Divisive topics thread

>IQ does matter vs IQ doesn't matter
>IQ is determined by race vs IQ isn't determined by race
>climate change exists vs climate change doesn't exist
>climate change is human-made vs climate change isn't human-made
>the earth is flat vs the earth isn't flat
feel free to discuss any of the above topics in this thread, or any other Veeky Forums-related divisive topics you want to discuss. this is an attempt to clean up the board to make room for other discussions, so please try to limit the number of divisive threads you post and post here instead.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tp6UkqIwVfk
my-iq.net
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

jesus christ this is a great idea but the idiots who argue about these topics probably won't be convinced to use it. make sure to link to here from all shit threads.

but these topics deserve their own threads, anyway why would you want a thread with both climate change alarmists and roundearthers?

to contain them. they DONT deserve their own threads, or to be here at all, but this is the better alternative.

>these topics deserve their own threads
no, they don't
>why would you want a thread with both climate change alarmists and roundearthers
so they don't pollute the rest of the board

Iq matters to the extent that if you are going up against competition with 140 IQs you will have to outwork them to win with a lower iq.

Iq is determined by race in part, but mainly determined over generations of questioning and solid thinking. Like in the Islamic world from the start of Islam to 1100 ad IQs were rising they invented algebra and chemistry. Then they banned math and boom IQs declined until modern times.

Climate change is man made, but not good enough reason to stop using fossil fuels. Burning chemicals gave the western world enormous wealth. If we can it now, the third world will suffer and be left behind. So keep burning and have the third world develop their businesses so they can come compete with us.

When the whole world is in fierce competition on a relatively level playing field you can have peace.

And the earth is flat because it says so in the bible.

>And the earth is flat because it says so in the bible.

How does one find out his IQ?

you take an IQ test

Your 2'nd point is interesting, but I disagree. The Islamic golden age, the renaissance happened because society was just more concerned with intellectual growth. The environment nourished the development of intelligent individuals. If IQ grows through generations, the present generation should be intelligent. It is not, on average.

got sources for that?

Online IQ tests, don't listen to the brainlets this tests are very accurate if you take them only one time.

there are boards for that.

IQ is useless. Imagine everyone was asked to create a test that measured intelligence. Would the same test be created by everyone? No. Intelligence is not an objective, quantifiable thing.

If by climate you mean weather, then yes, it changes, every day, but we still fail to predict it accurately from one moment to the next.

Climate "science" isn't real science. Real science is observable, testable and repeatable. The climate is constantly changing and therefore the scientific method cannot be applied to it. Computer models are not scientific evidence, quite the opposite. It's an easy money maker.

When looking for the evidence of a spherical earth, and a flat earth, the majority of the evidence supports a flat earth. All evidence that applies to a spherical earth can also apply to a flat one, but there is evidence for a flat earth that cannot apply to a spherical one.

nice bait

that doesn't stop them from coming here and posting shit anyway

Anything you can't argue against is bait.

You didn't provide any proof or sources for your "argument", so I'm going to treat it as low-effort bait.

The only argument I made that requires proof is the flat earth one, the rest of them are self-evident.

The flat earth one is also the hardest to believe because the globe earth is what we have been brought up with all our lives. It seems ridiculous to think we've been lied to about such a thing, but it makes sense once you see the bigger picture.

The stars were the first thing that really made me think about its validity. The stars appear to rotate around us even when looking from countries close to the equator: youtube.com/watch?v=tp6UkqIwVfk

That footage would be impossible if the heliocentric model was true.

>self-evident
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How is climate change divisive? It's just a fact.

IQ is clearly not determined by race. Given the perfect breeding environment you could shape the IQ of any population while maintaining the characteristics that define their race. No one can argue with this in good faith.

>Given the perfect breeding environment you could shape the IQ of any population while maintaining the characteristics that define their race.
[citation needed]

Well it worked for corn.

What IQ does corn have?

I was being somewhat facetious, but other heritable traits were deemed desirable and selected in the case of domestic crops, without altering the qualities that defined their niches as crops. There's no reason to think it can't be done for IQ in humans, it's just a lot more difficult.

1. The fine-tuning of the fundamental physical constants of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. Proponents of the anthropic principle assume that because observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it, it is unremarkable that this universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life -- which is a modal scope fallacy, i.e. it equivocates the necessity of the universe if conscious and sapient life that observes it exists, with modal necessity, i.e. it confuses "necessary if" and "necessary."
3. All physical things have a logical cause.
4. All logically-caused things are contingent, i.e. it is possible for them not to be caused.
5. Therefore, all physical things are contingent.
6. The fundamental physical constants are a physical thing.
7. Therefore, the fundamental physical constants are contingent.
8. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity, and the universe, as it is, is not the only possible world.
9. There is an infinite number of possible worlds in which the fine-tuning of the universe and all its antecedents do not exist or are in an infinite number of different states.
10. Therefore, the probability of a possible world in which the fundamental constants exist and fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life is ℵ_0/ℵ_0^2 (tends to 0).
11. Therefore, the probability that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to chance is ℵ_0/ℵ_0^2.
12. n/n^2=1/n
13. Therefore, the probability that the fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance is (ℵ_0 - 1)/ℵ_0 (tends to 1).
14. Therefore, it is due to design.

...

>All physical things have a logical cause.
What exactly does this mean and what is the support for it?

My IQ is 144 here : my-iq.net
Can you tell me if it's reliable ?

>Can you tell me if it's reliable ?
It's not.

Online IQ tests are not valid

Can we talk about the mathematics and economics of net neutrality in this thread?

IQ matters but for practical purposes there are diminishing returns as IQ gets higher: 100

>1. The fine-tuning of the fundamental physical constants of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.
Fine-tuning is simply an arbitrary biocentricism. Why should we care that this particular universe developed life? One might as well marvel that a certain physical constant is exactly what it is and not something else. Even if we assume that this is "improbable" (which we cannot determine since there is no known sampling mechanism) there is nothing objectively special about this particular value, just because it's the one we observe.

> it equivocates the necessity of the universe if conscious and sapient life that observes it exists, with modal necessity, i.e. it confuses "necessary if" and "necessary."
The purpose of the anthropic principle is to explain why we observe life even if life is improbable.

>3. All physical things have a logical cause.
It's not clear that the universe is caused.

>6. The fundamental physical constants are a physical thing.
No, they are descriptions of how physical things behave.

>10. Therefore, the probability of a possible world in which the fundamental constants exist and fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life is ℵ_0/ℵ_0^2 (tends to 0).
>11. Therefore, the probability that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to chance is ℵ_0/ℵ_0^2.
>12. n/n^2=1/n
This is just gibberish. ℵ_0/ℵ_0^2 is not a probability.

I think we should just have a containment thread for woke people