in the animal kingdom and in humans, you need to talk about testicle size
testicle size is a very good indicator of how monogamous females are. for example, chimpanzee females are very promiscuous. therefore, male chimpanzees have huge testicles. why? well, if the idea is you have to leave some offspring in this world, the only valid route you can take to ensure that with promiscuous females is to have a huge ejaculate load, to literally flood out competing males' sperm
it follows then that attractive females, with more frequent mating possibilities, require more "output" to ensure your reproductive success. so, biologically, it may not be a matter of aesthetic pleasure leading to greater sperm volume, but simply a matter of fear: you need to dump a huge load to make sure your sperm outcompetes all the other mating opportunities an attractive female can command
what i am arguing about has nothing to do with socialism. i am in fact quite the card carrying enthusiastic capitalist. but that didn't stop you from throwing around propagandistic terms to try to smear me, right?
that the internet has changed the rules of the game is not an opportunity to press your fears of what the new game might be to the forefront. in fact, what the internet does might in fact make for an even more capitalist-friendly world, by doing away with monopolistic and regulatory barriers to trade. if you only opened your mind and stopped quivering in your idiotic fears, you might see a world of ultracapitalism in what the web is making. that it is a NEW system of capitalism is the real motivator for your FUD: fear of the new, fear of the unknown, fear of change. not an intelligent reckoning of the ramifications of new technology, which is what your mind should be probing
but don't worry about it, just call me a socialist and you've won the argument
as we all know, obama is a secret communist muslim, and other retarded red herrings. moronic propagandistic terms are no replacement for intelligent debate. grow the fuck up
1. that those 20 would have paid for the product were the product not accessible to them for free
2. that demanding payment for a copy of a product is the only valid way you can reward creators
the internet changes the equations. but keep burying your head in the sand and make believing laws made for a world of vinyl and cds works for a world of ubiquitous internet access. its a game changer, and you're playing an old, obsolete game
copyright laws were created so that some other guy with a printing press or vinyl press wouldn't make and sell copies of a book or recording all on his own without regard to the creator
it never was intended, and never had anything to do with, the idea of someone reproducing material and giving it away FOR FREE
simply because such a person would be insane: all that expense for nothing. to not be motivated by profit is simply nonsensical on the old media world, which was the whole point in copyright: keep the profit with the creators
but the issue of effortless file sharing is a fundamental change in how media works, and has more to do with traditional publishers coming to grips with a new reality. IANAL, but i would like to see a legal argument that says copyright law is only valid for the pursuit of those PROFITING from illicit copies, that those copying for free are essentially outside the scope of the spirit of intellectual property laws and their intent and purpose. which is a fundamentally true argument: the internet is new technology and makes possible what was not possible before, so to apply laws from an old era onto it without thought is to fail to understand the issues in play
such an approach would draw a nice line between the old media world and the new media world as defined by the new economic laws the internet forces onto the world, welcome or not
those are outright lies by politicians. disconnected and ridiculous
in north korea you are talking about a concerted effort since birth to convince your citizens the world outside your borders are full of bloodthirsty tribes ready to destroy you at a moment's notice
not that there doesn't exist people who believe that in the west, but there isn't a concerted effort by the government to create that belief
comparing real brainwashing in north korea with the worst example of demagoguery that you could find in the west: not even remotely in the same league
the human female can get rid of the strutting, violent, undependable worthless parasite known as the human male and replace him with a dildo and some stem cells
but only because some of the photon bombardment results in actual vaporization of the technology in question
so we need a new word, in regards to nanotech, for the traditional connotation of vaporware meaning technology that is announced but will not be realized. something that has nanotech connotations
hmmm. perhaps sevenofnineware. because you most certainly are out of that league
1. make ssn's alphanumeric. this keeps it down to 9 letters/ numbers that you can remember. it also makes it backwards compatible so you don't have to issue everyone new SSNs. make it so there is no relationship whatsoever between birth place/ date/ name and SSN. (10 numbers + 26 letters)^9 = 101,559,956,668,416. 101.5 trillion is a nice enough space, and certainly better than the current 1 billion. you may even have idiots requesting vanity SSNs like vanity license plates. i reserve FUK-YU-IRS1
