Well I know that if you sue a beggar you'll win a louse so I would imagine that the objectives of a beggar would be pretty lousy. Therefore I guess we wanna go for the best endowed beggar we can find.
Well I know that if you sue a beggar you'll win a louse so I would imagine that the objectives of a beggar would be pretty lousy. Therefore I guess we wanna go for the best endowed beggar we can find.
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
An airplane was about to crash; there were 5 passengers on board but only 4 parachutes. The 1st passenger said, "I am Kobe Bryant, the best NBA basketball player, the Lakers need me, I can't afford to die." So he took the 1st pack and left the plane. The 2nd passenger, Hillary Clinton said, "I am the wife of the former US President, a NY State Senator and a potential future president." So she took the 2nd pack and jumped out of the plane. The 3rd passenger, George W. Bush, said, "I'm the president of the United States of America. I have great responsibility being the leader of a super-power nation and I am the cleverest president in American history, so America's people won't let me die." So he grabbed the pack next to him and jumped out of the plane. The 4th passenger, the Pope, said to the 5th passenger, a 10 year old schoolgirl, "I am old and frail and don't have many years left, and as a Catholic! I will sacrifice my life and let you have the last parachute." The girl said, "It's okay, there is a parachute left for you. America's cleverest president has taken my schoolbag."
Let's see... do you remember when you said "Actually, I'm a researcher. I know this to be true. Let me know when you have similar experience to compare to mine." I was a researcher and provided an account of the research that I had done. You are the one who called your research experience into question by making that statement. I only asked for some kind of proof that you have more research experience than me (and that it was of such high quality that you could look down at me for my lack).
I believe your argument was "I am a great researcher who knows about research while you do not." When asked to provide some kind of proof of this claim you slink away, as usual, by distorting it into the claim that I am attacking your credibility when you were the one who called their credibility into account.
It seems that you can't even keep your lies straight.
That is mighty big of you, conceeding that you might be wrong only after I offer voluminous evidence for why you were, in fact, wrong. You make an outrageous claim for which you have no proof, argue that it is actually right without offering any proof, lie that you never meant it directly but only as an analogy, restate that you are right and I am wrong (again without any proof), and now, only after everybody knows that you have absolutely no actual knowledge of chemistry and basically made it up do you conceed that you might be wrong.
The issue is not whether or not water is an alcohol. The issue is, quite simply, your credibility. The fact that you would make something up without knowing what you are talking about and then defend it until it clear to everyone just how ignorant you really are - that is a matter of credibility. Just like above when you took the position that you were some high and mighty researcher able to look down at me only to slink away when, in fact, you really aren't and cannot offer any kind of proof that you are.
This is what makes you the partisan hack that you - it doesn't matter to you whether you know what you are talking about, the only thing that matters is that you "win" regardless of how many outrageous lies you tell or how you have to distort the issue. Only this time you make things up and I actually know what I am talking about so it is really easy to expose your ignorance.
How many people do you think would believe that you actually knew something about chemistry if it wasn't for me exposing you for the fraud that are? Lie, bully, bluster, distort all you want but you got caught and now you are whining about it.
You "arguement" has never been clearly elaborated behind the laughable "Bush is simply not eloquent" - this is a position for which you have offered no evidence, it is largely an opinion, and most importantly you have never argued against why my interpretation might be wrong, especially not by offering any kind of evidence to support your position, instead you refuse to believe it and simply will not be persuaded regardless of the evidence. Again, this is why you are a partisan hack and why you are so easily exposed for being one.
I would hope that you would have learned your lesson about making claims for which you have no proof but you do so just a few paragraphs below. You say "Your brain's volume varies very slightly due to day-to-day pressure fluctuations" - this is simply wrong. Your brain's volume does not "fluctuate" at all. You brain does not cyclically shrink and grow. You just lied again, pulled it right out of your a$$ with complete disregard for whether it could possibly be true. You offer no proof - you made it up to support your position and couldn't care less whether it is correct.
Again, you are a lying partisan hack.
Um, that would only mean that Bush was a lower scoring admit and that there were a bunch of higher scoring admits that drove the average up.
Let me put this in really easy to understand way: 1100,1200,1350,1350,1470,1600. Average of those scores is 1345, meaning that those who scored 1100 and 1200 were below average. See how all of those high scores bring the average up?
I can see that you are as good at math as you are chemistry.
Funny, because what I really said was "I think he performed as well as anyone would have predicted from SAT score." Here you are distorting something again. At what point did I say they directly translated into a low GPA? I only said that his low GPA was consistent with his low SATs. I think the easiest explanation is that Bush is simply not very good at academics but I have no proof of this so I cannot claim it.
