plarq
Crazy forever
Damn, I have 150 IQ and not bragging about it before!
To put an end to all these waterboarding and torture nonsense
- Thread starter tonberry
- Start date
Ecofarm
Deity
I only tell people my IQ when they call me stupid. Spare me the "bragging". Perhaps if you were personally attacked as often as I am, you would have mentioned it too.
You should brag about a 150 IQ. I've never met anyone with an IQ that high.
You should brag about a 150 IQ. I've never met anyone with an IQ that high.
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Yet you still fail to understand that an IQ doesn't actually mean a damn thing. It's potential, raw intelligence, has no bearing on actual knowledge.
Ecofarm
Deity
So does it mean raw intelligence or not a damn thing? Who ever said that IQ = knowledge? Who told you that??
Do you know what stupid means? It means lacking raw intelligence, not lacking knowledge.
Do you know what idiot means? It means lacking knowledge, not lacking intelligence.
Thus, when people call me stupid I reference my IQ (do you understand now?).
And when people attack my wisdom/knowledge I reference my experience.
This should all be very clear and logical to you.
Do you know what stupid means? It means lacking raw intelligence, not lacking knowledge.
Do you know what idiot means? It means lacking knowledge, not lacking intelligence.
Thus, when people call me stupid I reference my IQ (do you understand now?).
And when people attack my wisdom/knowledge I reference my experience.
This should all be very clear and logical to you.
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Potential raw intelligence. I shouldn't have had a comma there.
And you imply it, every time you claim say, "Hey, I'm not stupid. I have an IQ of 134, I'm smarter than everyone you know."
Look everyone, I'm editing, without putting writing EDIT: beforehand. This certainly won't annoy the piss out of anyone debating anything at all with me.
It certainly doesn't make debating anything with me difficult. Not at all, no.
Ecofarm
Deity
Do you know what smart means? It means raw intelligence, or potential.
Smart does not mean wise or knowledgable.
It seems your problem is differenciating between stupid and ignorant, and defining smart. Once you have those definitions cleared up, it should all make sense to you.
Smart does not mean wise or knowledgable.
It seems your problem is differenciating between stupid and ignorant, and defining smart. Once you have those definitions cleared up, it should all make sense to you.
I agree, dutchfire. I'm partly sorry for all involved.
Imho it would require talking about personal motivations to defend certain "facts". I put the facts in quotes because - in my perception - the ongoing struggle for definitions and consequences seems to be highly driven and formed by the motivations of the posting users. Those motivations however don't seem to be openly discussed and so the "discussion" derails to an exceedingly personal level.
Just my 2
.
Imho it would require talking about personal motivations to defend certain "facts". I put the facts in quotes because - in my perception - the ongoing struggle for definitions and consequences seems to be highly driven and formed by the motivations of the posting users. Those motivations however don't seem to be openly discussed and so the "discussion" derails to an exceedingly personal level.
Just my 2
.Mercenary82
King
It is torture but I still think it and other techniques should be used. The main fault of the US government here is being too stupid to keep the location of the prison classified in the first place.
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Stupid: lacking in understanding or common sense; silly; foolish; stunned.
Idiot: a severely mentally ******ed adult; a foolish or stupid person.
Smart: astute; clever; witty.
Intelligence: the ability to learn or understand; the ability to cope with a new situation.
Intelligent: Having, or showing intelligence.
As we can see, an idiot is a stupid person. Therefore, you cannot seperate them If one is an idiot, one is stupid. If one is stupid, one is an idiot. They mean essentially the same thing.
When you state; "My IQ is 134, I'm smarter than anyone you know," you are incorrect. Smartness does not correlate with intelligence, it correlates with cleverness, or wittiness. Even idiots can possess wit. Hell, in the middle ages, idiots were expected to possess wit. So, when you state you're smart because you have a high IQ, you are wrong. Intelligence and smartness have no relation to one another.
You only mention your IQ when someone calls you stupid. I've never seen you mention it otherwise. A stupid person is an idiot. An idiot can also be smart. Therefore, smartness and idiocy are not opposites. One can be stupid and smart at the same time, odd as that seems.
