what I'm saying is there is no need for name calling, you can just argue for/against a position rather than the people. It doesn't actually add to your argument, it just makes you look like a douche.

Im not afraid to pepper my arguments with personal attacks against my ideological enemies.

obviously, and it's effective at persuading outside viewers of an argument, but by that same token it should not be done, you're filling your argument with negative perspectives of other ideals rather than a logical argument. People remember the implications of your argument rather than your actual argument, so you're influencing people more with your attacks than your reasoning, and I believe arguments should be won with real logic and reason.

The problem is that shame moves people faster than logical discourse, so at the very least it ought to be applied intelligently. I believe that people who don't agree with gay marriage and ending the wars are fucking degenerates, for instance. If I treat those people as though they are my equals, I do a disservice to my own ideology of egalitarianism and peace.

but the other problem is that when you treat others like inferiors, they treat you like inferiors. And you just walk away thinking each other is an idiot, and you accomplished nothing. And people watching end up just agreeing with their original opinions even more.

This isn't about changing minds, its about getting those on the fence to get the fuck over to the right side. The people who disagree strongly enough wouldn't even admit to changing his mind IF you did change it.

I see your argument but it is a bit of a straw man. Weed is great, I love it, but when push comes to shove I can stop using it if needed. I can't stop liking the same sex. Weed is a privileged while equality is a right. Not just that but the fact that "local diners aren't serving people with blue eyes first" also leads to public opinion against the people that are discriminated and leads to tons of hate crimes, including murders. I agree that drug legalization is a huge issue but in context I think gay rights are higher.

I don't think so at all. Its not about just having the right to smoke weed, it is the fact that people are dying as a result of the drug 'war', its all the people crammed into prison for inhumane periods of time only to be thrust into an unwelcoming job climate that will only force them into the black market again, and the gradual chipping away it makes at the poor. That is so much more important than gay marriage. It is true that the hate crimes are a result of the fight for marital equality, but black people alone are more victim to hate crimes than gay people. They are seen as corruption of youth causing gangsters (though the culture of gangster rap does not help them) and I don't think it unreasonable to assume that hate crimes against racial minorities dwarfs their effects on the homosexual community.

GIF very loosely related.

You didn't really answer the question...how is someone being treated differently for no objective reason less important than legalization of marijuana...?

The best argument I've seen against gay civil marriage/unions - and perhaps the only one that has any intellectual appeal, though it may still be rather weak - is that government recognition of marriage is a matter of public policy that should serve the public good. The reason marriage has any sort of special legal status in the first place is that the government wants to a) encourage reproduction and b) help ensure that children are raised in a stable environment. Since gay couples cannot naturally reproduce, giving their relationships special legal status (and therefore tax credits and other benefits) would serve no purpose. gay couples are already free to have long-term relationships and live together.

Although this argument doesn't convince me to oppose gay civil marriage, it is an "objective reason" to treat gay couples differently under the law.

I don't mean to be rude but how is making some people second class citizens less important than weed? Don't get me wrong, I love weed. But if I were to choose between losing weed or being less than everyone else I would lose weed.

Its a matter of priorities. If I were mayor of some town and I found there were landmines around that killed people, imprisoned people, and made them needlessly unemployable, I would hesitate to then deal with the fact that the local diners aren't serving people with blue eyes first.

That is a very shitty but accurate analogy of these two issues in context. I am a full blown egalitarian but I think it is wrong to place this issue so high on the to-do list.

I see your argument but it is a bit of a straw man. Weed is great, I love it, but when push comes to shove I can stop using it if needed. I can't stop liking the same sex. Weed is a privileged while equality is a right. Not just that but the fact that "local diners aren't serving people with blue eyes first" also leads to public opinion against the people that are discriminated and leads to tons of hate crimes, including murders. I agree that drug legalization is a huge issue but in context I think gay rights are higher.

I don't think so at all. Its not about just having the right to smoke weed, it is the fact that people are dying as a result of the drug 'war', its all the people crammed into prison for inhumane periods of time only to be thrust into an unwelcoming job climate that will only force them into the black market again, and the gradual chipping away it makes at the poor. That is so much more important than gay marriage. It is true that the hate crimes are a result of the fight for marital equality, but black people alone are more victim to hate crimes than gay people. They are seen as corruption of youth causing gangsters (though the culture of gangster rap does not help them) and I don't think it unreasonable to assume that hate crimes against racial minorities dwarfs their effects on the homosexual community.

GIF very loosely related.

You didn't really answer the question...how is someone being treated differently for no objective reason less important than legalization of marijuana...?

