Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs

[Chinook]

You're pretty dumb. I overestimated your intelligence. You not understanding something does not make it stupid.

No. Using poor reasoning does not make you smart. You need to bring something better than that if you want to argue Kant thought the way you assert he did.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A categorical imperative is an overriding moral obligation that has to be generalizable to every cir stance. It's actually such an unimportant concept that Kant (the dude who came up with it) said that only one can exist, and that was essentially just the Golden Rule. It has nothing to do with categories.

It is actually amusing rereading this thread. Your sophistry as you lose track of the point is hilarious.

You just explained why the categorical imperative much like your an hesis paradigm was ty.

What a dissembling ass.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just admit you're wrong. Kant clearly didn't mean 'categorical' the way you did. There's no evidence for it. I've searched about ten German dictionary sites to find an example of it meaning "of categories", but I don't see one. If anything, it was the English translators that allowed this confusion, although only a few people like you misunderstood it.

Now all you can say do is lob an ad homenim because you lack evidence. Fun.

So wait just to be clear. You are now saying that it doesn't mean of categories in german? You are going waddle on over there?

sophist piece of .

[Chinook]

So wait just to be clear. You are now saying that it doesn't mean of categories in german? You are going waddle on over there?

sophist piece of .

I'm posting sources saying that it doesn't. Unlike in our dictionary, there is no just sub definition. In fact, it seems the original Greek meaning of 'category' was essentially a direct statement, and Aristotle then used it to mean divisions on his own.

The point is that Kant apparently would have used a different word had he thought what you think he did.

[Chinook]

It is actually amusing rereading this thread. Your sophistry as you lose track of the point is hilarious.

Yeah, because trying to bring up topology was totally you sticking to the point.

You just explained why the categorical imperative much like your an hesis paradigm was ty.

Always said the CI was stupid. You've still yet to demonstrate why atheist and theists are not complimentary.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm posting sources saying that it doesn't. Unlike in our dictionary, there is no just sub definition. In fact, it seems the original Greek meaning of 'category' was essentially a direct statement, and Aristotle then used it to mean divisions on his own.

The point is that Kant apparently would have used a different word had he thought what you think he did.

Your posting the same thing as your degrees. Your german google skills will determine what it means for us definitively!

off.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, because trying to bring up topology was totally you sticking to the point.

Always said the CI was stupid. You've still yet to demonstrate why atheist and theists are not complimentary.

even after the conversation we had you still don't get the relevance of topology?

Spectrum and binary are both topological notions dullard. And don't start talking about other meanings, boxboy. What do mutually exclusive mean.

[Chinook]

Your posting the same thing as your degrees. Your german google skills will determine what it means for us definitively!

off.

Lol. That's you scurrying away.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol. That's you scurrying away.

No that is me stating that you have no shown what you claimed.

You are obviously attention and boring. Have a bad night.

[Chinook]

even after the conversation we had you still don't get the relevance of topology?

It was never relevant. It was just a rabbit hole.

Spectrum and binary are both topological notions dullard. And don't start talking about other meanings, boxboy. What do mutually exclusive mean.

Yeah, you keep saying, "What do mutually exclusive mean." without a hint of why you keep saying it.

[Chinook]

No that is me stating that you have no shown what you claimed.

You are obviously attention and boring. Have a bad night.

You sure got me with that "bad night" thing.

You've yet to show that atheist and theist are not complimentary. You've yet to do anything besides trying to hide behind people who are smarter than you (while misinterpreting their work) instead of defending your points yourself.

[Th'Pusher]

But I haven't done any gymnastics

don't kid yourself. Not so much this thread, but the gem where you lay out your belief system. Gold medal worthy gymnastics...

[xellos88330]

Ask your family of educators what "moving the goalposts" means.

You asked me what I thought was wrong. I told you what I thought was wrong. How was that "moving the goalposts"? You also asked if I even knew what was wrong with pushing religion in schools. I cited the 1960's when the law abolished prayer in school. I assumed you would make the connection yourself that I was familiar with the case of the Regents prayer, but I guess you aren't as smart as I thought you were.

Right, that's why you're not explaining it.

Yep. I know that you will believe that I am lying anyway. It doesn't bother me one little bit. I put out evidence. You are ignoring it. Seems pretty straightforward. You probably wouldn't understand the video either. After all a small segment only "sounded like garbage being fed to sheep".

[xellos88330]

Really? I'd like to see the data points behind that conclusion. My bad. You bad you don't have any.
lol vacuum conclusions.

