>>1323929
I'm not making shit up, this is the reputation Cosplayers have. They're either slutty or fatties or both.

Oh, and attention whores. But that goes without saying.

>>1323923

All women are sluts, cosplaying has nothing to do with it.

Myth busted.

The girls in the OPs pic are exceptions to the rule, not the general trend. That being said, the reputation that they're all fat is a bit unfair.

As for being sluts, I honestly don't know why. It depends what kinds of cosplayers you are talking about. The people who take it very seriously tend to be the most slutty (and catty too).

>>1323936

>>1323942
"Exceptions to the rule"? They're dressed slutty, but you can't say they're sluts based on how they're dressed.

>>1323942
actually its those that are jealous of the serious cosplayers that are the most catty

>>1323947
I mean in terms of fatness. Refer to my second point in regards to sluttiness, and anyone who has attended cons knows this is the case.

>>1323950
Those who don't take it seriously don't even know who the 'famous cosplayers' are you dolt.

dangerous girls, stop posting yourselves

Haven't like... 2 cosplayers already made the transition to porn? I'd say the reputation isn't entirely undeserved, lol.

Moar!

>>1323923

One on the right is my WIFE.

fapfapfapfapfapfapfap

>>1323923
Honestly, that is exaggerated.

But many regular con-goers are unaware of how much sex that's going on in hotel rooms during anime convention days.

>>1323978
good, I'll take the one on the left, then.

>>1323967
>>1323982
>>1323979
>>1323982

same person/OP

>>1323980
>But many regular con-goers are unaware of how much sex that's going on in hotel rooms during anime convention days.

How much of that is 'hook up on the day' stuff though?

>>1323990
Not as much as you think.

I do not believe that there are that many one night stands going on during cons, but i will agree with the fact that all women are sluts. Those who claim otherwise just haven't found out they are yet.

>>1324023
Women are by nature passive and somewhat innert, they are attracted to the proactive element of men. It's a dichotomy. So basically, women aren't really worthy of respect because of this innate passivity, I mean, how can you respect someone who swallow jizz?

>>1324030
so you're saying you dont respect your own mum?

>>1324035
She obviously didn't swallow. That's why he was born.

>>1324038
Her mistake.

>>1324035
>>1324038
>>1324044
Butthurt detected.

But it's true, the act of extreme passivity is naturally shameful.

>>1324046
Not really.
>>1324038
here; I just saw the opportunity to crack a joke.

I really thought channers of all people would have evolved beyond thinking slut is a bad thing now. Oh well. Give it a few more years.

I pray I am failing to detect sarcasm, but honestly, people out there who think like that obviously have little experience with women, let alone the human race.

>>1324062
>evolved

Wow... You honestly believe that the moral zeitgeist will ever change? People consider excess a bad thing, people consider a lack of self-control a bad thing. There will always be sexual taboos because lust is debilitating to reason and logic.

You aren't a social revolutionary.

You aren't paving the way for anything.

You just lack self-control and you want respect and recognition for it. That's asinine, it's like a drug addict claiming he's the vanguard of a new age or something.

And if you sluts truly lacked shame then you'd happily indulge your parents and relatives in tales of your countless sexual partners, instead of doing it on anonymous imageboards.

The truth is even you feel shame deep down.

I lost my virginity at a convention. and i took someone's virginity at a convention.

>>1324091

How did it happen?

>>1324071
these morals and all that bullshit only exist because of the victorian era's stuffyness.

Troll harder guys

You are only saying that because we women have all the power over you, we can make you do anything, while sadly you will keep drooling over us for the rest of your lives.

>>1324097
well you see... when a man wants to make love to a woman he is sometimes able to acheive an erection....

>>1324104
No, they existed in Republican and Imperial Rome, in Han China, in the various civilizations that populated the Indian Subcontinent prior to the Mughal Empire...

It really is nothing to do with Christianity. If you are a shameless slut now you would be looked upon in exactly the same way as in any developed society. Don't create fictional, romanticized civilizations, past or present, of make believe to cater to your own views.

>>1324106
>we can make you do anything

Over 90% of the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are men. Most business startups are started by men also, over 70% of the Cabinets and Leaders of the Executive branches of Governments all over the world are composed of men.

Don't delude yourself.

>>1324113
wow, it's REALLY obvious that you need a good stiff dicking badly.

>>1324122
Don't resort to ad-homs that quickly. I'm just saying, acting like this is a result of Christianity is asinine, read some Confucian philosophy, read the Bhagavad Gita, read some stoic philosophy.

The belief that everything should be taken in moderation and that your desires should be guided by reason is pretty universal.

>>1324127
o.k, o.k,.. BUT moderation is different than what you're talking about. Just because a gal likes to fuck alot doesn't make her a slut. Fucking is awesome and people need to be doing more of it. People wouldn't be such assholes if they got laid more.

>>1324150
I think you misunderstand me. I don't have a problem if you want to 'fuck a lot', it's irrelevant to me. I have a problem with you pretending there is some fantasy land, past or present, where women who slept with a lot of men weren't branded as lacking self-control. This argument pops up a lot. If you are a 'slut' by objective societal definition in 21st century western world you'd be a slut in Edo Japan, Han China, The Indus Valley Civilization, Ancient Rome and so on.

The reason for sexual taboos is not religious, that's just the facade they are dressed up in. The primary reason for sexual taboos is 1) Lust debilitates reason and 2) Biologically women who sleep around weren't viewed as good mates because until recently paternity couldn't be proven, so it's inbuilt to consider sluts low and worthless.

