ab adaptationist hypothesis?
Ad-hoc hypotheses aren’t independently verified so yea it kinds does justify handwaving. Are ad-hoc hypotheses good science?
2) P-FIT isn’t construct validity. Correlations and correlations from images isn’t construct validity. It’s also not a theory. What novel, risky predictions does the theory make? A small study in elderly Chinese people isn’t evidence for construct validity.
2a) IQ isn’t physiological because physiologists don’t rank-order traits.
2b) Irrelevant to construct valid which is mechanistically relating differences in one to variable to differences in another.
2c) what’s your definition of “causal”? Which genes control them? Any trait analyses into molecular pathways that cause the supposed trait variation?
2d) are thermometers? Or were they validated with other, unrelated measures?
2e) I’m aware. And it doesn’t help your thesis, it helps mine. Richardson and Norgate’s whole response to Jung and Haier was about experience-dependency and how and why, due to experience-dependency, the correlations of correlations and correlations from images are not useful.
“Until you can address this, your criticism is unwarranted and any attempts at ad nauseam will be ignored.”
Addressed. Take the last word. Let’s agree to disagree.
1) I already explained, try to read better.
1a) All new Scientific Hypothesis’ are ad hoc. You need to be more specific, which theories do you have a problem with? EP has at least a handful of independently verified hypothesis’.
2) Cerebral blood flow which subsequently that this persists in the fossil record, as our this bloodflow has increased proportionately twice as much as Brain size. Ultimately it’s a result of PFIT theory. Functional connectivity is useless without this mechanism propagating it.
2a) Define rank order.
2b) not irrelevant. It just means the measurement has a small standard of error, which can of course be cancelled out by multiple retest attempts.
2c) I think the genetic variation of Intelligence between individuals is non-significant, but the phenotypic variation is wide.
2d) Look at 2c, in the previous comment.
2e) No it helps mine. You havent made cogent argument as to why it wouldn’t.
“Addressed. Take the last word. Let’s agree to disagree.”
You can disagree if you wan’t RR, but that doesn’t mean you’re right 🙂
“1) I already explained, try to read better.”
If the conditions of the OEE aren’t known, and can’t be known, how do you know if it’s a byproduct or adaptation? You can’t know.
“You need to be more specific, which theories do you have a problem with?”
All of them.
“Ultimately it’s a result of PFIT theory. Functional connectivity is useless without this mechanism propagating it.”
No it isn’t; again, it’s correlations from correlations and correlations from images, that’s not causation.
“Define rank order”
A ranking is a relationship between a set of items such that, for any two items, the first is either ‘ranked higher than’, ‘ranked lower than’ or ‘ranked equal to’ the second. In mathematics, this is known as a weak order or total preorder of objects.
“not irrelevant. It just means the measurement has a small standard of error, which can of course be cancelled out by multiple retest attempts.”
Of course it’s irrelevant, I’ve already shown what construct validity is, it’s mechanistically relating the difference in one variable to a difference in another. No such thing exists for IQ. (Which test?)
“I think the genetic variation of Intelligence between individuals is non-significant, but the phenotypic variation is wide.”
Why? What causes differences in ‘intelligence’ between individuals? how do IQ tests capture this variation between individuals if IQ tests are tests of knowledge and learned skills and not ‘intelligence’?
“Look at 2c, in the previous comment.”
That doesn’t answer my question.
“No it helps mine. You havent made cogent argument as to why it wouldn’t.”
Malnutrition, adverse substance abuse, stress, experience in working-class situations all affect experience-dependency. Also note:
Finally, we note that their whole model is based on a feedforward model of higher cerebral functions, which many would argue is outmoded. Looking for simple deterministic bases of intelligence variation does not reflect how the dynamics of the brain work (Freeman 2001). Having evolved to deal with changeable environments, cognitive systems must wring predictability from deep structures in the dynamic flow of information using massive reciprocal connections and cooperative processing between centres. This suggests quite different foundations for a theory of intelligent systems (Richardson 2006).
From Richardson and Norgate 2007.
Social class is a huge confound to IQ test-taking.
Click to access 3398d781543cd0edcf51f181074f4c3ff35b.pdf
Epigenetic effects of stress also affect test-taking performance as well. It’s clear the experience-dependency helps my argument and not yours.
“You can disagree if you wan’t RR, but that doesn’t mean you’re right 🙂”
No, let’s agree that we should disagree since we can’t come to an agreement here.
Take the last word. Done with this conversation. I’ve said what I need to.
“how do you know if it’s a byproduct or adaptation?”
I Provided citation and quotes on this in Pumpkin’s Simon Baron-Cohen post. Using propensity probability, probabilistic causation, and simple deductive reasoning to organize empirical experiments, you can make an accurate explanatory theory. Technology will increase and so will the accuracy of these measurements. I’d suggest reading the paper, the question you’re asking can be easily answered. It’s redundant for me to just repeat myself. You may like doing it, but it’s not for me.
“All of them.”
How? Do you have another criticism other than “ad hoc” because I can think of many EP hypothesis’ that have been independently verified, which falsifies your absolute claim.
“No it isn’t; again, it’s correlations from correlations and correlations from images, that’s not causation.”
The correlations are causal. Even if the correlations were small, they’d still be caual. All tests that require any kind of thought will have a causal connection with Global and local functional connectivity.
Secondly, you stated: “What novel, risky predictions does the theory make?”
Cerebral bloodflow’s causal effect on IQ independently verifies functional connectivity, it is the main mechnism this connectivity occurs through, and has been under more selection in hominins than even brain size.
1)Neuroimaging fields, are some of the largest growing scientific disciplines
2)The ‘replication crisis’ is long gone, because of major advances in technology inside the field.
3) The integration of the brain/the winner take all system, means false positives are no longer a serious concern.
4) Meta analysis can be useful, but can degrade the actual predictive power of an association.
5)functional connectivity is only some of the variance.
“No such thing exists for IQ. ”
I covered this in many posts, which I’m still waiting for you to address, until then it’s just more ad nauseam and subsequently not worth my time.
“A ranking is a relationship between a set of items such that, for any two items, the first is either ‘ranked higher than’, ‘ranked lower than’ or ‘ranked equal to’ the second. ”
Measuring systems are usually numbered.
“how do IQ tests capture this variation between individuals if IQ tests are tests of knowledge and learned skills and not ‘intelligence’?”
What dictates this potential is synaptic plasticity, which itself has it’s own variablity dependent on the environment. Synaptic plasticity is also predicted by IQ tests, which I’ve provided citations too as well.
“That doesn’t answer my question.”
Yes it does, IQ has been independently validated by all measures I listed.
“It’s clear the experience-dependency helps my argument and not yours.”
Epigenetic is Genetic, whether the DNA sequence changes or not it still involves the manipulation of gene expression. Words are not things. If you actually knew my argument you’d realize Experience dependency is not where we disagree.
“Done with this conversation. I’ve said what I need to.”
Glad you concede.
“How? Do you have another criticism other than “ad hoc” because I can think of many EP hypothesis’ that have been independently verified, which falsifies your absolute claim.”
P1) A just-so story is an ad-hoc hypothesis; an ad-hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis that is not independently verified
P2) The hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation is independently verified if and only if it sucessfully predicts a novel fact (an observation that was not used in the construction of the hypothesis and would be expected if the trait were an adaptation and unexpected if the trait were a byproduct).
P3) No prediction of this nature is possible because the hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation is underdetermined by all possible observations (meaning there are no hallmarks of adaptation).
P4) EP hypotheses cannot be independently verified (they are inherently ad-hoc)
C) Therefore EP hypotheses are just-so stories.
I see no reason to believe the correlations are causal. What you wrote doesn’t do it for me. Correlations of correlations and correlations from images aren’t causation.
“Measuring systems are usually numbered.”
So? That doesn’t mean physiologists rank order traits.
“Yes it does, IQ has been independently validated by all measures I listed.”
What’s an independent verifier?
“Epigenetic is Genetic,”
What’s the argument?
“Glad you concede.”
Would giving you the final word be conceding? How would we know when our discussion is over?
P3 is an invalid premise. I’ve provided a substantial amount of evidence for Schizophrenia being a spandrel of increased cognitive ability.
“I see no reason to believe the correlations are causal.”
That’s because you have not read the literature. We can continue this when you’re up to date and can offer real criticism. Thus far, you’ve only hand waved conclusions which is disappointing, but was ultimately what i expected from you.
“So? That doesn’t mean physiologists rank order traits.”
IQ is a measurement. How can you measure something without some form of ordered symbolism?
“What’s an independent verifier?”
I thought you knew? All items I listed showed causal correlations to IQ, some even showed causal correlations to open skill performance, like flying a plane. Each Test is “novel” as well because the relationship was discovered after IQ tests were first made. and each is non to increase the efficiency of neural activity.
“What’s the argument?”
It should be obvious, but sometimes i forget you’re a little slower than the rest of us. Epigenetics is simply the expression of the genome, by definition it is still genetic inheritance, just not the classical form.
“How would we know when our discussion is over?”
If you walk away without addressing any of my citations or arguments, then you have conceded the debate. Handwaving and pretending to take the intellectual high road doesn’t cut it and is the most cliche cop out that exists on the internet.
#dontbelikeAfro
The first response was an accident pumpkin, please delete it
“P3 is an invalid premise.”
Why?
“That’s because you have not read the literature”
Of course I have. I still find no reason to believe they’re causal.
“How can you measure something without some form of ordered symbolism?”
When I say “rank order” I mean a higher number better than a lower number.
“I thought you knew?”
Why should I assume?
“All items I listed showed causal correlations to IQ, some even showed causal correlations to open skill performance, like flying a plane.”
How can IQ—logically—cause?
“Epigenetics is simply the expression of the genome, by definition it is still genetic inheritance, just not the classical form.”
It’s called nongenetic inheritance for a reason.
“If you walk away without addressing any of my citations or arguments, then you have conceded the debate.”
No.
“I thought you knew?”
I know what it is. I’m asking you.
“Why?”
As outlined in my post on Schizophrenia, it’s pretty easy deducing what is a spandrel and what is a positively selected adaptation.
“Of course I have.”
Oh really? Whats the latest paper you’ve read? What is the most basic computational unit of the brain? What is the main consensus on how the brain integrates itself? What’s your opinion on the neurogenesis debate?
“When I say “rank order” I mean a higher number better than a lower number.”
“better” is subjective. Higher IQ is only better because of the context. Efficient Brains are energetically expensive and I doubt they’re always selected for.
“How can IQ—logically—cause?”
The items I listed are biological constructs that Match IQ measurements, if anything IQ is caused by them, not the other way around.
‘It’s called nongenetic inheritance for a reason.”
Semantic reasons*
“No.”
Still waiting.
“As outlined in my post on Schizophrenia, it’s pretty easy deducing what is a spandrel and what is a positively selected adaptation.”
Nope. It’s underdetermined by all other possible explanations. It’s a conceptual objection.
