What is Intelligence? How do you define Intelligence? Is it an inherent quality that an individual possesses at birth, or is it the sum of learned behavior? Is Intelligence quantifiable, or is the observation of Intelligence in an individual subject to interpretation? Are there various degrees of Intelligence, and if so, what are they? Are there different categories, or types, of Intelligence? What makes an individual Intelligent?

Discuss.

Depends on the culture. High intelligence in "our world" can be seen as a curse in an isolated African tribe.

If you want a "well-rounded" definition, it's the ability to adapt to one's evironmnent. However one environment might be more taxing and have more requirements to adapt than another.

If you want a "well-rounded" definition, it's the ability to adapt to one's evironmnent. However one environment might be more taxing and have more requirements to adapt than another.
This is good, but it doesn't answer some of the questions. Is it an inherent quality, or a learned behavior? Is it quantifiable, or is it subject to interpretation?

The way you treat your fellow human beings.

The ability to be able to be honest with yourself.

Making money.

Is it an inherent quality that an individual possesses at birth, or is it the sum of learned behavior? Is Intelligence quantifiable, or is the observation of Intelligence in an individual subject to interpretation? Are there various degrees of Intelligence, and if so, what are they? Are there different categories, or types, of Intelligence? What makes an individual Intelligent?


All of this is irrelevent; you perfectly put the question earlier.

"How do you define Intelligence?"

The word (int.) has no set in stone definition. Essentially it is a place holder and you can put whatever set of things into it you want. Depending on which discipline-dependant discourse you elect to participate in, you will find different definitions suit the situation better.

In day-to-day speech I'd say the word is best left fairly open and it would be foolish to try and narrow it down beyond "ya knows it when ya sees it".

Well, this isn't day-to-day speech. I was talking about behavior, in the sense of cognitive science. I am attempting to ascertain whether or not "Intelligence" is anything more than an interpretation of observed behavior, i.e. whether or not people on this message board believe Intelligence to be inherent to the individual and independant from the observations of others, or not.

Depends on the culture. High intelligence in "our world" can be seen as a curse in an isolated African tribe.

If you want a "well-rounded" definition, it's the ability to adapt to one's evironmnent. However one environment might be more taxing and have more requirements to adapt than another.
I do not agree. Intellegence allows one not just to adapt to one's environment, but to alter one's environment. Also, I don't agree it would be a curse in an African tribe. Is being able to determine how to build better tools a curse? Is being able to judge which crops to plant a curse? How about knowing the habits of animals you hunt, etc. Intellegence is a tool. Tools are useful.

As to the thread topic, intellegence is the ability to think. To figure out what's going on and come up with ways to change things to your advantage. It's similiar to the speed of the microprocessor in a computer. It is an inborn trait, but it can become more or less efficient based on training and experience.

How can you measure intelligence, then? Is it quantifiable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_of_intelligence

This article may not conform to the neutral point of view policy.

I love Wikipedia, but please cite a more reputable article if you can.

g

ibsomeonementionsmultipleintelligences

I do not agree. Intellegence allows one not just to adapt to one's environment, but to alter one's environment. Also, I don't agree it would be a curse in an African tribe. Is being able to determine how to build better tools a curse? Is being able to judge which crops to plant a curse? How about knowing the habits of animals you hunt, etc. Intellegence is a tool. Tools are useful.


I think they meant that the qualities that Western culture considers intelligent, namely academic success, would be of little use to indigenous peoples and would thus be considered undesirable. Intelligence in those cultures would include a different set of qualities, or they would at least be expressed differently.

Well, this isn't day-to-day speech. I was talking about behavior, in the sense of cognitive science. I am attempting to ascertain whether or not "Intelligence" is anything more than an interpretation of observed behavior, i.e. whether or not people on this message board believe Intelligence to be inherent to the individual and independant from the observations of others, or not.

I believe that intelligence is inherent to the individual as it is a tool that aids in survival. The characteristics that make up intelligence, however, are culture dependent so I guess you could say that the idea of who is or is not intelligent is based on the observation of others. But those observations are based on the adaptiveness of a given trait in a given environment, which is exactly what intelligence is.

I'm reading "The Mismeasure of Man" right now by Stephen Jay Gould. It's about the history of intelligence testing. So far, I understand that the tests which became IQ tests were based on a false premise: that intelligence is a measurable, innate quality.

So far, I understand that the tests which became IQ tests were based on a false premise: that intelligence is a measurable, innate quality.