No matter how many 'sexual revolutions' you have you can't really defeat these two points.

And I object to the statement that people wouldn't be such 'dicks' if they had more sex. Take Nero and Caligula, they had plenty, compare them to the ardent Stoic, Marcus Aurelius, who was more of a 'dick'?

It all comes down to how humans consider self-control a virtue at the end of the day.

>>1323982

I like your style, Anon.

>>1324117
HOW is that revelant to my post?

And for your information all the CEOs your talking about, need a women in their lives.

But in your case you are neither a CEO or have girls in your life.

I understand your frustration anon. Im gonna QQ for you

Considering how long women have been held back we're doing pretty damn well. It can be counted in decades, not even a century since women got all of the rights of a man.

ITT: Butthurt men.

Guys who whine about women being ''sluts''(attractive girls) are fags.

Women are sensual and I am ALL GOOD about them expressing it

>>1324166
Out of curiosity, Anon, are you a historian of gender and/or an evolutionary biologist? Just wondering, you seem to know a lot of stuff :o

>>1324322
The market doesn't care the time-frame, if you were truly equal in every aspect you wouldn't need paid maternity leave and shit like that.

>>1324312
>need a women in their lives

Yep, tell Tesla and Newton that. Women need men far more than men need women. A woman's primary motivation is to be desired after all, you spend billions every year on this industry.

>>1324332
We've met before Gunlord, I think you know who I am. But shhhhh, dont tell anyone, I'll give you a clue, /v/ and old /n/.

>>1324330
You see, the great thing about modern civilization is that you don't have to put up with faggots who whine about how their lack of self-control is 'expressing their sensuality', it's like an alcoholic saying he is 'expressing the self-destruction of man through art' or something like that. It's fucking hilarious but depressing that there are people this stupid at the same time.

There is truth to OP's claim.....unfortunatly he missed another female subgroup, Lesbian cosplayers.
Also Conventions; the only place where you will find reverse statutory rape. It doesn't matter where the Con is, if you are in a good Cosplay outfit, expect to be raped upwards of 10 times before the end of the first night by all manner of Jailbait.

>>1324387
Lolwut? Are you kidding me? Maternity leave makes women unequal to men? Sorry our body needs rest after creating life?

And yes all things need time, which is why Michael Jordan wasn't win until the midpoint of his life. Don't you worry with boys losing interest in school, girls moving toward out performing boys in math, and salary gaps closing, we'll get there. Don't get your testicles in a knot.

>>1324403
>Lolwut? Are you kidding me? Maternity leave makes women unequal to men? Sorry our body needs rest after creating life?

Claiming inherent equality in spite of innate biological differences is stupid, yes.

The fact you need the central state to intervene so employers can't make decisions that they want to proves this inequality.

>>1324403
i dunno about michael jordan, but tesla and newton were pretty win all their lives. without women.

this isn't to say women are unnecessary, far from it. but the kind of "grrl power" rhetoric expressed in posts like >>1324106
is just as retarded as the common 4chan rhetoric that states women have a place only in the kitchen.

>>1324403

Y'know, if you wanna make all the income and all I have to do is cook, clean, take care of the kids and keep you sexually pleased, I'm down. :P

And don't tell me I don't know these things. Honey my family's been running a daycare out of our home for 13 years. I know a thing or two about housework and children.

As far as keeping a woman's womanhood happy, I don't need to even go there, you probably've heard enough rumors about me to keep the mill goin'. :)

So how 'bout it, toots?

>>1324409
It's ironic as well because it's effectively stating the only way for women to be powerful is to be whores.

It's only proving what Seneca said, that women are by nature more prone to lack of self-control, to moral weakness, and to the passions in general: they are more easily broken by excessive grief; they get carried away by anger; they are too soft in comparison; they are incontinent in luxury and debauchery, and manipulative in trying to realize misguided ambitions.

>>1324403

It's not even that we need a rest; it's so that you can take care of your newborn. You don't take puppies away from their mothers for 2 months; you're certainly not going to put a baby in daycare that soon either.
Besides, guys can take maternity leave too, these days.

>>1324407
I wasn't talking of biological equality, I was speaking of performance equality. A person's biological make up matters not besides intelligence. This is not major league baseball, we are not comparing physical qualities. This is only based on performance, and in simpler terms intellectual capability.

>>1324415
All maternity leave should be scrapped, regardless of gender.

>>1324416
Despite the fact biology and intelligence are intertwined I think you are being a bit disingenuous here. If it were a completely free market women would make up even less of top posts.

The problem with Equality argument between Genders is due to the fact that rather then equality, in most cases you find competition.
Example; By radical feminist ideals, a woman who does not work and makes a personal income but is a Housewife and Mother instead is a slave to the household and not treated equally. This suggests that women must be out in the workforce to be equal to men and by proxy suggests a concept of equality through competition. However competition is not equality and only works to create tension.

True equality is found through the ability to agree and be treated equally without any kind of condition reinforcing it.

>>1324415
But not paternity leave. ;_;

>>1324413
Hey baby you can totally be the Lucy to my Ricky. Clean houses turn me on.

>>1324409
I agree with you to some degree but most of the greatest thinkers, atheletes and personas of our time, got better with age over time, Einstein amirite?

>>1324414

Trolling aside, good. I want a woman to be indulgent. Let her succumb to such desires.

