Electricity
Member
Oh yeah I forgot, you're another idiot who thinks that IQ is a measure of something other than intelligence
Speaking of noise
I didn't delete it, why would I
lol
The Flat Earth Thread
- Thread starter Electricity
- Start date
Lumpy Von Talbot
Member
Fuck, you are a boring twat. On ignore. Shutting up Mongo.
Mowl
Member
What's Collett's view on the world today, Jambo?
Or maybe you prefer Woods's outlook on life and the world?
You ought to get down on knees and pray to Mohammud Ali, he IS your saviour, after all.
The biggest ever donator to The Nation Of Islam, he gave them over 65% of his boxing fees.
And you LOVE him, you're all fuzzy and warm inside when you picture his big black face - then the contents of his boxing pants.
Also big and black - exactly the way you like it, eh.
Or maybe you prefer Woods's outlook on life and the world?
You ought to get down on knees and pray to Mohammud Ali, he IS your saviour, after all.
The biggest ever donator to The Nation Of Islam, he gave them over 65% of his boxing fees.
And you LOVE him, you're all fuzzy and warm inside when you picture his big black face - then the contents of his boxing pants.
Also big and black - exactly the way you like it, eh.
Electricity
Member
What's somewhat amusing is that, for days now, you still have your gay avatar (instead of the baby being deafened) presumably in the belief that you've come up with something (that might bother me) 
roc_abilly
Member
No, you're the idiot.
You still can't grasp the point after it has been explained to you twice already.
The IQ test is a measure that aims to get at intelligence.
It doesn't directly measure intelligence does it.
Apart from anything else "intelligence" is not a concrete concept.
I.e. The test measures things that it is believed indicate the existence of intelligence.
Things that it is supposed are attributes of intelligence, not intelligence itself. (There may well be perhap other attributes of intelligence, not so easy to slap a number on).
What we want to do really is to "properly know" what the intelligence is that we are dealing with.
How do we do that? We generate numbers. And allegedly these numbers enable us "to properly know" it.
Again, we're not directly measuring the intelligence. We're doing something like how you might use absenteeism as a measure of morale. I.e. The absenteeism is a proxy for the thing we really want to get at, morale.
That is before you get onto the selection of the attributes that are considered to demonstrate the existence of intelligence.
And the matter of different observers looking to take the same measurement inevitably include something of their own personalities so that identical results are not obtained.
In other words you have subjectivity entering into both the selection of the attribute considered to signify the presence of intelligence, and the manner of measuring the facility or capability in the attribute.
Yes, as you allude to, in consideration of that subjectivity, there are many who would argue that this selection and manner of measurement may well signify the presence of unintelligence. And actually, if you look at the likes of Jambo and Godsdog, both self proclaimed high IQ individuals, you realise, well they may just have a very good point.
Electricity
Member
I really don't want to get into an argument with your mealy-mouthedness, why would I
If you want believe that IQ is a measurement of something (which obviously it is) but you don't know what that is, and it's not intelligence.. then have at it. And I'll continue to believe that that's idiotic
lol Doggy is no more a member of Mensa than you are
Mowl
Member
What's somewhat amusing is that, for days now, you still have your gay avatar (instead of the baby being deafened) presumably in the belief that you've come up with something (that might bother me)
So now you want Ali to be not just the main provider to The Nation Of Islam, you also want him to be gay?
He's dead - you'll never get to suck him off, see.
Besides, of all the members of all the Irish forums all rolled into one? I'm still the ONLY one of any of you who actually got to hang out with a world heavyweight boxing champion, because he loved my wit and sense of humour. And because I know all the right people in exactly the right places to make sure that when I took Lennox Lewis out for the night, we walked straight through any door with any number of punyers queuing up.
But - and this is a sizeable but.
I never at any time either treated him as a god (as you do with Muhammud Ali) nor did I presume he was gay when he approached me to ask me (in my painty work dungarees) to please take him somewhere more interesting then another glamour-puss opening party with all the same faces and arses present.
You place world negro champions on a pedestal.
I take them out on the town for the evening, and they're never bored either.
You think Ali your greatest life hero.
I call Lennox Lewis a mate, a buddy, and we're still in touch all these years later.
I say this not to boast or gloat over, I say it because it's true - you can only dream of even beginning to try to do all the things I've done with my life while you sat at home waiting for your dole cheque. You can call yourself all the nationalists, ethnic this, that or the other, civic what's its or anything else you can conjure up.
But you know this much: you had your shot at answering a simple question about your defined and apparently active ideals. But when asked how you personally manifest these beliefs, you log off the site and then fire up another ancient video of Ali battering some third rate bar buster so you can whack off to it. You love big black men. You want them to be gay. Like you. You're terrified of strong women. They frighten the shite out of you, which is why you fancy your wan from The Bangles, Catherine Hoffs, or whatever.
You're a nothing, a conduit for other people's thoughts.
I bet if the very guys you love so much and can't stop quoting ever got to meet you, they'd slap you around the ears and tell you to get off their tail. I know how they feel - you've been running around after me for three years plus, and still you haven't clocked the twat you've been made into.
If big black dig is your goal, why not emigrate to Nigeria?
That way you'll be closer to Muhammud, surrounded by miles of black sausage, all the water melon and chicken you can eat, and all the African sperm you can swallow.
James 'Jambo' Dawson - loves black boys in boxing trunks and padded gloves.
roc_abilly
Member
I heard he showed the bigoted old farts on politicalirish a photo of his Mensa certificate hanging over his mantelpiece when challenged on it.
