Which of these statements sums you up the best?

[Tyler]

"Great, now where's your proof, or is this only your little opinion?"

My proof of what? That it's Christian/Atheist? Read the title and the opening message. Plus, the reply was by a Christian.


"How do you know they live up to their vow? Society has changed, I suggest you check it out."

I don't. I assume that there are some people who actually follow their religion. Actually, I know there are some. If you're saying that absolutely none of the people who claim to be virgins before marriage are then I have even less respect for Christians.


I have no idea what your last comment means.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Tyler
My proof of what? That it's Christian/Atheist? Read the title and the opening message. Plus, the reply was by a Christian.

ok

I don't. I assume that there are some people who actually follow their religion. Actually, I know there are some. If you're saying that absolutely none of the people who claim to be virgins before marriage are then I have even less respect for Christians.

It's VERY VERY RARE for a woman to be a virgin before marriage in 2002.

Hope you know that.

I have no idea what your last comment means.

You should still respect the Christian? Why?

Anyone, me, you, any women will have sex with anyone on two basic terms:

• They turn us on enough
• They demonstrate VALUE to us

Once we are valuable they will have sex. It is the "natural" way. The socially conditioned women says no!

But in the end, if you turn her on enough and are valuable to her, then the natural women will always prevail.

 

[Xev]

Yo Chosen, do men go through "that time of month" too?

The "natural women" is stronger than the "culturally programed women"

And the synthetic woman beats both hands down!

That's only if you know how to trigger the natural one to come out.

I suggest a bullwhip.

It's VERY VERY RARE for a woman to be a virgin before marriage in 2002.

Yep, sucks don't it? Damn hard to find virgins to sacrifice to the Great Cthulhu nowadays.

Once we are valuable they will have sex.

"Hey babe, here's a copy of my income tax statement. Fuck me, kitten"

It is the "natural" way. The socially conditioned women says no!

That's damn funny. What the hell sort of women are you dating and can we have them tattooed so that I can stay ten feet away from them at all times?

But in the end, if you turn her on enough and are valuable to her,

Don't forget booze!

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Full of nonsense Xev, why don't you contribute more "essential" posts?

 

[Xev]

I just got four hours of consecutive sleep, which is more than I've had in a week. Consequently, I am high on getting enough sleep and the effects of doxylamine. No brain no work.

P.S: And then there's the vodka.

 

[A4Ever]

It seems as if this forum is largely just a rant war as opposed to something productive, or else maybe this thread has just degenerated, anyhow..

You apparently missed the inherent contradiction in the statement. 'All generalizations are wrong.' is a generalization. It's self-contradictory, and kind of a joke, to be taken in jest, but obviously you didn't get that.

It's YOU that needs the sense of humour.

In your 'just an introduction'-thread you said it was nice that noone here knew you. I hope that doesn't mean what I fear it means.

 

[Distortion]

In spite of the fact that this thread has gotten way out of my hands because I'm juggling limited forum time between a bunch of them, and despite the fact that I have to re-write a huge amount of this because someone in my house thought it would be fun to play with the electric panel in the storage room.. here goes...

You atheists are laughable.

So shut the fuck up already. That was a stupid generalization.

First of all, I'll agree with the sentiment that 'all generalizations are stupid', however, I think mines been taken a bit too far and out of context.

For future reference - any generalization I make is to be taken with jest as I don't agree with any generalization, and I usually only make them to see what it'll stir up

Besides, I don't really feel bad about saying something like that when it really is quite demonstrably accurate (not to mention obvious) and, since nobody can really prove a generalization either way, who cares?

And finally, I'm not an atheist, per se.

You degenerated it fool.

I didn't 'degenerate' anything. I designed my comments to point out that the question itself was designed to mock christians, for anyone who didn't pick up on that. It seems that none of the 'christians' did.

What I would consider 'degenerating' a thread, is when someone randomly goes around calling people 'fools' and saying 'So shut the fuck up already.' Try to use your intelligence a little more...

Fool

People that judge like you cause much hatred, trying to prove something that isn't worth proving.

If you choose to 'hate' me because I point out flaws in your logic, that's your problem. Once again, if you decide to hate the rare person that comes along because they don't submit to your reasoning because their analytical skills aren't lesser than yours like most people, that's your problem.

Besides, the thread was by design 'atheists vs christians' so why is saying 'Atheists are smarter than christians' not worth proving within the context of the thread?

As I already said, generalizations can't be definitely proved either way - so who cares?

So how do you measure intelligence?

Once again, I'll agree with the sentiment that you can't objectively someone's 'intelligence', nor can it be 'quantified'. However, for general purposes, an IQ test is as close as you can get in that amount of time.

Bullshit I tell you, bullshit. This is pathetic.

Uh-huh.

I suggest a bullwhip.

If only that would work... heh heh heh..

It's YOU that needs the sense of humour.

In your 'just an introduction'-thread you said it was nice that noone here knew you. I hope that doesn't mean what I fear it means.

First of all, I did not say 'it is nice that no one here knows me', but what I meant was that it's fun giving people weird impressions and generally messing with their heads. Either way, it doesn't matter anyway, because you'll get to know me in a way eventually. As for my sense of humor... welll..

