|
|
| Line 101: |
Line 101: |
|
:To say a man and woman have the same intellectual capabilities, that is, that there is no difference correlated to gender is one thing. To say whether Albert Einstein (a man) and Britney Spears (a woman), for example, or any other particular two individuals, have the same intellectual capabilities is quite another, and trying to relate two claims is a [[straw man]] argument. And, furthermore, even if it IS true that everyone has the same intelligence, that in no way follows from "equal in rights and dignity" - any more than "fire is hot" follows from "the sky is blue", though both are certainly true. --[[User Talk:Random832|Random832]] 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
:To say a man and woman have the same intellectual capabilities, that is, that there is no difference correlated to gender is one thing. To say whether Albert Einstein (a man) and Britney Spears (a woman), for example, or any other particular two individuals, have the same intellectual capabilities is quite another, and trying to relate two claims is a [[straw man]] argument. And, furthermore, even if it IS true that everyone has the same intelligence, that in no way follows from "equal in rights and dignity" - any more than "fire is hot" follows from "the sky is blue", though both are certainly true. --[[User Talk:Random832|Random832]] 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Random. Please again. Albert Einstein as an example contrary to Britney Spears relies on OPINION: TODAY, in a world reigned by modern academy ideas, most of us, with a free language, would say, yes, of course, Britney Spears cannot compete the genius of Albert Einstein. But that is not because of INTELLIGENCE, Random. Please. It is because of OPINION, because of SUBJECT, because of FOCUS on the matter. Britney can sing, can’t she? What is/was Einstein to that? See? OPINION. Not Intelligence, again. Put these two in nature under the stars, and there is no intellectual difference between them. Both have the same natural born ability to apprehend, to BE intelligent, to develop intelligence, but the don’t have the same point of view. There is no difference in intelligence, just in view. I think, Random, you (may) refer to social valuation, not to natural property as I do. I think you know what I mean. If not, please clarify, even more.<br /> |
|
::Random. Please again. Albert Einstein as an example contrary to Britney Spears relies on OPINION: TODAY, in a world reigned by modern academy ideas, most of us, with a free language, would say, yes, of course, Britney Spears cannot compete the genius of Albert Einstein. But that is not because of INTELLIGENCE, Random. Please. It is because of OPINION, because of SUBJECT, because of FOCUS on the matter. Britney can sing, can’t she? What is/was Einstein to that? See? OPINION. Not Intelligence, again. [BMJ--[[User:85.89.80.140|85.89.80.140]] 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)] |
|
|
:::Right, but singing talent and intelligence are two different things. Why is "intelligence" such a magic word that it's a matter of opinion - I mean, take athletic ability - it's a matter of opinion whether being able to jump higher or lift more weight is worth anything, but not whether one person is able to do more than another - how about I concede that it's a matter of opinion whether being intelligent matters, but not so much on whether one person can be more intelligent than another --[[User Talk:Random832|Random832]] 21:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Put these two in nature under the stars, and there is no intellectual difference between them. Both have the same natural born ability to apprehend, to BE intelligent, to develop intelligence, but the don’t have the same point of view. There is no difference in intelligence, just in view. I think, Random, you (may) refer to social valuation, not to natural property as I do. I think you know what I mean. If not, please clarify, even more.<br /> |
|
::(meanwhile) In case you wonder: I would say like this, if someone asked me to ”define” intelligence (see also intelligence in Wikipedia, not so bad really). Please object if you find it noteworthy: Intelligence is nature: its history of evolution, the building of elements and forms, the birth of organic life and its diversity of organisms, the top crown beauty: woman. You didn’t miss that, did you? The stars in the universe. That is intelligence. The child. That is intelligence. We die. Nature, intelligence, survive. We wake up to her. And we go to sleep in her. BMJ--[[User:85.89.80.140|85.89.80.140]] 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
::(meanwhile) In case you wonder: I would say like this, if someone asked me to ”define” intelligence (see also intelligence in Wikipedia, not so bad really). Please object if you find it noteworthy: Intelligence is nature: its history of evolution, the building of elements and forms, the birth of organic life and its diversity of organisms, the top crown beauty: woman. You didn’t miss that, did you? The stars in the universe. That is intelligence. The child. That is intelligence. We die. Nature, intelligence, survive. We wake up to her. And we go to sleep in her. BMJ--[[User:85.89.80.140|85.89.80.140]] 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
Notwithstanding the above, you do not in fact have new messages. fnord.