P2) The hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation is independently verified if and only if it successfully predicts a novel fact (an observation that was not used in the construction of the hypothesis and would be expected if the trait were an adaptation and unexpected if the trait were a byproduct).
“Oh really? Whats the latest paper you’ve read? What is the most basic computational unit of the brain? What is the main consensus on how the brain integrates itself? What’s your opinion on the neurogenesis debate?”
All of them. What? What’s the consensus? What’s the debate?
““better” is subjective. Higher IQ is only better because of the context. Efficient Brains are energetically expensive and I doubt they’re always selected for.”
What context? ‘efficient brains’? Do higher IQ people’s brains use more caloric (glucose) energy? Or do they use ketones?
“The items I listed are biological constructs that Match IQ measurements, if anything IQ is caused by them, not the other way around.”
like synaptic plasticity? post hoc ergo propter hoc. you don’t know if that’s causal to taking the tests.
“Semantic reasons*”
Nope.
“Still waiting.”
waiting for what? you see correlations between the brain and test-taking and assume they’re causal because X. the mental is underdetermined by the physical
By the way, premises aren’t valid or invalid. Arguments are. Premises are either true or false.
Sorry. I forgot logic is imaginary. Thus, you can call premises valid or invalid, sound or unsound, because it’s arbitrary whether or not premises are true or false or sound or unsound or valid or invalid.
In all seriousness, you tell me I don’t know anything about basic philosophy but then you say my premise is “invalid” which shows you don’t know anything about basic philosophy.
Either way there is no compelling evidence that mental traits are inherited because the mental is undetermined by the physical. Mental states are irreducible to physical states. The mental is irreducible to the physical.
And the points that were made regarding experience-dependency and P-FIT are sound.
What’s your argument regarding PFIT? Premises and conclusion, no “address the citations”, because that’s not an argument. Are you able to provide a sound, valid argument with true premises regarding P-FIT or can you only say to me “address the citations”? Show me what you got Melo. Show me that you know some basic philosophy.
“Nope. ”
Yawn* I’ve already refuted that silly concept. All the papers I’ve provided have independently verified the Hypothesis that Schizophrenia is a spandrel. We can continue this argument at the Simon Baron Cohen post. Assuming you have something other than an already refuted assertion to provide as a counter conjecture.
“All of them. What? What’s the consensus? What’s the debate”
Ah so you haven’t read the literature then. It’s not hard i just check in on Journals like Cortex and Neuroimage here and there. Phys.org, Reddit, and Science daily are all useful as well.
“What context? ‘efficient brains’?”
I was saying that High IQ is not always adaptive, because intelligence is energetically expensive, and not the “best” adaptation possible. “better” is subjective.
“Do higher IQ people’s brains use more caloric (glucose) energy? Or do they use ketones?”
More intelligent people don’t use more on either, but both ketone and glucose have causal effects on intelligence.
“like synaptic plasticity? post hoc ergo propter hoc. you don’t know if that’s causal to taking the tests.”
More like: Metabolic regulation, cerebral bloodflow, functional connectivity, neuron density, neuron complexity, brain size, and Synaptic plasticity.
All of which have been tested in real time. So no it’s not post hoc ergo propter hoc.
“Nope.”
In what way is Epigentics not genetic?
” I forgot logic is imaginary. Thus, you can call premises valid or invalid, sound or unsound, because it’s arbitrary whether or not premises are true or false or sound or unsound or valid or invalid.”
That’s not what “imaginary” means. Hence why you are so offended by the term. it doesn’t make logic useless, it just makes it dependent on context.
“then you say my premise is “invalid” which shows you don’t know anything about basic philosophy.”
-facepalm-
I understand that ‘invalid’ and ‘false’ are not the same thing, the fact that I have to explain myself is further evidence of your stupidity. I’m not semantic, by Invalid i mean your premise is wrong.
“Show me what you got Melo. Show me that you know some basic philosophy.”
My argument, or main point was that IQ is construct valid, I presented multiple statements or premises that back this conclusion. I presented phsyiological and biological variabes that match with IQ to a significant, degree and then refuted all criticisms you sent my way. I independently verified all assertions with novel predictions and measurements from unrelated fields(like heritability).
I’m not making a syllogism, not because i cant, because they’re easy, so easy that they’re overly simplistic and can not fully capture the nuances of my concept. I refuse because I want you to actually read my thesis, instead of haphazardly skimming through it and then committing the ad nauseam fallacy.
“The mental is irreducible to the physical”
I already refuted that assertion.
“I’ve already refuted that silly concept”
What’s the evolutionary argument for the selection of the byproduct? How does it disconfirm an adaptationist hypothesis?
You didn’t refute a thing. “Responded to” and “refuted” are two different concepts.
“Ah so you haven’t read the literature then. It’s not hard i just check in on Journals like Cortex and Neuroimage here and there. Phys.org, Reddit, and Science daily are all useful as well.”
I don’t really care to go through this now. We can do it in the future. My time is short.
“More intelligent people don’t use more on either, but both ketone and glucose have causal effects on intelligence.”
Source?
“All of which have been tested in real time. So no it’s not post hoc ergo propter hoc.”
Can’t show causation.
“In what way is Epigentics not genetic?”
Genes don’t cause the inheritance.
“I independently verified all assertions with novel predictions and measurements from unrelated fields(like heritability).”
What is independent verification? You’ve still yet to answer. Heritability is useless for humans. Which novel predictions?
“I understand that ‘invalid’ and ‘false’ are not the same thing,”
So my premise, according to you, is false and not invalid. Words matter.
“I’m not making a syllogism, not because i cant, because they’re easy”
So do it.
“I already refuted that assertion.”
What’s the argument?
“What’s the evolutionary argument for the selection of the byproduct? How does it disconfirm an adaptationist hypothesis?”
Well first it’s important to clear this misconception: Byproduct and adaptationist explanations are not mutually exclusive. Schizophrenia is a byproduct, but by nature by product traits accompany adapted ones. The conclusion and premises behind the argument all reside in the paragraphs above and the quotes form the citations.
“Source?’
https://www.ruled.me/3-reasons-keto-better-for-brain/
“Can’t show causation.”
Oh I did. Increase in most Items I listed showed a direct enhanced performance on IQ tests. Measurement error was of course controlled for.
“Genes don’t cause the inheritance.”
Gene expression still involves genes.
“You’ve still yet to answer.”
What’s the point when you wont shut the fuck up about it?
“Words matter.”
Not to that extreme of an extent. I will continue to use the terms interchangeably, get used to it.
“So do it.”
It’s a waste of time. i presented my argument, not my fault if you ignore it.
“What’s the argument?”
Logic is imaginary. Anomalous monism, while a sound priori argument, does not reflect reality. Newtonian mechanics is the perfect example. The Math is completely sound, but it has empirical anomalies, hence why it was improved by Einstein and Lorentz.
“The conclusion and premises behind the argument all reside in the paragraphs above and the quotes form the citations.”
And they’re just-so stories.
“https://www.ruled.me/3-reasons-keto-better-for-brain/”
No no. A source showing that more “intelligent” people use ketones for brain energy. I don’t need these articles Melo. I’m well aware of this information. I’m asking for a source for your specific claim.
“Oh I did. Increase in most Items I listed showed a direct enhanced performance on IQ tests. Measurement error was of course controlled for.”
“direct”? How does it do that?
“Gene expression still involves genes.”
Genes don’t cause the inheritance.
“What’s the point when you wont shut the fuck up about it?”
Why won’t you answer?
“Not to that extreme of an extent. I will continue to use the terms interchangeably, get used to it.”
Lol
“It’s a waste of time”
Logical arguments are a waste of time? We could cut down on a lot of useless writing by just addressing arguments. I guess Melo likes wasting time and is not privy to the benefits of time management.
“Anomalous monism, while a sound priori argument, does not reflect reality.”
It’s not an empirical question.
retard here say:
”huh… schizophrenia is caused by social factors”
Would be:
schizophrenia is basically or fundamentally hyper-paranoia, mentalistic =about people, or mechanicistic = about other elements of reality. [but mostly about people or indirectly related with people].
Majority of schizophrenia symptoms starts after adolescence. Coincidence**
So, in all places, with different cultures, majority of schizophrenic people start to became mad in the same age-range…
Maybe
all human cultures share universal similarities
and one of them is: attack the odds since childhood.
Even if it was the case,
there are many schizophrenic people who ARE NOT bullied in school, social or family environment, in other words, they had and have a good environments, BUT
a lot of people who are SEVERILY sadistically persecute’s in social environments, namely in schools BUT they don’t became schizophrenic…
In schizophrenic patient families THERE ARE relatives with partial manifestation of this disorder even many them are highly creative, it’s suggest some or significant heterozygotic advantage here, seems it’s also dependent about another family common traits, for example, higher cognitive skills. Not just the partial manifestation in near relatives but also the presence of isolated traits too, in other relatives. coincidence*
I could toss my refferences but…
And remember, people as rr LOVE or MUST NEED the over-use of abstractions, dishonest distortions of what you say and arrogant/uber-pedantic behavior TO SURVIVE in debates, without all this dirty tactics they no had a longer live here.
“And they’re just-so stories.”
Not at all. If you can’t criticize the methodology, my point stands.
” A source showing that more “intelligent” people use ketones for brain energy. ”
All I said was:
“ketone and glucose have causal effects on intelligence.”
And I substantiated this. Learn to read.
“How does it do that?”
An increase in cerebral blood flow causes increased functional connectivity between brain regions, which then translates to higher score on IQ tests.
“Genes don’t cause the inheritance.”
Genes are necessary for the inheritance.
“Why won’t you answer?”
Because it’s pointless.
“I guess Melo likes wasting time and is not privy to the benefits of time management.”
No dipshit, it saves time by just reading better. My concepts are too nuanced for a syllogism I’d rather make a collection of statements backed by research and then extrapolate from that.
“It’s not an empirical question.”
Exactly, so while it could be true “theoretically” it’s not true in reality.
Again for all proto-experts here: vocabulary size and correlates are one the fundamental aspects of cognition, what IQ measure/and compare.
Vocabulary size:
– increase, obviously, during childhood, adolescence and early adulthood, then it’s become more stable [if you are not a polyglot];
– even during this period of increasing, it’s doesn’t mean it’s unstable;
– vocabulary is strongly related with semantic memory capacity [if not just a expression of it];
– when something weird starts to happen with it so it’s mean the brain is likely becoming sick;
– everyone who teach or is in education area know, like it or not, honestly or not, that vocabulary differences are mostly if not totally unsolvable. Since early age people starts to have this differences and it’s never resolved, of course i’m talking more about mother tongue;
– even when people is in the same social environment [or ”even”] this differences persists because [not] for really clueless people here, we are all the time talking about
AVERAGE.
Many people here are still in the basics of correlation and causation dilema, don’t understand it and probably never will understand it. When someone say ”there is a correlation between educational atainment and higher IQ”, this people are not saying that most ones with higher educational atainment have the same average IQ, because still there are differences, qualitative and quantitative in the same range.