Beside your outrageous lie in the last line, debunked above, you again misstated the argument. It does not all recover but rather some some recovers, see that word "some?" Major difference and yet another of your distortions. And yes, shrinking a part of your brain means that it no longer exists - this would be the same as if you surgically amputated the same amount. Unless, of course, you want to argue over the definition of "shrinking"?
There is no such thing as a "burden of proof fallacy." You're making things up again. My source says "lends" because it can only speak for the small number of participants in the study. Over a large enough number of studies the trend is quite clear - alcoholism causes brain damage.
My argument for why this applies to the president is:
1) In human who abuse alcohol there are characteristic patterns of brain damage
2) George W Bush is a human
3) George W Bush abused alcohol
4) Therefore, George W Bush has characteristic patterns of brain damage from abusing alcohol
It takes "decades" to do the damage. That is what those studies that I posted earlier all concluded, and it makes sense.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is for the courtroom, not the doctors office. If doctors waited for "beyond a reasonable doubt" they would order every test conceivable for simple conditions. No, they use the duck test - George W Bush abused alcohol, he speaks the way that we would expect somebody to after abusing alcohol, therefore it is probably likely that one led to the other. Why should we believe you when you have offered no proof whatsoever? There might be millions of reasons why he is a poor public speaker but this line of argument goes out of its way to ignore the simple fact that he is probably that way for the same reason most 20 year alcoholics are that way.
I don't know, maybe God likes to see him fumble. That's just as consistent as anything that you have offered. You are the one going out of your way to reject the obvious because you don't want to believe it, regardless of the evidence.
Seems to me that you are the one who ignores the obvious.
Sorry, but i don't think that he could been even electable in any country except for the US and of course, the extention of the US, Iraq.
My making a silly comment pointing to the similarity between water and alcohol makes me a partisan hack? You digested this single statement into pages of blah about chemical naming conventions that are, by definition, completely arbitrary and, therefore, based in the realm of semantics. They're not important.
No, sir. The argument that Bush is not eloquent has been stated time and time again in this thread. What evidence do you need that he's not eloquent? You yourself are arguing the exact same thing.
Are you calling me a liar? If so, all I need do is consult the most elementary of thermodynamic texts to prove that any body is, indeed, compressible due to changes of pressure or temperature. If you would like, I can scan in said statements from a textbook, since you obviously don't own one yourself.
Um, that would only mean that Bush was a lower scoring admit and that there were a bunch of higher scoring admits that drove the average up.
Let me put this in really easy to understand way: 1100,1200,1350,1350,1470,1600. Average of those scores is 1345, meaning that those who scored 1100 and 1200 were below average. See how all of those high scores bring the average up?
I can see that you are as good at math as you are chemistry.[/quote]
Are you serious? You said that average scores for Yale are only higher "for those who are admitted on academic merit. Not for those who are legacy admits." Bush was below average - this was clearly stated. However, you can't arbitrarily declare who was admitted based on academic value and legacy and rule the averages to be different accordingly, which is exactly what you're trying to do. Bush was above the national average, but below average for Yale. You can't argue with that statement, can you?
There is a burden of proof fal...shed it to the letter. You sure you're a philosopher? "Over a large enough number of studies the trend is quite clear - alcoholism causes brain damage." Are you serious? The author himself admits that the data is limited and might not be extendable to a larger set, yet you're going to make the exact opposite assertion by assuming that his findings are universally applicable? Hopefully, you're not still involved with research in any role other than as a lab technician.
The fact is, your study showed that the brain shrank, then regenerated over time. Nowhere have you shown a correlation to brain mass/volume and intelligence. I don't believe such a correlation exists. Therefore, your whole argument is nothing.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,319
- 47,534
- 136
Thoughts regarding simple observations, my good man! The reason you are blindly partisan is that you willingly ignore the boatload of evidence staring you right in the face. Your chimp is dumb. Live with it. Attempting to pass off W as someone who is just stage-shy or a touch dyslexic doesn't work.
I support Kerry simply because he is the best chance to remove the current admin. I care nothing for the man beyond that, I just firmly believe failures don't deserve rewards.
You're missing my point. IF you were to correlate the two (namely SAT scores and intelligence), which I do NOT believe is a valid way to determine intelligence, then I would not consider a 1280 to be the score of an intelligent person (simply because it is quite clear that a 1280 is not a very difficult score to obtain).