He told me in so many words that he joined for "the social aspect", to find friends. They go hillwalking and visiting museums and things like that.
Electricity
Member
So what
She is no more a member of Mensa than you are. But, unlike you, she has a Leaving Cert and I think a (crappy) degree from UL
Lumpy Von Talbot
Member
Lucky museums. Do they ring ahead and ensure a red carpet is laid out for the Mensa Club?
Mowl
Member
Do any of your heroes like Collett or Woods even know you exist?
Do you send them fan mail?
Ask for their autographs?
Used boxer shorts?
A clump of pubic hair?
Electricity
Member
And as if by magic, Maguerite Mellett proves my point about leftists not understanding or ignoring per capita 
(she's also a huge fan of anecdotal evidence) -
Post in thread 'The Trans woke thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/the-trans-woke-thread.274/post-41303
You know you could do the same to demonise the "straight" community. And in fact, you do a quick survey and you find pretty much the majority of the type of sex beast who ignore the principle of sexual consent is of the "straight" variety.
I know it's sometimes disputed but I think it would be fair to ballpark it at say 5/95%, gay/straight
So my question for
roc_abilly is, is there anything you wouldn't expect 95% of the population to do the "majority" of? 
(she's also a huge fan of anecdotal evidence) - Post in thread 'The Trans woke thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/the-trans-woke-thread.274/post-41303
You know you could do the same to demonise the "straight" community. And in fact, you do a quick survey and you find pretty much the majority of the type of sex beast who ignore the principle of sexual consent is of the "straight" variety.
I know it's sometimes disputed but I think it would be fair to ballpark it at say 5/95%, gay/straight
So my question for
roc_abilly is, is there anything you wouldn't expect 95% of the population to do the "majority" of?
roc_abilly
Member
Golah's bullshit.
I.e. A rehash of the Vatican's first response to the revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests.
Which was to blame homosexuality. And then go on to declare that gay men should not be ordained, that that would fix the problem.
So the church types carried out a study or two to support that tactic. That you're obviously citing.
However those studies didn't stand up. Read up on it you half wit.
From the top of my head, there were other correlations that were much more striking, and that much more strongly suggested causation.
Like that it was found that most child molesters never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults.
In other words, a bit like you, Jambo. And like your buddies on Arsefields.
So then what happens is they turn to a substitute. (Sometimes, it is true, some of this set eventually turn to other men who do not ask for a mature relationship, and are not fussy.)
How about that correlation Jambo? Explain things a bit better?
And you see that the figures and study you cite are an observance of the end result, not the beginning of the trajectory of a child molester? Understand now?
You need to do a proper literature review to understand the issues, Jambo, not just repeat Morgosh who is selectively taking just one or two of the studies, done by the Catholic apologists for the Church child abuse to shift blame.
I.e. A rehash of the Vatican's first response to the revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests.
Which was to blame homosexuality. And then go on to declare that gay men should not be ordained, that that would fix the problem.
So the church types carried out a study or two to support that tactic. That you're obviously citing.
However those studies didn't stand up. Read up on it you half wit.
From the top of my head, there were other correlations that were much more striking, and that much more strongly suggested causation.
Like that it was found that most child molesters never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults.
In other words, a bit like you, Jambo. And like your buddies on Arsefields.
So then what happens is they turn to a substitute. (Sometimes, it is true, some of this set eventually turn to other men who do not ask for a mature relationship, and are not fussy.)
How about that correlation Jambo? Explain things a bit better?
And you see that the figures and study you cite are an observance of the end result, not the beginning of the trajectory of a child molester? Understand now?
You need to do a proper literature review to understand the issues, Jambo, not just repeat Morgosh who is selectively taking just one or two of the studies, done by the Catholic apologists for the Church child abuse to shift blame.
Electricity
Member
Does anyone WTF Margaret roc is waffling about now?
I asked you a simple question: Is there anything you would expect 95% of the population not to be in the majority about? Do you know what per capita/average is? And while we're at it, from a statistical standpoint, do you know that anecdotal evidence is not considered evidence at all?
I asked you a simple question: Is there anything you would expect 95% of the population not to be in the majority about? Do you know what per capita/average is? And while we're at it, from a statistical standpoint, do you know that anecdotal evidence is not considered evidence at all?
Mowl
Member
And I asked you an even simpler one - but you ran out, again - like the last time.
Like the meeting with Sham - you proved your yellow-bellied nature rather well right there.
You have fuck all left to argue/debate anybody with - because you're a do-noting yob with a fat mouth you can't help from running off.
You sad bastard.
You have nothing.
Electricity
Member
Another classic today from flat-earth creationist, Plonker -
Post in thread 'To The Moon' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/to-the-moon.162/post-41664
Mowl, do you wanna have a go at this one?
- Post in thread 'To The Moon' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/to-the-moon.162/post-41664
Mowl, do you wanna have a go at this one? Electricity
Member
No, not having a go the Mowl, did you even watch the video?
Ah well, maybe
roc_abilly will take a stab at it (this is his ("flat-earthism") thread after all)
Mowl
Member
No, not having a go the Mowl, did you even watch the video?
Nope - why the fuck would I follow any links you send me?
Are you completely fucking stupid or is this another of your ploys to annoy?
Ah well, maybe
Nah - it's your thread - it was accredited to Roc because your own OP was, like yourself, completely fucking useless.
Have a wank, or maybe a cheese sandwich and a glass of milk.
You're too fucking thick to be for real.
Mainly because you have nothing.