2. issue a password along with the SSN. now you have security at least as robust as something like gmail. not ironclad security, but you're never going to get that level with SSNs, and you are not introducing a system too cumbersome for you average joe, since he is already used to this security model. websites that "require" SSN can have authentication done a la openID: SSN+password goes to the government's server, and the government's server gives a thumbs up/ thumbs down before the requesting website proceeds with processing. limit, of course, the websites that can request such authentication to a white list (state dmvs, medicaid, student loan sites, etc.). all legacy application processes that require you to write down your SSN on a piece of paper: do away with it. we are at the point where the government can require all use of SSNs to be done via HTTPS only. you can get that on celphones nowadays. the government can set the standard, and the standard is not difficult to meet, even in the municipal office of red lodge montana or on the crabbing boat in alaska when you apply for that fishing boat job
3. make it a lot easier to get a new SSN/ password. compromise will happen, or at least suspected compromise. for peace of mind, make it so individuals can generate a new SSN/ password easily and quickly and without red tape, as easy as getting a new email account
seriously: if it's obviously woefully ignorant of basic facts, it's deluded, and not theoretical. i'm not asking you to be rigorously rigid, i'm asking you to call a duck a duck: if its more fantasy than creative extrapolation, then be intellectually honest please. there are plenty of cases in science where what was once controversial fringe is now solid canon. but for every one of those cases, there a million more ideas which were put forth seriously and are obviously feeble idiocy
"Saying that theoretical ethics is pointless is like saying theoretical physics is pointless."
theoretical physics isn't science fiction. science fiction would be better analogy to what i was refuting. there are people out there who advocate for social systems that are the equivalent to believing in fire breathing dragons and ewoks: articulating a social system that depends upon human behavior that doesn't exist
theoretical physics does not try to defy established physics canon, it teases out hidden potential meaning in edge conditions. it doesn't go out and say gravity doesn't exist or that light is only a particle and not a wave. but some of the social systems people advocate for are based on a similar goofy ignorance of basic human nature. you don't have anything you can remotely call theoretical ethics if you ignore pretty basic aspects of human behavior. theoretical ethics is about things like: what is the legal status of adult human clones? what kind of rights should a sentient robot have?
i'm not talking about that, i'm talking about social systems that are nonstarters, such as: why don't we have a civil society without any police? or: let's remove all private ownership and have everyone live in communal agrarian economic equivalency. this is not theoretical, it's delusional
it's wrong to blast your music. period. whether someone comes in or turns off your stereo or fines your dumb ass is merely different punishments for the same crime
"My right to do ___ NEVER ends"
your right to do XYZ ends where my right to do ABC begins. your rights exist in natural tension with the rights of others, whether you live in complete anarchy or fascist totalitarianism: it has nothing to do with the government, it has to do with the simple obvious fact that what you do has consequences, and some of them impinge horribly on other people's rights
in the case of loud music, your right to do that is NATURALLY limited (no government need be involved) by my right to a good nights sleep. if you blast the music anyway, what you are doing is clearly not a right you possess. how you are punished for your crime (turn off the music, fine you, etc.), doesn't matter, the fact is, you've committed a crime
i'm thinking you're 13 or 14 years old. you seem very confused on the concepts here
good legal codes are based on sound logical reasoning that uses observations only those in possession of high social iq can make
its a combination of social iq and logical reasoning, not one in spite of another
the problem is those who have a pedantic, empty logical reasoning based on low social iq, who go around thinking they are great social philosophers, but who only have ideas which ignorantly or purposefully ignores important undeniable aspects of human nature, ignoring any sort of social intelligence
such people are called utopianists: "if everyone just started acting like no group of human beings has ever behaved in all of human history, then problem X would be solved". and then they go onto build entire "philosophies", like the idiocies of libertarianism and communism (two failed sides of the same coin ignoring essential human altruism and essential human selfishness), that will never work in reality, simply because these "philosophies" only work by ignoring bedrock principles of human nature
any philosophy that ignores obvious components of human nature is either a comedy or tragedy, because so many of these low social iq/high traditional iq types are usually very earnest and shrill about their "philosophies", when the entire house of cards is, frankly, ridiculous. its called building castles in sky: great intricate exercises in logical reasoning, without any foundation whatsoever in reality, and therefore completely useless, no matter how much effort or passion was involved in the construction
say i have a pound of plutonium. should i be free and clear? or does mere possession of it suggest intent? that is, no one has a valid reason for possession of plutonium, other than malfeasance
