Analyze This!

angelica

sponger wrote:

Some people on this board actually think that about Ahnimus. It's really one of the strangest occurrences I have ever seen take place on the internet.

Having a high IQ doesn't naturally endow someone with insight or understanding, or even common sense however.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Don't give me this layperson shit. I bet I know more about the brain and mind than you do. Your theories are as bad as Coulter's.

My concern is that you don't understand the parameters of diagnosing illness, not as compared to me, but compared to the professionals who are trained to see the lines between difference of opinion and true illness.

And, no, I'd just prefer to converse with someone where the conversation actually unfolds, not this wheel spinning crap. We can't make any compromises because you think there is a big line between mental health and illness and I think that line is very grey.

Suit yourself. I merely need to call out contradiction or fallacy when I see it. How you respond is up to you.

catefrances

i don't think ann coulter is ill. i just think she's a bitch. an influential conservative bitch.

Ahnimus

sponger wrote:

Some people on this board actually think that about Ahnimus. It's really one of the strangest occurrences I have ever seen take place on the internet.

The only thing stranger would be people thinking that about you or Angelica.

Hmm, let's see, you think guys should be assholes so they can get laid. I take that as a big indication, amongst others, that you are a rather self-servant individual. Anytime you reach out to actually help someone, it's for your own gain.

Angelica thinks the universe is motivated by a super-intelligence that interferes with our normal brain process, especially with our frontal insular cortex. Meanwhile she doesn't even know what that is.

Neither of you has a fucking clue, you just talk shit to push your opinions which are baseless.

Sorry if that's blunt, but it's the same crap with you two over and over again.

The behavior of Coulter is far beyond normal behavior. Normally people do not advocate the death of others, Michelle Malkin and her have things in common. They both advocate physical attacks on their opposition. They list addresses and phone numbers on their websites so their "followers" can carry out their dirty work, as if they are prophets acting under God.

Of course, I would also argue that anyone who believes in God has a poisoned brain anyway. So...

jeffbr

angelica wrote:

Having a high IQ doesn't naturally endow someone with insight or understanding, or even common sense however.

This is a key reality that someone with a high IQ will never understand. It is always astonishing to me how someone can be textbook smart, but be unable to understand the application of that knowledge to reality.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Having a high IQ doesn't naturally endow someone with insight or understanding, or even common sense however.

Common sense is a twisted percept, it's common prejudice. Not sense. And everyone's idea of what is common sense is different, so therefor common sense doesn't actually exist. I thought you'd know that. But your just chucking out punchlines to try to discredit me.

sponger

Ahnimus wrote:

I've never advocated the death of anyone. And I certainly don't consider Godless to be a bad thing.

But, this is what the two of you have in common:

ahnimus wrote:

she is blatantly wrong and when told so she ignores it or acknowledges it, then promptly forgets

Regardless of whatever views you may have, your personality is what is at issue. And in that sense, she and you have much in common.

Abookamongstthemany

jeffbr wrote:

This is a key reality that someone with a high IQ will never understand. It is always astonishing to me how someone can be textbook smart, but be unable to understand the application of that knowledge to reality.

Exactly. What is the possession of all this knowledge really worth when you can't apply it to life? It's like collections...sometimes a nice collection can be cool to have but most of the time it ends up being clutter that gets in the way.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

i don't think ann coulter is ill. i just think she's a bitch. an influential conservative bitch.

Ok, well, I guess first you need to understand my concept of brain/mind.

I guess that's the problem with this thread. Probably everyone in her has listened to Angelica's newage bullshit for too long. Or they are coming from the ole' religious perspective of soul and choice.

I hope someday people will get wit' the times.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Common sense is a twisted percept, it's common prejudice. Not sense. And everyone's idea of what is common sense is different, so therefor common sense doesn't actually exist. I thought you'd know that. But your just chucking out punchlines to try to discredit me.

Oh, now that the subject is no longer your contradiction, you are looking to debate me?

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

Common sense is a twisted percept, it's common prejudice. Not sense. And everyone's idea of what is common sense is different, so therefor common sense doesn't actually exist. I thought you'd know that. But your just chucking out punchlines to try to discredit me.

i guess common sense is dependent on people's different perceptions. i know some smart people who look at me like deer caught in the headlights when i try to explain or point something out, that to me is a simple concept of 'everyday sense'

Ahnimus

sponger wrote:

But, this is what the two of you have in common:

Regardless of whatever views you may have, your personality is what is at issue. And in that sense, she and you have much in common.

