INTENSITY²
Start here => Free For ALL => Topic started by: Natalia Evans on July 22, 2008, 02:41:23 PM
-
Now taking photos of your own children makes you a pervert ::)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035315/Father-branded-pervert--photographing-children-public-park.html
As years go by, there seems to be more dumb people in the world.
If I were the father, I would have told the dumb ass, "You can take out your camera too and start snapping photos of your child so we can both be perverts." or "I guess you don't take photos of your kids anymore. Now your kids will never know what they were like when they were younger or even remember how young they looked and how much their looks have changed. I feel sorry for them."
-
Never ran into that but I could see it happening people have just gotten too weird for me just makes me want to be near them less than I already do
-
As years go by, there seems to be more dumb people in the world.
Not only does modern medication entirely rule out natural selection, people are no longer uplifted by media or education like they were a few decades ago. In fact, the oposite occurs. As such, Western society degenerates both genetically and culturally at a very rapid pace.
And then people wonder why the hell I'm a traditionalist ;)
-
As years go by, there seems to be more dumb people in the world.
Not only does modern medication entirely rule out natural selection, people are no longer uplifted by media or education like they were a few decades ago. In fact, the oposite occurs. As such, Western society degenerates both genetically and culturally at a very rapid pace.
And then people wonder why the hell I'm a traditionalist ;)
What the fuck has that got to do with people not being able to take pics of their kids, which is what Spokane is referring to?
These people are dumb because they make up these stupid fucking rules about who can do what blah blah; it has nothing to do with meds or genetics or eugenics of fuck all else. If you were such a traditionalist as you say, then you'd have gotten her point straight away instead of rambling on about some other shit. And you say you have an IQ of 137, tested at some hospital.....
One flew over the cuckoos nest, me thinks.
Paging Nurse Ratched, paging Nurse Ratched..... Dr Spivey to the rec room, Dr Spivey to the rec room....
-
These people are dumb because they make up these stupid fucking rules about who can do what blah blah; it has nothing to do with meds or genetics or eugenics of fuck all else.
It goes way beyond stupid rules about who can do what. People have seriously dumbed down in comparison with 50 years ago. Public school curricula are a joke in comparison with the level they once had and the media endulges in constant stupidity as well.
-
An excellent example of why people should carry recording equipment to record everything they do; bullshit accusations from paranoiacs can then be more easily shown for what they are and slander/libel lawsuits can be filed in return.
-
That has nothing to do with breeding or anything like that. The education system ITSELF is a product of policy, and policy is driven by government and their inability to ignore the minority PC wankers that get into their ears. It's because kids aren't allowed to fail because of the fucked up Bell curve system that was brought in that allows this dumbing down as you put it, and it is a direct result of the American teaching system that has flowed on into other countries. Yeah, things were different 50 years ago when kids could spell, read, write etc and do it PROPERLY, but since this new-age chickenshit system came in and spread across the world like the Black Death, then kids have just fallen through the cracks, and thus get passed on up the chain. If kids repeated a year or two in primary school, then maybe they wouldn't be so fucked up as adults.
As I said, it hasn't got anything to do with breeding or eugenics or that type of shit, because education is something that is LEARNED through growing up, and people aren't born smart or dumb.
-
The education system ITSELF is a product of policy, and policy is driven by government and their inability to ignore the minority PC wankers that get into their ears. It's because kids aren't allowed to fail because of the fucked up Bell curve system that was brought in that allows this dumbing down as you put it, and it is a direct result of the American teaching system that has flowed on into other countries. Yeah, things were different 50 years ago when kids could spell, read, write etc and do it PROPERLY, but since this new-age chickenshit system came in and spread across the world like the Black Death, then kids have just fallen through the cracks, and thus get passed on up the chain. If kids repeated a year or two in primary school, then maybe they wouldn't be so fucked up as adults.
Correct.
As I said, it hasn't got anything to do with breeding or eugenics or that type of shit, because education is something that is LEARNED through growing up, and people aren't born smart or dumb.
People are born with a genetically inherited intelligence. Whether or not that intelligence is used and developed, depends on education. It is quite idiotic to state there is no single genetic cause for intelligence as 150 years of scientific research has made it quite obvious that there is a causal relationship. If you seriously believe there is no genetic cause for intelligence, then you obviously fell for liberal propaganda yourself.