The best argument I've seen against gay civil marriage/unions - and perhaps the only one that has any intellectual appeal, though it may still be rather weak - is that government recognition of marriage is a matter of public policy that should serve the public good. The reason marriage has any sort of special legal status in the first place is that the government wants to a) encourage reproduction and b) help ensure that children are raised in a stable environment. Since gay couples cannot naturally reproduce, giving their relationships special legal status (and therefore tax credits and other benefits) would serve no purpose. gay couples are already free to have long-term relationships and live together.

Although this argument doesn't convince me to oppose gay civil marriage, it is an "objective reason" to treat gay couples differently under the law.

Don't attach a position to an entire group of people, call them faggots, and then just make up shit about the extent of their positions as a collective whole.

No, no, no. I was just calling some 'liberals' (Air quotes indicating that I do not believe true liberals actually hold this position) faggoty (different from full blown faggot). And I do not consider the obvious truth as 'making shit up'. This subsection of pussy-bitch authoritarians who want to control guns the most also want to ban assault weapons, and very logically can be inferred to having a 'ban all guns' mentality.

what I'm saying is there is no need for name calling, you can just argue for/against a position rather than the people. It doesn't actually add to your argument, it just makes you look like a douche.

Im not afraid to pepper my arguments with personal attacks against my ideological enemies.

obviously, and it's effective at persuading outside viewers of an argument, but by that same token it should not be done, you're filling your argument with negative perspectives of other ideals rather than a logical argument. People remember the implications of your argument rather than your actual argument, so you're influencing people more with your attacks than your reasoning, and I believe arguments should be won with real logic and reason.

The problem is that shame moves people faster than logical discourse, so at the very least it ought to be applied intelligently. I believe that people who don't agree with gay marriage and ending the wars are fucking degenerates, for instance. If I treat those people as though they are my equals, I do a disservice to my own ideology of egalitarianism and peace.

but the other problem is that when you treat others like inferiors, they treat you like inferiors. And you just walk away thinking each other is an idiot, and you accomplished nothing. And people watching end up just agreeing with their original opinions even more.

This isn't about changing minds, its about getting those on the fence to get the fuck over to the right side. The people who disagree strongly enough wouldn't even admit to changing his mind IF you did change it.

Always a spot in my green thumb reserves for A Pimp Named Slickback.

Thanks for the heads up Slickback!

wait i have to say the whole thing, can't i just say rover?

No.

STOP MAKING ME FEEL BAD

Way to show off. :(

The smallest penis in the world would still break it before getting it caught.

STOP MAKING ME FEEL BAD

Maybe he just has a small penis?

You can say that if you want. It's opinion, i can't point to you and say "look here is an example of a communist state and it has failed" because we've never seen a communist state

And you can't say vice versa, because we've never had a truly free market society

You can say capitalism is shite lol, but you'd need to say why for it to be an effective argument. You would need to say what would be wrong with a free market

I say communism wouldn't work because it stifles evolution in society, no one wants to work when they don't get anything out of it.

Obviously, there are problems in getting to a capitalism state, but i think if we did then it would work, so we should try and get as close to it as possible. Getting as close to communism as possible would be rather dangerous

Not suprised that all this is coming from a "Glasgow Rangers" fan.

TL;DR: You want Obama to give amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants and behold them the rights to vote.

Your example of elderly people expresses your motive well for elderly people are probably the only group which actually follows politics, and are the most intelligent in it. Every single group votes based on blocks like you have described for elderly people; Hispanics vote mostly on illegal immigration, Asians on legal immigration, Blacks on race.

who could be bothered to trade if they don't get anything for it?

You are pre-supposing that communism does not work because the textbook definition applied would not allow market principles to flourish. That would be like me saying capitalism is shite, because 'fuck laissez faire'.

You can say that if you want. It's opinion, i can't point to you and say "look here is an example of a communist state and it has failed" because we've never seen a communist state

And you can't say vice versa, because we've never had a truly free market society

You can say capitalism is shite lol, but you'd need to say why for it to be an effective argument. You would need to say what would be wrong with a free market

I say communism wouldn't work because it stifles evolution in society, no one wants to work when they don't get anything out of it.

Obviously, there are problems in getting to a capitalism state, but i think if we did then it would work, so we should try and get as close to it as possible. Getting as close to communism as possible would be rather dangerous

Not suprised that all this is coming from a "Glasgow Rangers" fan.

if you invent something in a communist state, you don't get anything more than the person who sits at home all day

Result = everyone sits at home all day

The notion that someone who has lived twice as long as another would be incapable of comprehending what that other person needs in life is quite silly to be honest.
And IQ is a flawed system, but can you honestly say you have met anyone with a high IQ that was unintelligent?