1. For 15 years before 1963 pregnancies in girls ages 15 through 19 years had been no more than 15 per thousand After 1963 pregnancies increased 187% in the next 15 years.

2. For younger girls, ages 10 to 14 years, pregnancies since 1963 are up 553%.

3. Before 1963 sexually transmitted diseases among students were 400 per 100,000. Since 1963, they were up 226% in the next 12 years.

4. Before 1963 divorce rates had been declining for 15 years. After 1963 divorces increased 300% each year for the next 15 years.

5. Since 1963 unmarried people living together is up 353%.

6. Since 1963 single parent families are up 140%.

7. Since 1963 single parent families with children are up 160%.

There are your precious data points. Now add something constructive, or GTFO.

[TeyshaBlue]

You've yet to show any causal relationship. Connect the dots or stfu.

[TeyshaBlue]

Correlation doesnt cut it as much as you might want. Wonder what else was going on in the 60's.

[spurraider21]

i dont think i've ever seen Chinook get into a pissing contest like this before

[Blake]

You asked me what I thought was wrong. I told you what I thought was wrong. How was that "moving the goalposts"? You also asked if I even knew what was wrong with pushing religion in schools. I cited the 1960's when the law abolished prayer in school. I assumed you would make the connection yourself that I was familiar with the case of the Regents prayer, but I guess you aren't as smart as I thought you were.

So we agree you're wrong here?:

1. I have a school of 1000 kids. Of those kids only 5 are atheist. So 995 of the kids should do without their beliefs because of the beliefs of 5? In what universe does that make logical sense? Why don't the atheists instead make their own schools and learn within the environment that they see as acceptable. They are certainly free to do that.

when did you realize that it makes logical sense in our legal universe?

Did you finally use det google like I recommended or did you ask your parents?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i dont think i've ever seen Chinook get into a pissing contest like this before

I have gotten him to go from "It's not an adjective of the word category doesn't mean 'of categories,' and you need to read a dictionary," with him strutting around with you, nazi and gun-tote in agreement to

"I knew it meant that it had the definition you said it had; I was just trolling," to

Now him saying, "it isn't an adjective form of the word categories in german and you cannot prove me wrong."

There is one other person that posts here that does that .

I'm not trolling you're trolling, that is not me trolling because you knew I was trolling and trolled me first Shut up? Why don't you shut up. You're stupid for saying that I'm stupid. what does troll even mean? Blah blah blah.

[spurraider21]

don't flatter yourself ... you're on the other end of the pissing contest, and on the losing end imo

[FuzzyLumpkins]

don't flatter yourself ... you're on the other end of the pissing contest, and on the losing end imo

on what part?

building an artificial construct to describe people of one of two things like atheist and theist is not a good way to describe belief systems?

you disagree that kant was influenced by aristotle?

you think Euler did not use infinity as a discrete value or that is the basis of the most precise modern science and engineering?

or is it just some troll score emotional thing? you are more a fan of how he entertains you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant arrives at his list of categories by first enumerating the forms of possible judgment (A70/B95-A93/B109). On this view, objective empirical judgments (i.e., empirical judgments which purport to refer to objects rather than merely subjective seemings or connections of sense impressions, and which purport to be universally valid for all judging subjects) are endowed with their objectivity and generality in virtue of the a priori concepts embodied in the relevant forms of judgment. If we can identify all of the possible forms of objective empirical judgment, we can then hope to use them as the basis to discover all of the most general concepts or categories that are employed in making such judgments, and thus that are employed in any cognition of objects (Körner 1955, 48–49).

Thus in distinguishing his categories, Kant begins from Aristotelian logic in outlining four respects in which one can classify any judgment: according to its quan y, quality, relation, or modality.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/categories/#CatSys

So Chinook what cowardice are you going to go for now? You knew it meant it in German too? or perhaps you can claim that Stanford and I are stupid and need to look up an encyclopeida?

you got your philosophy degree last.

[xellos88330]

So we agree you're wrong here?:



when did you realize that it makes logical sense in our legal universe?

Did you finally use det google like I recommended or did you ask your parents?

Keep reaching Blake. Just keep on reaching.

[Blake]

Keep reaching Blake. Just keep on reaching.

I'm not reaching; I'm asking you to clarify because you've now got two conflicting posts.

[Blake]

Is it right or wrong for the 995 to push their religion on the 5 in a public school?