-
As I said, it hasn't got anything to do with breeding or eugenics or that type of shit, because education is something that is LEARNED through growing up, and people aren't born smart or dumb.
People are born with a genetically inherited intelligence. Whether or not that intelligence is used and developed, depends on education. It is quite idiotic to state there is no single genetic cause for intelligence as 150 years of scientific research has made it quite obvious that there is a causal relationship. If you seriously believe there is no genetic cause for intelligence, then you obviously fell for liberal propaganda yourself.
[/quote]
That's the typical reaction by a right wing conservative who hasn't the ability to be able to use his education and intelligence. People are born neuter of intellect, it is all nurture. All this bullshit study you talk about is theory put forward by some drop-kick who had it discounted within the first 10 years of publication. Darwin's theory of natural selection and the survival of the fittest mentions nothing about inherited genetic intellect, and mentions nothing about relationships as such. All behaviours, whether they be intellect, sexuality, criminal tendencies etc are derived from nurture and are learned experiences. Anyone who doesn't believe this needs psychiatric help.
And besides, liberalism here means free thinking, and open-mindedness. Something the propagandists of your conservative lot don't teach you.
-
That's the typical reaction by a right wing conservative who hasn't the ability to be able to use his education and intelligence. People are born neuter of intellect, it is all nurture. All this bullshit study you talk about is theory put forward by some drop-kick who had it discounted within the first 10 years of publication. Darwin's theory of natural selection and the survival of the fittest mentions nothing about inherited genetic intellect, and mentions nothing about relationships as such.
More than a century of studies since Darwin prove that both nature and nurture are relevant. In scientific circles only someone like Gould (a liberal propagandist who is very controversial among anthropologists) still persists on the Boasian fallacy that nature is irrelevant.
And besides, liberalism here means free thinking, and open-mindedness.
Liberals like to consider themselves as free thinking and open-minded, but in reality they are as free thinking and open-minded as the most fundamentalist muslems. Hence, the term "liberal" has become an Orwellian distortion of its actual content.
-
[snipped for a load of political squabbling]
People are born neuter of intellect, it is all nurture.
[snipped for another load of political squabbling]
If people can be born with or without developmental disorders, why do you find it so hard to believe that people can't be born with or without different potentials for intelligence?
-
Granted the potential is there, but no-one is born a genius or stupid. They nurture and learn from what life experiences they gain. There are exceptions to every rule, like Einstein, but his is an extreme exception. So unless you work on the potential to become smart by feeding your intellect, you will remain at the level you start off with.
-
Oh wow, I started a debate. Oopsy.
I don't think people choose what their IQ is going to be. But we do learn as years go by as long as we are in the real world and we are allowed to learn things. There are things we are supposed to learn on our own like emotions, body language, personal space, what is socially appropriate, etc. But people with disabilities like Aspergers or autism have to learn it from people and in their special school or special ed. But that doesn't make us less intelligent. There are also people who are born with low IQs and when they reach a certain age level, their minds stop developing so therefore they stop learning too. I still don't see them as stupid. But people with normal or high intelligence can still act stupid.
But Chosen One are you saying we can get our IQs to be very high like lets say 175 if we learn enough in our childhood?
-
I'll add in the obligatory "IQ tests themselves are kind of crap" comment, as well as the "It's not just I.Q. that counts for someone being 'smart' but ability to apply fluid and crystallized intelligence in a useful way to your own life."
But I'm sure it will make no difference. Carry on.
There are also people who are born with low IQs and when they reach a certain age level, their minds stop developing so therefore they stop learning too. I still don't see them as stupid. But people with normal or high intelligence can still act stupid.
Yes! Plus!
-
Granted the potential is there, but no-one is born a genius or stupid. They nurture and learn from what life experiences they gain. There are exceptions to every rule, like Einstein, but his is an extreme exception. So unless you work on the potential to become smart by feeding your intellect, you will remain at the level you start off with.
The debate about nature and nurture still continues in sociological circles, as far as I am aware. Whether we are born a blank canvas or not. I believe some people are born with the potential to become genius and some who are born lacking that particular potential. Of course there are many shades of grey between that. The same with physical prowess. I agree with you that nuture plays a great part in reaching ones fullest intellectual potential. Knowledge and what can be learned is not the sum total of the intellect, intelligence, I believe is more than that.