I'm going to put trolling aside here and I'll be honest. I want a girl who knows what she wants, because I'll give it to her. I'll give it to her so good, I'll please her in JUST the way she likes it. I'll make her drown in a sea of pleasure, and she'll be helpless to just lay there and bask in it.

I honestly get a kick out of being that provider. Working 8-10 hours, coming home and doing a man's job of pleasing his lady. Damn straight, I look forward to turning 30+.

>>1324427
a lot of them got worse. Keith Laumer, for instance, author of the excellent Bolo series, took something of a nosedive in quality after his stroke. Some philosophers have also been accused of "senility" when they changed positions later in life, although that admittedly has more to do with the butthurt of their former comrades...

>>1324429
Awwwww, Masa. That's decent of you <3

>>1324429
>Let her succumb to such desires.

Unless it's with another guy, right? If that's the case then it's not a universal truism and you'd want her to show self-control around other guys.

my understanding is that the cosplayers themselves vary in type and personality. some are sluts, many are not. It is okay to show off if you love a character and do an artistic costume, right?
the fatties are those jealous ones at home who get on here and judge said cosplayers without making their actions speak for them.

>>1324429
Good for you. Too bad I'm not a housewife type.

>>1324433
You took it way too far, I don't mean waiting until people are on the depths of senility I mean that nice hearty chunk of about 30-55.

>>1324439

They can't go to another guy, when I've fulfilled them completely.

Plus, you just gotta know how to establish trust with your partner. Lack of communication and insecurity if left unchecked will eventually cause problems.

That's why when you date someone for reals, you have to be a man about it and open up completely.

>>1324449
Whoa whoa whoa... when did Masa become the Gandhi of dating?

>>1324449
I've always been sorta attracted to you now I don't have to feel bad thinking you're a complete troll 24/7.

>>1324451

Lol, you've never met me, have you.

>>1324454

I only do it when I feel people are complete dumbasses that deserve to pop a blood vessel. I'm pretty easy to get along with if people stopped with their bullshit.

>>1324447
Middle age, huh?

It depends. There's much to be said for middle age--you have the wisdom of experience that youths lack while escaping from the decrepitude of old age.

In any case, though, however true that may be, it has nothing to do with the value of women. Again, Newton and Tesla enjoyed the fruits of middle age without a woman by their side, and history is replete with examples of accomplished bachelors who accomplished much over the course of their lives without any particular female assistance.

>>1324456
Nope, but considering the content of your last couple posts I kinda want to.

>>1324449
>They can't go to another guy, when I've fulfilled them completely.

That's a tailored hypothetical in the first place though. If you set the precedent of indulgence to whatever whim then it's going to transfer elsewhere eventually.

Oh god. This THREAD.

>>1324456
I had an idea I generally realize that the more attractive someone is on 4chan the nicer they are, the uglier they get the crabbier they are. I actually want to meet a couple of you tripfags in person, some other ones not so much...

>>1324458
I am not saying at all that men need women, my point is women are just as capable as men, we simply need a little time to make some headway: a) because men are resistant to our arrival b) we ourselves don't have as rich of a history of education, and scholarly work. Women will only get better with time in the work place, there is no down from here for us.

>>1324474
>>I am not saying at all that men need women, my point is women are just as capable as men, we simply need a little time to make some headway: a) because men are resistant to our arrival b) we ourselves don't have as rich of a history of education, and scholarly work. Women will only get better with time in the work place, there is no down from here for us.

Ah. Well, I pretty much agree with that entirely (I'm not >>1324387, although I do believe I recognize him from my time on old /n/).

That said, it's statements like >>1324106
I was addressing more than anything else. Women may not need men, sure, but men certainly don't "need" women, either.

>>1324474
>b) we ourselves don't have as rich of a history of education

This doesn't matter when there are equal opportunities, are you saying that boys perform better in the workplace because of a 'rich history of scholarly work'?

lol.

"Men have larger brains—and higher IQs—than women, according to a controversial new study.

In a paper for the British Journal of Psychology, which is bound to reignite the academic row about gender differences, one of Britain’s most controversial academics argues that men are more likely than women to win Nobel prizes and gain academic distinction because they are more intelligent.

Dr Irwing told The Times Higher Education Supplement that he would prefer it if their research was wrong. However, after resolving to put “scientific truth” above his personal views, he said he had concluded that there was a very strong case that men not only had larger brains, but had a higher IQ, by about five points, compared with women."

>>1324482
>although I do believe I recognize him from my time on old /n/

Hmmm. Gunlord, is that you?

>>1324464

Cool, I'm always open to meeting new people.

>>1324468

Hey, if my parents can do it, so can I. I don't need logic to try to reason something out like my feelings.

I don't go into relationships blindly either, but I know that when I'm in one, I'll commit to it 100%. That's my duty as a man.

And trust me, let them be indulgent. Just because they are, doesn't mean I'll please them 24/7. Its called foreplay. You have to orchestrate desire.

Desire comes from lacking something you want. Building that desire first and then delivering when she's aching and begging for it, while being reasonable..that's how you do it.

I'll say this. Seneca never taught me how to keep a woman interested, nor is talking about it going to make that happen.

Confidence will. Confidence, a willingness to compromise when shit gets tough, and work ethic. Wanting to make the relationship work while having the foresight to see if its worth it to keep it going are all important things.

I shouldn't bag on Seneca though. Ain't no seneca ever call'd me a nigger

>>1324474

Bring it. When you bring yourselves to an even playing field, we'll be ready too as men. We're competitive by nature.

>>1324482

I dunno about needin' a woman...but I sure could use one right now in my life. That'd be nice.

>>1324485

Averages are just that, averages.

Besides, I stopped basing which is the superior sex based on IQ a long time ago. Its a pretty teenage-way of thinking to give people more or less worth in life because of their intelligence quotient?

What good is IQ if they have no backbone for life? No guts? No balls? Fuck that.

>>1324485
That aren't equal opportunities and if you believe so you are retarded, sheltered, and need to kindly stfu. And that also means you didn't read my post. As for your experimental study not only is the IQ differential small, but IQ is just arbitrary enough for the disparity to be almost nonexistant. You should look up the studies on how vague an intelligence quotient actually is, and then think about the fact that the study itself is still in the infantile stages of scientific study, before posting it as serious trufax.

I hate when people do this, it irritates me, and completely makes me believe scientific information is a horrible thing when made readily available for idiots, and impressionable children.

>>1324506
And awesome, I totally wanna a picture with you as Luffy. Preferably with me wearing a completely serious business costume for lulz.

>>1324506
Seneca was a Roman philosopher of the first century AD, he's usually brought up as the example of what is the best way to behave when in the moral quandry of having to serve a bad boss/leader, in this case that 'leader' was the Emperor Nero. An example for the ages of self-indulgence gone to extremes. Seneca served Nero well (during the first four years of his reign he was generally considered to be a good Emperor), until he lost favour and retired to the country. He was eventually implicated in a plot against Nero and forced to commit suicide together with his wife. He was one of the most foremost stoic philosophers.

>Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will, and, on the centurion's refusal, turned to his friends, protesting that as he was forbidden to requite them, he bequeathed to them the only, but still the noblest possession yet remaining to him, the pattern of his life, which, if they remembered, they would win a name for moral worth and steadfast friendship. At the same time he called them back from their tears to manly resolution, now with friendly talk, and now with the sterner language of rebuke. "Where," he asked again and again, "are your maxims of philosophy, or the preparation of so many years' study against evils to come? Who knew not Nero's cruelty? After a mother's and a brother's murder, nothing remains but to add the destruction of a guardian and a tutor."

Now that's a real man.

>>1324512

Ever wonder how the most brain dead dumbfuck douchebags make it to Ivy League schools while 'geniuses' end up in community colleges? Lol, IQ means shit.

>>1324516

Are you a guy or a girl. :/ I have to ask.

>>1324521

Cool. But worshiping a guy like that won't do you very much in the real world.

You gotta be your own man. That's what.

>>1324510
>Its a pretty teenage-way of thinking to give people more or less worth in life because of their intelligence quotient?

Nope, IQ correlates well with virtually every indicator around, and personal income too.

>>1324522
Yeah. George W. Bush, k thanx. And I'm totally a girl. African Americana to boot.

>>1324512
>but IQ is just arbitrary enough for the disparity to be almost nonexistant.

Refer to my correlation chart. IQ is not 'arbitrary' at all. I can post more correlations if you want, along with other forms of evidence. It's up to you.

>>1324523
But your whole 'gotta be a real man' in an unconventional sense (at least macrohistorically speaking) is just a reflection of the zeitgeist of what it means to be male anyway. It's hardly original or being 'your own man'.

>>1324526
Wow, my friend if you can indeed prove this, well wow...Then fuck the great science breakthroughs this year, it's all about you my friend!

>>1324529
Think up of a better rebuttal at least. Either the science behind IQ is solid as nearly every psychologist and biologist agrees or it's all one massive coincidence and there is some invisible force at work twisting the evidence to make it LOOK like the case.

>>1324522

What? Community college does not produce great people.

>>1324524

Then why doesn't your pretty chart explain why our country's being run by a monkey.

IQ has nothing to do with teaching your kid about AIDS, either. I'm assuming, since you and I are both capable individuals of finding our dicks in the appropriate sexually opposite organs and conjugate them in the pleasurable act, that you and I will both have kids someday.

IQ isn't the answer to everything, it won't teach you how to raise your kids. Even a dumb fuck like Forrest Gump could raise a kid well.

>>1324525

can i haz jungle fever nao plz

>>1324526

You can find evidence to support that Jesus' remains exist in the archipelago of Japan (the Japanese truly believe this)

What's your point. Find your own truths, dude.

>>1324528

...So? :)

>>1324532

Sure they don't.

>>1324533
>Then why doesn't your pretty chart explain why our country's being run by a monkey.

Well that's shitmocracy for you, I believe in an intellectual oligarchy, a society ruled by the intelligent - I've never believed in democracy. It's bullshit.

>IQ has nothing to do with teaching your kid about AIDS

Well it doesn't specifically, but the principles behind it, rote memorization, lateral thinking and so on, are connected to higher IQ.

>IQ isn't the answer to everything, it won't teach you how to raise your kids.

People with IQs have a lower divorce rate.

>>1324534
>Sure they don't.

Well they don't, compare the amount of nobel prize winners from ivy league colleges to community colleges.

>...So? :)

My point is neither example of 'manliness' is particularly original, therefore arguing about being your own man in relation to that is kind of moot.

>>1324535
*higher IQs even.

>>1323944
That's sort of uncanny...

>>1324532
You're missing the point silly anon. No matter how much data you have you cannot prove something and call it 100% fact without it being one hundred percent fail proof. If one person does not fit into your fancy correlation chart then it's not worth showing at all. You forget that it's only a small percent of the population anyway that even has a notable amount of intelligence, most are dumb fucks. So even if a small amount people do not fall into your data, it's worthless.