-Distortion

ps. 'P.S: And then there's the vodka.' ..... excellent

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Distortion
I didn't 'degenerate' anything. I designed my comments to point out that the question itself was designed to mock christians, for anyone who didn't pick up on that. It seems that none of the 'christians' did.

What I would consider 'degenerating' a thread, is when someone randomly goes around calling people 'fools' and saying 'So shut the fuck up already.' Try to use your intelligence a little more...

Fool

LOL, I have reasonable causes to do so.

If you choose to 'hate' me because I point out flaws in your logic, that's your problem. Once again, if you decide to hate the rare person that comes along because they don't submit to your reasoning because their analytical skills aren't lesser than yours like most people, that's your problem.

You are somewhat of a perspicacious person.

I don't hate you at all, and I deem it will impossible for you to show where I explicitly state I vehemently abominate you, I don't hate on intelligent people.

Hate is a harsh word, no?

Besides, the thread was by design 'atheists vs christians' so why is saying 'Atheists are smarter than christians' not worth proving within the context of the thread?

In society people value their intelligence. It is something called pride. It's degenerative to state you are smarter than so and so. It isn't worth proving, it is abrogative and negative, you gain nothing but a much of useless pride.

As I already said, generalizations can't be definitely proved either way - so who cares?

Exactly, but the stating and crux of such generalizations, I will care about.

Once again, I'll agree with the sentiment that you can't objectively someone's 'intelligence', nor can it be 'quantified'. However, for general purposes, an IQ test is as close as you can get in that amount of time.

Depends. What is the objective goal of most tests? To predict an individual's performance. The interpretation of the IQ test ultimately involves predictions about a subject's behavior in that specified situation. What about other "situations"? Emotional intelligence? Then again, if a test is an accurate predictor, it is said to have good validity, which is established by various criteria including the relevance and range of its content. Major psychological testing controversies stem from two interrelated issues: technical shortcomings in test design, and ethical problems in interpretation and application of results.

A test score is a test score. You take it to prove yourself. You don't use it to prove yourself over others, it will only cause hate, jealousy, and possible depredation on your status and liking.

Uh-huh.

It is bullshit to say one individual is smarter than other. But you are comparing groups of people. It can't be proven, and it isn't worth proving.

Uh-huh is right

 

[Distortion]

You are somewhat of a perspicacious person.

Thank you!

I don't hate you at all, and I deem it will impossible for you to show where I explicitly state I vehemently abominate you, I don't hate on intelligent people.

Hate is a harsh word, no?

Exactly. But I'm sure that you're fully aware that you were the one that said

'People that judge like you cause much hatred'

In society people value their intelligence. It is something called pride. It's degenerative to state you are smarter than so and so. It isn't worth proving, it is abrogative and negative, you gain nothing but a much of useless pride.

Within the context of 'Atheists vs. christians', intelligence is a key issue, as each group wholeheartedly believes that they are more intelligent in their Dogma or position. The question lies in which one can substantiate that belief.

Of course you can't 'prove' something that can't be objectively measured by any standard. And, as we already established, general 'intelligence' can't.

Depends. What is the objective goal of most tests? To predict an individual's performance. The interpretation of the IQ test ultimately involves predictions about a subject's behavior in that specified situation. What about other "situations"? Emotional intelligence? Then again, if a test is an accurate predictor, it is said to have good validity, which is established by various criteria including the relevance and range of its content. Major psychological testing controversies stem from two interrelated issues: technical shortcomings in test design, and ethical problems in interpretation and application of results.

A test score is a test score. You take it to prove yourself. You don't use it to prove yourself over others, it will only cause hate, jealousy, and possible depredation on your status and liking.

A test isn't necessarily to predict an individuals 'performance' - because performance is only a relative term - it means nothing unless it is in terms of a goal. Performance in making money and friends? Permance in walking backwards on your hands? A test doesn't measure 'performance'. A test measures the score relative to the questions. People take it for what they will.

It is bullshit to say one individual is smarter than other.

I disagree. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that Albert Einstein is much smarter than Britney Spears, for example. But you're right in the sense that we lack an objective base for measurement, wherein lies the problem of deciding who is smarter

But.. I digress

-Distortion

 

[~The_Chosen~]

I digress!!

Originally posted by Distortion
A test isn't necessarily to predict an individuals 'performance' - because performance is only a relative term - it means nothing unless it is in terms of a goal. Performance in making money and friends? Permance in walking backwards on your hands? A test doesn't measure 'performance'. A test measures the score relative to the questions. People take it for what they will.

Not necessarily, the whole point of such "aptitude" test is to test performance in certain potential situations.

It is a measure of "predicting potential"

Look at the SAT's for example (even though I think it is somewhat a bullshit test...but that's another matter )

It does measure the score relative to the questions, but people take it as a "performance indicator".

Look at the Army Services Vocational Aptitude Battery(ASVAB), Terra Nova, ACT, SAT, etc.

Because I scored the highest in my school on the ASVAB, the military is trying to recruit me.

And what is that test meant for? To predict performance and potential in the military.

I disagree. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that Albert Einstein is much smarter than Britney Spears, for example. But you're right in the sense that we lack an objective base for measurement, wherein lies the problem of deciding who is smarter

LMAO!!!!!!

I have to agree with you on this on...LOL!!

But.. I digress

-Distortion

It'll be fun and welcoming having you here

Until next time....