likewise, there is no godly reason to be in possession of drawings of naked minors, or photoshopped naked minors, that doesn't suggest some sort of intent. not that pedophilia is anything on the scale of plutonium possession, i'm simply using the analogy to suggest that if you possess item X, that is enough to suggest some sort of intent, since there is no godly reason to have item X that doesn't suggest some sort of malfeasance. say i have kiddie porn, real or fantasy: WHY do i have that? there is no reason you can give me for having that that doesn't imply some sort of mal intent
not that i think drawn/ photoshopped kiddie porn should be illegal. i think it should be legal. in order to track the pedarast fuckers who create/ distribute/ consume that
oh right, i'm the fascist. the victim is of course people who consume kiddie porn, not actually, you know, children. nah, no children have ever been harmed by a pedophile. pfffft
when you remove emotion from the equation, you don't have a superior approach, you have simply unmoored yourself from the basis for any policy that can be considered human
we are not robots. a legal system that is purely logical, with no emotional component, is no legal system anyone would want to live under, including yourself
the whole point is not to remove emotion from the equation, but to incorporate emotion and logic is your thinking. anything overtly emotional, or overly logical, is inferior
a traditional iq test mainly tests abstract topographic manipulation/ spatial reasoning/ matehmatics/ etc. but it doesn't test the concept of, for lack of a better word: social iq. there is unfortunately a cult of high iq, high math skills reasoning, that posits this ability above all else is most important in this world and points to the strongest mind. bullshit
the truth of course is that social iq is far more important in this world than high traditional iq/ strong spatial reasoning skills/ etc. the average mensa member will be working for the guy with 100 iq who happens to have a much higher social iq than the mensa member. the ability to do great math just simply isn't as valuable in this world. its not a matter of what society values. that's taking your prejudice before observed truths. did you consider that perhaps what society values just might be what is actually most important in this world? and that by holding math skills to be less important, that is actually the proper objective attitude for a rich, just, happy society?
i assert it is a matter of objective economic truth that the ability to do 3 variable calculus just isn't as important as charisma, in terms of outright usefulness to getting anything valuable done in this world. i don't think barack obama can do linear algebra. does this mean someone who can is somehow better qualified to tackle difficult geopolitical questions? i would actually assert the opposite: anyone with high math skills is a red flag for low social skills, and therefore should be disqualified from making observations on issues in the domain of social intelligence, like politics and the legality of pedophile-related material
i would explain this attitude of mine in a very quick and dirty analogy: the difference between the average mind and the high math iq mind is not the difference between a 50 watt bulb and a 100 watt bulb. it is the difference between someone where their 100 watt bulb lights up the whole room (high social iq: the integrated, expansive, comprehensive mind) and the 100 watt flashlight that can only shine one bright corner while the rest of the room is dimly lit (the focused, concentrated, mathematical mind... at the expense of other social skills). not that there aren't genuinely dim 50 watt bulbs in this world: low math and low social iq, nor that there aren't genuine 200 watt high math/ high social iq rare individuals either. i'm talking the majority of people
so when we hear mathletes wouldn't realize that any type of pedophilia-related activity is a red flag for the person doing that photographic manipulation, those of us who have the prejudice that high iq people are somehow superior in their reasoning skills find support for the notion that everyone else must be wrong, that photoshop manipulator is innocent. i assert that, since those with high math skills often have low social skills, the reverse is true
here's an analogy: make believe you try to explain someone with low traditional iq the concept of derivatives in calculus. but they just don't get it, they are mystified, while you get it easily. but this same person can grasp social situations far more easily than the guy who can do derivatives easily. and so on the question of pedophilia, something clearly in the realm of social iq, the derivatives clueless fellow has social reasoning abilities that are superior to that of the mathlete's
when you cannot easily grasp why photoshopped manipulations of minors or fantasy drawings of naked minors is wrong, i ask you to consider the possibility that your thinking, that photoshops/ drawings are harmless, is deficient in the realm of social iq. deficient in the same way that the guy with low traditional iq can't grasp linear algebra. that considering how and why it might be wrong just leaves you drawing a blank... this is like the low math iq guy trying to grasp derivates. i ask you to consider the possibility that some people lack certain social iq points that renders their opinion on certain subjects deficient. and to explain
if your freedoms are ever limited, it is because people don't responsibility for the consequences for their actions
right now the government has to go in and heavily regulate the financial industry because the assholes there didn't act responsibly and crashed the economy