How explain verbal and non-verbal tilt between humanities and stem*
Different environment too*
Probably, there are environmental differences but it’s different people who engage in different activities: verbally oriented ones considerably more prone to engage in literature and nonverbally oriented ones considerably more prone to engage in math-or practical sciences activities, on very average.
The death of psychology start when abstractions become over-used to explain behavioral differences instead logic or practically perceived ones. And abstractions are always very good to deny immediate and even long term reality for: mythological minds.
Each time someone comes with just so story word, your answer him it’s a just so argument. Distinction between ad hoc or non ad hoc hypothesis is complete garbage. The just so argument is only elucubrating against any special science hypothesis on the ground on doubts against the special science itself. So no answer will ever be satisfactory.
For example, you could say Mendel law of segregation is a just so hypothesis because they are cases when it doesn’t apply and to explain those cases, you need to formulate hypothesis , that are necessarily ad hoc. It s a total bullshit easy to follow and impossible to disprove claim. Because it’s a meta critic, against any caeteris paribus law, that disguises itself into a specific and legitimate argument against a given hypothesis.
I would never bother answering any « just so » or « ad hoc » or similar deceitful arguments, but you could pick up some interning fact to refine the hypothesis you re trying to prove.
In some criticism, you can somestimes pick up interesting counter-hypothesis, while ignoring the “just so” garbage.
For example, when RR said traits important for natural selection should have a smaller sd because they are vital. This hypothesis can be tested. As everything in any special sciences, it will be caeteris paribus, but it can be falsified by any of the three methods I refered to (internal contradiction, facts that doesn’t match, or a better hypothesis).
For example, this hypothesis doesn’t seem to be very good. For example, take NBA players. They are on average 199 cm. So there quite different from the rest of population and they have been partially recruited for tallness. But is their average sd less than 7 cm ? We should look at him but it’s not obvious at all. It’s really possible that the sd has widen not narrowed.
The same when you have a high gifted kid environment. Does the sd in Davidson Nevada institute is smaller than in a high school class ? I would guess it’ s the same or more …
But that aren’t natural selection groups, but one could follow important selected criteria and see if when they are recruited, the sd of the group tend to lessen. For example,is the average variation of actual giraffe neck smaller than the proto-giraffe (if there is such a thing, I don’t know) one ?
So not every critic is pure garbage, the inconsistencies, the non-fitting facts, and the alternate hypothesis, deserve to be discussed (I’d guess it is less than 10% of what I read when I see “just so” matters).
Just-so stories are ad-hoc hypotheses and ad-hoc hypotheses are hypotheses that cannot be independently verified. Is there anything wrong with that statement? Why?
How is the argument identifying EP hypotheses as just-so stories a “just-so argument”?
How is the distinction between ad-hoc and non-ad-hoc ‘complete garbage’? Ad-hoc hypotheses are independently verifiable; non-ad-hoc hypotheses are not.
“It s a total bullshit easy to follow and impossible to disprove claim. Because it’s a meta critic, against any caeteris paribus law, that disguises itself into a specific and legitimate argument against a given hypothesis”
The argument identifying EP hypotheses as just-so stories is a valid argument. It is a legitimate argument and EPists can’t answer it because there is no EP hypothesis that’s not ad-hoc.
The argument identifying EP hypotheses as just-so stories is a valid argument. It is a legitimate argument and EPists can’t answer it because there is no EP hypothesis that’s not ad-hoc.
—> exactly and you could say the same about biology, economy, genetics and all sciences except physics . You could also criticize mathematics arguments as having no independtly verifiable link to reality . That’s why it is a legitimate global philosophical debate about what a science is (or should be) and its foundations, but it’s total garbage for discussing a particular hypothesis .
People shouldn’t’ answer « just so » rambling discourse at all.
Bruno said it best: the reply to just-so critiques is just “so?”
Why is that the best critique to the just-so story argument?
because it’s a shorthand motte and bailey from “ah, look at our science we have and how well supported by the evidence it is” to “geez we’re just spit-balling and shooting the shit about wacky interesting cool behavioral phenomena!”
no, you can’t say the same thing about biology or genetics. stop lying.
‘men learned how to use fire because Prometheus gave it to them’ is a just-so story.
you can’t on the one hand say ‘HBD/behavioral genetics/whatever’ is sound science or that you have tons of evidence in your favor when your current theoretical level is: hypothesis that can’t even be tested.
and it’s not ‘garbage’ for discussing a hypothesis. a hypothesis that can’t be tested is useless and arguing over it is like arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
so sure, if you guys want to admit you have next to nothing to support these beliefs and theories, knock yourself out with the just so stories. maybe one of them will stick.
You can believe genetics is a sound science but behaviour genetic is a plot from evil scholars … that’s fine.
But if you pretend to disprove a behavioral genetics hypothesis in particular, throwing a just so argument, shouldn’t do more than debating the number of angels you can hold, manipulate and entertain in your head (i can’t have any)
“so sure, if you guys want to admit you have next to nothing to support these beliefs and theories, knock yourself out with the just so stories. maybe one of them will stick.”
If they throw a whole bunch of shit against the wall and some of it sticks, did their ‘hypothesis’ really predict anything?
“But if you pretend to disprove a behavioral genetics hypothesis in particular, throwing a just so argument, shouldn’t do more than debating the number of angels you can hold, manipulate and entertain in your head (i can’t have any)”
Behavior genetics rests on the flawed paradigm of twin studies. The EEA is false therefore genetic interpretations cannot be gleaned from these studies.
No one has rebutted the just-so story argument. Weird…
i didn’t say it was a plot from evil scholars. i just said that your statements regarding behavioral genetics — and ones from HBDers and some behaviorial geneticists — are unscientific and on the same level of ‘zeus turned into a cloud and knocked up a young lass and their half-god child is why we have rain’ myths.
i don’t need to disprove anything, dummkopf. you first need to carry your burden. it’s not my fault you don’t understand what a burden of proof is.
and really, it’s more than just ‘just so’ stories. the usual pattern is this:
(1) hbder makes claim and supports it with x evidence
(2) evidence is shown to be faulty or in some cases indicative of the opposite conclusion the hbder wants to reach
(3) hbder resorts to ‘death by a thousand qualifications’ just-so story attempts to save the original claim.
well when i say ‘stick’ i mean, maybe one of these randomly generated myths will turn out to be falsifiable and make novel predictions.
i don’t really care how someone proceeds along. if they want to do the shotgun approach and check what works and what doesn’t, that’s fine. i’m not saying ‘just so’ story with any air of hostility.
it’s more just….
« I don’t need to disprove anything, dummkopf. you first need to carry your burden. it’s not my fault you don’t understand what a burden of proof is. »
&
« and really, it’s more than just ‘just so’ stories »
&
« i’m not saying ‘just so’ story with any air of hostility. it’s more just »
—-> LOL.
Why would anyone be hostile in a debate of scientific criteria. There nothing more inocuous.
But the picture is the right answer for « just so » argument, yes. For verifiability of any hypothesis, go to the three modalities I have presented. If you find another one, except « just so garbage », I’ll look at it
“People shouldn’t’ answer « just so » rambling discourse at all.”
Then the hypothesis is useless if it can’t be independently verified.
Let’s say you want to study flight. Did it come down from the trees or up from the ground ? There is no independently verifiable hypothesis, so you can say, this question will never be a matter of science. Ok.
Then you ask why did the animals evolve to fly ? No independently verifiable hypothesis, no science. Ok put then don’t discuss a specific hypothesis when you have a global rejection.
Finally, a scientist want to hold a cp rules, for whatever reason like « birds fly in general ». That’s a just so story because some birds don’t fly and humans can fly . The scientific comes with explanations x,y,z and explain that for human its’different It’s an artefact. No good. Not only is the artefact never enough defined but it is an ad hoc hypothesis. And you end up saying there is no such things as birds and even less a rule that « birds can fly » . And that the kind of just so argument ep should be bothered with. I don’t think so …
rr is protagonizing while mentally agonizing in this blog…
just ignore him, it’s best you can do, even it’s good sometimes we have opposition against obvious facts to train our argumentation skills, but not when the level of our oponent is this.
rr so what is not a just so story about this subject*
https://digest.bps.org.uk/
Interesting blog, seems
Today I saw an ad in the street for a business school « enter as a dreamer. Get out as a manager ». I thought it was the definition of hell !
I’ve grown weary and wary of its display of victimhood and woe. Frankly, I don’t believe that the American media – the “press” – is less free, the pitiable victim of our truth-averse president; I think it is incarcerated, bounded by its own biases, purposes, and allegiances. It’s become pathological in its vindictiveness, obsessive in its single-minded pursuit of an objective, namely the destruction of “THE ACCIDENTAL PRESIDENT”. Its peripheral vision has blackened through atrophy and its movements are so conjoined as to appear orchestrated. As it myopically perceives and bemoans a freedom fading in a barrage of criticism leveled by a crass and belligerent president, the press misses what is, in essence, a prison of its own making: nonobjectivity.
Phil, you should do youtube videos. Theamazingatheist has like 600,000 subs, you have watched enough hitchens to do it!
Completely speculative but maybe complex phenotypes may have a pseudo-reduced ”genetic-link” exactly because we have one trait interacting with another.
Posner authored the opinions in the consolidated cases of Wolf v. Walker and Baskin v. Bogan challenging Wisconsin and Indiana’s state level same-sex marriage bans.
only a jew could find the right to same sex marriage in the constitution or the right to abortion.
activist judges are dumb, dishonest scum.
stare decisis is a satanic principle.
In A Failure of Capitalism, he [Poseurner] has written that the 2008 financial crisis has caused him to question the rational-choice, laissez faire economic model that lies at the heart of his Law and Economics theory.
DRRR!
so then i guess you’re saying all judges are dumb, dishonest scum.
judicial activism is a term made up by a non-lawyer for a popular magazine article….
very modern…
which makes sense, because — again — equity was yuge and had a yuge historical tradition. the Bible is probably the most quoted and cited work from the founder’s era, politically. Blackstone is close behind, primarily because he had a jurisprudence grounded on ‘natural law,’ and Blackstone thought that ‘judicial legislation’ was the greatest ‘achievement’ of the common law.
YES.
ALL judges who do not follow original intent are dumb dishonest SCUM.
as i said: the common law is a crime against humanity.
again: no italian COULD disagree.
therefore: you’re LYING about being italian.
except all judges purport to follow “original intent” in one way or another. even Roe v. Wade grounds itself on the constitution’s “original intent” despite the constitution being silent regarding abortion.
I don’t disagree that the common law is shitty. But it has the benefit of flexibility…the best legal system is one that can change to best suit the needs of the people.
And really, how could the Italians agree when Roman law had a yuge influence on common law directly and the Pope’s law had a yuge influence as well — via the Court’s equitable power?