Yes there are plenty of people with low IQ that do apply themselves and are intelligent individuals but on the average ten times as many are complete imbeciles.
those imbeciles worry me.

People who are older have different motives, as well as different moral codes in many cases. If you only allowed the elderly of today to vote for example, you would see an increase in Medicaid/Medicare spending and a downturn in financial aid for college students because 'Fuck that socialist shit, pull yourself up by the bootstraps'. You would see More drug war laws, as well as an increase in wars because they were raised in the red scare and have international hostility practically ingrained in them. These same types of problems would persist with forty year olds onto the younger generation. That is part of why I believe strongly that voting rights ought to be extended as broadly as possible. Sure, lets not actively encourage stupid people to vote, but there are intelligent people of all ages that deserve a voice.

TL;DR: You want Obama to give amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants and behold them the rights to vote.

Your example of elderly people expresses your motive well for elderly people are probably the only group which actually follows politics, and are the most intelligent in it. Every single group votes based on blocks like you have described for elderly people; Hispanics vote mostly on illegal immigration, Asians on legal immigration, Blacks on race.

>And IQ is a flawed system
Citation needed.

You do get that you have selected the one thing from my statement that supports your belief and ignored everything else completely, this tells me you are an unintelligent individual and your opinion is meaningless.

I just hate this intellectual fallacy that is being sprouted which states IQ is somehow meaningless. This is what Communists in Russia tried to argue. This thesis that IQ is a false-system is completely wrong.

It is not false, it is flawed, but it still works fine.

I would argue you to be wrong. Look into scientific studies on IQ; it shows very well the future of a person. If he will pass college, if he will die young, what score he will get on the ACT test.

It is meaningless. You want proof? Then define what intelligence is and give us a universal set of rules that define it. You just can't do it

You can say the exact same thing for a driving test:

Oh well, this whole thing is like, based on the fallacy which assumes that this test will pinpoint how well I drive. It is based on a set of rules which cannot be described as "universal"

Would you argue that someone who fails a driving test is a better driver than someone who perfectly passes it? I mean, afterall, the two scores should mean no difference to you since the test is based on abstract rules.

A driving test is to ensure you are a qualified enough driver to take the road without causing harm. Driving has a set of rules that must be learned before you can do it. The "abstract" rules are still rules. IQ isn't anything like that. At all.

Really, I didn't even need to answer you at all because your argument was totally irrelevant. So until you can give me a set of rules that define intelligence, you still lose this argument.

Look into scientific studies which use IQ to measure a persons later success in life. IQ is a very valuable measurement which can very accurately pinpoint what a person will become and what he can become. A driving test is a very good example to what you use as an argument. IQ tests measure, again, very accurately what a person would score on the ACT, which thus would decide what he will become in life making it an accurate test. Driving tests measure how people can do abstract things such as parallel park, and this equates well with how they can maneuver using a wheel.

Another example of its accuracy is how it passed through the blood; how family members tend to have the same IQ's eachother, and the same racial groups.

In all the studies comparing identical and fraternal twins -- it is found that separated identical twins raised apart scored closer in IQ than fraternal twins raised together. Other sources of excellent data are found in studies of adopted children. Adopted children are closer to their genetic parents' IQs rather than with their foster parents who they grow up with.

"define what intelligence is and give us a universal set of rules that define it."

What about this do you not comprehend?

What about not being a total fucking retard do you not understand? You are trying to argue that because there is no simple handbook written which states what intelligence is, that is it totally irrelevant which cannot be the case if you look into scientific data.

The universal system of intelligence is measured through scientific studies which prove the validity of IQ in showing how a person evolves in life: the grades he gets, how much money he makes in a job. That has strong correlation with IQ. And to see that IQ is very relatable to heredity makes my case stronger.

If you can't understand what I'm saying, read a book about it (ones that weren't published in the Soviet Union).

Look to my example of a drivers test which I expanded upon in my last comment. It applies very well to your idiotic argument.

"the grades he gets, how much money he makes in a job. That has strong correlation with IQ."
Neither of which prove IQ is a useful measure of intelligence.

"And to see that IQ is very relatable to heredity makes my case stronger."
So because it's hereditary it's a good measure of IQ. Yeah that doesn't make sense

"Look to my example of a drivers test which I expanded upon in my last comment. It applies very well to your idiotic argument."
Naw it was actually completely irrelevant, try again.