if everyone in this world acted responsibly, there would be no need for government
but we have government, because people are always shirking their responsibilities. that's why we need government in this world: for the sake of all those who will not live up to their responsibilities
that's the proper relationship between what i am saying and the idea of government
but you come in with this hysterical attack on me that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MEANING OF WHAT I AM SAYING
demonstrating you to be a spastic retarded fuck who can't follow the fucking subject matter
i'm glad you can say fuck you to me. good for you. i'm so happy for you. you're such a cool dude
but next time, why don't you insult me for reasons that actually have to do with what i am saying? sorry if that's too radical an idea for you, spastic retard
Slashdot Mirror
in the animal kingdom and in humans, you need to talk about testicle size
testicle size is a very good indicator of how monogamous females are. for example, chimpanzee females are very promiscuous. therefore, male chimpanzees have huge testicles. why? well, if the idea is you have to leave some offspring in this world, the only valid route you can take to ensure that with promiscuous females is to have a huge ejaculate load, to literally flood out competing males' sperm
it follows then that attractive females, with more frequent mating possibilities, require more "output" to ensure your reproductive success. so, biologically, it may not be a matter of aesthetic pleasure leading to greater sperm volume, but simply a matter of fear: you need to dump a huge load to make sure your sperm outcompetes all the other mating opportunities an attractive female can command
"socialist utopia"
what i am arguing about has nothing to do with socialism. i am in fact quite the card carrying enthusiastic capitalist. but that didn't stop you from throwing around propagandistic terms to try to smear me, right?
that the internet has changed the rules of the game is not an opportunity to press your fears of what the new game might be to the forefront. in fact, what the internet does might in fact make for an even more capitalist-friendly world, by doing away with monopolistic and regulatory barriers to trade. if you only opened your mind and stopped quivering in your idiotic fears, you might see a world of ultracapitalism in what the web is making. that it is a NEW system of capitalism is the real motivator for your FUD: fear of the new, fear of the unknown, fear of change. not an intelligent reckoning of the ramifications of new technology, which is what your mind should be probing
but don't worry about it, just call me a socialist and you've won the argument
as we all know, obama is a secret communist muslim, and other retarded red herrings. moronic propagandistic terms are no replacement for intelligent debate. grow the fuck up
1. that those 20 would have paid for the product were the product not accessible to them for free
2. that demanding payment for a copy of a product is the only valid way you can reward creators
the internet changes the equations. but keep burying your head in the sand and make believing laws made for a world of vinyl and cds works for a world of ubiquitous internet access. its a game changer, and you're playing an old, obsolete game
no profit
copyright laws were created so that some other guy with a printing press or vinyl press wouldn't make and sell copies of a book or recording all on his own without regard to the creator
it never was intended, and never had anything to do with, the idea of someone reproducing material and giving it away FOR FREE
simply because such a person would be insane: all that expense for nothing. to not be motivated by profit is simply nonsensical on the old media world, which was the whole point in copyright: keep the profit with the creators
but the issue of effortless file sharing is a fundamental change in how media works, and has more to do with traditional publishers coming to grips with a new reality. IANAL, but i would like to see a legal argument that says copyright law is only valid for the pursuit of those PROFITING from illicit copies, that those copying for free are essentially outside the scope of the spirit of intellectual property laws and their intent and purpose. which is a fundamentally true argument: the internet is new technology and makes possible what was not possible before, so to apply laws from an old era onto it without thought is to fail to understand the issues in play
such an approach would draw a nice line between the old media world and the new media world as defined by the new economic laws the internet forces onto the world, welcome or not
those are outright lies by politicians. disconnected and ridiculous
in north korea you are talking about a concerted effort since birth to convince your citizens the world outside your borders are full of bloodthirsty tribes ready to destroy you at a moment's notice
not that there doesn't exist people who believe that in the west, but there isn't a concerted effort by the government to create that belief
comparing real brainwashing in north korea with the worst example of demagoguery that you could find in the west: not even remotely in the same league
about as much as my flatulence is "rocket propulsion"
microsoft is the romulans
apple is the klingons
linux is the vulcans
the human female can get rid of the strutting, violent, undependable worthless parasite known as the human male and replace him with a dildo and some stem cells
oh wait, shit, i'm a male
feminist science made me extinct!