>>1324533
You can totally have jungle fever all night long. So long as I can be all muy caliente y delicioso

People with lower IQs have more children because keeping the kids in poverty is cool.

>>1324544
>You're missing the point silly anon. No matter how much data you have you cannot prove something and call it 100% fact without it being one hundred percent fail proof.

That's asinine though, you could apply that same statement to the theoretical assertion that the earth revolves around the sun. I mean, that's a theory, it's a theory with an overwhelming amount of evidence. But still a theory.

>So even if a small amount people do not fall into your data, it's worthless.

What's your point? Randomized samples are effective at covering all bases when sufficiently large enough, and most data submitted to journal review does have a sufficiently large sample size.

>>1324535

>Well that's shitmocracy for you, I believe in an intellectual oligarchy, a society ruled by the intelligent - I've never believed in democracy. It's bullshit.

I don't trust any ruling institution that is ruled by either an elite class or in too few hands.

The mind's only as powerful as the willpower one has to carry that sharp mind the distance.

>Well it doesn't specifically, but the principles behind it, rote memorization, lateral thinking and so on, are connected to higher IQ.

I'm not speaking about being ABLE to learn it, but having the moral capacity to make the right decision.

Furthermore, I've come to see that people with 'high IQ's' are genuinely lazy people who practice arm-chair philosophy and don't immerse themselves in life enough to really do anything noteworthy except suck their own dicks.

What good is a high IQ if you're a morally rotten person with no strength?

>People with IQs have a lower divorce rate.

People with higher IQs, if they truly were god's gift to mankind, wouldn't be arguing on the internet over something so trivial and would be out in the world climbing up the social ladder to make an intellectual oligarchy happen. (But we all know Donald Trump ain't no fucking genius at life, just with money maybe)

>>1324545
No, they are just retards with no self-control. This is why the future lies with China, can't wait to move there when I've learnt Mandarin.

>>1324522
I'm not >>1324516 (I'm >>1324464) but I'm a chick too. One who, before this thread, thought of you as mostly a douche. Thanks to your intelligent input you've changed my opinion, for the better.

Nicely played :)

>>1324554

Hence the reason sluts are bad for society --unless the sluts love abortion in which case rock on.

>Well they don't, compare the amount of nobel prize winners from ivy league colleges to community colleges.

That's how you define greatness. What about people who save people's lives on a daily basis? Doesn't take a nobel peace prize to be a Fireman.

>>1324544

I'm down.


And logicanon, you can argue with me all night if you want. But all I'm doing is beating your logic with charisma. Who's the one with the higher IQ now? :)

>>1324551
You're comparing two different sciences. Biological science is a lot less spectacular the more murky and unstable it gets, since in biology we have quite a great capability for a variety of differentations to occur. Also random samples have the capability to imply what is simply not true, (i.e. black people are dumb, smart women can't get married)

>>1324553
>I don't trust any ruling institution that is ruled by either an elite class or in too few hands.

That's exactly what government is, 'there is always an oligarchy somewhere' as Dr. Ronald Syme once stated. When it's out in the open, and the true focus of accountability then we will have effective Government. Somethin akin to the Roman Republic perhaps.

>I'm not speaking about being ABLE to learn it, but having the moral capacity to make the right decision.

Well by most indicators (amount of sexual partners, divorce rate, likelihood to be incarcerated, to commit a serious felony and so on) of morality people with higher IQs are more moral, they are also less likely to be religious, so their morality comes from their intelligence, not some misguided belief in a deity.

>>1324559

I want to meet you too. I'd like to meet everybody who's willing to approach me with an open mind.

>>1324559

No, he just loves talking from books. Ask him how long his most recent relationship lasted. Talking is one thing, doing is quite another.

>>1324562

Doctors save more lives.

>>1324564
>capability to imply what is simply not true
>black people are dumb

Blacks are less intelligent than whites.

Whites are less intelligent than Northeast Asians.

This is pretty well established now, it's not just one randomized sample, it's thousands.

>smart women can't get married

No, smart PEOPLE find it harder to get married.

The IQ grouping with the highest amount of sexual partners is 85-95. That's because they are the average - the playing field is MEANT for them. Whereas a woman with an IQ of 140 has less chance of finding a guy with parity in intelligence to her. And vice versa.

>But all I'm doing is beating your logic with charisma.

Are you implying matter over mind, demagoguery above reason here? Don't be a moron.

>That's how you define greatness.

Yes, a Newton is clearly a great man, greater than any other of his time. You may consider him some bookwormish geek or whatever, but the guy changed the face of science forever, that's greatness. Same with the other nobel prize winners, if not necessarily of his caliber, they were great men and women.

>>1324565

You're right, there IS always an oligarchy.

But rather than sitting here on your ass playing armchair ideal politics, you should go out there and make it happen.

Otherwise it'll all still be smoke out of your butt.

>>1324565

I've made my peace with God to know that he's real.

I'm sure your beloved Einstein could tell you a thing or two about God. Y'know he believed in God? You know the romans that you worship so much believed in a plethora of Gods?

The Big Bang's just a theory, at any rate. What good is a theory if suddenly you found your country in a world-wide war, with enemy troops infiltrating your streets. Its a life and death situation everyday, and tomorrow is never guaranteed..

Even you in your rejection of God would suddenly find the idea of an afterlife appealing. I've come to terms my own way as to God influences my life, but I won't go into that.

>>1324562
Everybody will be all like, if you superimposed their hot sex to their hot knowledge, it'd be all similar and shit.