Dude, what am I wrong about?

You or anyone else has never proven me wrong on anything!

I don't get into conversations unless I know the subject matter, unlike you. And the same statement can be said about you, you don't admit fault either. But at least when I open my mouth I spit fact.

sponger

Ahnimus wrote:

.

you think guys should be assholes so they can get laid. I take that as a big indication, amongst others, that you are a rather self-servant individual.

That only goes for high school guys, as there is no such thing as "intimate" sex at that age. You took that out of context.

ahnimus wrote:

Anytime you reach out to actually help someone, it's for your own gain.

Anytime? So you use one example (which was a misinterpretation on your part) to account for my motives at all times? You believe that a person's actions on occasion account for that person's views as a whole? I thought you knew something about about psychology? It seems that you know very little. But, that doesn't surprise me. You normally have no idea about that which are you speaking of when it comes to matters dealing with human nature. And this isn't a conclusion that I reached after only a single occasion.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

i guess common sense is dependent on people's different perceptions. i know some smart people who look at me like deer caught in the headlights when i try to explain or point something out, that to me is a simple concept of 'everyday sense'

Ok, but true, intelligence doesn't translate to wisdom, however, knowledge does translate to intelligence. So if I talk computers I can sound "intelligent" cause it's my field, if I talk cars I sound like an "idiot", so I don't talk cars. For a mechanic there are many things that may seem like "Common Sense" which obviously would not be to a computer tech. Similarily with techies, the "common sense" thing is really exposed because everyone seems to know different things. Which is exponentially greater in society and with social issues.

Common sense is bullshit. It's just a catch phrase to describe what we individually believe other's should already know.

Ahnimus

sponger wrote:

That only goes for high school guys, as there is no such thing as "intimate" sex at that age. You took that out of context.

Anytime? So you use one example (which was a misinterpretation on your part) to account for my motives at all times? You believe that a person's actions on occasion account for that person's views as a whole? I thought you knew something about about psychology? It seems that you know very little. But, that doesn't surprise me. You normally have no idea about that which are you speaking of when it comes to matters dealing with human nature. And this isn't a conclusion that I reached after only a single occasion.

Do I really need to reply to that? It's obviously stupid.

sponger

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't get into conversations unless I know the subject matter, unlike you. And the same statement can be said about you, you don't admit fault either. But at least when I open my mouth I spit fact.

Right...just like when it took three pages of thread to explain to you the importance of writing an opinion paper based on an opinion that you don't personally agree with.

You have a very basic and remedial understanding of common sense concepts. To top it off, you refuse to acknowledge it.

I might disagree with Anne Coulter's views, but I don't pass judgment on her for characteristics that I share with her. You, on the other hand, do pass that judgment. And that's what makes you hypocrite and, frankly, an embarassment to atheism. When christians speak of simplistic atheists who just aren't smart enough to understand religion and common sense, they are referring to people like you.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, but true, intelligence doesn't translate to wisdom, however, knowledge does translate to intelligence. So if I talk computers I can sound "intelligent" cause it's my field, if I talk cars I sound like an "idiot", so I don't talk cars. For a mechanic there are many things that may seem like "Common Sense" which obviously would not be to a computer tech. Similarily with techies, the "common sense" thing is really exposed because everyone seems to know different things. Which is exponentially greater in society and with social issues.
.

no. i'd call that knowledge specific to a certain field.

Ahnimus

sponger wrote:

Right...just like when it took three pages of thread to explain to you the importance of writing an opinion paper based on an opinion that you don't personally agree with.

You have a very basic and remedial understanding of common sense concepts. To top it off, you refuse to acknowledge it.

I might disagree with Anne Coulter's views, but I don't pass judgment on her for characteristics that I share with her. You, on the other hand, do pass that judgment. And that's what makes you hypocrite and, frankly, an embarassment to atheism. When christians speak of simplistic atheists who just aren't smart enough to understand religion and common sense, they are referring to people like you.

Man, I will make a mockery of you!

One meaning of common sense (or, when used attributively as an adjective, commonsense, common-sense or commonsensical), based on a strict deconstruction of the term, is what people in common would agree: that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding. Some use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that in their opinion they consider would in most people's experience be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what is believed to be knowledge held by people "in common". The knowledge and experience most people have, or are believed to have by the person using the term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

no. i'd call that knowledge specific to a certain field.