The true platonic original intent isn’t what allows someone to burn a flag without fear of reprisal from the U.S. government. That’s far from the constitution’s ‘true original intent…’
an example of how activist judges are jewish or dumb gentiles picked by jews.
thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.
now has the interpretation that dairy products may not be eaten with animals of any kind, including non-mammals.
original intent means the second amendment does NOT guarantee the right to own guns.
but as a result of the satanic principle of stare decisis it doesn’t matter. one deliberate misinterpretation is handed down for all time.
and like rabbis such judges may claim to be learned, because common law is infinite. every decision everywhere is part of the law. but in reality these people will always have much lower LSAT scores than the originalists.
original intent != originalism. there are two originalist schools of thought — original intent and original meaning.
and from an originalist standpoint, the second amendment is murky. everyone loves to talk about how the text discusses arms for “the purpose of a well-regulated militia,” what they leave out is that Federalist 29 states that rather than assemble the entire militia for drills and whatnot for this ‘purpose,’ ‘[l]ittle more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped.’ so the best way to ensure a well-regulated militia is to…provide guns.
Scalia took another approach in Heller and found a right to own guns completely divorced from service in a militia — such a paragon of judicial restraint!
that’s not how stare decisis works, either. it’s not nearly as inflexible as you’re making it out to be. although, the reason why it’s not as inflexible has to do with the discretionary power historically understood to belong to the judiciary…which you seem opposed to.
but
BUT…
the skill, which Scalia had, is to change the law without making anyone think any law is being changed at all.
It’s not unlike bluffing in poker…where all the bets have to make perfect sense.
This is why when Posner (correctly) called Scalia out on using ‘legislative history,’ in Heller, Scalia was like teflon because
‘Judge Posner knows very well that “legislative history” does not embrace what the Heller opinion used—the history of the times when the legislation (or constitutional provision) was adopted, including the understandings reflected in contemporaneous legislation and scholarly commentary. “Legislative history” means the floor debates, committee hearings, and committee reports of the legislature or convention that adopted or proposed the text in question. It was not the Court’s opinion in Heller but Justice Stevens’s dissent that used (and, we think, misread) the Second Amendment’s drafting history. Lawyers know the distinction, but Posner’s depiction of a contradiction where there is none, in a magazine directed to nonlawyers, preys on the unknowledgeable.’
i misread this. scalia makes the correct point that posner is a dirty jew.
but what does he mean by…
…that used (and, we think, misread)…
what was the correct reading?
yes. and…
“original meaning” = jewish.
there is only ONE legit jurisprudence.
how many times do i have to say it?
Scalia took another approach in Heller and found a right to own guns completely divorced from service in a militia — such a paragon of judicial restraint!
then scalia LIED about being an original intent-er.
and he was DUMB DISHONEST SCUM.
discretionary power historically understood to belong to the judiciary…which you seem opposed to.
100%. ONLY retarded jew cunts want judges to have ANY discretion.
Scalia was like teflon
ONLY to pseudo-intellectual fucktards.
supreme court justice = FUCKTARD.
understandings reflected in contemporaneous legislation and scholarly commentary…
i took scalia at his word that he was an original intent-er.
SCALIA SHOULD BE DUG UP AND BURNED AT THE STAKE!
and scholarly commentary
scalia had such a low IQ it’s sad.
bill maher thinks scalia was dumb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSdpek_LeO4
maybe muggy would like this quote from scalia — following the exact letter of the law:
“This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent…Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.”
“original meaning” = jewish.
but ‘original intent’ is what allows judges more discretion in interpretation, not less…
then scalia LIED about being an original intent-er.
there is no such thing as the true original intent — US statutes are passed by no less than 536 people. To think one unified intent exists is silly
there’s even a video where Scalia talks about his main beef with modern liberal jurisprudence, he says something like judges wanting their own personal results but ‘at least in the old days, you had to LIE about it’
his beef is just with being arbitrary in the principles you use to come to a decision, not in advancing your own agenda as best you can via those principles.
ONLY to pseudo-intellectual fucktards.
so, well over 99% of the governed…
SCALIA SHOULD BE DUG UP AND BURNED AT THE STAKE!
perhaps!
but he was one of the best at what he did…but what he did just wasn’t very nice.
bill maher thinks scalia was dumb
was scalia dumb?
up until just recently, our very own super high IQ muggy thought him to be an exemplar of judicial restraint.
he was a genius in the way i say he was.
that’s one of the retarded arguments on the wikipedia page.
you’d have to be jewish or retarded to thing it was valid.
not in advancing your own agenda as best you can via those principles.
he was a criminal.
should be dug up and sent back to the shithole his parents came from.
an exemplar of judicial restraint.
only because he was the name i associated with original intent. this is what every non-expert thinks. i bet it’s what most lawyers think.
you cannot blame me as a layman for merely accepting what scalia himself claimed was his philosophy. i didn’t know he was a FRAUD.
and he was certainly right about same sex marriage and roe vs wade.
i challenge swank the fake guido to explain why every one of the arguments against original intent on the wiki is retarded and jewish.
it’s an IQ test. i’m sure pill can get them all right.
hint: the judge is bound on all occasions to seek to the best of his ability to determine the original intent of the authors/sponsors of legislation whether legislators, lobbyists, or bureaucrats. he may not know what the intent was for certain, but he will always know may things it was not. if he can’t figure these out or ignores them he should be given a long prison sentence.
I don’t think you mean original intent in the same way lawyers or jurists do. Do you mean more….what the ‘spirit’ of the law is?
As far as the argument goes….to believe in a unified original intent requires a lot of unkown knowns about the legislative process.
If most laws aren’t really written by elected representives….and most aren’t really that familiar with the laws…..is it still bad to have those laws later modified by unelected judges?
only because he was the name i associated with original intent. this is what every non-expert thinks. i bet it’s what most lawyers think.
you’re right, they do…
because Scalia was good at what he did…
you cannot blame me as a layman for merely accepting what scalia himself claimed was his philosophy. i didn’t know he was a FRAUD.
there is no lawyer, jurist, judge, legal philosopher that isn’t a fraud in the sense that their ‘philosophy’ isn’t a pretext to advance an agenda…
right. or wrong. good. or evil.
as far as original intent…
there’s typically some situation the law covers that was not covered before. from there one can determine, via compare and contrast, what the legislature was aiming to correct or accomplish. even in the context of the constitution, prior common law from England existed.
but i disagree that the judge’s primary responsibility is to original intent.
“In its most contentious Gilded Age interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court upheld a Louisiana Jim Crow law that required the segregation of blacks and whites on railroads and mandated separate railway cars for members of the two races.[26] The Court, speaking through Justice Henry B. Brown, ruled that the Equal Protection Clause had been intended to defend equality in civil rights, not equality in social arrangements. All that was therefore required of the law was reasonableness, and Louisiana’s railway law amply met that requirement, being based on “the established usages, customs and traditions of the people.” Justice Harlan again dissented. ”
Judge Brown thinks Jim Crow was legit for the same reasons I think its legit. You can’t force people to associate with others. Private members clubs have been doing this for centuries to this day.
Same with why men are segregated from women in sport.
Its a social arrangement.
Mugabe is right. The only people that don’t like original intent are jews, whose idea of America is that it doesnt fucking exist and is an open borders dumping ground for the worlds human refuse.
We can agree the founders believe certain things though. You can’t pretend its all a wash and people can do whatever they want.
Scalia is retarded on gun rights. Its clearly for a militia which has since been superseded by a professional army. He knows the original intent.
But the Warren court went AWOL imo during the 60s and 50s. The consitution was founded on giving only male property owners the franchise. Its laughable the founders thought blacks should have affirmative action, american citizenship extends to peasants in Vietnam and the NSA 24/7 surveillance is what they would have agreed with.
No one in their right mind could come to these conclusions, either reading the laws or reading their letters and articles concerning the ‘spirit’ of the law.
Jews gonna Jew.
it’s the old argument:
because the courts make decisions i like which are clearly NOT based on original intent, then original intent is a bad idea.
because the court makes decisions i dislike which ARE based on original intent, then original intent is a bad idea.
this is like the french understanding of free speech…freedom of speech for people i agree with…but those who say things which “offend” me must be sent to devil’s island.
this is what afro believes. which is surprising as he has spent years in prison for insulting jerry lewis and saying that heterosexuality is preferable to homosexuality.
I never said original intent was a bad idea…but one’s first obligation is to justice.
Jurisprudence is a set of lies….
They can either be noble or not.
If original intent carries the day for a just result….hooray. If it or judicial restraint is used to justify evil…it is dogshit, like Dredd v. Scott.
Phil proves me right.
He loves original intent….except when it comes to things he doesn’t like….such as the 14th amendment….which is completely consistent with all the reforms he can’t fathom, which is probably why agencies such as the Freedman’s Buraeu were established shortly after the Civil War.
The Warren court went AWOL to the extent it reversed nearly a century of IGNORING the 14th amendment’s original intent…
But it’s just as simple as the amendment political process, right?
But this was why I was saying earlier that justice is mob justice. Its popular will at the end of the day. Not a law. Not a judge.
I got a hunch. Are East-African woment the best looking? it seems to me like the standard deviation of looks for these women is small, and that the whole distribution is tilted to the right, meaning most are decent, but not so many ugly ones. Is this true? i dont like brown women, so its not my preference, but their faces tend to be more pleasant than most other ethnic groups. This is hard to verify though.
I feel bad for east african men though, its just 😦
How do can they solve their issues?
ug majors of supreme court justices:
John Roberts, A.B. History Harvard College, J.D. from Harvard
Antonin Scalia, A.B. History Georgetown University and University of Fribourg, Switzerland LL.B. Harvard
Anthony Kennedy, B.A. Political Science Stanford University and London School of Economics, LL.B. Harvard
Clarence Thomas, A.B. English Literature Holy Cross College, J.D. from Yale
Ruth Ginsberg, B.A. Government Cornell University, LL.B. Columbia Law School
Stephen Breyer, B.A. Philosophy Magdalen College, Oxford, LL.B. Harvard
Samuel Alito, B.A. Princeton, J.D. Yale
Sonia Sotomayor, B.A. History Princeton University, J.D. Yale
Elena Kagan, A.B. History Princeton, M. Phil. Oxford, J.D. Harvard
I REST MY CASE.
btw, i’m not against abortion or gay marriage. but unlike judges i know the difference between judges and elected law makers.
alito’s major is not given above.
graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
yes. one should be well-versed in ideology and know the boundaries of the cultural space as well as they can…
otherwise, you’ll have a bad time.
I mean there’d be a, you know, a defense or public defender from Podunk, you know, and this woman is really brilliant, you know. Why isn’t she out inventing the automobile or, you know, doing something productive for this society?
I mean lawyers, after all, don’t produce anything. They enable other people to produce and to go on with their lives efficiently and in an atmosphere of freedom. That’s important, but it doesn’t put food on the table and there have to be other people who are doing that. And I worry that we are devoting too many of our very best minds to this enterprise.
imagine a doctor being given discretion.
what would happen when his patient died?