I tend to agree that intelligence is not an innate quality, nor is it measurable. I am of the opinion that intelligence is wholly dependent on the individual making the observation of a given behavior, and that there really is no trait that we could isolate and call "intelligence". What seems intelligent to one person may seem stupid to another. Intelligence is relative.

Intelligence is a measure of problem solving in the broadest sense of the words 'problem' and 'solving'.

I believe that intelligence is inherent to the individual as it is a tool that aids in survival.
I agree completely.

The characteristics that make up intelligence, however, are culture dependent so I guess you could say that the idea of who is or is not intelligent is based on the observation of others.
I'd say, the characteristics by which a given culture measures intellegence vary. Not necesarily the trait itself.

I can generally judge someone's intellegence pretty accurately from a conversation. You know, you're talking and they have that glazed look in their eye, not really understanding what you're saying. They nod too much, and make inappropriate comments. You're just not getting through to them. It's the main thing I go by in a job interview. Personality and intellegence.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Intelligent

---

Intelligence is consciousness and consciousness is separation.

Intelligence is consciousness and consciousness is separation.Nice poetry; crap science.

I have a somewhat different view of intelligence. It is the ability of one's mind and soul to harmonize all known facts about a given situation ie a job interview, etc. to grasp this knowlege and communicate well with other people at their level of comfort, whatever that may be.

I can generally judge someone's intellegence pretty accurately from a conversation. You know, you're talking and they have that glazed look in their eye, not really understanding what you're saying. They nod too much, and make inappropriate comments. You're just not getting through to them.

It sounds to me as if you judge the intelligence of a person by the knowledge which they possess, and the comfort and familiarity that they display with a given subject, or by whether or not they understand your cultural references or the terminology that you are using. All of these things are learned, not inherent to the person. If you are saying that, by this measure, intelligence is something which is learned by an individual and is not inherent, than I can agree with you and understand your definition, but if you are saying that this is an inherent quality and their comprehension during a conversation with you is a product of their innate ability to understand, than I would have to say that you are grossly mistaken.

It seems much more reasonable that, when conversing with an individual, their lack of understanding is a result of two possible causes, perhaps separately, or in combination. Either:

A) They are unfamiliar with the subject. This has nothing to do with their ability to understand, but simply means that they have not been exposed to, or have not been interested in, the topic which you are discussing. When you talk about it, they don't know what to do, and therefore appear and behave in the manner which you describe.
B) You are unclear because you are either using terminology that they are unfamiliar with, or the way in which you are communicating is not what they are used to, i.e. you use lots of metaphors and similes, whereas they are used to direct, straightforward communication.

In both instances, the other individual may feel uncomfortable with their lack of ability to effectively communicate with you, and so they appear glazed over, and make innappropriate comments in an effort to hit a meaningful chord. I don't believe that any of this has to do with one's intelligence. Intelligence, if it can actually be measured, should be done in the field in which the individual has the highest level of expertise and comfort possible.

Jaster, I should just like to second everything you have written above, but add a third explanation for the 'glazed expressions'. (I feel there is substantiating evidence for this in these fora.) MadAnthonyWayne is boring, thus the intelligence of his audeince is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the glazed expression, not directly proportional as MadAnthony imagines.

It sounds to me as if you judge the intelligence of a person by the knowledge which they possess, and the comfort and familiarity that they display with a given subject, or by whether or not they understand your cultural references or the terminology that you are using. All of these things are learned, not inherent to the person. If you are saying that, by this measure, intelligence is something which is learned by an individual and is not inherent, than I can agree with you and understand your definition, but if you are saying that this is an inherent quality and their comprehension during a conversation with you is a product of their innate ability to understand, than I would have to say that you are grossly mistaken.

I'm talking about conversations with people who live in the same town that I do. Who speak the same language. Who should be aware of the same cultural references.

You ask a simple question, and it's like that little hourglass icon pops up on the computer. You note the limited vocabulary, the constant repetition of meaningless phrases to give them time to think. It's not too tough.

Of course it's not foolproof. But then neither is an IQ test. A good example of it not working occured when I was in college. While in highschool I worked at a grocery store, Jewel. When I went away to college it happened that there were two stores there so I transfered to one. When I got there, the assistant manager was a guy who had worked with me in Chicago. He said, "Mike, you don't know how glad I am to see you. When I got here I fired the entire night crew. I thought they were all a bunch of lazy idiots. But then the guys I got to replace them were just as bad!"