Ok, seems like your a bit slow on the uptake, let me lay it out. Life experiences are "certain" in the sense that not everyone experiences the same things in life. So therefor "common sense" in terms of "certain" life experiences is bullshit. Because not everyone experiences the same things. See above post or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense wiki article on "common sense".

Ahnimus

sponger wrote:

I might disagree with Anne Coulter's views, but I don't pass judgment on her for characteristics that I share with her. You, on the other hand, do pass that judgment. And that's what makes you hypocrite and, frankly, an embarassment to atheism. When christians speak of simplistic atheists who just aren't smart enough to understand religion and common sense, they are referring to people like you.

Dude, passing judgment? I'm pointing out that she has a common problem that causes a person to intensify everything. Like she can't just comment that 4 widows of 9/11 are getting a lot of coverage. She has to say "broads" "happy about their husband's deaths" "rich". Like she just slams anything against the wall in the most brutal language. "Canada is lucky we don't just roll over and crush them." that is a masterpiece of diplomacy. We don't agree with you so we are just going to invade. Then to say that people disagreeing with her are godless? What an insult to any religious person that doesn't agree with Ann Coulter. An insult to Atheism above all, because firstly she implies that Liberalism is the root of all evil, furthermore has constructed a doctrine or a "church", which is rooted in Atheism. Like being a Liberal is a bad thing, but if your an Atheist Liberal then you should be burned at the stake. Her views and opinions are totally megalomaniacal. That's what I am saying. With the implication that I don't personally think megalomaniacs or narcissists should have positions as journalists or politicians, but should rather be under medical care. How can you mock conspiracy theories and then take to the defense of Ann Coulter? Conspiracy theories can get pretty strange and far-fetched. Some are flat out myths and believing in it can be another psychological disorder, but there is nothing megalomaniacal about it. It's always about events and paranoia. Coulter never loses character. She is fully confident in everything she's ever said. She will never admit fault or anything. That doesn't make a very good journalist or politician. Sadly that seems to be a lot of what is out there. Take Limbaugh, he beat up Fox a couple of times before finally apologizing. This dude, picks a fight with a guy who has Parkinson's disease. Says he's faking it for political gain. That's like telling dude in his wheelchair that he can walk if he'd stop playing around. Limbaugh doesn't know Fox, but I don't think Limbaugh's complex is as severe as Coulter. Either way, I'm just saying it makes for horrible journalism, but I guess great sensationalism and therefor good ratings. Which poisons the perceptions of viewers that suffer from another condition known as laziness. People that don't ever read stuff, they just flip on the tube, watch the most sensational news they can and believe that. Because they have nothing else to base their opinions on. Tell me that isn't over half of the westernized world. The movie Out-Foxed didn't even dent the Murdoch empire, didn't chip the paint, barely even scratched it. What's it going to take to get people to stop watching it? Legislation that forces good journalism and keeps sensationalism out of the news. I don't want to hear Coulter's opinion, I don't even care for Olbermann's and he's never been wrong that I know of. Just give me the damn news, don't spice it up, don't flare it up, don't tell me what you think of it, just tell me what the fuck happened and leave the activism out of it. I also don't think you should be able to write in a book that you want people dead. I don't think you should want people dead, any people, I don't care who they are. Even if you have to kill them, you shouldn't want them dead. It should be out of need, not want. Too much fucking anger in the world and there is no need for it. Anyway, rip that apart. We aren't going to see eye-to-eye on 90% of what we discuss. There is too much crap to dig through. We come from completely separate backgrounds of different belief systems no doubt. I've always been encouraged to have my own beliefs. Beliefs were never forced on me by my culture, I was free to choose my beliefs and for the longest time I didn't believe anything. Took me up to a few years ago to finally decide I'm an atheist. I never said it before, but I didn't "believe" in god. See I had to examine what belief is, and I don't think it's just Bellief or Disbelief, unless Disbelief is defined as a lack of belief, because I didn't believe in god, but I didn't deny the possibility and likelihood of a God. I believe it's called Agnosticism. So Atheism is something I've only determined in the last few years. Upon broader examination I came to the realization of determination and finally predetermination, which was relatively easy to pick up given my previous understandings of the universe and Atheism. Though Atheism only means a denial of God, I don't seen how someone could be a complex atheist.