/cgl/ - Discussions on Intelligence, the History of Women's Rights, and Masa's Relationship Advice

That said, I do love this thread, carry on.

>>1324577
>I'm sure your beloved Einstein could tell you a thing or two about God

Einstein believed in Spinoza's God, that is, the God is the Universe and the Laws of Physics etc...

>But rather than sitting here on your ass playing armchair ideal politics

All political science is armchair philosophy. It's not like they create real and lasting change.

>>1324574
The thing you said about women is right, the flat statements about race are so crudely written you should be laughed out of all intellectual communities.

>Are you implying matter over mind, demagoguery above reason here? Don't be a moron.

Hell yeah I am. What good is an argument on logic when faith and power are vested in the charismatic?

Just hope that the one with charisma's equally smarter than you, if not more. :) (in this case you don't have to, I've done the work of being great for you, you just have to sit there and continue to antagonize yourself a little longer)


>>1324568

I'm 21. I'm not interested in a relationship, but I wouldn't pass up the opportunity for an amazing girl.

>>1324569

Being a doctor doesn't just take IQ.

>All political science is armchair philosophy. It's not like they create real and lasting change.

Cause lazy fucks like you with 'super high intelligence quotients' won't get off your chairs and do something. :>

>>1324578

:D Maybe.

>>1324589

You were comparing people saving lives with their IQ. Stop backpedaling. I've notice that's your forte. If you don't agree with it, you just change the subject or add something that wasn't in the debate in the first place.

>>1324597
Keep talking like that and I might have to accidentally have sex with you.

>>1324589
>Hell yeah I am. What good is an argument on logic when faith and power are vested in the charismatic?

Such is the calling card of every dictator in history.

>Being a doctor doesn't just take IQ.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Images/OccsX.jpg

I just got here.

>>1324598

It takes a lot of things to save a person's life. You can't attribute it to just IQ.

Get off my dick already and accept that IQ does not make you superior to anyone else.

>>1324604
I just got here but

Masa has low IQ it seems (seems very defensive over it)

>>1324593
>Cause lazy fucks like you with 'super high intelligence quotients' won't get off your chairs and do something. :>

Do what exactly? We like our ivory towers.

>>1324604
It does, but that's already been established.

Seriously, has anyone here even taken an IQ test. It's just a bunch of riddles and mid level math questions, how can that really be a decider of someone's overall intelligence. Good God.

>>1324606

True. Maybe he should move to some hick town to be with his mental peers because, you know, IQ doesn't account for much according to him.

>>1324602

I think I have a bit more moral fiber than Hitler.

Just sayin'.

>http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Images/OccsX.jpg

IQ has nothing to do with motor functions. I would not want to be operated on by a clumsy genius.

>>1324608
The science behind it is solid, there is ample evidence showing a correlation between IQ and social indicators of various kinds as well as with average earnings.

>>1324608
The smart would know when their motor functions are compromised and would not risk a patient's life. The dumb would continue to do so because "It's just coffee givin' me the shakes."

Try this. What does intelligence mean? What is it? I mean we all know what it is, but you cannot have a solid definition, it ends up being either too murky or too biased. Therefore an intelligence quotient can never be as good as its title claims. For example someone who has terrible math skills would do quite poorly on an IQ test, but this does not at all mean they are idiot, just they are not good at math.

>>1324618

>The smart would know when their motor functions are compromised and would not risk a patient's life. The dumb would continue to do so because "It's just coffee givin' me the shakes."

Are you sure that's the smart or the morally obligated?

Because there's a lot of malpractice in America when it comes to Doctors. And these are all people one could assume are reasonably smart, right?

>>1324612

Motor functions eh?

>Timed motor performance below the 10th percentile correlated strongly with cognitive delay (IQ <85: adaptive fine motor: OR 6.0 [95% CI] 4.7-7.3; adaptive gross motor: OR 7.0 [CI 5.6-8.4]; static balance: OR 9.6 [CI 8.2 - 11.0]).

lol....

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17640748

>>1324623

That's because people in America love to sue.

>>1324619
>Try this. What does intelligence mean? What is it?

I can't be bothered to entertain your semantic piroutte, we are using IQ as the yardstick as it's the best standardized measurement around and has the correlations already mentioned.

>>1324616
Solid science is just what it implies, simply solid. Solid is not remarkable. And unremarkable science deserves to swim in the obscurity of unproven ideas.

ITT: People who should watch "Idiocracy".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

Now, continue on please.


Btw, IQ is only an attempt at measurement of processing power. Think of it as the clock cycles on your computer. Your computer may be limited to a certain clock cycle (say my 1.8ghz centrino) but it certainly does not express the full capabilities of that computer, which seems what's going on here.

All IQ is a be all end all marker for people to focus their attention to. Its kinda like the Body Mass Index, something you /cgl/ anons know about.

Man does not live on intelligence alone. Its called experience. Even a dumbass will learn after repeated actions.

That being said, I've never heard that reputation before. But maybe, I don't give a fuck enough to remember it. I do have awfully bad memory.

>>1324628
Yeah, I'll people it plainly then. The IQ test is a good start, but it's not as amazing/all knowing as people make it out to be. It should be revampled, perfected so to speak.

>>1324632
>Even a dumbass will learn after repeated actions.

Experience is just anecdotal rote memorization, and memory correlates with IQ.

>>1324629

It's not unproven, that's the whole point. Until you can find a measurement with as much support from the scientific community and as much evidence in it's favour then you're just being stupid.