Anyway, the culture of the Chicago suburbs was a bit faster paced, including the speech patterns, than the southern Indiana culture in Bloomington. The assistant manager had to learn to recalibrate his judgement based on the new culture he found himself in.

I'm talking about conversations with people who live in the same town that I do. Who speak the same language. Who should be aware of the same cultural references.

You ask a simple question, and it's like that little hourglass icon pops up on the computer. You note the limited vocabulary, the constant repetition of meaningless phrases to give them time to think. It's not too tough.

Of course it's not foolproof. But then neither is an IQ test. A good example of it not working occured when I was in college. While in highschool I worked at a grocery store, Jewel. When I went away to college it happened that there were two stores there so I transfered to one. When I got there, the assistant manager was a guy who had worked with me in Chicago. He said, "Mike, you don't know how glad I am to see you. When I got here I fired the entire night crew. I thought they were all a bunch of lazy idiots. But then the guys I got to replace them were just as bad!"

Anyway, the culture of the Chicago suburbs was a bit faster paced, including the speech patterns, than the southern Indiana culture in Bloomington. The assistant manager had to learn to recalibrate his judgement based on the new culture he found himself in.

Ok, that doesn't at all change my point. You are still relying on your own judgment to determine the intelligence of an individual, and not some kind of objective standard. To me, that makes it sound as if there really is no reliable way to measure intelligence, and that it is just the interpretation by one individual of another individual's behavior.

I tend to agree that intelligence is not an innate quality, nor is it measurable. I am of the opinion that intelligence is wholly dependent on the individual making the observation of a given behavior, and that there really is no trait that we could isolate and call "intelligence". What seems intelligent to one person may seem stupid to another. Intelligence is relative.

Assume you are comparing Einstein to a person with a very low IQ, it would be easy to compare their intelligences. In a way this means that indeed you can measure intelligence, if Einsteins intelligence > Low IQ perons' intelligence, it must be quantifiable, no?

edit: It may be a relative value, but a value nonetheless. In a way I think intelligence can be universal, and quantifiable, if one uses the scientific method to determine it. Sure a tribe in Africa may not call you intelligent, but they also believe that they should massively slaughter other tribes for believing in another god, and that raping a child will cure them from aids, etc. (using an extreme example)

edit2: It would be very hard, but possible, to create an accurate and fair test to measure someones intelligence because it is such a complicated idea.

I have a somewhat different view of intelligence. It is the ability of one's mind and soul to harmonize all known facts about a given situation ie a job interview, etc. to grasp this knowlege and communicate well with other people at their level of comfort, whatever that may be.

soul, harmonize? What exactly do you mean here?

Ok, that doesn't at all change my point. You are still relying on your own judgment to determine the intelligence of an individual, and not some kind of objective standard. To me, that makes it sound as if there really is no reliable way to measure intelligence, and that it is just the interpretation by one individual of another individual's behavior.

I think the science of determining one's intelligence is currently rather crude, but I believe it can be done.

If you were to put a group of people in the same situation could you rank their intelligence by the outcomes?

I suppose the each outcome's 'value' could be very subjective.

SycknesS,

If intelligence is either relative, or subjective, then it is not quantifiable.

Also, I am fairly certain that you cannot isolate any kind of chemical composition or physical arrangement in the brain that corresponds to greater inteligence at birth, i.e. that it's innate. All you can do is observe the behaviors of an individual, and based upon your own experiences of what is and is not a good idea, determine their level of intelligence. The example of the African tribe was all about the applicability of certain knowledge to a given environment. The knowledge of a nuclear physicist, or of a poet laureate of the United States (both would largely be considered very intelligent in their respective societies) is worthless in the Sarengeti or the jungle. Hence, my contention that there is no reliable, objective method of determining intelligence that will give you an accurate model of behavior for that individual in the future, other than saying that they will be "intelligent", of which there is no universal standard.

I (and many others labelled 'gifted') routinely excel or perform better than most people at a variety of things in short periods of time and without significant effort. We also happen to score fairly high on IQ tests: don't tell me you can't connect the dots...

Either way, I won't be debating this with anyone: it's fairly obvious that there's something to psychometrics and standardized testing, otherwise we wouldn't have spent one hundred years improving on the quantification of specific cognitive faculties.

You seem to excel @ the funnies of internet as well, OMGWTFBBQ, hahaha. /sarcasm

I (and many others labelled 'gifted') routinely excel or perform better than most people at a variety of things in short periods of time and without significant effort. We also happen to score fairly high on IQ tests: don't tell me you can't connect the dots...