Stupid also means lacking in understanding. Intelligence is the ability to understand; not understanding itself. One can have the ability to ability to wrestle, but not be a wrestler, the ability to knit, but not be a knitter, the ability to shag, but not be a porn star. Just because you have the ability to understand, does not mean that you are not also stupid. One could have an IQ of 1000, and still be an idiot.
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
This is why I should have posted straight away, instead of eating and coming back to post later. Things sneak in.I agree, dutchfire. I'm partly sorry for all involved.
Imho it would require talking about personal motivations to defend certain "facts". I put the facts in quotes because - in my perception - the ongoing struggle for definitions and consequences seems to be highly driven and formed by the motivations of the posting users. Those motivations however don't seem to be openly discussed and so the "discussion" derails to an exceedingly personal level.
Just my 2
My motivation is simple: to attempt to get across to 134 that possessing an impressive IQ does not in any way make him 'not stupid.' And some of those definitions might look out of place, but I had to correct him on a few other points. Just because he brought up incorrect definitions, nothing more.
It is torture. But my level of care is somewhere between "having an opinion" and "responding in a thread" but not to the level of "I'm actually willing to do something about it."
Then again, that seems to be everyone's level of care.
Torturing people is so horrible! How can we call ourselves -- brb, popcorn's ready -- how can we call ourselves a civilized society yet practice such barbarity.
Then again, that seems to be everyone's level of care.
Torturing people is so horrible! How can we call ourselves -- brb, popcorn's ready -- how can we call ourselves a civilized society yet practice such barbarity.
plarq
Crazy forever
There's no civilization here human! That's why we torture, hate, kill, and f**k each other.
Well honestly, I'm far more concerned about the homeless in my city than I am a theoretical argument about torture.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Eco maybe you just shouldnt bring it up at all because you usually get laughed at a lot more when you do than when you just have a dig back...
I was measured at 134 while being waterboarded. Amazing how a swimming lesson helps one focus.
IQ tries to measure raw potential, but doesn't fully grasp just "raw potential". But raw potential doesn't actually really exist, at least in solely raw form.
Learning and knowledge can actually boost one's IQ score. Because of the way intelligence works, the more you know, the better you'll do on measures of "raw intelligence".
In Eco's defense, he wasn't the one that brought up his IQ in this thread...
Citation, or you pulled that out of your butt.
I don't care about anonymous posters' assertions of their IQ scores on an internet message board. I can't help but think of Brad Pitt's character in Burn After Reading describing the "raw intelligence" found on the floor of the men's locker room.
But let's get the facts about Guantanamo straight.
1. They are not POWs. No one has ever asserted they're POWs. (Well, some people on the Internet have, but no one with any actual knowledge of or control over the detainees has.) They do not receive POW protections, most notably the requirement that POWs may not be interrogated. If anybody wants to consider them POWs, he or she should be opposed to all interrogation of detainees beyond "name, rank, and serial number." I think that's stupid, for what I can only hope are obvious reasons.
2. They do not face military tribunals. There is a combatant status review system in place, but the Supreme Court has determined that it does not meet constitutional standards. The government has also asserted that no matter the outcome of the tribunals, they are going to keep at least some of the detainees detained. Therefore, the CSRTs as currently instituted are a sham.
Cleo
But let's get the facts about Guantanamo straight.
1. They are not POWs. No one has ever asserted they're POWs. (Well, some people on the Internet have, but no one with any actual knowledge of or control over the detainees has.) They do not receive POW protections, most notably the requirement that POWs may not be interrogated. If anybody wants to consider them POWs, he or she should be opposed to all interrogation of detainees beyond "name, rank, and serial number." I think that's stupid, for what I can only hope are obvious reasons.
2. They do not face military tribunals. There is a combatant status review system in place, but the Supreme Court has determined that it does not meet constitutional standards. The government has also asserted that no matter the outcome of the tribunals, they are going to keep at least some of the detainees detained. Therefore, the CSRTs as currently instituted are a sham.
Cleo