SWANK SUES HIM.
if i were a lawyer i’d kill myself.
i’d sue him if he abused his discretion and the abuse caused the death….
like you know, someone walks into an ER for an upset stomach and walks out missing a kidney because the doctor didn’t feel like reading what name was on the chart.
i’m kidding. i’d just have an underling do a suit like that….i’m getting more into big game these days.
and yes…most people aren’t cut out for lawyering. i agree.
look at the arguments against “original intent” listed on wikipedia.
every one of them is retarded and jewish and obviously wrong.
i mean how fucking retarded are lawyers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_intent
hahaha. Thats good stuff.
so as steve shoe has spoken of even though he suffers from the same, and as i have spoken of…
what you’ll often get in lawyers and judges and professors of humanities is people who can read reams and write reams and remember everything, and in this sense they have a high VIQ.
but they lack the ability to think…
completely.
IQ tests do not measure verbal reasoning very well if at all, and it is an ability distinct from verbal working memory and literacy and the ability to do crosswords and VIQ as measured by existing IQ tests etc.
Maybe IQ analyse almost everything which are relevant to intelligence BUT
very superficial
and
or
without real world contexts
and specially evolutive/adaptive/realist [food chain] and hyper-realist ones [beyond food chain// self awareness].
Another possibilty i wonder is if most about human intelligence is indeed partly or totally related with domestication, so we are not seeing intelligence ITSELF [pattern recognition based on our species-sensorial scale = heuristics] but domesticated behaviors.
For example, first of all, a good and robust vocabulary ”also’ mean: capacity to memorize rules about how to write ”correctly”. We know NO HAVE, in real world, a correct way to write, because words and numbers are symbols we use to connect us to the reality we can’t figure out only with our senses. Just like mark with a color green pen the topics of the text. It’s a symbol map to navigate throught space and time.
About ” -hig-IQ people- who can’t think” i don’t know exactly if their problem is
cognitive [real incapacity to think]
or
affective, still a intellectual deficit [emotions and or instincts governing their minds all the time or very lower self-reflection].
This smart but dumb people weren’t not chosen randomly.
More women than men have this affective/cognitive dilema.
BUT
they are acting in ”old-way” because they are just adapting to new environment… at short term, while we are in drift, and the best lies are those we really believe. the old and winner tactic of ”Simon Says”.
Intelligence is sanity and it’s wisdom, the intelligence without be adapted to specific circumstances but in its universal form.
another retard who couldn’t think was Aristotle who pretty much invented the concept of equity, or departing from what you’re calling original intent for the purpose of ‘justice….’
so the US is not a nation of laws nor a democracy. it’s a judge-ocracy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187
how convenient that lawyers should arrogate power to themselves whenever possible AND even worse make arguments that they deserve it AND actually believe their own bullshit.
according to wikipedia scalia claimed he was an originalist in constitutional law and a textualist in statutory law.
textualism = laziness and retardation.
language changes. the “plain meaning” doesn’t exist. the legislative intent DOES…though it may require effort to determine…and may be impossible to determine precisely.
that scalia was friends with ginsberg is enough. if he had a nose he couldn’t stand the smell.
so the US is not a nation of laws nor a democracy. it’s a judge-ocracy?
worse.
it’s the wild west…and it always has been, even before the wild west.
you know that the executive now has precedent for executing US citizens now via trial in absentia, right?
but “might makes right” is also the law of the land…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._M%27Intosh
…
but there’s only right and wrong.
most lawyers and those they represent are demons. truly.
but without me on the right, there…they’d eat you people alive!
Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.”
his surname is “galician or pork-and-cheese”. and he’s an actual lawyer who has argued before the high court.
that quote from scalia is DAMNING.
if peepee doesn’t know…in the US it can happen that someone is shown to be innocent via DNA testing, but as long as his trial and appeals were comme il faut he can be executed.
i wonder if this has actually ever happened. i’d bet not.
—
part of the mueller “investigation” is to punish anyone involved with the trump campaign with yuge legal fees. not all of the people they’ve subpoenaed are rich.
btw, today a (black) federal judge said things to mueller that sounded jimmy dore.
the people who belong in prison are mueller, the dnc, hillary, john brennan, etc.
but they’re all under the cover of the lugenpresse. so they get away with it.
i agree with pill. it can’t be an accident. makes me paranoid, but i don’t actually know how the conspiracy is organized or whose idea it was. maybe pill can give us his best guess.
Today i was in street to solve some things to my mother. I just ”off my default network” and almost everything was fucking fine. I no have any type of paranoid thinking.
Learn that at least for me, most of my paranoid thoughts are not paranoid itself, they are more in intensity [intense as paranoid] than in autenthicity [just a bizarre thought without a rational motivation].
I hate ambiguous relationships and lack of basic respect [both side of the same irrational coin] BUT i live in ”bruzil”…
I even was absolutely calm and non-stutter when i was in telephone after my going to street.
another famous originalist iirc was bork.
from his wiki:
Bork built on the influential critiques of the Warren Court authored by Alexander Bickel, who criticized the Supreme Court under Earl Warren, alleging shoddy and inconsistent reasoning, undue activism, and misuse of historical materials. Bork’s critique was harder-edged than Bickel’s, however, and he has written, “We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.”
Bork was best known for his theory that the only way to reconcile the role of the judiciary in the U.S. government against what he terms the “Madisonian” or “counter-majoritarian” dilemma of the judiciary making law without popular approval is for constitutional adjudication to be guided by the framers’ original understanding of the United States Constitution. Reiterating that it is a court’s task to adjudicate and not to “legislate from the bench,”
100% agree.
But only because I agree with the founders, not in the sense Im autistic and agree with authority figures de jure, but because I philosophically agree with the founders on most points.
no you don’t. you agree in the sense that the ‘doctrine’ you think you’re agreeing with is restrictive and result you don’t like is, in your view, permissive.
if you think “freedom of speech” should apply to the speech the majority hates and that the government can’t punish you for speaking out directly against it (like what you just did :D), then you don’t really agree much with Bork’s jurisprudence: the protection we afford speech is wholly the product of ‘activist judging.’
the protection we afford speech is wholly the product of ‘activist judging.’
by activist i mean NOT original-intent-er. the frequency of over-rulings or invalidating statutes isn’t what i meant.
i cannot conceive of any interpretation for the first amendment than its peshat.
please elaborate on how its authors did NOT mean what they said.
all i can think is that it might be interpreted as NOT applying to the states. idk.
unlike the 2d amendment it is NOT qualified.
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…
i guess there is the question as to whether by “speech” and “the press” is meant political speech and press expressing political opinions. so pornography might not be protected. idk.
anyway it doesn’t matter. if the original intent was not the unrivaled freedom of speech the US has today then the constitution could be amended.
for example, rather than the “doctrine of incorporation” which is retarded and jewish an amendment might be made saying that the 7th and 1st amendments apply to states also.
a problem with the US consituion is it is very difficult to amend. but this too can be changed with an amendment.
‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of the press’ had specific meanings in English common law.
seditious libel was still a crime in England, and this tradition carried over into the United States with the Alien and Sedition Acts. The uproar against those acts has been whitwashed into being motivated by ‘freedom of speech,’ concerns. The reality is that the Federalists just used the acts against the Democrat/Republicans aggressively, which is why Thomas Jefferson pardoned people convicted under the act.
not only that, but only people like Madison — writing AFTER the first amendment was drafted and ratified — thought the conception of free speech should be broader than what existed under English common law. No one else agreed with him, least of all John Marshall.
the only real kernel of America starting to diverge from England regarding free speech was in a seditious libel case in the early 18th century where IIRC the lawyer essentially argued that truth should be a defense (not allowed in law at that time) and then essentially asked the jury to ignore current law (he was successful, that activist-advocating piece of shit!)….
but…
it was only during the early 20th century that the term started to grow broader in scope than the English term. And surprise….
“As a result of the jurisprudence of the Warren Court in the mid-to-late 20th century, the Court has moved towards a baseline default rule under which freedom of speech is generally presumed to be protected, unless a specific exception applies.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
and the best modern formulation of the idea, from T. Marshall is also on the wiki page:
“[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. [Citations.] To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the ‘profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’ [Citation.]”
of course, that’s an entirely new conception…stupid activist nigger!
even John Marshall understood that “[We] must never forget, that it is a constitution we are expounding.“
for example, rather than the “doctrine of incorporation” which is retarded and jewish an amendment might be made saying that the 7th and 1st amendments apply to states also.
a problem with the US consituion is it is very difficult to amend. but this too can be changed with an amendment.
the amendment process means dick if people don’t want to follow the law.
the Slaughterhouse cases are good proof of that.
the original 14th amendment definitely applied the bill of rights to the states in intention and definitely presupposed all of the reforms for african americans people think are out there…including integration.
again, people should research the laws passed in the wake of the 14th amendment and the Freedman’s Bureau. It was originally established to help free blacks find housing, gain access to education, etc. etc.
And guess what? Whites didn’t want it, so the Court just ignored original intent and defanged the amendment for nearly a century.
Why?
Because no one cares about ‘original intent.’ Nor do they care about ‘well it’s an amendment that’s been duly ratified.’
right. or wrong.
This is why people should understand equity.
The courts of equity and the jurisprudence underlying it is not arbitrary.
Here is the foundation:
Nixon’s solicitor general? Robert ‘I hate the Civil Rights Act because I hate niggers and it’s rather convenient to use these high-minded principles as a shield’ Bork?
not unlike CSA seceding because of federalism concerns (even though the CSA had a federal constitution that was even more restrictive regarding slavery)….
the jurisprudence principles are meaningless without reference to who is applying them and why they’re likely applying them.
the entire doctrine itself is very strange, considering that…as I have already said…the constitution explicitly vests the Court with equitable power, and the drafters — all — adhered to a natural law jurisprudence.
so, invoking originalism to work results that even strike one as unjust is incorrect… from the plain text and “original intent” of the document.
just right and wrong. that’s it. that’s all.
Swanky is so autistic he thinks the founders meant jews could seed the judiciary with open borders morons who don’t even believe in the United States as a legal entity seperate from vietcong peaseants. Moron.
‘originalist:’
‘living constitutionalist;’
‘Rechtsstaatist‘
that’s why i said rather than pretend to be a judge i’d just quit if i had to sentence people for drug possession etc.
if you can’t measure it, you can’t change it.
popper’s and soros’s idea of the open society REQUIRES judicial restraint.
if judges can do whatever they want as long as they make up some bullshit reason…it’s more difficult to improve things.
what does swank think of hugo black? a former klansman but appointed by fdr and supporter of the new deal.
it may surprise peepee that before the late 50s the bernie sanders type politicians were mostly southern racists. that is, actual racists, not “racists”.
one of the all-time great justices, except for Korematsu.
he understood the purpose of jurisprudence, which is why he did not like substantive due process.
and i don’t believe he was a racist. i believe he joined the necessary organizations to advance his career.
it’s funny you should bring him up, he was the chief architect of the ‘doctrine of incorporation.’
he just appeared in the wiki as a “liberal justice” who was sometimes an “originalist”.
that was interesting as “originalism” is always associated with “conservatives”.
I bet if aliens invaded from outer space, Swank would say the founders meant they could be citizens too because Ruth Bader Ginsberg was trolling.