Either way, I won't be debating this with anyone: it's fairly obvious that there's something to psychometrics and standardized testing, otherwise we wouldn't have spent one hundred years improving on the quantification of specific cognitive faculties.

That says nothing about whether or not that ability is innate, or learned. I'm fairly certain that everyone with a high degree of general apptitude likes to believe that their ability is something inherent to their person, and not a learned quality. Also, I have personally observed, on numerous occasions, people who were generally considered highly intelligent scoring very low on IQ tests, and the reverse also. IQ tests really do test knowledge and speed rather than how "smart" an individual is.

IQ means jack shit. It measures your ability to retain information and analyse. But it doesn't measure how smart you are. I got a 140 on a test and then I tried a different one and got 113. A person with a 100 Iq can know more than a person with a 150 Iq because of experience and education. The 100 Iq person can become a CEO with the right ambition while the 150 Iq person is stuck working under them.

... while nicholas1m7 is stuck trolling on various online message boards. Have you finally calmed down or is it still business as usual ?

...and while your stuck sucking the penis of the presidents of the "homosexuals speak out" board, I will be in school working toward that degree. That's not something you should be proud of floyd.

Working towards a degree in dick sucking? Nice, Nicholas... once again, you're outdoing yourself.

In all seriousness, you pale in comparison to an honours graduate. Keep at it, champ: one day, you'll be somebody. :cool:

I define intelligence as the rate at which you can learn. Some people learn a ot faster than other people, I noticed this alot in school. I'm not sure if you're born with the abillity to learn faster than others, or if it comes from some early on in your life.

Working towards a degree in dick sucking? Nice, Nicholas... once again, you're outdoing yourself.

In all seriousness, you pale in comparison to an honours graduate. Keep at it, champ: one day, you'll be somebody. :cool:


But according to you I'm already an honors student cuz I got a good score on your friends test right? Judging by your words I'd say you ain't all that to be speaking in the first place. Am I supposed to believe that your cool because of the emoticon with sunglasses?

:cool: Look, I'm cool now. That means I can fuck your mom. Oh wait, I already did.

Why is it that even though I'm average, I can get a 90% on a math test while the guy with a 180 iq in my class gets only a 72%?
It ain't cool to suck dick. That's why I had to fuck up your beloved hedonistic homosexual groupy, speaking as a guy with an average mind. Maybe I was too dumb to nurture it like a facy such as you.

I should also add,

Working towards a degree in dick sucking?


Yes, your mom is educating me in how to suck dick. But you can garauntee that I ain't never going to be a dick sucker like yourself. But I will keep at it. Your mom is such an encouraging teacher. Even when her face is all cummed up.

Fuck with the bull you get the horns. Or in your mom's case, my penis.

I define intelligence as the rate at which you can learn. Some people learn a ot faster than other people, I noticed this alot in school. I'm not sure if you're born with the abillity to learn faster than others, or if it comes from some early on in your life.
You simply observed people who were less capable of learning by the methods the school employed.
There are many ways of learning something, if someone is less capable to one method of teaching, that doesn't neccesseraly mean that that person is less intelligent, just that the perception is slightly different.

I judge intelligence by ones capability to solve problems. Any animal's.
Of course that's an imperfect definition. And some are better at maths, some at arts.
So it should be specification independent. For example a task to show that there exists a god (no, I'm not a believer).
Some might create a painting, others build a cathedral, others try that through physics experiments, etc. The most convincing result would be made by the most intelligent person. Or maybe that's creativity. Or maybe that's one and the same.

In the end I don't think that intelligence can be objectively measured.

Looks like I hit the right button. Poor Nic, getting all wound up... that was too easy. Still in your Batman phase? :D

Why is it that even though I'm average, I can get a 90% on a math test while the guy with a 180 iq in my class gets only a 72%?


You got 90% on your elementary algebra exam? Nice one, Nic! To be honest, I'm surprised you did so well. Bruce Wayne would be proud of you...

I like how you pull numbers like 180 out of your ass, that's cute too. You always did make the funniest comparisons on cerebrals. :p

Looks like I hit the right button. Poor Nic, getting all wound up... that was too easy. Still in your Batman phase? :D


I was adressing each point. And no, now I'm in the 'I fucked floyd's mom' phase.