>>1324634
*Put it. Wow. Bad typo there.

>>1324634
>It should be revampled

Suggest how.

>>1324636
That's the whole problem. If scientists put their mind to it, they could make something better. Instead they are obsessed with this incredibly imperfect product.

>>1324485

IQ doesn't incorporate all different types of intelligence, fool.
Proof: Girls do better in school than boys. And women earn 57 percent of bachelor's degrees, 59 percent of master's degrees, and half the doctorates awarded in the United States.

>>1324648

It's because of their high IQs that they were able to get those degrees. That or rich parents.

sometimes you gotta TAKE the pussy

>>1324647
Damn scientists, they should listen to a bunch of catty women on a cosplay imageboard instead! How dare they use 'facts' and 'empirical evidence' to prove their case!

>>1324648
>Proof: Girls do better in school than boys. And women earn 57 percent of bachelor's degrees, 59 percent of master's degrees, and half the doctorates awarded in the United States.

The divergence between men and women isn't that great. And educational attainment past a bachelor's at a good college is more a case of if you want to do it rather than if your capability to do it.

GC8VBunta


That's my AIM. Any of the above people who said they wanted to meet me. Well, there's how. I'll be going to bed soon, I'm actually ill and I work in 6 hours, soo...

Logicanon, you served your purpose today. Thanks.

>>1324662
>Logicanon, you served your purpose today. Thanks.

lol, don't put on the facade of being Machiavellian, anyone who isn't clinically delusional can see through it.

>>1324666

All I kept hearing while reading that was, "lol, I can't win the argument so now I'm pretending to give an olive branch so people won't call me stoopid."

>Experience is just anecdotal rote memorization, and memory correlates with IQ.

Anecdotal rote memorization implies a simple copy of the experience into one's brain. If we were all about anecdotes and rote memorization, you would only amount to something with the brain function of a fish.

And even they process information that in turns affects the process of information at a later instance, effectively nullifying your concept of memory that amounts to IQ.

If I didn't state myself clearly enough before, its because I didn't want to write a paper here and I'm sure we're talking about peoples vaginas and their sex lives, instead of debating the nominal use of IQ in the real world.

Because you know what? IQ is just a momentary measurement of the protraction of our brain matter in a controlled standardized state. Yes, it has implication in real world actions but that's all it is. An Implication, nothing more.

You don't find standards in the real world, chum.

That being said, My IQ is 138, which is approximately 2.5 standard deviations from the norm. That means I'm smarter I am atleast 98% smarter than the world's population.

But to me, that means nothing because intelligence is only a compliment to wisdom and experience.


tl;dr That girl on the right is hot.

>>1324670

Indeed. Masa isn't so bad but I think he views such exchanges as competition for female attention. Which isn't really my intent so I don't know why he does it.

>>1324678
Seems like he got a couple of chicks to fall for it. A problem of IQ? ;)

I'll leave this here.

>>1324675
>If we were all about anecdotes and rote memorization, you would only amount to something with the brain function of a fish.

No, no. no.

Don't try and set up strawmen here. You stated:

>Its called experience. Even a dumbass will learn after repeated actions.

That's learning not to do something as a result of memorization. For example, touching the electric fence once is enough to convince an idiot not to touch it again.

>effectively nullifying your concept of memory that amounts to IQ.

What? I stated the two correlate, not that it 'amounts' to memory, I know it's fashionable amongst internet biologists to pretend IQ is 'worthless' because of the nasty truths it tends to spring out. But really now, you're just twisting my words.

>Yes, it has implication in real world actions but that's all it is. An Implication, nothing more.

You're acting like this 'implication' doesn't have wide ranging effects. Refer to >>1324524.

>You don't find standards in the real world, chum.

Actually you do, complex though they may be manifested into the real world, they exist.

>That being said, My IQ is 138, which is approximately 2.5 standard deviations from the norm. That means I'm smarter I am atleast 98% smarter than the world's population.

Nobody cares.

>But to me, that means nothing

If it meant nothing then you wouldn't cite it.

>compliment to wisdom and experience.

Show me the evidence, the empirical evidence that highlights the same correlation between occupation, social indicators and personal income that IQ does with 'experience' and 'wisdom', because at the moment it's just rhetorical drivel that you are passing for an argument.

Fuckballs. Got here too late.

Masa took all the chicks as usual. If only I didn't have anything better to do.

>>1324681
More a problem of /cgl/ itself and it's userbase I'd say. :D

What are y'all, shy? No one's IMed me yet.

I'm serious, give me a message. I don't bite.

>>1324688

I dont follow your logic. All i simply stated that even dumbasses and fish, and us smart pplzzzz will be affected by the experience, that experience in turn will affect how we processes other experiences.

I view IQ as an attempt to measure the amount of intelligence at a relatively singular point in time. As I said, it has implications in the real world, i admitted that, but i only raise my argument because it seems you value IQ as your sole factor in determining the capable worth of people. If that's not the case, then allow me to retract my statement.

For perhaps we're arguing, yet we're not even in the same bowl of kool-aid.

>>1324701
>I view IQ as an attempt to measure the amount of intelligence at a relatively singular point in time.

Are you referring to IQ's fluxing here? Because they don't, they remain pretty much the same throughout someone's life, there is a drop throughout adolesence, but that's observed universally.

>that experience in turn will affect how we processes other experiences

So learning from experience then?

Well let's take prison population as a sample, they have a below average IQ, the criminals with the lowest IQs are those who fall into the category of violent crime. Violent criminals are also the most likely to reoffend...

Do you see where I'm going with this?

>seems you value IQ as your sole factor in determining the capable worth of people.

Not the sole factor at all, just the best.

>>1324707
>seems you value IQ as your sole factor in determining the capable worth of people.

>Not the sole factor at all, just the best.

Then nothing I will say to you will change your mind.

>>1324700
I'm a bit shy, and alot tired. I'll IM you tomorrow :P

>>1324707

and to be fair to you, since you've so analyzed me thoroughly.

No, i'm not talking about IQ's flux. I'm talking about the other parts of the brain that aren't measured by IQ.

Youre trying to use IQ as a predicting factor in human behavior.

I'm arguing that IQ is only a measure of processing power, nothing more. The fact that prisoners have lower IQ's have violent minds that are likely to reoffend. Smart people are capable of violent minds. Those sorts just don't get caught until they've killed 40 people.

Its a horrible example because its not because they want to learn from the experience and become "better". I'm just telling you that in real life, psychological factors, physiological factors, personality traits, early childhood development environment, and a whole slew of laundry list items all add up to amount a human's capability.

You remind me of a particular Nazi Doctor, but his name escapes me at this moment.

>>1324730
>Youre trying to use IQ as a predicting factor in human behavior.

Naturally, as it's proven to be heriditable in nature. See for example the studies done on twins brought up in different environments.

>Smart people are capable of violent minds. Those sorts just don't get caught until they've killed 40 people.

Do you have any proof that this is because they don't get caught or is it conjecture?

>I'm just telling you that in real life, psychological factors, physiological factors, personality traits, early childhood development environment, and a whole slew of laundry list items all add up to amount a human's capability.

Actually the environmental factor has always been stressed by commentators, but the genetic factor is more important. Consider that the APA state intelligence is 60% heriditable in nature for example. That's the fucking APA, not a fringe group. And biologists agree with them.

>You remind me of a particular Nazi Doctor, but his name escapes me at this moment.

Godwin smiles on us tonight.

>>1324720

I'm shy too. :<

Is this the jungle fever womans or the other one whom I presume is white? :D

1) I'm stressing that you shouldn't be stress IQ has much. just a personal opinion. I agree that it has a predicting factor, but not of your priority.

2) Ted Bundy, among many other serial killer psychopaths and sociopaths.

3) 60% is hardly the amount you've stressed

4) Would you like me to name another fascist run state doctors?

5) Stanford Prison Experiment. Actions and the capabilities of people are not so much measured by IQ.

6) You were talking abot that Bouchard experiment with the twins right? if you've ever taken statistics, that .75 correlation doesn't mean as much as you think it is. If you separate the twins into different environments, say one in a middle upper class family, and the other in a third world agricultural country, their inteligence may be lying in wait to be tapped into...but how could you ever be sure of that by using the IQ test on them?

Its just incredulous to not give those things more weight.
We're not too different here, mate. The numbers are there to guide you, not there to make controls.

I'm coming from a psychological and neurological stand point so I don't think we'll meet eye to eye on this one. Be seeing you.

>>1324749
Whitey here (oh lol)

>>1324791
IM Masa IMO. He's a rad dude when he drops the troll facade.

>>1324791

I don't discriminate. :D White is nice too.

Let's just say like a typical customer at Baskin Robbins, I enjoy all 31 different flavors. e_e;

>>1324793

>rad

I'm touched. ;_;

>>1324793
Honestly, I will. Tomorrow. I'm going to bed now, before I fall asleep on my keyboard x3

>>1324773
>1) I'm stressing that you shouldn't be stress IQ has much. just a personal opinion. I agree that it has a predicting factor, but not of your priority.

Why shouldn't I stress it? Non-scientific commentators stress environment all the time on TV, biology needs to stressed more.

>2) Ted Bundy, among many other serial killer psychopaths and sociopaths.

Anecdotal evidence again....

>3) 60% is hardly the amount you've stressed

Even the APA acknowledges this is a 'conservative estimate', still it is an acknoledgment that hereditary factors play the primary role.

>5) Stanford Prison Experiment. Actions and the capabilities of people are not so much measured by IQ.

Link to this?

>6) You were talking abot that Bouchard experiment with the twins right? if you've ever taken statistics, that .75 correlation doesn't mean as much as you think it is.

There hasn't been just one study on twins you know. The most recent was 2006, Bouchard's was 1990. And that's not the only evidence, we have the transracial adoption studies and the fact that the tests the libs did throughout the nineties to tie IQ with economic background instead of race ended up proving the opposite. And a twin in a third world country would have their potential proven by IQ testing.

You just want to believe everybody is inherently equal, and that flies in the face of biology, so you deny biology and clutch at straws instead. Let's be honest here, your problem with IQ isn't the science behind it, it's what it shows, that it doesn't tie into your egalitarian beliefs.

if IQ showed everyone was inherently equal you'd be all over it.

Why am I still reading this

>>1324802

Sleep tight. :D

>>1324811
Because you want to see the outcome of the Masa/Anon romance.

Can you please just get out? It's like you're desperate for someone to talk to.

This is 4chan, any girls who post here are definitely ugly and therefore their opinions do not matter.

>>1324836
I don't think that statement could cry "jealous fatty" any louder.

>>1324836

I'll say this. Pretty much a lot of the girls I've met at cons were 'cause of this place.

Don't underestimate the power of the chan.

>>1324867
This.

>>1324867
That's really very pathetic.