This isn't for community-college dropouts like Balbus who can't defend their own assertions and frequently get enmeshed in logical contradiction. But for those who have read history beyond the last 20 years, it's a valid question.
Agreed. Yet another example of the kind of lunatics that we're lucky aren't in power. Not that the lunatics in power now are doing a hell of a lot better.
1. it's oversimplifying complex issues, 2/3's of land are already left in their natural state in good chunks of america (not all of it, but, montana, big, alaska? huge, they make up for a few new yorks) and that makes no difference to governance or decline, that is nothing like a solution to ecological problems, and whoever told this blogger that it was, is a moron. 2. Saying "intelligence is innate" is a bit weasly, as the word intelligence has a few moving parts, it doesn't always have precisely the same meaning, it's a word made out of a semi-translucent cloth that can blow clear at any moment. That being said, there are organic elements of cognitive capacity (a component of intelligence, one of it's "Moving parts") that are inborn. That being said, the differences between one who has these built in spades, and one who does not are such that they may be overcome. I have Asperger's syndrome that means that part of my hardware (organic elements of another aspect of my cognitive capacity, used in the processing of social and emotional circumstances, suggested quite popularly to be "mirror neurons" <and frankly I'm a big fan of this theory, so I'm running with it here>) are fucked, I have however managed to build "mechanical" behavioural systems to overcome this deficit, and over time I will get even better, it is actually at present my goal to get better at reading people and interacting with them more effectively than an average neurotypical (someone with good mirror neurons) And based on some of my cohorts in the same place I am on the autism spectrum, I think it's perfectly possible for me to do that. 3. "Liberals are the cheerleaders of decay" Seriously? you look at what the reagan administration did to this country, come back, and tell me that you can take that shit seriously. 4. "The desires of the average person are infinite" This is also not true. The desires of the average person only continue until you stop telling them they need more. Your blogger has things quite backward. In less consumerism driven nations you'd almost think people were living as ascetics compared to americans. I could refute EVERY one of his lunatic points, but, frankly, they're all crazy. and you're not worth it because you're just trolling, and I am only doing this because it's fun. And I need to go cook lunch (and so have to stop playing for the moment) enjoy your trolling. Have a lovely day.
Dude, Asperger's is behavioral and doesn't affect intelligence. You need to come up with some evidence that intelligence is not innate. All evidence point the other way. Your "refutation" needs work, lol
Your ability to follow arguments more complex than the rantings of an angry blogger lunatic need some work. the capacity to comprehend facial expressions is an aspect of intelligence. At least as defined in the medical community. However, you do have a different definition of intelligence (intelligence has a lot of moving parts, see how that works) yours IS less valid. It is less complete, and it is less functional. And your trolling needs some work, it's too transparent. *wry grin*
Conservationist, out of the two articles/posts of yours I just read both were absolute garbage. Social role and New Realism? You're makin a bad track record. *Make that 3... Intelligence-based discrimination*... New Realism talks about "promoting the gifted and not encouraging the stupid", yet you want to stop intelligence-based discrimination??? It *seems* to me the "new realist" system will always end up being discriminatory.
C Oh I’ve just been pointing out in another thread how stupid it is to make judgements on another persons educational attainment - when low and behold - here is C implying (with a wink) that I’m a community-college dropout. (One) who cares? (Two) if this is an indication of how you conduct research – make things up – I don’t think anyone can trust your views on anything. * I hope you can back this up? As to defending views – I’m still waiting for you to address all the points I raised in the thread – The Realist Party http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=380453&f=36 * Oh and yet again – have you anything to back this up? * OK the article Sorry to say is just more bollocks. Most of it is rhetorical mumbo jumbo so I’ll go to the meat But first you have to explain what is meant by ‘intelligence’ then explain how one would gauge it and you seem unable to do either. How do you guide the person with the best abilities for a given role into that role? And who decides? What? So you believe in tyranny and inequality? And please explain what is meant by “all consumption should be seen as a means to an end”? Whose land? Who decides whose land? (a repeated question) Within a system that is unequal and lacking in freedom? Are people that succeed in all cases ‘gifted’ rather than advantaged? If you have an unequal system, advantage is also unequal and you end up with an oligarchy, where position and status dictate reward not merit. Human Being’s have not been subject to ‘natural selection’ since we picked up tools. What the author is talking about is the discredited idea of Social Darwinism a theory that was supported by elites to entrench and legitimise their position - a position that was questionable at best. Sacred! Oh now the author wants a theocratic tyranny? This is rhetorical claptrap. So tell me which ‘people’ have a ‘pure’ culture, untainted or unchanged by any other people’s culture? As to values and heritage they are constantly been re-evaluated, they don’t remain immutable. If the author doesn’t understand that they are really up a mental effluent tributary without a means of propulsion.
Intelligence is not innate, everyone has the possibility to be intelligent, whether they are or not depends on learned ability and knowledge. Also, asperger's is much more then behavioral, behavioral problems are often just one side effect of it and as Dave said ability to comprehend emotions(which people with asperger's generally have issues with) and general social interaction/skills plays a great role in learning ability. People with asperger's also generally have speech and language problems along with non verbal communicating issues, and often have focused and intent interests focused on on area of subject, math is often the one that comes up most commonly but it can be anything, normally at the expense of most other things.
I would argue that intelligence is innate to a degree -- some people are just not that smart, period. But anyone can improve their mind, no matter where they're starting from.
to be fair, the expense isn't too high. as some things are really quite irrelevant. one really doesn't need to be all that well rounded.
