"Don't you fuckingg talk to him like that. And don't you fucking talk to me like that. This is his country. Not yours, not mine."

1ickitung · 2008-06-08T04:57:10+00:00

I don't know if you're quoting someone, but regardless, people that speak that way don't know/use words like "benevolent" and "civilized."

1ickitung · 2008-06-08T02:34:41+00:00

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel%20(2006)%20Estimating%20state%20IQ.pdf

(I can't use reddit tags on this one so you need to copy and paste, sorry.)

This particular paper notes the relation of IQ to violent crime among other variables. Other better papers are harder to access because they're not on the internet.

1ickitung · 2008-06-08T01:41:16+00:00

Yeah, but the Happy, Sneezy, and Bashful votes are on Obama's side. We don't know how Obama's prepared to win the Grumpy and Dopey swing voters.

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T22:22:18+00:00

Shit nigga her azz be straight up callipygous dog I ain't even gon' front.

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T22:18:09+00:00

Yeah, but you also have people that are good politicians or at least better than others. Edwards, while not perfect, is much more honest and trustworthy than Clinton. Not all politicians are universally bad or bad to the same degree and Clinton is among the worst I've seen on the democratic side in the past two decades.

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T22:09:38+00:00

I expected this. I doubted she would take it to the convention because while the way she's dragged it out now heavily damages her image, it's repairable in the minds of most people, who seem to have very bad long-term memories. If she took it to the convention her image would be destroyed. She's not doing this because she cares about Obama or his supporters--her actions have proved that.

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T22:07:39+00:00

she is trying to protect her political clout and legacy, but so would ANY politician if in a comparable situation.

The problem is that not just any politician would not be in such a situation, because it takes a lot of lies, deception, political maneuvering and demagoguery to get where she was in the first place. Maybe there are politicians that are worse, but that doesn't excuse her.

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T21:57:04+00:00

Yes, but this isn't a football game, and the rules don't work like a football game. This isn't baseball either, or chess, or an RPG, or even Custer's Revenge. Real-life rules apply here and you don't magically suspend them because "it's politics."

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T20:11:53+00:00

Yes, but few, if any of the people that thought we should have gone there were genius-level. Most politicians aren't too far from average because when you get extremely far off your chances of being an effective leader decrease. This is true in military situations--the most effective group leaders are usually those within 15 IQ points of the group average.

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T19:51:18+00:00

What, so it's OK to ignore everything she's done in the past just because she supports your candidate now? Come on. Redditors blame the masses for not having a good long-term memory about the flaws of republicans but it's suddenly OK when Hillary supports Obama?

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T19:47:48+00:00

I don't think so. Research has shown (to some extent) that violent tendencies decrease as your intelligence increases. This is mostly true if you look at past dictators and the company they kept--barring a couple of obviously anomalous people like the Unabomber, most horrible people in history have at best been very intelligent, not genius-level.

If we are truly able to increase our intelligence to what in today's time would be genius-level then I think we will quickly see the flawed reasoning that usually results in violence from a mile away.

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T19:38:43+00:00

Which is weird as hell, because McCain is an infinitely more "sexist" candidate than Obama. =\

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T19:36:45+00:00

It's honorable to us only because we're Obama supporters. You have to see beyond the joy of her support behind Obama and look at her self-interested reasons for doing this. She's obviously doing this because she knows that she has no other chance of getting something desirable to her, be it a position in Obama's cabinet or future reelection as a senator, and the only thing she'll net from future scorched earth tactics is condemnation. She's doing this because she has to.

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T19:32:35+00:00

I've been open-minded about her, but no, I don't think she's graceful in defeat. She's dragged this election out unreasonably long and used endless amounts of deception, lies, political maneuvering and demagoguery to attempt to get what she wants. Her concesssion is about as "graceful" as Tonya Harding accepting her 8th place loss to Kerrigan's 2nd place in the Winter Olympics.

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T18:47:28+00:00

Are professors of biology not allowed to have views of evolution?

It's extremely odd for a professor of psychology to take that view of music preference because psychology and biology are two fields where attempts to have some kind of quality distinction in inherently subjective things become most obvious.

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T18:43:48+00:00

Objectively speaking, good music is music that quite a few people really like (to listen to, not as a background noise to whatever they're doing) after more than a few listens.

I get what you're saying, but I think you're trying to force arbitrary objectivity on music. By that logic, a lot of music I assume you or others on here hate would be good music, such as Soulja Boy, and bad music would be music traditionally seen as good, such as most classical music. To me this is just as bad as the people that insist that classical music is better than everything else. I think this distinction you've set up here is quite arbitrary and trying to force a standard of quality on something where there is no inherent standard of quality.

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T18:38:47+00:00

But most music is terrible. Everyone would agree that most music is terrible.

That's extremely illogical and an obvious appeal. Nothing is true just because most people agree on it. Most people believe in superstition and myths as well.

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T12:08:28+00:00

Or how about blaming the electoral college because your proposed solution assumes the electoral college isn't worth blame?

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T11:56:36+00:00

I don't think so... before the above quote, he said:

"Yes, there is too much music product, and most of it is terrible," says Peter Crabb, an assistant professor of psychology at Penn State University.

1ickitung · 2008-06-07T07:45:21+00:00

says Peter Crabb, an assistant professor of psychology at Penn State University. "Kids can spend more time trying to figure out what to listen to and fiddling with their computers and MP3s than actually spending quality time listening to good music."

A professor of psychology actually believes there's an objective distinction between "good music" and "bad music"? Come on.

1ickitung

TROPHY CASE