I believe people all have different gifts and shades of gifts. There are many different shades and areas of genius... the arts, mathematics, literature and the such like. Could we have swopped Picasso and Einstein and Mozart so that they could have been equally as successful as each other in each other's fields... I do not think so. In each, I believe, there was an innate and particular born giftedness that was nurtured to a particular point where it was recognised as genius.
I completely agree with you when you say 'So unless you work on the potential to become smart by feeding your intellect, you will remain at the level you start off with'. I think this is why the standard of intellectual ability today seems somewhat dumbed down compared to days gone by... I think things come too easy to people today so people do not feel such a need to work at things. So a glossy magazine style of knowledge has generally replaced the dry old books crammed with details. This seems to be the same in the arts also. Craft around an idea has been replaced by the idea without great craft.
Back to the initial subject of this thread... It is unthinkably crazy for anybody to be labelled perverted for photographing their own children, but it does not look like that was happening in this news story, regardless of the title of the article. I think in this case it was all being inflamed by a wretched busy body with a bee in her bonnett trying to argue he was taking pictures of other people's children and simply wouldn't let it go. It is a shame that simply having a camera on a family day out can bring out the worst in people with an axe to grind.
-
The debate about nature and nurture still continues in sociological circles, as far as I am aware.
The debate deals with the significance of nature's influence and the significance of nurture's influence as it is still unclear how much nurture can influence genetically determined traits. Only idiots still believe that ONLY nature or ONLY nurture are involved.
-
Only idiots still believe that ONLY nature or ONLY nurture are involved.
You might view them as idiots. I certainly think they are mistaken, but many intelligent and otherwise admirable people can be mistaken on one thing or another. Come, surely you don't honestly believe that you never make mistakes? :) Even uninformed and silly ones.
-
Kind of like my estimation of WHY some old mothers were accused of being "refrigerator moms" in order to explain why their children are autistic. What about the possibility that those moms were autistic as well and those specific difficulties led them to other problems, resulting in being accused of such "refrigerator" behavior.
A balance of thought has not been reached.
-
Heck, I don't even think an autistic woman would need other problems in order to be viewed as cold and distant by the ignorant people around her, regardless of how loving she actually was.
-
Only idiots still believe that ONLY nature or ONLY nurture are involved.
You might view them as idiots. I certainly think they are mistaken, but many intelligent and otherwise admirable people can be mistaken on one thing or another. Come, surely you don't honestly believe that you never make mistakes? :) Even uninformed and silly ones.
The claims that ONLY nature or ONLY nurture are involved make no sense whatsoever and are contradicted by all the scientific evidence. Either you must be an idiot or a brainwashed lemming if you take this as a fact.
-
Ya know, Illusion, ignorance is not always a sin.
Yours or anyone else's.
You don't have to run in such terror from the concept.
-
Only idiots still believe that ONLY nature or ONLY nurture are involved.
You might view them as idiots. I certainly think they are mistaken, but many intelligent and otherwise admirable people can be mistaken on one thing or another. Come, surely you don't honestly believe that you never make mistakes? :) Even uninformed and silly ones.
The claims that ONLY nature or ONLY nurture are involved make no sense whatsoever and are contradicted by all the scientific evidence. Either you must be an idiot or a brainwashed lemming if you take this as a fact.
I think you are not reading my posts properly. I am of the position that it is a mixture of nature and nurture :green:
I've bent over backwards not to insult you because plenty here are doing so already. So here you go insulting me from what you presume is my position when if you had actually read what I posted you surely would not have made this mistake about my position.
If you wish me to take you seriously, then at least read what I have said - I have been quite clear :green:
-
Ya know, Illusion, ignorance is not always a sin.
Yours or anyone else's.
You don't have to run in such terror from the concept.
Ignorance is dangerous. Ignorance turns people into gullible and prejudiced pawns of the establishment, eager to trample on anyone who falls outside of the box. The more ignorant the masses, the more cruel, violent and degenerate they become.
The purest idealism is unconsciously equivalent to the deepest knowledge.
I think you are not reading my posts properly. I am of the position that it is a mixture of nature and nurture :green:
Like you said, it was pretty obvious what you meant so I figured it was clear that the "you" was a general "you" and not a reference to the individual known on this forum as Nocturnalist! An Englishman would say something like "Either one must be an idiot or a brainwashed lemming if one takes this as a fact". I prefer the more modern use of the word "you" instead of "one" although in cases like this it might be confusing.
I have no intent to insult you. Don't judge me on a misinterpretation of my words.
-
Ya know, Illusion, ignorance is not always a sin.
Yours or anyone else's.
You don't have to run in such terror from the concept.
Ignorance is dangerous.
True, however, ignorance is also natural - nobody is born with full knowledge of everything. And you villify it to an irrational degree, to the point where it clouds your judgment and fucks up your communication.
Hint: anytime your brain thinks something is evil, that's the time to examine it, not to run around accusing everybody of it.
-
True, however, ignorance is also natural - nobody is born with full knowledge of everything. And you villify it to an irrational degree, to the point where it clouds your judgment and fucks up your communication.
People who're ignorant can't help being ignorant. They can help being hypocriticaly, narrowminded and prejudiced, though. As such, I mostly object to hypocricy, marrowmindedness and prejudice.
Hint: anytime your brain thinks something is evil, that's the time to examine it, not to run around accusing everybody of it.
I'm not a dualist. I don't think in terms of good vs. evil but rather I ask myself how dangerous someone's attitude or behavior is for the welfare of others. In my opinion, there is nothing more dangerous than hypocricy, marrowmindedness and prejudice. Hence, I object to such attitudes quite strongly.
People should be taught to open up their minds and to think rationally. It's the best way to fight ignorance and the best way to preserve peace and justice.
-
Hint: anytime your brain thinks something is evil, that's the time to examine it, not to run around accusing everybody of it.
I must thouroughly examine puppy shanking!
-
:laugh:
Perhaps less applicable to those who actually have a serving or two of common sense.
Or perhaps that's the most important time to do at least a cursory check.
-
Pretty bad when you have to be the parent of your mom.
-
Like you said, it was pretty obvious what you meant so I figured it was clear that the "you" was a general "you" and not a reference to the individual known on this forum as Nocturnalist! An Englishman would say something like "Either one must be an idiot or a brainwashed lemming if one takes this as a fact". I prefer the more modern use of the word "you" instead of "one" although in cases like this it might be confusing.
Thanks for explaining... I was puzzled and did not read 'you' the way you intended. Speaking as an Englishman, using the word 'one' in this way is considered very old fashioned or snobbish in the UK... it not really considered common usage... although I admit I do sometimes speak and write that way.
-
Pretty bad when you have to be the parent of your mom.
You're the offspring of a man and his granddaughter? How's that working out for you?
-
Thanks for explaining... I was puzzled and did not read 'you' the way you intended. Speaking as an Englishman, using the word 'one' in this way is considered very old fashioned or snobbish in the UK... it not really considered common usage... although I admit I do sometimes speak and write that way.
Although I was taught Oxford English in high school and college, I usually write and speak American English because most of my knowledge of the English language comes from TV, films, music, Internet, etc.... When I do hear British English, it's usually Oxford English or working class English and I can't say how much either reflect the language of the average Englishman.
How do English these days distinguish between the general "you" and the specific "you"? Is there a simple trick in your language to avoid the confusion or should a person just judge on the basis of context?
-
How do English these days distinguish between the general "you" and the specific "you"? Is there a simple trick in your language to avoid the confusion or should a person just judge on the basis of context?
Its simply that one has got to be careful with the context (there I go using 'one' again - lol)... in correct modern UK English the words 'you' and 'have' would be there rather than 'one' and 'has' ;D
-
True, however, ignorance is also natural - nobody is born with full knowledge of everything. And you villify it to an irrational degree, to the point where it clouds your judgment and fucks up your communication.
People who're ignorant can't help being ignorant. They can help being hypocriticaly, narrowminded and prejudiced, though. As such, I mostly object to hypocricy, marrowmindedness and prejudice.
Hint: anytime your brain thinks something is evil, that's the time to examine it, not to run around accusing everybody of it.
I'm not a dualist. I don't think in terms of good vs. evil but rather I ask myself how dangerous someone's attitude or behavior is for the welfare of others. In my opinion, there is nothing more dangerous than hypocricy, marrowmindedness and prejudice. Hence, I object to such attitudes quite strongly.
People should be taught to open up their minds and to think rationally. It's the best way to fight ignorance and the best way to preserve peace and justice.
Gotta be careful about how open your mind is though. If it's too open, any old crap can fall in and you might not get it out again. Just a thought. ;D
-
People should be taught to open up their minds and to think rationally. It's the best way to fight ignorance and the best way to preserve peace and justice.