You got 90% on your elementary algebra exam? Nice one, Nic! To be honest, I'm surprised you did so well. Bruce Wayne would be proud of you...

I like how you pull numbers like 180 out of your ass, that's cute too. You always did make the funniest comparisons on cerebrals. :p

I guess since youre a genius now, you can take me in a fight. Talking about your shit internet groupies and trying to make it look like 'we go back' doesn't make you one of my clicks.

clicks?

I guess since youre a genius now, you can take me in a fight. Talking about your shit internet groupies and trying to make it look like 'we go back' doesn't make you one of my clicks.

If you're the little mug in that avatar, you don't stand a chance in a fight against me, kid-o. It's great that you have such confidence though... a healthy "can do" attitude can work wonders in life sometimes.

This is just my opinion so it doesnt amount to much but intelligence in my opinion is: Intelligence is the highest and most successful manipulation of the three spheres of self (mental, spritual, and physical.) Mental application entails the constant progression of information/knowledge in understanding how to live life in the best way possible by doing things in the proper and most efficent way. Spritual entails worshipping your Lord the way that he intends and living according to his teachings in order to assure his aid and your position of success in this life and the next. And physical entails living a healthy life with proper exercise proper nutirents to fuel your body and an active way of life. With these three combined in the most ideal fashion based off of our natural nature one can become truly intelligent.

Spritual entails worshipping your Lord the way that he intends and living according to his teachings in order to assure his aid and your position of success in this life and the next.
Oh, then people, according to you, who worship some deity are more intelligent than those who don't? :D
That sounds like bullshit, my dear friend.

Oh, then people, according to you, who worship some deity are more intelligent than those who don't? :D
That sounds like bullshit, my dear friend.

Of course. If you bought some type of furniture from the store and you open the box but you find no directions to fix it up you'll have a bunch a peices in front of you but will not know what to do so you need directions from the maker of the furniture. The same similutude can be applied to this life if we do follow Gods teachings then we will be misguided. You cannot comprehend this pivitiol aspect of life because as of now you are one of those people who are misguided.

I'm intelligent enough to put the pieces together on my own.

Obviously you are ignorant because no truly intelligent person will make the claim that he can accomplish anything great on his own. You can claim your intelligent but to not be able to admit that you need directions and guidance for certain things you are a fool. Not too long ago you were going to the bathroom on your self and being fed by your parents and without their guidance you would of just lied on the ground and died. Now your grown and you've figured out everything and you need no help. Your arrogance is blinding you and I believe you are very stupid. and I barely know you.

Really, if you can figure things out on your own without guidance please I would like for you to build a rocket without any directions or any help from anyone. You are a lier if you'd claim you can do it. See intelligence also entail being able to verbally defeat your opponent with logical deductions.

Ah, a straw man argument. That's a fallacy in critical thinking.

I was talking about not needing a "divine" guideance referring to your previous post about "spiritual intelligence". I know you know it.
Thus your rocket argument is invalid.

Ok so you cant figure everything out on you own. Are you saying that you do need guidance for some things but not spirtually? Let me clarify your position

My position needs no clarification, it's very clear as it is and if you don't understand, then ask your deity for help.

Okay since you cannot follow the general guidlines for a professional debate I will attempt to clarify your stated position thus far. You claim that you can figure out what to do in this life witout the guidance of a spirtual entity but you do need help and guidance with aspects in creation for example building a rocket.

So if you do not need spirtual guidance then you would have all the answers that are not explained in science. For example you should know the answer to my three questions with proofs and no opinions: Why were we created. How did life begin (and I dont mean bug bang but how did something come from nothing.) and what is after this? Please answer these questions with your proof and NO OPINIONS and then we can move on.

Why were we created. How did life begin (and I dont mean bug bang but how did something come from nothing.) and what is after this?
Those are scientific questions and have nothing to do with any spiritual belief system.

There is no proof for them scientifically so yes it is a spirtual question because we do have the answers to these questions in our holy book so again I ask you to answer them for me.

This will sound hypocritical coming from me, but... can you keep your religious beliefs out of this thread? :)

(ps, I'm done messing with Nic... it was fun, but it gets boring pretty quickly)

There is no proof for them scientifically so yes it is a spirtual question because we do have the answers to these questions in our holy book so again I ask you to answer them for me.
No evidence doesn't mean that it's not a scientific question.
There was no knowledge of DNA existing in the 19th century, yet it's a very scientific question.
The questions you asked nowadays are being researched by cosmologists and other scientists.

