Prophets were extremly good looking

[reptiles]

Where the hell do you get your information from turbomanlet
big fucking cope, do you actually believe people will follow a newly introduced religion if youre ugly ? ded srs

Read the Bible

 

[Blackpill Scholar]

IQ potential is IQ. Your "true IQ" is the highest potential IQ you can output. What we're interested in is obviously actual, biological intelligence, not practical intelligence, a.k.a whatever intelligence you happen to have due to the situation.

You're trying to make it sound like everyone in the world has the same IQ, which is inherently wrong.

We don't need a time machine in this debate, just pick a third world shitskin country in North Africa, and you'll immediately notice the difference in their myopic beliefs and IQ, which relates to what I originally said.

Also, yeah I'll come clean you're right, I have an affinity for ancient literature. But aesthetic value is not subjective. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, mogs anything written in the last 200 years to death, this isn't up for debate. Read Plato's dialogues and then read some quote by Tyson or Krauss without wanting to blow your head off. We've learned a hell of a lot, but we've forgotten how to think. \rant

Again, completely subjective. Also, using the Bible in this debate is just paradoxical.

You are also right that literature isn't a great frame of reference (I wouldn't call it shit, Native Americans and Africans wrote nothing of value while all Indo-European and many Asian cultures were crafting masterpieces. That isn't a coincidence) but its the best approximation we have since, again, we cannot actually take IQ tests. And your initial implication that people back then were dumber because of the myths they chose to affirm is retarded.

Yea, but you're using it as an end-all tool in this debate, and you're stubborn in your belief that ancient literature is the best despite admitting you have a bias.

 

[LordNorwood]

You're trying to make it sound like everyone in the world has the same IQ, which is inherently wrong.

We don't need a time machine in this debate, just pick a third world shitskin country in North Africa, and you'll immediately notice the difference in their myopic beliefs and IQ, which relates to what I originally said.

Again, completely subjective. Also, using the Bible in this debate is just paradoxical.

Yea, but you're using it as an end-all tool in this debate, and you're stubborn in your belief that ancient literature is the best despite admitting you have a bias.

I'm really confused as to how you came to the conclusion that I think everyone in the world has the same IQ. I believe quite the opposite.
Again, aesthetic value is not subjective. If we're just going to "no u" back and forth on this point I guess we may as well drop it, but thinking that aesthetic value is subjective is I have to say (because the notion pisses me off) a fucking retarded opinion. If you don't care much for art I guess I can understand why you hold it, but it certainly isn't correct and any serious academic believes in aesthetic standards. If you don't, then as an artist or an art-lover, what the fuck are you even doing? You're just playing around.
I did admit I have a bias but that doesn't therefore automatically mean that I'm wrong in my conclusion. You can have a bias and yet still be right. The very reason why I'm even talking to you at all though is because I'm open to being proven wrong.

 

[Blackpill Scholar]

I'm really confused as to how you came to the conclusion that I think everyone in the world has the same IQ. I believe quite the opposite.

That's how you sound like when you're defending ancient shitskins' IQ. It makes no sense that people were smarter back then, and then throughout history became gradually dumber despite technological, societal, etc advancements. And you based all of this on the fact they wrote better books (despite self-admitted bias for such books).

Aren't you gonna address the fact that people in third world countries mirror religious beliefs of shitskins we're talking about in this debate? You always just reiterate your previous nonce IQ measuring theory without addressing what I say.

Again, aesthetic value is not subjective. If we're just going to "no u" back and forth on this point I guess we may as well drop it, but thinking that aesthetic value is subjective is I have to say (because the notion pisses me off) a fucking retarded opinion. If you don't care much for art I guess I can understand why you hold it, but it certainly isn't correct and any serious academic believes in aesthetic standards. If you don't, then as an artist or an art-lover, what the fuck are you even doing? You're just playing around.