|
|
The da Vinci Barnstar
|
| I, Deon555, award Random832 with this Da Vinci Barsntar, for his awesome monobook work. He helped me solve a nice little script issue I was having, fixed the lot, and it works awesomely. Thanks heaps, and keep up the good work! — Deon555talkdesksign here! 03:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
Christianity Explored - request for advice.
Hi,
I noticed that Christianity Explored has been created and deleted twice - I think with two entirely separate articles - and I gather that the last to be deleted was a no-contest deletion as a spammy article with no assertion of notability. I haven't seen it of course, since it was deleted.
IMO Christianity Explored is notable and Wiki should have a good article about it ... but rather than leap in where Angels fear to tread (or fly?) I have created a personal sandbox page to draft something.
I would be grateful for your views - I am contacting all those who commented in the last deletion debate, as you will have seen the previous article.
The article is at [[1]]
Regards
Simon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Springnuts (talk • contribs) 21:07:23, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Good point you made, but I think you meant to put it under findings of fact instead of principles, which is where it is now located. --David Shankbone 19:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Random832. An administrator asked us to quit the talk on the actual page. Please write me a note (below) if you care to continue the discussion from where it was redirected (I will watch your page here for some time to check if you want to respond). Otherwise, Nice
talking to you. Take care and good luck. With kind greetings, former BMJ. --85.89.80.140 19:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"Please, Random: Both man and woman have the same INTELLECTUAL capabilities. Is that a problem for you? If it is, please say so, and this debate ends here."[reply]
- To say a man and woman have the same intellectual capabilities, that is, that there is no difference correlated to gender is one thing. To say whether Albert Einstein (a man) and Britney Spears (a woman), for example, or any other particular two individuals, have the same intellectual capabilities is quite another, and trying to relate two claims is a straw man argument. And, furthermore, even if it IS true that everyone has the same intelligence, that in no way follows from "equal in rights and dignity" - any more than "fire is hot" follows from "the sky is blue", though both are certainly true. --Random832 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Random. Please again. Albert Einstein as an example contrary to Britney Spears relies on OPINION: TODAY, in a world reigned by modern academy ideas, most of us, with a free language, would say, yes, of course, Britney Spears cannot compete the genius of Albert Einstein. But that is not because of INTELLIGENCE, Random. Please. It is because of OPINION, because of SUBJECT, because of FOCUS on the matter. Britney can sing, can’t she? What is/was Einstein to that? See? OPINION. Not Intelligence, again. [BMJ--85.89.80.140 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)][reply]
- Right, but singing talent and intelligence are two different things. Why is "intelligence" such a magic word that it's a matter of opinion - I mean, take athletic ability - it's a matter of opinion whether being able to jump higher or lift more weight is worth anything, but not whether one person is able to do more than another - how about I concede that it's a matter of opinion whether being intelligent matters, but not so much on whether one person can be more intelligent than another --Random832 21:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Put these two in nature under the stars, and there is no intellectual difference between them. Both have the same natural born ability to apprehend, to BE intelligent, to develop intelligence, but the don’t have the same point of view. There is no difference in intelligence, just in view. I think, Random, you (may) refer to social valuation, not to natural property as I do. I think you know what I mean. If not, please clarify, even more.
- (meanwhile) In case you wonder: I would say like this, if someone asked me to ”define” intelligence (see also intelligence in Wikipedia, not so bad really). Please object if you find it noteworthy: Intelligence is nature: its history of evolution, the building of elements and forms, the birth of organic life and its diversity of organisms, the top crown beauty: woman. You didn’t miss that, did you? The stars in the universe. That is intelligence. The child. That is intelligence. We die. Nature, intelligence, survive. We wake up to her. And we go to sleep in her. BMJ--85.89.80.140 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=small}