scholars have discovered that this bible bleeds when it rains
they also got the billboard to shit bats
making it the most goth/ emo billboard in the world
what torrent i can get this video from?
thanks
but only because some of the photon bombardment results in actual vaporization of the technology in question
so we need a new word, in regards to nanotech, for the traditional connotation of vaporware meaning technology that is announced but will not be realized. something that has nanotech connotations
hmmm. perhaps sevenofnineware. because you most certainly are out of that league
just warn us when they have found no exploits at all?
meanwhile, we would just assume the default status is that everything is exploitable
it would cut down on the announcements by an order of magnitude
1. make ssn's alphanumeric. this keeps it down to 9 letters/ numbers that you can remember. it also makes it backwards compatible so you don't have to issue everyone new SSNs. make it so there is no relationship whatsoever between birth place/ date/ name and SSN. (10 numbers + 26 letters)^9 = 101,559,956,668,416. 101.5 trillion is a nice enough space, and certainly better than the current 1 billion. you may even have idiots requesting vanity SSNs like vanity license plates. i reserve FUK-YU-IRS1
2. issue a password along with the SSN. now you have security at least as robust as something like gmail. not ironclad security, but you're never going to get that level with SSNs, and you are not introducing a system too cumbersome for you average joe, since he is already used to this security model. websites that "require" SSN can have authentication done a la openID: SSN+password goes to the government's server, and the government's server gives a thumbs up/ thumbs down before the requesting website proceeds with processing. limit, of course, the websites that can request such authentication to a white list (state dmvs, medicaid, student loan sites, etc.). all legacy application processes that require you to write down your SSN on a piece of paper: do away with it. we are at the point where the government can require all use of SSNs to be done via HTTPS only. you can get that on celphones nowadays. the government can set the standard, and the standard is not difficult to meet, even in the municipal office of red lodge montana or on the crabbing boat in alaska when you apply for that fishing boat job
3. make it a lot easier to get a new SSN/ password. compromise will happen, or at least suspected compromise. for peace of mind, make it so individuals can generate a new SSN/ password easily and quickly and without red tape, as easy as getting a new email account
none of this is very difficult or groundbreaking
clouds are made of cotton candy
don't laugh at me! i'm a theoretical physicist!
seriously: if it's obviously woefully ignorant of basic facts, it's deluded, and not theoretical. i'm not asking you to be rigorously rigid, i'm asking you to call a duck a duck: if its more fantasy than creative extrapolation, then be intellectually honest please. there are plenty of cases in science where what was once controversial fringe is now solid canon. but for every one of those cases, there a million more ideas which were put forth seriously and are obviously feeble idiocy
"Saying that theoretical ethics is pointless is like saying theoretical physics is pointless."