It's different kind of aesthetics. We're not comparing Gandy to BlackOps2Cel here, where the result would be unanimous win for Gandy. People who read the Bible and some modern book will not have the same unanimous opinion, so it's objectively subjective which literature is better. And if you disagree, why do you have the authority to decide which one is better?

I did admit I have a bias but that doesn't therefore automatically mean that I'm wrong in my conclusion. You can have a bias and yet still be right. The very reason why I'm even talking to you at all though is because I'm open to being proven wrong.

I didn't even say you're wrong, but you automatically assume you're right despite everything, and then continuing to conclude debate in that direction.

According to you, people used to be smarter than they are now because their books were written better (in your adamant opinion). To convince you this is wrong, I'd have to convince you that ancient literature is inferior, which I can't do since you have a firm affinity for it. Just realize that not everyone thinks ancient literature is better, and therefore your whole basement theory only exists in the context of your own mind, and maybe in the minds of other people who prefer ancient literature.

 

[EckhartTollemaxx]

They must've been very gl but you're forgetting about the importance of behavior.
It's probably behavior's effect multiplied by their looks, top tier behavior; manipulative, smart, social, likable, hypnotic, masculine, assertive but still humble.
99th percentile personality and 99th percentile looks makes you able to do anything.

 

[Michael Myers]

Not all of them were "extremely good looking," but at least one was. This quote is about the Islamic prophet Yusuf.

"a group of women cut their hands while distracted at the sight of Yusuf’s beauty"

 

[LordNorwood]

That's how you sound like when you're defending ancient shitskins' IQ. It makes no sense that people were smarter back then, and then throughout history became gradually dumber despite technological, societal, etc advancements. And you based all of this on the fact they wrote better books (despite self-admitted bias for such books).

Aren't you gonna address the fact that people in third world countries mirror religious beliefs of shitskins we're talking about in this debate? You always just reiterate your previous nonce IQ measuring theory without addressing what I say.

It's different kind of aesthetics. We're not comparing Gandy to BlackOps2Cel here, where the result would be unanimous win for Gandy. People who read the Bible and some modern book will not have the same unanimous opinion, so it's objectively subjective which literature is better. And if you disagree, why do you have the authority to decide which one is better?

I didn't even say you're wrong, but you automatically assume you're right despite everything, and then continuing to conclude debate in that direction.

According to you, people used to be smarter than they are now because their books were written better (in your adamant opinion). To convince you this is wrong, I'd have to convince you that ancient literature is inferior, which I can't do since you have a firm affinity for it. Just realize that not everyone thinks ancient literature is better, and therefore your whole basement theory only exists in the context of your own mind, and maybe in the minds of other people who prefer ancient literature.

How the fuck do current third world country belief systems mirror the ancient belief systems we're discussing? Are you seriously trying to suggest that some modern African hoodoo is on par with first century Judaism? Dude you need to fucking get educated. I'm interested in the convo but your inclination towards painting all religions with the same brush is starting to get pretty fucking annoying. Some tribal bullshit is on nowhere near the same level of complexity as something like Judaism.
I am addressing what you say, you're just incredibly sparse on any actual points. What positive notion or evidence have you even provided? A for the progress argument, knowledge =/= intelligence. If someone made a discovery 6000 fucking years ago we get to keep it forever, that's the whole advantage of a history. Over time these discoveries accumulate and begin to snowball. It also sure as shit helps that there's so much more of us than there ever was in history - there are enough high IQ types nowadays to make up for millions of retards just because we crank so many meatpuppets out and then slam them all through systems of education. And yet no one can fucking compare to someone like Newton despite the supposed Flynn effect. There's no reason to believe we're smarter on average than ancient people biologically speaking and many reasons to believe that isn't the case. Here's a little analogy - you know much more than you did as a baby. But do you wanna make a bet who could master a new language faster?
Next point - Jesus Christ man, aesthetic judgments are not based on votes. The opinion of all humans is not equally weighted. The opinion of an uneducated person on the aesthetic value of the Bible is worth precisely zero. Guess what my opinion on Japanese poetry is worth, for example? That's right - zero. I don't even speak Japanese.
Yes of course I assume I'm right - that's how a fucking debate works lol. I am waiting for you to prove me wrong, this is me giving you a chance. I believe what I already believe for good reasons, I'm waiting for you to provide me better ones. Why even whine about this? What do you expect me to do, assume I'm wrong? Then why the fuck would I even have these beliefs in the first place? JFL
That's not the sole reason I believe ancient people were more intelligent, I take it as simply one sign of greater intelligence. Our previous disagreement, from my point of view, was that you were saying this wasn't a valid piece of evidence, and I was asserting it was. But that's all it is, a piece of evidence - not the whole picture. If you believe we're smarter now, then prove it. We'll both try and advance our claims. I think your progress argument is bullshit for the reasons stated in the second paragraph, engaging directly with that argument is a great place to continue.