Gotta be careful about how open your mind is though. If it's too open, any old crap can fall in and you might not get it out again. Just a thought. ;D
[/quote]
It all depends on whether or not you process your data logically.
-
Yeah, the more strictly logical, the less likely to be accurate, in this messy and chaotic world. That's why humans function much better than AI.
Are you an AI?
-
Yeah, the more strictly logical, the less likely to be accurate, in this messy and chaotic world.
I strongly disagree. A high degree of accuracy can only be achieve be applying strict logic. The messy and chaotic nature of the world doesn't change this a bit. It just requires the ability to process high volumes at data at a rapid speed.
That's why humans function much better than AI.
Humans function better than AI because AI is not real AI. As long as computers can't actually learn independently, we can't really speak of genuine AI. The moment a computer becomes independent of its programming and indepentently learns new ideas, we'll have true AI. Self-awareness is the next step.
Are you an AI?
I am not, although I see a great deal of similarity between the way I process data and between a computer processes data. This is partly the reason why I became an IT consultant.
-
As long as computers can't actually learn independently, we can't really speak of genuine AI. The moment a computer becomes independent of its programming and indepentently learns new ideas, we'll have true AI.
This happened nearly ten years ago.
-
i keep reading this thread as, "warning to all the pants on here."
how i laugh.
-
i keep reading this thread as, "warning to all the pants on here."
how i laugh.
No, that's what flashes up on the screen every time you log into I2 :P
-
As long as computers can't actually learn independently, we can't really speak of genuine AI. The moment a computer becomes independent of its programming and indepentently learns new ideas, we'll have true AI.
This happened nearly ten years ago.
Please elaborate. What experiment are you referring to and why do you regard it as an example of independent learning?
-
As long as computers can't actually learn independently, we can't really speak of genuine AI. The moment a computer becomes independent of its programming and indepentently learns new ideas, we'll have true AI.
This happened nearly ten years ago.
Please elaborate. What experiment are you referring to and why do you regard it as an example of independent learning?
Many of my colleagues worked in AI.
Try google, there is some unclassified work out there (most of it I think).
-
Many of my colleagues worked in AI.
Try google, there is some unclassified work out there (most of it I think).
I'm aware of AI research but I'm not aware of any computers that manage to learn independently. Most experiments with regards to AI involve little more than complex algorythms that somewhat simulate independent thinking but never approach the real thing.
-
Many of my colleagues worked in AI.
Try google, there is some unclassified work out there (most of it I think).
I'm aware of AI research but I'm not aware of any computers that manage to learn independently. Most experiments with regards to AI involve little more than complex algorythms that somewhat simulate independent thinking but never approach the real thing.
What real thing?
You think the brain does anything more special than pattern recognition or something?
-
I'm aware of AI research but I'm not aware of any computers that manage to learn independently. Most experiments with regards to AI involve little more than complex algorythms that somewhat simulate independent thinking but never approach the real thing.
What real thing?
You think the brain does anything more special than pattern recognition or something?[/quote]
What lacks in current attempts to produce AI is the computer being able to make its own decisions. Computers thusfar have failed to do anything but that which man tells them to.
-
i keep reading this thread as, "warning to all the pants on here."
how i laugh.
No, that's what flashes up on the screen every time you log into I2 :P
:laugh: fab! :plus:
-
I'm aware of AI research but I'm not aware of any computers that manage to learn independently. Most experiments with regards to AI involve little more than complex algorythms that somewhat simulate independent thinking but never approach the real thing.
What real thing?
You think the brain does anything more special than pattern recognition or something?
What lacks in current attempts to produce AI is the computer being able to make its own decisions. Computers thusfar have failed to do anything but that which man tells them to.
[/quote]
As an example...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7549059.stm
If you are really into this sort of stuff, Kurzweil has written some pretty good books on it I hear :)
-
Promising.... very promising.
-
People should be taught to open up their minds and to think rationally. It's the best way to fight ignorance and the best way to preserve peace and justice.
Gotta be careful about how open your mind is though. If it's too open, any old crap can fall in and you might not get it out again. Just a thought. ;D
It all depends on whether or not you process your data logically.
[/quote] :orly:Well, you know the old saying "Garbage In, Garbage Out". :evillaugh: