Not claiming that he came to the conclusion that God exists through his intellect is not claiming that it is irrational. When did Einstein ever discuss the "need for irrational behavior"?

Do you impress yourself by figuring out the obvious, A10?

>> This means that judging ones intelligence based on whether they believe crazy absurdities is an unreliable and ridiculous method for doing so.<<

Nobody is proposing "judging" everyone's intelligence by some test which measures whether the rationality of all their thoughts. The question is whether there is any connection between irrationality and intelligence and a bunch of idiots saying intelligent people tend to be just as irrational and believe crazy things that only idiots and people high on drugs believe.

>>Anyone with differing ideas can call you stupid.<<

You said I couldn't call them stupid. I did. Once again you're wrong. Anyone can call anyone stupid, it doesn't require differing ideas. What's worse than stating the obvious and missing the point? Not even being right about the obvious!

I suppose distinguishing between judging races by the desirability of their traits and discussing the connection of this, if any, with granting some species more respect for their essential human dignity is above the level of any of you 5 graders. Forget I asked.

"The desire to believe in an irrational belief..." is stupidity. That is all.

>>so like Albert Einstein wasnt intelligent because without any evidence supporting his belief in a God, he believed in a God; is that what you're saying?<<

Einstein had an understanding of the univerise no one I know of has had since. That he didn't spend his life trying to explain his reasoning to us heathens doesn't mean he was an idiot who just flipped a coin and decided to believe in God cause he thought it sounded nice.

The IC server sucks too much to load a page of forum text so I'll spare myself having to quote Deci.

The fact that he is not a child and still posts this garbage like one is where the insults come from.

>>What part of NGO (NON Governmental Organization) don't you understand?<<

The way you describe it it's a HUGE branch of government you're not calling government. It's a mega tax-funded organization run by the government. Oh wait it doesn't need taxes it will be free because we'll use free robots which will maintain themselves.

>>We need something beyond these petty, bickering, governments, to solve the injustices running rampant in our world. <<

Nice vague equivocation. Can we take it further?

>>People are getting sick and bloody tired of their, paranoia, elitism, arrogance, ignorance, corruption, and, above all, plain incompetence.<<

Yes we can!

[V. Kemp, refrain from insulting, although you're the morally correct one. This is a warning.]

>>And just how is the current monetary economic system remedying that situation?  More importantly, how has it failed?  Shall we count the ways?<<

The "economic system" of freedom and not being fascist is not the cause of "that situation." In fact, the cause of the situation is governmental structures like those that you are proposing.

You want responses to your HORRIBLE FAILURES of the system? Those were crimes. Those actions are NOT ALLOWED under the system. But YOU have a BETTER system because it DOESN'T ALLOW these actions which are... already not allowed. Jesus this is stupid.

>>anti-racists are saying people should respect other people and their opinions<<

No. They are not.

>>on the other hand, the same anti-racists are calling racists ignorant hillbillies.<<

That people who do not think someone's skin tone or features make them more or less of a human being are calling you an ignorant hick does not make them wrong or you not an ignorant hick. That you think there's hypocrisy here just makes you unintelligent and/or uneducated.

>>so you can be emotionally dismissive about someone's beliefs but not about someone's skin colour?<<

There's no call to be 'emotionally dismissive" about anyone's skin color to not be a racist. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>my a moron? oh, the irony! and do try to keep the discussion on topic instead of just throwing insults.<<

He was on topic. [] And it's throwing this whole thread off topic, because you're such an idiot nothing you say makes any sense whatsoever. You haven't thought this over as much as a 3rd grader and here you are whining about someone else's subject matter.

>>instead of trying to respond to sensible arguments you start name-calling.<<

[]

>> if my arguments were somehow ridiculous or daft, it would be way easy to prove them wrong.<<

You never had "arguments." I hope showing this is sufficient to shut you up, [].

>>or at least debate them in some fashion. but seeing how you are unable to do that..<<

Whaaaa whaaaa whaaaa you've been run over.

Primo misses the point. Schools the world over really are failing the children.