You must have anger issues buddy. You can't argue the validity of how well a test measures something, if you can't even define what it is it's measuring in the first place. You can't argue the validity of how well a test measures something, if you can't even define what it is it's measuring in the first place. I typed it twice so you understand it. If you still don't then I can't imagine how slow your cognitive abilities are.

IQ measures intelligence to the point of which it is seen in society. THAT IS THE ANSWER.

Nobody knows what "intelligence" literally means but IQ applies intelligence as measured by our society to how it reflects in the real world.

"IQ measures intelligence to the point of which it is seen in society."
No it doesn't.

"Nobody knows what "intelligence" literally means"
Yep, all I needed to hear.

You know what, I'm done. No scientist would agree with your Soviet-like thesis, just so you know that.

I have explained to you everything but heredity; and that makes my case stronger because it shows that intelligence is a matter of biology, the brain, evolution. It is NOT "abstract" and environmental just because it doesn't go well with your autism.

Grades, occupation, and income have everything to do with IQ. Studies have shown a .82 correlation between IQ and yearly income. If you're going to argue against that as not being "useful", then I'm going to throw up over my keyboard.

Well you keep being mad (I really can't help that you lost this argument) and I'll take my leave now.

Haha, k bud. Take this to /sci/ and see what they say.

correlation and causation are very different...life doesn't revolve in a vacuum where IQ is the dominant factor which decides all things. Not to say a higher IQ will not benefit you in real life, but some people mature gradually over time and develop their intelligence. So essentially in order for your system of government to vote you're proposing:

1. Annual IQ tests which must be moderated/standardized, created, distributed and marked

This will cost an immense amount of money not to mention the fact that taking a written IQ test doesn't prove your intelligence at all

2. You are segregating society into 2 classes, one higher and one lower.

Subjugating the lower classes to humiliation may either lead to a revolution of that class, or eventually the discrimination of that lower class, beginning with revoking the rights to vote. A split society is never good, look what happened in America in the 60's and 70's, two different social groups (young vs old) fighting for reform/conservative

Your system is flawed. Ideal sure, I believe Socrates (or one of his students) thought around the same lines as you, that only the intelligent should lead however it just won't work.

>Well the problem is that IQ is an awful indicator of true intelligence
All scientific evidence which measures a person's growth in life and achievement would say otherwise. Go back to Revleft.

It is a flawed system tho.
you can not say someone is dumb solely on their IQ as it is a measurement of how they can learn, not have learnt.

Just on average someone with a high IQ is an intelligent person, and someone with a low IQ is unintelligent.

But it is certainly an accurate system of measurement when it comes to pinpointing a person's intelligence, that is, a person's ability to learn and adapt to society's challenges.

Just because blacks, on average, score near to mentally retarded doesn't make them retarded of course; but it does show that their intelligence capabilities are less than Asians and Whites because they even score poorly in Western countries where their environment is better.

I know what they believe and I still think no man, unless it directly involves him, should talk about something they know nothing of, especially, something so personal.

The elderly are alive. They aren't in the womb the size of an apple seed.

I am not making the argument, im stating what they believe, and that we need to take this into consideration when talking with them.

I know what they believe and I still think no man, unless it directly involves him, should talk about something they know nothing of, especially, something so personal.

I am fine if people choose to be pro-life, I am NOT fine when people make a big deal about being pro-life. There is a church by my work that has crosses spread out on their lawn with a giant red banner that says something along the lines of, "50,000 Americans die every year because of abortion" I don't hang aborted fetuses from my tree to support my pro-choice decision because it's my opinion and I don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable about it because it has nothing to do with them. My body, my choice but I don't have any stickers on my car or on my lawn or in my window saying so.

That is true. But if there were a genocide in America that half the country agreed was not a big deal and perpetuated through even the courts, I know I would be driven to act out in even worse ways. And that is how they see it, it is the equivalent of euthanizing the elderly because they take too much.

The elderly are alive. They aren't in the womb the size of an apple seed.

I am not making the argument, im stating what they believe, and that we need to take this into consideration when talking with them.

I know what they believe and I still think no man, unless it directly involves him, should talk about something they know nothing of, especially, something so personal.

I disagree with the not being able to afford a child. Adoption is always good, because there are many people who want children, but are incapable.

There are more than enough children in our adoption system, and they do not live in ideal conditions. If you ask me, it is legitimate to abort a fetus that will evolve into a child that you cannot provide for. Its easy to say 'you should have kept your legs shut' but it is unbelievably harder to actually raise children in poverty.