Yes, it is clever. What I find puzzling, though, is that smoking up seems to be socially acceptable when smoking cigarettes is not. They are both harmful to our health, with smoking pot probably even more so.You're right but smoking pot is making a political statement. That's why it's more acceptable. All smoking is dangerous. But the statement didn't suggest that people should smoke it. It was a joke, a play on words, a funny juxtaposition, nothing more. Lois
I am not denying your OP wasn’t funny. It was; although, it was more clever than funny.
And I doubt the reason why it’s more acceptable than smoking is due to political reasons. In a nutshell, I think it’s simply due to human stupidity but that’s not really an explanation. Whenever I see a group of people who are about to smoke up, they first must reassure each other over and over how much fun they will have and how cool the whole thing is (yes, often with the help of that horrible song by Bob Dylan). Maybe I just hate it because whenever I see a group of people getting all excited–which is usually based on something completely irrational, like sports, patriotism, religion, or even Humanism–I automatically get annoyed.
I certain you are quoting some source in post #19 above, George. Were they your own words, I’m sure you would have used “copulating”. :lol:
Although I agree with your sentiments there.
Occam
I certain you are quoting some source in post #19 above, George. Were they your own words, I'm sure you would have used "copulating". :lol: Although I agree with your sentiments there. OccamIt was from Good Will Hunting and they didn't say "copulating."
It’s from “Good Will Hunting.”
(I think I may have found a way how to speak my mind without getting blue-inked. 
)
Whenever I see a group of people who are about to smoke up, they first must reassure each other over and over how much fun they will have and how cool the whole thing is (yes, often with the help of that horrible song by Bob Dylan).George, you should not be associating with bad people like that. ;-)
Yes, it is clever. What I find puzzling, though, is that smoking up seems to be socially acceptable when smoking cigarettes is not. They are both harmful to our health, with smoking pot probably even more so.You missed the point. It has nothing to do with what's socially acceptable. Cigarettes (and alcohol) are legal, pot is not, and yet they're all drugs of choice roughly in the same category as far as health effects, etc. It's just hypocritical, and if one followed the money we'd probably find out why. And btw, my personal experience with both is this: alcohol causes me to act stupidly and adversly effects my motor skills. Pot on the other hand always made me "smarter" and more focused, heightened my awareness of my surroundings, and made my motor skills sharper. (Of course that was when I was young. Nowadays either, if I drank or smoked, which I dont, would probably put me to sleep in a matter of minutes ;) ) LL Well, we know it makes people THINK they're smarter and more focused, that they have heightened awareness of their surroundings and that their motor skills are sharper, when in fact they have turned out to be spaced out idiots. It's part of the fun of not smoking and watching other people smoke and make those assumptions. It's much more entertaining than smoking and there's never a hangover. Lois
IQ is cultural BS. See James Lawler's IQ, Heredity and Racism.You fuckin' people baffle me. Spend all your money on these fuckin' fancy books, you surround yourselves with 'em and they're the wrong fucking books. :-) Of course, IO tests are nothing but fancy reading tests, You want a high score -read a lot. Comic books worked in my case. :ohh:
IQ is cultural BS. See James Lawler's IQ, Heredity and Racism.You fuckin' people baffle me. Spend all your money on these fuckin' fancy books, you surround yourselves with 'em and they're the wrong fucking books. :-) Of course, IO tests are nothing but fancy reading tests, You want a high score -read a lot. Comic books worked in my case. :ohh: Thats not true, a good IQ test tests for the ability to analyze, not just reading and memory. Analogies is one way to test for the ability to see connections and analyze sense. A person can be a good reader and have a good memory and be lousy at analogies and other things a good IQ test tests for.
IQ is cultural BS. See James Lawler's IQ, Heredity and Racism.You fuckin' people baffle me. Spend all your money on these fuckin' fancy books, you surround yourselves with 'em and they're the wrong fucking books. :-) Of course, IO tests are nothing but fancy reading tests, You want a high score -read a lot. Comic books worked in my case. :ohh: Not true. Both you and I read a lot, but neither of us has a significantly high IQ.
IQ is cultural BS. See James Lawler's IQ, Heredity and Racism.You fuckin' people baffle me. Spend all your money on these fuckin' fancy books, you surround yourselves with 'em and they're the wrong fucking books. :-) Of course, IO tests are nothing but fancy reading tests, You want a high score -read a lot. Comic books worked in my case. :ohh: Not true. Both you and I read a lot, but neither of us has a significantly high IQ. According to my school records I do, for what it matters in real life.
Not true. Both you and I read a lot, but neither of us has a significantly high IQ.Don't know about that George but my IQ is higher than Richard Feynman's and I'm no Richard Feynman, (hmmm, I don't know though now that I've lost those 8 or so points!). Like you I read a lot as a kid. feynman considered himself of average intelligence and was largely self taught, of course you probably know this already but thought I'd throw it in. Also, even though the test is still being used to determine the potential learning of a student, researchers are now touting the idea of multipe intelligences i.e. literally smarter in one area of learning but not so in another. The original concept of the test was based on the old blank slate ideal and a mean score was developed Including all areas of learning like the ability to analyze. Now the experts are talking about revamping the whole concept to bring it more in line with current research. Maybe they'll rename it the intelligences quotient. Cap't Jack
You can take a free IQ test here
Jack, it is generally assumed that a physicist has an IQ of at least 150 points. I don’t mean this as an insult, but judging by your writing here, your IQ is not 150.
IQ may be considered something controversial among the general public, but among psychologists it is not controversial at all. One can predict quite accurately the future socioeconomic status of person based on his IQ and the number stays basically the same throughout his life. How much we read or what education we receive has nothing to do with it.
Jack, it is generally assumed that a physicist has an IQ of at least 150 points. I don’t mean this as an insult, but judging by your writing here, your IQ is not 150. IQ may be considered something controversial among the general public, but among psychologists it is not controversial at all. One can predict quite accurately the future socioeconomic status of person based on his IQ and the number stays basically the same throughout his life. How much we read or what education we receive has nothing to do with it.Boy, you're just full of Old World charm! I never claimed to be a physicist George, and Feynman admitted his IQ was 125. Does that mean he isn't a physicist? And how on Earth can you tell by my posts that my IQ isn't 150 (it isn't BTW) And I don't disagree that psychologists can predict the potential socioeconomic status of a person, but there are a lot of wealthy people out there with low IQs. don't forget that wealth can be inherited and that people with IQs near the norm can be successful and excel in their field. And I totally disagree that reading, especially for research and not just for pleasure and education has nothing to do with intelligence. As I mentioned before, the test is being challenged as more studies are being completed. Who knows that in the future they may just chuck the test and find a more accurate way to measure our intelligence. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57560555/iq-scores-not-accurate-marker-of-intelligence-study-shows/ Cap't Jack
I really doubt Feynman’s IQ was mere 125 points.
Lois, did you try that I.Q. test? It’s very flattering, but it’s hard to believe to believe I’m 20 points smarter than I was as a young man. Heck, by that test I’m smarter than Feynman. Still, I do lurk around this forum a lot, maybe I.Q., like homosexuality, is catching.
By this Ethical issues will arising in society it should be banned.
www[dot]iqraaquran[dot]com
I really doubt Feynman’s IQ was mere 125 points.Look it up. The first time I read about him was after searching for a bio and found the quote. It's even mentioned in Wiki. My whole point in even mentioning Feynman was how inherently brilliant the man was with a "mere IQ" of 125. And this score may have been derived from a flaw in the test as it emphasized reading skills and not math, so in essence you might be right after all. Another reason not to label an individual As bright or dumb because of a flawed test. Everyone has the potential to function at his/her highest level, even lower functioning children given the right stimulus. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/12/richard-feynmans-intelligence/#.UXZ2cyp5mSM Cap't Jack
You are not saying that every child can become a physicist given the right stimulus, are you? I really hope you are not…