>>[as i said, believing something = > allowed, acting upon it => not allowed]<<

So you're saying that we can make laws prohibiting actions but not thoughts because WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO READ THOUGHTS? WOW. YOU'RE A GENIUS. THANKS FOR POSTING THIS UNCOMMON WISDOM. Pardon my sarcasm. You are, in fact, a dolt. Jump. Jump now.

>> someone who hates telemarketers or racists is no more or less moronic than a racist<<

So disliking being harassed by some salesman at home is EQUALLY MORONIC to someone who holds the belief that one's skintones/features makes them more or less of a person. Comparisons like this are why we don't hestitate to say [].

>>i don't think one's emotional responses to foods, races or colours should be any measure of intelligence.<<

I'll wager there are a lot of emotional responses to foods, races, and colours that show intelligence. Does food make you horny? Do Indians make you outraged? Does the color green make you want to murder innocent strangers? If you said yes to any of these questions, you're probably none too bright.

>>if disliking something should only be acceptable if it's something the target of the dislike has chosen<<

This is not the sole condition of the argument against racism. Congratulations on your sketchy response. Oh my god you pointed out that one part of the argument against racism as an intelligent position is not sufficient! You're BRILLIANT? I don't think you're dumb because of whatever race you are.[]

420 100% accuracy.

>>Line 3 is false because then you could conclude that I'm a racist if I refuse to reproduce with a woman who was born with one arm because I intended to minimize the likelihood of that gene passing on to my offspring.<<

...No, that wouldn't be discriminating based upon race, but upon the presence of a defect which likely had contributing genetic factors. I thought you were better educated than this. Could it be more obvious?

>>But I can compare any random black and white person and be well justified in believing that the black person is more likely to be a hip hop generation ahole who I would be better off avoiding.<<

If you are a frail and defenseless human being who can't treat other individuals as individuals, then yes, perhaps you would be safest cowering away from people based upon their culture. Where did the baggy clothes and chains reference go? Now you're talking about race? You would avoid a black man in a suit but not a white guy with baggy clothes and a bandanna? You're talking about culture, not race. If the hip-hop generation is what you discriminate against and you're just not perceptive enough to tell who's in it so you just have to discriminate against all blacks because they have a higher probability of belonging to it, that's just your inadequacy. I guess I wouldn't personally fault you for being slow. It's good to be safe when you know you're not all there.

>>and obviously when you think about a lower class american you get an image of a black man in your head...<<

...No? You're not American, are you? You say "obviously," but it's not true. Fascinating.

Holding someone's race by itself against someone is one of the pure evils of this earth.

Some races get dry skin, sunburn, or certain diseases more easily than others. But the bottom line is, there's a member of every race (lots of them, in fact) stronger than you, faster than you, and smarter than you in many many ways.

I'm not better than anyone else because of the color of my skin or my facial features. And neither are they. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just stupid, ignorant, and probably has a lot of angst over their life.

There are cultural differences distributed unequally among races. This is obvious and not disputable. But the superiority/inferiority of cultural values and norms says nothing of a race because certain races happen to share certain cultures more than others.

>>Thank you Kemp, for describing, quite accurately, the failure of the current global socio-economic system.<<

As you quoted me as saying, I was describing problems with the morality of China, North Korea, Vietnam, and many other Southeastern Asian nations. The West's morality IS an alternative to that which I described. The west does NOT have your starving or your AIDS epidemic. Learn to read. Then read enough to educate yourself.

>>If not independent, self-sufficient, fully automated agri-complexes run by robots and nano-tech <<

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA You're hillarious kid.

>>(which I do still hold is possible within the next 20 years), <<

Nanotechnology doesn't exist. The technology that would be required to develop it does not exist. I've asked you more specific questions about our ability to manipulate individual atoms (which is pretty much zilch) because you're so factually wrong on the matter, but you just ignored those questions repeatedly.

>>if not a transition to a resource-based economy, then what?<<

A resource-based economy would only undo the major benefits of a monetary system, nothing else. It wouldn't magically create the resources we need.

>>What other alternatives would you suggest?  Anyone?<<

Getting a better education than your retarded ass so people can feed themselves and their families. You'd obviously not survive on your own.