Is there anything ruth bader ginsberg could do that would make Swanky a bit nervous? Its just a judge. She has an offshore bank account. She socialises with elite level jews and helps them in her way. She doesn’t believe in America as the founders or most of its citizens today do. The law is a fig leaf for legitimacy. The true argument worth having is in a kulterkampf…which is how the jews sowed the judiciary with ‘liberal’ anti white jello heads in the first place.
i hate democrats/liberals/living constitutioners and originalist/conservatives equally.
i’m not nervous for myself in any situation. i understand the world and how it works.
people like you will get eaten alive without people like me to protect you.
if you were tried and convicted for some crime and 1. sentenced by a “hanging judge” or whatever using his “discretion” vs 2. sentenced based on the closest thing to original intent the judge could find, what would you think in prison?
1. my sentence is so long because the judge, one person, used his “discretion”.
2. my sentence is so long because elected representatives voted that it be so. and if the law is so bad, it is possible that these representatives will change it or lose re-election.
i’d prefer 2 even if the sentence was the same.
Both are equally paternalistic. At least the judge heard me specifically in person as a human being. A legislature knows me only as a concept, not a human being.
Being dealt with as a unique human is often underestimated. And that is what a court case allows….much better than a legislative session.
The shitty drug war sentences come from a lack of judicial discretion. I wonder if (2) comforts those people.
When you have a minority of about 2-3% which secretly wants the USA to be dismantled as we understand it historically and culturally I don’t understand how you can pretend the judiciary, normatively, should stand aside. You believe in the process so much more than the intent, that you get the ridiculous space aliens scenario i mentioned above.
So about 300 years ago, a group of people came together to make laws that would pertain to a new country called the united states. While some people can make an argument that these laws are archaic or antiquated e.g. blacks not equal to whites in the original constitution, its ridiculous to disagree with the spirit of the foundation of america.
So obviously things like NSA surveilliance are illegal any way you want to make it.
There isn’t 1 judge in the US that would publicly rule that.
Why?
Because the jews/deep state control the system.
So what the judges say. What the FISA act says. What the CIA says is irrelevant if you know the original intent of the united states.
Now, Im not autistic either. The US had a coup in the 60s and its now an secret oligarchy.
But thats why I said mob justice is the only true justice.
You either believe in those values. Or you don’t. If you don’t. Or if you are a go along get along guy, you are just grist in the system and should stand aside for the opposing factions to duke it out.
So obviously things like NSA surveilliance are illegal any way you want to make it.
There isn’t 1 judge in the US that would publicly rule that.
Why?
Because the jews/deep state control the system.
this is so wrong.
the NSA surveillance activities, etc. would have been fine by the Founders.
your entire conception of America and its history has been SHAPED by myths that constantly revise history in order to justify PRESENT understandings….which is why it is ALWAYS funny to hear people whine about ‘judicial activism’ and preach about the ‘origins’ of this country with a narrative that may as well be brand new.
Your understanding of the NSA surveillance and the ‘founders’ comes FROM the newly ‘discovered’ right to privacy and all the cultural baggage therefrom.
James Madison would not have given a FUCK about reading your e-mails, Phil!
this is why i say that without people like ME, people like you would be SO. FUCKED.
look at how you just blithely state truthiness….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
^MORON.
from the wiki…
“The Bill of Rights originally only restricted the federal government, and went through a long initial phase of “judicial dormancy”;[26] in the words of historian Gordon S. Wood, “After ratification, most Americans promptly forgot about the first ten amendments to the Constitution.”
‘Early 20th-century Court decisions, such as Olmstead v. United States (1928), held that Fourth Amendment rights applied in cases of physical intrusion, but not to other forms of police surveillance (e.g., wiretaps)“”
there was no way to even enforce the 4th amendment until the exclusionary rule was invented by some activist retard in the early 20th century.
most of your understanding about how the government ought to behave toward its citizens re: free speech and search and seizure comes from….
….the warren court!
phil, when i say you are ronnie…i speak the truth.
I keep seeing the ‘just so’ argument being used. Bruno is trying to logically invalidate it with debating RR.
Here’s how RR is wrong.
It makes sense.
Finis.
I used to think like that but now I disagree entirely. Just-so arguments are definitely invalid.
RR lives in some strange queer world where everything he knows is what has been confirmed scientifically only. If his team lose the game, he has to wait for the pundits using the latest econometric techniques to certify what reasons his team lost. If he goes to the supermarket he has no idea what is of value, and what is not of value and so, extrapolates the value of everything he purchases from the quoted commodity index prices of the materials and foodstuffs that comprise the product he buys. This is the world RR resides in.
The wonderful world of science.
Give me an example of what you consider a fact that RR would consider an opinion?
You are conflating his personal ethics with his scientific views.
On the other hand, some people know exactly what the deal is but are TOTAL HACKS and won’t ever admit thats the way it works.
[redacted by pp, may 5, 2018]
People are mystified why crime went down. Was it lead? Was it culture? Was it technorogee?
It was Ronald Reagan winning elections on the promise to give mandatory minimums to blacks going on the rampage. Sailer is right. If you don’t talk about HBD, especially in relation to crime and that, you will never find justice. You will never get justice for all these murder, rape and robbery victims.
Some crimes are perpetuated mostly by certain groups. E.g. the italian mob, islamic terrorism, etc. Every detective who isn’t brainwashed will investigate some suspects more than others, or doubt them based solely on racial characteristics imo.
This is why Chomsky saying every person should be judged like a blank slate is ridiculous. Human beings are much more efficient when stereoytping. Thats why the mind does it. Because instinctively, you evolve to be in sync with the laws of reality, and one of those laws is that people with similar genes do similar things.
If it was up to pumpkin, canada would build a bridge to africa and replace all canadians with africans as this is ‘moral’ according to the finest academics today.
IMO the genetics people are bigger frauds than the sociology people. They have the data. They have the knowledge. They have more common sense (I guess). To keep pretending that there is no way to tell if jewish IQ is genetic or black IQ genetic etc is a joke. You only need simple mendelian genetic theory to know. Master has access to real science, real data and sits on the findings. Anyone autistic enough to find out by accident gets fired or sent to a rededucation camp.
Master knows a lot – for certain – that I only know as a hunch or an educated guess.
One of these things is that Rushton is right about R/K selection
This is why Master spends so much resources making sure there is even a ‘debate’ about this stuff.
The debate is fake.
Anyone with common sense, even children, automatically can have a good guess why certain things are they way they are. There are probably more children that are smarter in terms of actual knowledge known than some post-college liberal arts majors. Most children know the difference between boys and girls for instance.
But the genetics people are outright fraudulent. They are not brainwashed. At least some of them are ‘in on it’. Its a conspiracy of silence. Its exactly what astronomers did when the catholic church squashed gailileo for the next 150 years after.
IQ is not just genetic, because language is not inborn. None chinese born knowing chinese. But the capacity to learn whatever mother tongue is genetic or biological determined. It’s not absolutely proven: showing the mechanism of how human brain acquire language over the time, specially during the first childhood. But it’s deducted, correctly deducted. It’s not everything that we know which was ”scientifically” or empirically proven and someone’s who are hugely dependent of [other’s] data, tend not to be the best professional of any scientific area.
The argument: ”hunter gatherers are ALSO super smart as civilized people” would be TOTALLY true if human intelligence evolution wasn’t convergent but it is.
What a pre-civilized peoples do, civilized peoples do too, but considerably more sophisticated due cultural accumulation and correlated selection to the capacity to learn how to use this tools.
Almost human societies and intelligence evolved to be more general in perception than hyper-specified.
When civilizations appeared we come back to specialization, but the general intelligence is there as the ancestral basis and language acquisition and usefulness is the most important of all.
If you want to prove empirically that no there ingrained intellectual differences between pre-civilized and civilized populations so just analyse how the first groups reacts in definitive contact or integration within ”modern” societies. If it’s true cultural differences alone explain this gap, so when they are exposed since always to ”modern” culture, they will acquire, on avg, most of knowledge advanced civilized peoples acquire and will have a very similar performance.
We already know it’s doesn’t happen. So what*
“The argument: ”hunter gatherers are ALSO super smart as civilized people””
This isn’t an argument.
If you are autistic you are blind to the idea of ‘hidden knowledge’. Even as a n abstract concept. You never consider that a lot of knowledge is kept hidden on purpose. That the system malfunctions or is corrupt.
When I said academia is basically a brainwashing operation outside of non-animate object study I mean exactly that.
In my mind there are a few ‘just so’ stories that probably are already 100% verified by science but the findings are censored.
One of these findings is that some races of man are more psychopathic than others. It seems obvious the people who would least want you to know conspire to keep it hidden.
MIT had an A.I. system called (soar) that could win the game (doom 1993) in 1995 after 100 trials.
DeepMind sold to Google for 500 million in 2014 for playing space invaders 1978. after 100,000 trials.
Most UFO sightings in the 90’s we double rotor drones the size of trash cans by the US military. (helicopters with blates on top and bottom)
Rumsfeld had that saying with known unknowns, yadda yadda. In the Iraq case, it was a known known that Iraw didn’t have WMD but the majority of the american public (according to jewish opinion polling however). said Iraq had WMD.
Now we have the exact same situation with Russia and hacking the elections.
And I bet most of the public actually believes it.
You can therefore see how schooling, domestication, cultural indoctrination and so on actually inculcate credulity in people to be open to any suggestion. No matter how bizarre.
But religious leaders would say people have been credulous for since ancient civilisation.
The majority of humans cannot think critically.
In my opinion, this is because they were probably born to serve a Master. Like the drone ant in an ant colony. But it would be interesting to see if hunter gatherers have better fundamental intuition about snake oil salesmen.
Is it just a domestication thing?
The human race might actually be in a lot of trouble if everyone thought like me. You need docile servile people to make things function and to do what they’re told and not get fired. The armed forces for example wouldn’t exist if people could think critically.
I am an aberration. I have an ‘uncivilised mind’. Thats exactly why Im immune to most of this nonsense without having to ‘scientifically’ prove it wrong like an autist. Its intuitive. I see Master for what he is and desires and his conspiracy.
The flip side is that Im totally unfit for modern society.
In many ways Im like the protagnist in Brave New World, ‘slightly off kilter’, and therefore able to see it for what it is.
And so you can see how human evolution favours a certain kind of idiocy. What we have come to call ‘aspergers spectrum’ type neurology.
https://youtu.be/0d5eP0wWLQY
Democracies especially have very low tolerance to loss of human life.
The way you prove autism is the result of breeding drone ants is to look at rudimentary human populations like Mongols and compare them to similar racial genetically close and geographically close neighbours like the Chinese.
I bet Mongols have much less autism than chinese.
QED
You prove aspergers is not a ‘evolved’ trait. Its a ‘selected’ trait. The last thing Genghis Khan wanted was people completely opposed to violence for any reason.