You have no proof that the answers you have are true, and that doesn't really count as an answer.

QED

/Sorry about the religious offtopic, I somehow imagined for a moment that this thread is in the religion section from the answer given. :eek: :bugeye:

No evidence doesn't mean that it's not a scientific question.
There was no knowledge of DNA existing in the 19th century, yet it's a very scientific question.
The questions you asked nowadays are being researched by cosmologists and other scientists.

You have no proof that the answers you have are true, and that doesn't really count as an answer.

QED

/Sorry about the religious offtopic, I somehow imagined for a moment that this thread is in the religion section from the answer given. :eek: :bugeye:


OKay what is mans purpose in life (this is not a scientific question but cannot be answered without differeng opioions except for our religious book. How did creation begin is not a scientific question because in theory something (this universe) came from nothing and nothing cannot be explain in science because nothing does not exist. The only logical conclusion to spark up a something is a something and this something is already explained to us our holy book which is God. DNA is a scientific element that had to be discovered but what initiated the beginning in science cannot because it will always come to the conclusion what started that beginning so science will come to a dead end.
And finnally what is after this life. is not for scientisit to discover in the future because it cannot be discovered until you die. And the only available knowledge of this information is in our holy book.
And yes I use this book as my proof because countless other things were proven in this book so and the book itself is proven to be perfect in all aspects so therefore that is my proof.

hahaha. Yes, I'm the "little mug" in the avatar.

OKay what is mans purpose in life (this is not a scientific question but cannot be answered without differeng opioions except for our religious book. How did creation begin is not a scientific question because in theory something (this universe) came from nothing and nothing cannot be explain in science because nothing does not exist. The only logical conclusion to spark up a something is a something and this something is already explained to us our holy book which is God. DNA is a scientific element that had to be discovered but what initiated the beginning in science cannot because it will always come to the conclusion what started that beginning so science will come to a dead end.
And finnally what is after this life. is not for scientisit to discover in the future because it cannot be discovered until you die. And the only available knowledge of this information is in our holy book.
And yes I use this book as my proof because countless other things were proven in this book so and the book itself is proven to be perfect in all aspects so therefore that is my proof.

Your bible is perfect?
- False, for obvious reasons (do I even need to go into them?). I'm curious for some backing from you, though.

It's funny because you are so sure about your religion, and don't look at it with an objective eye at all. YOU ARE RIGHT. WE ARE WRONG, yes? We don't know where we come from, or if we even have a grand purpose, hopefully science will one day figure these questions out. You can't keep moving the goal post with religion and science, all you're essentially doing is saying "if science can't prove it, god did it". This is exactly what the people who thought the earth was flat did, they were wrong weren't they? You'd think you'd learn, but I'm guessing you were taken advantage of when you were born, inducted into your religion and brain washed with non-sense.

Here's a possible aspect of intelligence: having the ability to look at material objectively even after years of indoctrination and making a conscious decision to change depending on the outcome of your cogitation.

I dropped the religious fairytales when I was twelve, so I know others can be critical and do it too: it's a question of having the presence of mind to sit on the fence in the absence of evidence and realize that "holy texts" are nothing more than man-made literature designed to produce a certain result, ie. enthrall the populace.

Yes, it's a personal choice... albeit a poor one in the face of the mounting evidence against it.

Here's a possible aspect of intelligence: having the ability to look at material objectively even after years of indoctrination and making a conscious decision to change depending on the outcome of your cogitation.

I dropped the religious fairytales when I was twelve, so I know others can be critical and do it too: it's a question of having the presence of mind to sit on the fence in the absence of evidence and realize that "holy texts" are nothing more than man-made literature designed to produce a certain result, ie. enthrall the populace.

Yes, it's a personal choice... albeit a poor one in the face of the mounting evidence against it.


Stick to what your mom raised you to do with your mouth because all this is shit. Maybe she'll show you how to fit three dicks in your mouth this time, instead of the usual two.

Excellent contribution. Stay on topic or play in your sandbox... either way, I'm ignoring your posts from now on.

Shut ya dicktrap.

I should just like to echo SoLiDUS's comments on the quality and substance of your posts. So uplifiting, so redolent of elegant thinking and carrying such conviction. One wonders how many hours each post must take to lovingly craft to its finished perfection. A pure joy.

Pure joy indeed. Floyd is my inspiration.

I love how you people destroyed my thread.

As you can see, I've made an effort to revive it... I apologize for my part of the damage.