theoretical physics isn't science fiction. science fiction would be better analogy to what i was refuting. there are people out there who advocate for social systems that are the equivalent to believing in fire breathing dragons and ewoks: articulating a social system that depends upon human behavior that doesn't exist
theoretical physics does not try to defy established physics canon, it teases out hidden potential meaning in edge conditions. it doesn't go out and say gravity doesn't exist or that light is only a particle and not a wave. but some of the social systems people advocate for are based on a similar goofy ignorance of basic human nature. you don't have anything you can remotely call theoretical ethics if you ignore pretty basic aspects of human behavior. theoretical ethics is about things like: what is the legal status of adult human clones? what kind of rights should a sentient robot have?
i'm not talking about that, i'm talking about social systems that are nonstarters, such as: why don't we have a civil society without any police? or: let's remove all private ownership and have everyone live in communal agrarian economic equivalency. this is not theoretical, it's delusional
it's wrong to blast your music. period. whether someone comes in or turns off your stereo or fines your dumb ass is merely different punishments for the same crime
"My right to do ___ NEVER ends"
your right to do XYZ ends where my right to do ABC begins. your rights exist in natural tension with the rights of others, whether you live in complete anarchy or fascist totalitarianism: it has nothing to do with the government, it has to do with the simple obvious fact that what you do has consequences, and some of them impinge horribly on other people's rights
in the case of loud music, your right to do that is NATURALLY limited (no government need be involved) by my right to a good nights sleep. if you blast the music anyway, what you are doing is clearly not a right you possess. how you are punished for your crime (turn off the music, fine you, etc.), doesn't matter, the fact is, you've committed a crime
i'm thinking you're 13 or 14 years old. you seem very confused on the concepts here
just dose the railway car's air supply with xanax
if you are going to ignore free will, you might as well go all the way
good legal codes are based on sound logical reasoning that uses observations only those in possession of high social iq can make
its a combination of social iq and logical reasoning, not one in spite of another
the problem is those who have a pedantic, empty logical reasoning based on low social iq, who go around thinking they are great social philosophers, but who only have ideas which ignorantly or purposefully ignores important undeniable aspects of human nature, ignoring any sort of social intelligence
such people are called utopianists: "if everyone just started acting like no group of human beings has ever behaved in all of human history, then problem X would be solved". and then they go onto build entire "philosophies", like the idiocies of libertarianism and communism (two failed sides of the same coin ignoring essential human altruism and essential human selfishness), that will never work in reality, simply because these "philosophies" only work by ignoring bedrock principles of human nature
any philosophy that ignores obvious components of human nature is either a comedy or tragedy, because so many of these low social iq/high traditional iq types are usually very earnest and shrill about their "philosophies", when the entire house of cards is, frankly, ridiculous. its called building castles in sky: great intricate exercises in logical reasoning, without any foundation whatsoever in reality, and therefore completely useless, no matter how much effort or passion was involved in the construction
say i have a pound of plutonium. should i be free and clear? or does mere possession of it suggest intent? that is, no one has a valid reason for possession of plutonium, other than malfeasance
likewise, there is no godly reason to be in possession of drawings of naked minors, or photoshopped naked minors, that doesn't suggest some sort of intent. not that pedophilia is anything on the scale of plutonium possession, i'm simply using the analogy to suggest that if you possess item X, that is enough to suggest some sort of intent, since there is no godly reason to have item X that doesn't suggest some sort of malfeasance. say i have kiddie porn, real or fantasy: WHY do i have that? there is no reason you can give me for having that that doesn't imply some sort of mal intent
not that i think drawn/ photoshopped kiddie porn should be illegal. i think it should be legal. in order to track the pedarast fuckers who create/ distribute/ consume that
oh right, i'm the fascist. the victim is of course people who consume kiddie porn, not actually, you know, children. nah, no children have ever been harmed by a pedophile. pfffft
when you remove emotion from the equation, you don't have a superior approach, you have simply unmoored yourself from the basis for any policy that can be considered human
we are not robots. a legal system that is purely logical, with no emotional component, is no legal system anyone would want to live under, including yourself
the whole point is not to remove emotion from the equation, but to incorporate emotion and logic is your thinking. anything overtly emotional, or overly logical, is inferior
you hoser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson's_Bay_Company
a traditional iq test mainly tests abstract topographic manipulation/ spatial reasoning/ matehmatics/ etc. but it doesn't test the concept of, for lack of a better word: social iq. there is unfortunately a cult of high iq, high math skills reasoning, that posits this ability above all else is most important in this world and points to the strongest mind. bullshit
the truth of course is that social iq is far more important in this world than high traditional iq/ strong spatial reasoning skills/ etc. the average mensa member will be working for the guy with 100 iq who happens to have a much higher social iq than the mensa member. the ability to do great math just simply isn't as valuable in this world. its not a matter of what society values. that's taking your prejudice before observed truths. did you consider that perhaps what society values just might be what is actually most important in this world? and that by holding math skills to be less important, that is actually the proper objective attitude for a rich, just, happy society?