I think Caucasoids are more uncivilized and difficult to control than Asians in general as an opinion, be it by culture or genetics, with Arabs being the most prone to in-fighting and clannish behavior and Nordics being the closest to Asians in that they’ll typically do as told by a higher authority. I think Nordics are just as outwardly [towards other societies] violent as any other race of human, but far less prone to inwards violence [violence within their own society].
evolved and selected is basically the same thing, even because all selected traits are evolved. Remember the ”evolution” concept.
“Nordics being the closest to Asians in that they’ll typically do as told by a higher authority”
I disagree. Nordics are probably the most likely to question dogma. They are the most open-minded while Asians are probably the least. I agree only on the point that both Nordics and East Asians tend to be anxious and have lower self-estime compared to southern races.
The most important difference between Arabs and Nordics is empathy. Despite both groups being Caucasoids they are polar opposites when it come to empathy, Arabs showing the most sociopathic behaviours and Nordics clearly the least.
It’s a complicated thing/think.
When ”liberals” dominated the political scene they become less against current authorities, it’s just like two bio-cultural teams. Both are more likely to obey their respective leaders and be against the opposite leaders.
The places where social revolutions has happened more times populations tend to be more sub-ethnically mixed than purely sub-ethnically, for example: France; Italy; Germany; Russia. Friction among different sort of people tend to produce more inequality and conflicts than among homogeneous countries.
Indeed, nordics at least in Germany has been known as a peaceful [when they are not in wars, of course] but conformists.
And ”mediterranean subrace” dominated ”spiritually” almost europeans with that jewsus bulshitism.
BUT… because they have created better societies even in older times, more egalitarians, so i don’t know if this fact have reduced their revolutionary impetus.
Seems difficult to deny that east asians are super-conformists. But It’s difficult to say who are the people who are less conformists. all them tend to be very very conformist, this differences are not significant and east asians rarely have a intellectual social agigators and jews among them. I bet en masse black slavery disorganize subsaharian communities in Americas creating a fertile place for higher non-conformity but mostly because this chaotic chain of events.
Indeed based on natural law in natural places excess of nonconformity tend to be directly against stability, such a valuable and desirable feature for any organism or adaptive strategy.
with the amount of cock thinking mouse guzzles you know he’s asian
Please elaborate 🙂
typical asian, submissive, yes man, tendency to put others on a pedestal, conformist, parrots other people’s opinions rather than having an opinion of his own
Most people are like that.
typical asian, submissive, yes man, tendency to put others on a pedestal, conformist, parrots other people’s opinions rather than having an opinion of his own
You just perfectly described our very own and very black GondwanaMan.
“You just perfectly described our very own and very black GondwanaMan.”
It’s funny because Gman acts more black than you.
Frenoopy, i guess im a bit feminine, but i will assert myself whenever i feel superior to others, but the thing is that spending time with inferiors is a waste of time so i dont do it. In the past i used to get called out for being selfish and anti-social, at that period of my life i felt that my value was high, probably becuase traits were less heritable and that my goal was narcissism. I feel like my views of an ideal me is influenced by my peers throughout my life, but that it all comes down to me and i dont care about other people, only how they relate to me (the line is hard to deliniate in some cases, as ive been informed in certain aspects on how im supposed to be superior). The thing is that i am weak, for now. And i dont have any goals, since im nihilistic and dont think that any emmidiate goals ammount to anything grandiose, or that i dont trust myself to do it. Id be ok to live the life you described for a while, but it sounds horrible to put others on a pedestal, im very prone to jealousy and love to defeat enemies.
Sometimes (often) life just seemes like it cant be valued on happiness alone, since its a loosing game with all of the pain involved, but thats how ive valued it thusfar, thinking that id eventually reach utopia, but thats a dumb thing to think according to many, which makes sense since those premises (premises for the arguemnt of living) are things i developed in childhood when life is different.
Jordan Cringesson says that life must be valued for something else than just immidiate pleasure, and then uses emotional/verbal manipulation towards kids (who are dumb enough to litsen to him to begin) with to continue living as peterson cultists or natalists. Maybe he is right, i havent looked into his real arguments, but reading his books seems like a waste of time, since everyone (who i have seen) who follows him is retarded.
[redacted by pp, May 6, 2018]
Is it fate or effort guys? it seems like you guys tilt towards saying that success is about fate, and that im a semi-concsious prole. Maybe thats right.
I feel like i need to change my definition of success (since my current one is endless and perhaps impossible, also not defined), but thats a thing that needs intelligence.
My face is a 7+/10, depending on the girls taste, so if i go to the gym im garuanteed the scandinavian girls of my dreams 🙂
Im diagnosed with aspergers, which is scary, since i want to manipulate people, hopefully its just some jewish lie.
If this doesnt make any sense, i dont expect it too, since i dont think that life can be made to sense with our current knowledge outside of the types of syllogisms RR likes to talk about.
Im not asian, Asians seem to be more vapid than me, which might be a good thing.
Animekitty, any thoughs?
I want to retract my statement about Asians being vapid, i cant verify that statemnt and there is probably an sufficient amount of variance within the group to where that statement would be useless. Its very vulgar for me to say that, and i admire how many of them work hard for long periods.
https://cdn.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/styles/image-article_inline_full_caption/public/field_blog_entry_images/2017-09/maslowhh_0.png?itok=ZW0E6oJV
seems like you are stuck at social/ego tier, meanwhile i am at the top of the pyramid and loving life
all people with aspergers/autism tend to get stuck at social teir because human relationships are a need, but they have horrific social skills and can’t judge people’s intent so just end up in pain [wanting to belong but also knowing their social skills are shit so doing nothing about it]
Fenucky is so stupid,
most people have horrible emotional skills but average-to-good social skills.
I bet many autists have very good emotional skills but they are too good to read minds properly to the avg social ”optimum”. It’s also is a common place for many highly intelligent people. People often are too dumb also in emotional ways and this[type of] highly intelligent people feel disconnected with this eternal loop of pannis et circensis.
This horrible human world was shaped to avg joeys believe they are special or just right while in the true, they are trained puppies, and i’m not talking only about typical avg joey, but everyone who have a mundane mindset, regardless their IQ scores.
you can barely speak english santo, isn’t trouble with language a sign of autism?
Fenoopy, How many trophies do you need? how do you ascend that stage? You claim to love life, is it becuase of the previously mentioned ascension? but what about whealthy people who kill themselves? is it becuase they cant work in the last stage? If so, are autistics sad becuase they dont belive in themsleves to reach their goals (that happiness is reaching for the goal and succeding) or is it that you have to reach all of the lower stages and then work on the last stage?
Santo, what are Emotional skills? How do you verify your statements about people having degrees of emotional skills?
I am not narcissistic.
I tried to be creative, to self-actualize. Could not.
Went from Dissasociation to Anxiety and then an inferiority complex.
All three seem to gradually be going away now.
I don’t find my english so different than your level…
errr…
first of all, i’m not autist
secondly, seems there is a correlation between polyglotism and autism spectrum,
just tichin’..
Fenuck is not the dumbest here because he have at least SOME ”common” sense, but still horrible in the reasoning skills. and yes, he barrely understand anything about IQ and intelligence, and he think it’s the smartest here… some pity.
Kitty,
emotional skills, welll, if you still don’t know what is it… it’s the capacity to behave intelligently in emotional ways, from the basic receptive empathy [be careful with others who don’t offer danger for you] to the self-defensive or even agressive; read intentions, feelings of others and behave properly, even there is a diversity, from dark to light side, about how to behave, it’s dependent of the context you are interacting.
As i said, emotion is the instinctive way the organism have to judge events it is interacting.
social skills are basically how to use emotional and practical cognitive skills in real situations to adapt to the social environments where you are.
emotional skills are often the application of logic in social realities, instead ”subjectivity”. So for example, if someone is crying, the best answer is try to comfort this person. The best way to persuade this person to stop to cry or to feel s/he is safe with you is an example of the best use of emotional skills. Defend yourself anticipating of agressive approach direct against you is also another example.
social skills is to navigate, operate and often advance your ”personal interests” within social environments you are.
Sorry, i confused Mouse with Kitty.
wealth is a tool that can be used to achieve happiness, wealth doesn’t mean immediate, unconditional happiness.
intelligence is a tool that can be used to achieve wealth or happiness, simply having intelligence without using it correctly doesn’t guarantee you anything
not believing in yourself to achieve your goal is depression, different from sadness [depression is believing your goal is impossible]
yes, you have to go up the stages from the base of the pyramid to the top.
santo you still can’t speak coherent english so why write such long walls of text, your priorities are in the wrong place
i suppose one might liken the bill of rights and the 14th amendment etc. to the nicene creed, dogma. that is, deliberately vague formulations which judges (church councils and the pope) are charged with interpreting however they want to as long as in accord with precedent (tradition) with the SCOTUS being the equivalent of the pope speaking ex-cathedra when ruling on constitutional matters.
My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.
but i doubt there’s any historical evidence for this belief.
Being judge reminds me of being a Wechsler examiner. Many verbal questions on the WAIS require open-ended answers where the examiner must interpret the scoring rules to decide if you deserve credit
In some case the difference between a 2 point response & a 1 point response is EXTREMELY subtle & hard for most PhD students to grasp even after hours of training
They can either interpret according to wechsler’s original intent or they can be activist testers and give any IQs they want 🙂
The similarities subtest of the WAIS is like that. I think these tests can be somewhat better measure of intelligence as they aren’t dependant of concentration or knowledge (assuming that once told the answer you know the meaning of the word you were supposed to find to get 2 points).
And the comprehension subtest is also like that. This subtle scoring method allows you to measure much more subtle forms of verbal intelligence than multiple choice college admission tests can measure
proof the wechsler isn’t an IQ test.
I agree, the Wechsler is a joke. Sad that intelligence is judged using this thing.
one ‘might?’
i’ve already told you that a yuge part of the common law legal system is equity, which itself is almost entirely based off of canon law/ecclesiastical principles.
yes, it is correct to think as lawyers/judges/etc. as very similar to popes/church officials. except 99% of them are devil’s advocates.
right.
and what i’ve SAID is that the common law gives WAY too much power to judges.
the common law and stare decisis is inherently UN-democratic.
BUT the judiciary in the US is EVEN worse than the church in that stare is used ONLY when it suits the judges…
VERY different from the roman church and its TRADITION.
YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO KNOW THAT JUDGES ARE NOT PRIESTS AND THE COMMON LAW IS NOT HOLY WRIT.
you say that, but once again, i point you in the direction of free speech. civil law doesn’t have that like the US does. and the only possible road to that conception of free speech was ‘activist judging.’
or hey, the great civil law ‘achievement’ of allowing the government to veto your baby’s given name. or how about the rampant wiretapping?
further, the US government itself is UN-democratic. the relation between a politician’s stated policy aims and their results are often totally different and more or less align with a very concentrated set of interests around ‘the Hill.’ people bemoan this fact, but this is how things were intended: investor’s democracy. pay to play.
so for one to think that a legislature, which abstracts a living, breathing human individual into a problem that must be corrected or contained or controlled, is somehow a more valid source of authority than a judge who has seen the individual in person and gotten to know their circumstances in detail is just….as they say, valuing form over substance.
no one gives a shit about democratic or un-democratic….when the hammer comes down all they will care about is ‘was this fair?’
tell a guy behind bars for decades on drug possession that ‘hey, at least the legislature gave you this sentence and the judge had no discretion’ and i guarantee you he will not care.