Now do you understand?
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Then you've grasped the issue... the objective! It matters not anything if the objective is faulty. Seek the understanding of the objective... not what folks say it is but what one can discern from the unspun truth of what has already occurred. With Kerry we have nothing to look to but with Bush we do. Is what he has done good.... if not, then a change is in order... regardless of what Kerry may say! He too has his limitations.. US!
There is no similarity between water and alcohol. What part of that is so difficult to understand? This is not some simple semantic naming difference - we call one "water" and one "alcohol" to denote the fact that they are two completely different things which behave completely different.
You made a stupid statement and I proved that you were both wrong and ignorant. Take it like a man.
As I have said before "Bush is not eloquent" is an opinion. It offers no way of explaining why. What, in your opinion, is responsible for him not being eloquent? What evidence to you offer to prove your point?
Yes, I am calling you a liar. Are you seriously suggesting that Bush has been surrounded for the last 20 years by a bubble of pressure and temperature completely different from anyone else? You do realize that the STP (Standard Temperature and Pressure) has remained constant, right, and that you're claiming thermodynamic effects is ridicululous.
Would you have us believe that people in Denver and Tibet have larger brain sizes because of the lower atmospheric pressure? Or that Americans are smarter in the summer because of the temperature increase?
How do I know you are ignorant when it comes to thermochem? Simply because you would post this shows that you have no real understanding in the first place.
Whatever thermodynamic processes are involved pale in comparison to the biological ones involved.
I highly recommend that you stop this nonsense right now because I know my thermochem and will inevitably expose your ignorance in this area.
No, I am not. I am only claiming that those admitted on academic merit had high SAT score (you know, that would be part of the "merit") while legacies wouldn't need to. They aren't two completely different scale but we know where each group falls on the curve, and that was the point to which I was alluding. Legacy admits would be near the lower part of the curve while merit admits would be near the higher end.
I conceed that there is such a thing as "Burden of Proof Fallacy" but clarify that I did not commit that fallacy. Asking you to provide proof of your claims is not this fallacy, regardless of what you'd like to think. In fact, according to the site which you linked, "Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B."
This would mean that you are the one committing the fallacy - it rests on you to prove your claim.
Why is Bush not eloquent?
Where does my author ever claim that his findings are not universally applicable? I read over it again and nothing of the sort appears, although the lines "Confabulation is a clinically well-documented accompaniment of selective types of memory impairment, especially in brain-damaged alcoholics" implies all alcoholics and his conclusion that "These findings lend support for the association of alcohol-related confabulation with visual, as well as previously-documented verbal material among brain-damaged alcoholics" is meant to be applicable to all alcoholics who met the inclusion criteria. Basically you have lied about what the author claimed.
Just to make you happy I have searched for more extensive studies.
Possible alterations in brain neural network by ethanol
Yamamoto M, Ukai W, Tateno M, Saito T
"Advances in the neurosciences over the past two decades have elucidated that alcoholism is a chronic and easily recurring disorder, which is based on brain damage induced by long-term ethanol consumption. Researchers have identified neural circuits that subsume the actions of ethanol and they have also elaborated many of the intracellular signalling pathways that follow receptor activation by ethanol, suggesting a substantial difference between the addicted brain and non-addicted brain."
The possible role of acetaldehyde in the brain damage caused by the chronic consumption of alcohol
Forn-Frias C, Sanchis-Segura C
There are currently different experimental findings that appear to support the proposal that the substances resulting from the metabolism of ethanol can be important mediators in the brain damage associated with the chronic consumption of alcohol. Although more research is required, this theoretical proposal is very interesting, not just because of its relative novelty, but also because it is based on the same principles put forward to explain the toxic effects of alcohol consumption on organs and tissues.
Neuropathological alterations in alcoholic brains. Studies arising from the New South Wales Tissue Resource Centre.
Harper C, Dixon G, Sheedy D, Garrick T
Patterns of damage appear to relate to lifetime alcohol consumption but, more importantly, to associated medical complications. The most significant of these is the alcohol-related vitamin deficient state, the Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome (WKS), which is caused by thiamin deficiency but is seen most commonly in alcoholics. Careful selection and classification of alcoholic cases into those with and without these complications, together with detailed quantitative neuropathological analyses has provided data that gives clues to the most vulnerable regions and cells in the brain. Brain shrinkage is largely accounted for by loss of white matter. Some of this damage appears to be reversible. Alcohol-related neuronal loss has been documented in specific regions of the cerebral cortex (superior frontal association cortex), hypothalamus and cerebellum. No change is found in basal ganglia, nucleus basalis, or serotonergic raphe nuclei. Dendritic and synaptic changes have been documented in alcoholics and these, together with receptor and transmitter changes, may explain functional changes and cognitive deficits, which precede more severe structural neuronal changes.