 

[Blackpill Scholar]

How the fuck do current third world country belief systems mirror the ancient belief systems we're discussing? Are you seriously trying to suggest that some modern African hoodoo is on par with first century Judaism? Dude you need to fucking get educated. I'm interested in the convo but your inclination towards painting all religions with the same brush is starting to get pretty fucking annoying. Some tribal bullshit is on nowhere near the same level of complexity as something like Judaism.

Nobody mentioned tribal shit, I just meant that third world shitskin countries are more inclined towards belief in deities. Coincidentally, they are also narrow minded and low IQ in spite of the fact they could publish some good books from time to time. I actually thought about Muslims when I mentioned North Africa. But cringe at me for not realizing you're way too autistic to get this and that you'll just expand this into another long-winded pointless debate about nothing.

Next point - Jesus Christ man, aesthetic judgments are not based on votes. The opinion of all humans is not equally weighted. The opinion of an uneducated person on the aesthetic value of the Bible is worth precisely zero. Guess what my opinion on Japanese poetry is worth, for example? That's right - zero. I don't even speak Japanese.

Shit analogy, try again. But first explain why does your opinion on which literature is better matter more anyway. I can't get over this detail. You say it's better, someone more educated will say it's not. Not that your theory suddenly starts sounding plausible even if you were right, but please explain where does your imaginary position of authority come from.

Yes of course I assume I'm right - that's how a fucking debate works lol. I am waiting for you to prove me wrong, this is me giving you a chance. I believe what I already believe for good reasons, I'm waiting for you to provide me better ones. Why even whine about this? What do you expect me to do, assume I'm wrong? Then why the fuck would I even have these beliefs in the first place? JFL

"Can you prove that this completely untestable IQ measuring method I just made up is incorrect? No? Then of course I was was right. Another day, another Internet argument won."

I mean, I pointed out your obvious bias and that your only piece of "evidence" is based on a subjective preference. If someone else used your reasoning to conclude which civilization is smarter, they'd think modern one is just based on the fact they didn't like the Bible, and that speaks for itself.

That's not the sole reason I believe ancient people were more intelligent, I take it as simply one sign of greater intelligence. Our previous disagreement, from my point of view, was that you were saying this wasn't a valid piece of evidence, and I was asserting it was. But that's all it is, a piece of evidence - not the whole picture. If you believe we're smarter now, then prove it. We'll both try and advance our claims. I think your progress argument is bullshit for the reasons stated in the second paragraph, engaging directly with that argument is a great place to continue.

What I'm hearing you say is, "Even if you prove me wrong, I got more mental gymnastics to keep my basement theory alive." Why don't you drop the bullshit and say what exactly does it take to convince you that modern civilization IQ mogs uneducated BC shitskins? Aside from the fact they grew up in environment that fosters higher IQ, tracked actual intelligence progress, and IQ mog North Africaniggers who are a modern parallel of them.

 

[LordNorwood]

@Blackpill Scholar a little tired for this shit right now and swamped in exam prep, I'll try and respond sometime this weekend.

 

[OldRooster]

Jim Jones and L Ron Hubbard were average looking. If they were good looking they would not of needed to start religion to score girls.