The reason the judiciary is independent from the monarchy and the knights of the round table swanky, is because of a democratic constititution. Swanky doesnt get this. Ive said this 20 times already. Someone else say it next time.
you mean the republican constitution?
you say a lot of things that are completely wrong…yes.
if all he says is true this is an example of how evil lawyers and judges can be.
both elman and frankfurter were jews. not a coincidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=317&v=1X_tqj9YRHQ
he forgot to mention that Congress voted against segregated transportation six times between 1863-1875, or that it amended the charters of the local railroad to specifically prohibit discrimination based on race in travel accommodation
or hey, how about Railroad Company v. Brown,
84 U.S. 445 (1873)…which concerned the interpretation of a congressional act for the local railroad stating that no person would be excluded from the cars on account of color….
…a person of color was ejected from a ‘whites only’ car and the railroad argued ‘separate but equal…”
REJECTED BY THE COURT
“The plaintiff in error contends that it has literally obeyed the direction, because it has never excluded this class of persons from the cars, but on the contrary has always provided accommodations for them.
This is an ingenious attempt to evade a compliance with the obvious meaning of the requirement. It is true the words, taken literally, might bear the interpretation put upon them by the plaintiff in error, but evidently Congress did not use them in any such limited sense.”
just for the folks at home, Plessy v. Ferguson concerned TRANSPORTATION….which is where ‘separate but equal came from.’ the ‘original intent’ with respect to that issue is clear — the 14th amendment at the very least codified the already existing understanding at the time about common carriers. and without the WRONG Plessy decision, there would have been no doctrine upholding segregated schooling.
Jared Taylor is a lying faggot.
Plessy makes sense. Why don’t men compete in female sports? Why do we have a border that seperates people from those of other nations? Why don’t pupils teach the teacher in class?
Its a social arrangement. You can’t force people to socialise with people or hire specific people.
This is why AA is another joke. Its foisting people onto people. Typical jew menace.
so if i were a judge i can imagine i would occasionally experience moral antinomes.
1. duty, honesty, professional responsibility, etc.
would condradict…
2. using my power to subvert.
i would follow 1 or resign. BUT if i never needed to issue an opinion and therefore did not need to make a lot of effort PRETENDING i was actually just fulfilling my responsibilities then i MIGHT do 2.
why only might?
because if this is the principle everyone follows it’s A LOT worse than if everyone follows 1 or resigns.
this all follows from kant’s categorical imperative.
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
this means act according to some principle which everyone should follow.
quitting your job or refusing to do a job which is immoral…if this principle is followed by everyone…guess what no one does the job. i win.
this is why i have said in the past that sometimes the most patriotic thing to do is not to vote…can you imagine if only 1% of the electorate voted?
THEN you’d see CHANGE…like a motherfucker.
but the truth is that (1) = (2). if your first obligation is to justice/natural law and the current law, made by men, is not a reflection of the natural law, then you are always subverting the status quo.
however, people must be persuaded to follow new law. and people are only persuaded when you address them as human beings — i.e. rhetoric. and people are very easily sucked in to bias and prejudice and appearance.
yes, even natsci people!
the reason most of the world is frustrated with lawyers is that it all seems like bullshit. and to an extent it is…not unlike the Catholic Church. But if it were that simple…how did the Catholic Church hold together Western Civilization for so long….or obtain its outsize influence?
there is a ‘there,’ there.
no!
i have a duty to the citizens of my jurisdiction. a DUTY. not a doodee in my pants.
dude!
i “worked” on the campaign of one of my dad’s friends handing out “vote for…” all over the place…tiring.
would be interesting to know…
what fraction of judges are elected in the US?
whatever.
judges should regard themselves as trans-men with atrophied penises as a result of estrogen therapy and ball-ectomy.
…
in comparison to legislators.
!!!
i prophecy a conniption fit from swank.
and the cure to swank’s rare form of epilepsy is…
the one holy (roman) catholic and apostolic church…
as general ripper said…
it’s incredibly obvious. isn’t it?!
or as chemist thatcher said…
THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.
the roman church is like a black hole…in this world.
even when they’re stuck with BOYLOVE…
TEFLON!
the hilarious thing about the universe we live in is…
just taste it…
and you’ll UNDERSTAND…
so….you recommend that all lawyers and future jurists take UG degrees in mathematics and physics. So, this is the proper training to ‘regard themselves as trans-men with atrophied penises as a result of estrogen therapy and ball-ectomy.’
BUT what makes the usurpation of judges even worse is that…
there ARE other remedies. judges don’t have to be heroes or martyrs.
like johnson’s civil rights bill 10 years after b v b.
swank can argue until the cows come home.
original intent is the only legit jurisprudence.
that this is not fucking OBVIOUS to everyone…that original intent is apparently a small minority of jurisprudence-s…
i can only explain it as…
law school should REQUIRE an UG degree in mathematics or physics.
PLUS a “book report” on The German Ideology.
swank does NOT get how a guy with a bachelors in history and a jd is NOT impressive intellectually to me and people like me and like steve shoe.
BUT i DO get how boffins are very un-impressive to high test lawyers.
oh believe me.
another example of how…
the very smartest people may not be and usually aren’t particular smart at any one thing
and those who are…
are not particularly smart.
i think the supremes are an example of the claim:
power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
even very high IQ people can fool THEMSELVES when they have that much power.
one sure principle of right and wrong which even nastyswank can agree with is…
Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.
bottom line: judicial activism RELIES on the people NOT knowing the truth.
SO even when it results in more democracy it IS UN-democratic.
put it this way.
LYING TO THE PEOPLE “FOR THEIR OWN GOOD” IS THE DEFINITION OF DOUCHINESS.
when i say “duty, honesty, professional responsibility etc”.
those are REAL things. they are why people are infuriated by activist judges.
imagine a checkist under stalin or a german general under hitler. he could subvert.
but he would NOT pretend to HIMSELF that that was NOT what he was doing.
i take all that back.
iirc it’s called “obiter dicta”.
a judge can say…
“this is my judgement, the judgement i am duty bound to make.
BUT i think the law is immoral.”
and he won’t be impeached.
i’d soon grow sick of it, but i can imagine saying…
“i’m not a moral authority. i think your crime is NOT a crime. BUT i have no choice.
10 years!”
if one truly thinks the law is immoral, then the law is void and one shouldn’t give deference to it and doing so is a pussy move.
the merger of law and equity means that the judge’s first obligation is to justice. again, historically, when a conflict exists between law and equity…equity must prevail.
Across the United States, 87 percent of all state court judges face elections and 39 states elect at least some of their judges, according to the National Center for State Courts.
for all i remember that guy was running for traffic court, but…
if he was a super bad traffic court judge…
he would have been replaced.
but his decisions would unfortunately become precedent.
my right to drive drunk supersedes your right not to be killed by me!
jews have been selected for…
1. verbal facility…reading reams, writing reams, remembering everything…but NOT for the ability to think.
2. the most extreme ethnocentrism. it’s in their holy books for at least 2,400 years for fuck’s sake. AND it’s NOT ambiguous.
3. aesthetic don’t lie! jews LOOK jewish. they look like the result of a eugenics experiment gone awry.
how is this not OBVIOUS?
haha.
IMO many judges in the US would rule the US as a seperate entity illegal, and open american citizenship to everyone.
You can’t say that is the ‘spirit of the law’.
Like the NSA 24/7 surveillance. Its unconstitutional. Even the original, non 4th amended constitution, if you aren’t autistic or jewish, clearly outlines a vision for a non-tryanny.
The founders were familier with what tyranny was having read Plato. So read Plato if you was a picture book way of interpreting what they were against.
Its not an accident they used that term. They lifted it from Plato.
Case closed.
yeah….James Madison didn’t explicitly advocate for a secret service fund beyond the purview of Congress, and George Washington didn’t specifically discuss the necessity of covert mail opening for the purposes of national security or invoke executive privilege regarding the Jay Treaty stating the ‘success depends on secrecy’ or something to that effect.
you don’t know what you’re talking about because you don’t even know what you don’t know.
wikipedia compares common law, civil law, socialist law, and islamic law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)#Differentiation_from_other_major_legal_systems
“socialist law” refers to what the ussr and its satellites claimed to be their legal system.
if their claims were “veridical”, then that’s my favorite actual legal system.
i use “veridical” because it has 4 syllables and “true” has only 1, so it’s impressive to american JDs, because they’re all pseud-intellectuals.
sad!
Swank is like the racerealist of law. Everything he knows is the OPPOSITE to what the law should stand for.
If you follow Swanks reasoning whoever buys the best lawyer should always win.
As a normative principle I mean.
The law is basically a kabuki theatre for lawyers. If the law was written in crayon in bengali in line with hindu custom, Swank wouldn’t see any issue with it, since its only a conversation starter anyway in court.
This is why people call lawyers like Swank sharks. They are like those soldiers in wartime, who take a lot of pleasure in beating up civilians and making female civilians of the enemy do weird things to them much more than any regular joe whos just trying to survive. Theres a predatory element to it.
Not really. You’re generalizing massively
”This is why people call lawyers LIKE Swank sharks.”
Hi guys! did anyone miss me??
OMG she’s back!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision
is this a good summary?
because there’s one OBVIOUS point that settles the case for DC which stevens was oblivious to, and a fortiori scalia.
can swank tell me what this point is?
i’ll give him 24 h.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, and the primary dissenting opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, are considered examples of the application of originalism in practice.
one OBVIOUS point which these “learned men” missed completely.
what is it?
i’m unsure what point you’re thinking of…
i always thought the issue could have been resolved in favor of DC along with a right to private handgun possession being found by focusing on the fact that the second amendment concerned the ability of the federal government to disarm state militias…but because D.C. is under congressional governance, this takes it beyond the scope of the original amendment.
the point is…
as soon as the US had a standing military the amendment was moot (MW adj. sense 2).
it had such before the last state ratified the bill of rights.
thus it has been moot forever.
the US has had a standing military continuously afaik.
thus the 2d amendment has no application to ANY possible case.
AND it NEVER has.
“2d amendment rights” are 100% FRAUD.
if part of the original intent was that the federal government couldn’t disband the state militias, i’m not sure why the federal government having a standing army would necessarily moot the original intent of the amendment.
you’d have to assume that the state militias were meant to be solely as a stand-in for a professional army, which is tough to square with the general contemporary view on standing armies at the time: they were a threat to liberty and state militias, even with inferior arms, would make tyranny more difficult than it would be otherwise.
and if the US had a standing army before the amendment was even ratified, then that cuts against it being the ‘original intent.’ I don’t think anyone would have gone for it in Heller — although I’ve seen that argument elsewhere.