No, mine does not depend on there being a correlation of brain mass and intelligence. It only requires that alcohol cause damage to the brain, including shrinkage. It did not "regenerate" over time, it partially recovered. Not all, some.
Do you know what I think? I don't think you have any research experience at all. I think you are making it up.
And here let me warn you - drop the ridiculous thermochemical argument before I expose your ignorance just as surely as I did your ridiculous "water is an alcohol" argument. I know my thermochem and am beyond prepared to prove it.
I think it is also important to point out how you completely avoided answering me when I said
and when I said
But like I said - I think you have no actual research experience and are making that up, like you have almost everything else.
If only 8% of test takers are obtaining that score, it certainly is not very easy to obtain.
Top universities around the country treat the SAT as a measure of intelligence, and I'd say their opinion is worth a bit more than yours is.
Completely false. Top universities treat the SAT as a measure of success in college, not as an intelligence indicator (and before you reply that getting good grades means you are intelligent, keep in mind that this is also misleading as it is equally if not more an indicator of hard work). Furthermore, for the typical student attending a top university, a 1280 is an easy score to obtain. You're taking it out of context (why should we compare Bush to some community college students that bombed the SAT?). Bush went to Yale with a 1280. I consider a 1280 to be low for a student attending Yale, or any similar university.
You could say a person who's making $20K per year living in San Francisco is making a lot compared to the world average, but clearly his or her cost of living is higher and therefore different standards are expected.
I don't think Bush is stupid, he's about average.
I think we need a person a hell of a lot smarter than "average" to be our maximum leader. Don't argue that he's not stupid, tell me why he's smart, cause I just don't see it.
I think we need a person a hell of a lot smarter than "average" to be our maximum leader. Don't argue that he's not stupid, tell me why he's smart, cause I just don't see it.
Bush, I don't think, is too book smart and/or common sense smart.
But, I do think he's a very, very well practiced con-artist.
But, I do think he's a very, very well practiced con-artist.
I guess when we dispense with the argument from thermodynamics we can move on to brain expansion and contraction due to pressure waves associated with the heart beat.
Haha. Exactly. It's amazing the lengths to which they go to avoid admitting that maybe W isn't terribly intelligent.
I am just fortunate that I managed to be able to thoroughly discredit one of them. Usually they are a bit brighter and don't make such obviously absurd claims, but hey, if they honestly think this has been a great presidency I can see how they must bend reality so radically in order to "keep the faith."
Anyone read the book:"The Price of Loyalty"?
Acoording to Paul O'Neill, Bush is not very smart at all. But that is his opinion (or the opinion of the author, Ron Suskind,)
Acoording to Paul O'Neill, Bush is not very smart at all. But that is his opinion (or the opinion of the author, Ron Suskind,)
As pointed out previously, it's well above average. How would you define an intelligent person? I don't think it's too off the mark to say there would be a rough correlation between SAT scores and intelligence, though it's certainly unlikely to be set in stone.
FTP, you are a joke. I actually laughed out loud when I read your supposed 'expert opinion' on standard temperature and pressure. The fact that you even bring those up and use them as you did clearly indicates that you don't even realize what they are. STP is a reference state for the calculation of particular quantities to allow side-by-side comparison of relative amounts at various conditions. Your argument states that temperature and pressure have never changed over the last what, forty years? Give me a break. Your rush to prove someone else wrong has just pushed you over the edge to become the new resident troll, congratulations.
Oh, and as for my research experience: two years in the USAF AFRL Materials Laboratory, Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, Non-structural Materials Division (AFRL/MLBT) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Two years at the University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI). My publications include presentations to the international committee for ASTM standards, the American Institiute of Chemical Engineers, more than a dozen at WPAFB, and quite a few for the City of Dayton/UDRI. I have four peer-reviewed publications, all in international journals. Oh, and I'm 23 and have a masters degree in chemical engineering. :thumbsup:
Ok, I understand now, you're military. I get it. You're not stupid and ignorant, you're military. This would also explain your blind partisanship for Bush. In addition, based on the intelligence of those in the military, I can now understand why the man looks intelligent to you. Whew, you certainly cleared a lot up with that post.