i assert it is a matter of objective economic truth that the ability to do 3 variable calculus just isn't as important as charisma, in terms of outright usefulness to getting anything valuable done in this world. i don't think barack obama can do linear algebra. does this mean someone who can is somehow better qualified to tackle difficult geopolitical questions? i would actually assert the opposite: anyone with high math skills is a red flag for low social skills, and therefore should be disqualified from making observations on issues in the domain of social intelligence, like politics and the legality of pedophile-related material
i would explain this attitude of mine in a very quick and dirty analogy: the difference between the average mind and the high math iq mind is not the difference between a 50 watt bulb and a 100 watt bulb. it is the difference between someone where their 100 watt bulb lights up the whole room (high social iq: the integrated, expansive, comprehensive mind) and the 100 watt flashlight that can only shine one bright corner while the rest of the room is dimly lit (the focused, concentrated, mathematical mind... at the expense of other social skills). not that there aren't genuinely dim 50 watt bulbs in this world: low math and low social iq, nor that there aren't genuine 200 watt high math/ high social iq rare individuals either. i'm talking the majority of people
so when we hear mathletes wouldn't realize that any type of pedophilia-related activity is a red flag for the person doing that photographic manipulation, those of us who have the prejudice that high iq people are somehow superior in their reasoning skills find support for the notion that everyone else must be wrong, that photoshop manipulator is innocent. i assert that, since those with high math skills often have low social skills, the reverse is true
here's an analogy: make believe you try to explain someone with low traditional iq the concept of derivatives in calculus. but they just don't get it, they are mystified, while you get it easily. but this same person can grasp social situations far more easily than the guy who can do derivatives easily. and so on the question of pedophilia, something clearly in the realm of social iq, the derivatives clueless fellow has social reasoning abilities that are superior to that of the mathlete's
when you cannot easily grasp why photoshopped manipulations of minors or fantasy drawings of naked minors is wrong, i ask you to consider the possibility that your thinking, that photoshops/ drawings are harmless, is deficient in the realm of social iq. deficient in the same way that the guy with low traditional iq can't grasp linear algebra. that considering how and why it might be wrong just leaves you drawing a blank... this is like the low math iq guy trying to grasp derivates. i ask you to consider the possibility that some people lack certain social iq points that renders their opinion on certain subjects deficient. and to explain
genius in a wheelchair versus moron with nine kids
ding ding ding round one!
if your freedoms are ever limited, it is because people don't responsibility for the consequences for their actions
right now the government has to go in and heavily regulate the financial industry because the assholes there didn't act responsibly and crashed the economy
if everyone in this world acted responsibly, there would be no need for government
but we have government, because people are always shirking their responsibilities. that's why we need government in this world: for the sake of all those who will not live up to their responsibilities
that's the proper relationship between what i am saying and the idea of government
but you come in with this hysterical attack on me that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MEANING OF WHAT I AM SAYING
demonstrating you to be a spastic retarded fuck who can't follow the fucking subject matter
i'm glad you can say fuck you to me. good for you. i'm so happy for you. you're such a cool dude
but next time, why don't you insult me for reasons that actually have to do with what i am saying? sorry if that's too radical an idea for you, spastic retard