Um, STP is known as Standard Temperature and Pressure for a reason. What is the standard pressure? It is 1 atm, and has been for a long, long time. It has certainly remained 1 atm for the entire time that George W Bush has been alive.
The temperature, obviously, changes - this does not change brain volume.
As to your publications - give me sources. I will go read them.
I will restate it: Your ridiculous claim about thermochemical processes on the brain would have us conclude that:
Are you seriously suggesting that Bush has been surrounded for the last 20 years by a bubble of pressure and temperature completely different from anyone else? You do realize that the STP (Standard Temperature and Pressure) has remained constant, right, and that you're claiming thermodynamic effects is ridicululous.
Would you have us believe that people in Denver and Tibet have larger brain sizes because of the lower atmospheric pressure? Or that Americans are smarter in the summer because of the temperature increase?
Don't forget that your interpretation would have become become smarter and dumber as the pressure waves related to weather rolled across the country.
Let's approach the problem from a different angle - assuming that these thermochemical processes are at work, why would they selectively target George W Bush? Wouldn't they affect everybody equally and thus not change our measurement from a system in which they were not at work? Everybody's brain would be enlarged by the same amount so nothing would change relative to one another, therefore there would be no difference at all.
You are an embarassment to whatever school gave you a degree in chemical engineering. And by the way, my friends who have Masters degrees in chemistry - they are also around 23 and have published a lot more than 4 articles. Most of them published at least 3 articles a year as undergraduates.
I guess you are the sad combination of a red state education and then the military. It's amazing how different an East Coast education really is.
I am waiting for those articles.
You, sir, are not worthy to live in this country. Insulting the intelligence of our military? I think you just sealed your fate as one of those people on this forum that isn't worth my time of day. Good day to you.
Hahaha.
Yeah, why continue to debate only to have me expose your stupidity and ignorance.
I think it is commonly known that the military is not the place for free thinking, questioning, profoundly intelligent people. It relies on people who never question an order, are easy to mold, and don't really have many other options. The military doesn't compete with college - those who can go to college overwhelming choose to do so. This is why they can say "George W Bush is an intelligent leader who has been successful" and the military men fall all over themselves to defend it regardless of all evidence to the contrary.
Look at Lynndie England and the others - clearly a specimen worthy of Einstein. Or your fellow posters who proclaim their desire to spit in John Kerry's face.
But I guess it is better that you stop before I continue to make you look bad. Good way of slinking away without looking to do so - I applaud your ability to mislead and distort an issue.
The military is there for beating people up, plain and simple. It is not a collection of the finest brains in America - that would be any East Coast college, except for those in California. You know, the blue states.
But I guess this beats having to actually show your published work and stops me from making you look foolish, so good job.
EDIT: Not that I don't support our troops - which I do - but I see no need to pretend that they are anything but average in intelligence or worse.
I'd also like to call attention to that favorite conservative tactic of declaring that somebody doesn't deserve to be an American because they disagree with them - you would never hear anybody on the left so freely rob somebody of their citizenship, we actually believe in the right to dissent, or the 1st Amendment as it is known.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,319
- 47,534
- 136
There is a veritable mountain of info available that indicates Bush is of average intelligence, at best. I'm all ears if you have anything in the way of quotes or deeds that would indicate otherwise. His NG "service" and schooling doesn't cut the mustard either - preferential treatment via daddy doesn't mean much to me.
No, I am appalled by your complete contempt for people that are infinitely more valuable to society than yourself. You are self-righteous in the extreme, speaking condescendingly about those whose excrement is worth more than you will ever be.
First you were upset that I was insulting the intelligence of the military. And then I made an argument that maybe people in the military really aren't that smart.
Now you are appalled at my contempt (as opposed to being mad at my asserting that military people really aren't that smart).
Shift the issue. I guess we don't have to worry that I have disproven your thermochemical nonsense. I guess we don't have to address the fact that George W Bush isn't terribly bright but yet you refuse to believe so regardless of all evidence to the contrary.
Now that I have beaten you in every respect you fall back to the last two conservative defenses: the humble greatness of red state people (and, by implication, the contempt of blue state people for those humble red staters) and more gratuitous insults.
You know one of the biggest lies of you conservative red staters? That you are self-sufficient in any meaningful way. The simple fact of the matter is that you suck down government money left, right, and sideways. It is us in the blue states who subsidize you and your ways - all of those bible thumping conservatives are getting their money from taxpayers in New York and California. The irony is that some gay people in San Francisco are giving money to preachers in the bible belt while those very preachers seek to persecute them.
Keep your contempt but start paying your own bills.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter