/sci/ - Science & Math

Trolls - 0

Nothing to see here

because not everyone gets smarter.
in fact the average intelligence reduces now that there is no natural selection acting on humanity, and everybody gets to breed.

stupid people dont die of starvation because they are handed all their life-needs on a fucking platter, humans have killed off all predators of themselves so there is no danger of being eaten (or very little anyway)
and these days 'the man' is so fucking safety conscious that even the most fucking retarded person isnt going to just die in an accident like they naturally fucking should.

tl;dr, bad genetics being continually passed on...will fuck up the future of the human race etc etc.

so stupid people, so gullible, so believe anything, so creationism.

-1 < 0

>>2641165
EK, that was such and obvious troll, why the fuck did you respond to it? Or are you trying some super-advanced meta-trolling on others?

Okay, but you're the one saying creationists are idiots.

>>2641168
may well have been a a troll... but it can inadvertently still lead to interesting discussion.

intelligence isn't needed for survival anymore.

>>2641168

EK wants attention. It doesn't matter what that attention is, s/he wants it. The solution is to ignore.

>>2641173
It... Never really was that essential to survival. Adaptive/perceptive wit maybe, but intelligence... Not so much.

>>2641165
Jesus Christ, you self-righteous, pompous piece of shit.

>>2641179

I think humans are doing pretty damn well at survival right now due to intelligence. It was always extremely important for survival in human history as it allowed us to do things such as use tools and outwit those with more strength etc. You see it in other intelligent species such as dolphins and apes, too.

>>2641175
well i'll just take my well researched and reasonable argument and shove it up my own hole, then will i?

>>2641188

Yes, you should. It was an obvious troll that you responded to to make yourself feel intelligent and to validate your insecurities. In fact, most of what you said was pretty obvious common-sense and didn't need saying.

inb4 metatroll

>>2641188
>well researched
>in fact the average intelligence reduces now that there is no natural selection

>and reasonable
>even the most fucking retarded person isnt going to just die in an accident like they naturally fucking should.

>>2641168
You don't know what the prefix "meta" means
>>2641165
>>2641173
You're an insufferable cancer on this board and will be one of the main factors when moot inevitably deletes this board because it has degraded so much because of people like you.
I mean, Inurdaes at least sometimes contributes something other than irrational "hurr durr we theocracy in 20 years", you EK don't contribute anything but usually incorrect information about evolution and attention whoring.

>>2641188
>>2641192

In addition, you were an arrogant prick like you normally are.

>>2641179
it used to be vital.
those intelligent enough to be able to gather food and avoid danger, survive, and breed.
atupid people might go right up to a predator and start idly kicking at its hind quarters or some shit like that...

>>2641185
fuck you.

>>2641187
no, we are doing well due to the intelligence of a small minority, and the combined intelligence of a small minority of our ancestors meaning that we are already delivered from birth into a world where it is fucking easy to survive, even if we are fucking retarded.

this is obviously a troll thread
why does /sci/ respond to it just let it 404!

>>2641197

>>2641197
Ahem, *technocracy *28 years *MAYBE IF SPECIFIC EVENTS UNFOLD

>>2641202

>>2641199
>it used to be vital.
And now it isn't. Conditions change, and those fucking retards are adapted enough to survive in them. That's evolution. Now shut the fuck up.

>>2641200
>ad homs and no counter argument whatsoever

lol, u really suck /sci/...

>>2641205

Because putting up a "Cool Story, bro" variation rather than a rebuttal makes you feel less insecure, right?

>>2641215
>asking for a rebuttal to some random anon's mindless speculation and stupid personal fucking opinion.

lol, retard.

>>2641208

You weren't trolling. We all know this to be true or we would have ignored you.

You have a habit of getting "annoyed" when someone points out that you're trolling. If you were actually trolling you would have ignored it and carried on. You, however, like to point it out for some reason.

This is an obvious show of trying to get "one-ups" on people rather than relishing trolling.

Just how pathetic can you get?

>>2641214

>Ignored the fact that was an addition to my previous post.
>Doesn't know what an ad hominem attack is.

i don't see any link between intelligence and reproductive success in my western culture.

not sure about rest of the world.

main evolutionary drive in western society is women's fertility. see the framingham heart study. we're getting shorter and chubbier.

http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2009/10/26/evolution_continues_framingham_heart_s
tudy_says/

>>2641219

You could have, you know, proven them wrong?

Oh wait...

>>2641222
yeh i wasn't trolling, and why did you reference that particular post? and what the fuck am i reading?

wrong-wrong-wrong.
you are stupid.

>>2641205
>typical EK rebuttal
Yeah, if only every poster was like you...

Also, I don't get why everyone thinks that trolling a troll is "metatrolling". For fucks sake, meta(x) means (x) about (x). Meta language is language about language, for instance: a Spanish 101 book written in English has English as a meta language. If I wrote a song about Dylan's Like a Rolling Stone it could be characterized as "meta music" because it's music about music, though that would be retarded. Meta trolling would be trolling about trolling ("trolling is a art" could be said to be meta trolling), saying that trolling a troll is meta trolling is like saying when some punches someone else in the face and the guy punches back it's "meta punching". For fucks sakes, if you don't know what a word means, don't use it in an attempt to look smart, you'll usually get opposite effect.

>>2641214

The phrase is, has been and always will be "umad". There is no question mark. You also suck at Photoshop.

>>2641230

You were angry that he pointed out you were trolling. If you'd actually been trolling you would have ignored it rather than drawing attention to it.

You didn't understand my point, ergo you are stupid, not me.

>>2641234
depends whether it is a question or a statement, obviously.

>>2641237

That's the point. It never was a question. It was always a statement that your opponent was mad.

Are you a little slow, or is your head so far up your ass that it's stopped working properly?

>>2641236
ha!
i understood your post perfectly, you clearly just didnt understand mine.
nobody 'pointed out' i was trolling, because i wasn't
(i tend to remove the trip if i make a troll attempt)

>>2641233
I forgot to add that "metathread" is a good example of how to CORRECTLY use it because it de facto means "thread discussing threads". BUT NOT FUCKING META TROLLING YOU IDIOTS.

>>2641241
lol, /sci/ is pretty bitchy and moronic this evening.

>>2641233
meta can also mean change, as in metamorphosis

meta has a lot of meanings, but yes, another layer of abstraction, is the usual one

>>2641244

>Proven wrong.
>Calls opponent petty teenage insults.

Never change, EK.

>>2641244
EK, take a look at your contribution to this thread. Now realize that you do this in every thread. Should you really be n /sci/? Again, you're not smart or intelligent, please leave.

>>2641247
i wasn't prven wrong

>>2641249
twat.

>>2641242

Nobody pointed out you were trolling?

>>2641202

Right.

If it wasn't anything to do with you you wouldn't have responded.

You're hilarious to argue with simply because you're extremely stubborn and refuse to admit you're wrong. You also never improve. Typical child.

>>2641246
for trolling on a troll meta is valid

meta has a very broad range of meanings. "upon" is one of them, so trolling upon a troll would very much be metatrolling

>>2641249
I kind of like the idea of trolls labeling themselves.

>>2641254
oh i see, you just cant reference posts correctly because you are a fucking moron.
...good to know....

>>2641250

Yes you were. You were shown to be a pathetic little faggot who doesn't contribute anything. What's even more hilarious is you just insult people when you can't back yourself up:

>>2641199
>>2641205
>>2641214
>>2641219
>>2641244
>>2641249

>>2641268

That last one was meant to be >>2641253

>>2641268
hmm, well lets see, has anyone at all in this thread except me thread contributed anything worthwhile?
no.
so pot. kettle. balck much?

i at least tried to start intersting discussion with this >>2641165

but you assholes seem more interested in making it a hate thread.

>>2641279

They would have been if you had fucked off. You do realise that it's your presence that's pissed people off, right?

No, it's not because we're jelly. No, it's not because you prove us wrong. It's because you contribute nothing, ruin threads and are an arrogant, self-centered, conceited, pathetic and annoy the shit out of everyone.

>>2641285

*are arrogant

Op here.

my trolling is a art.

>>2641279

Give up the tripcode and people wouldn't hate on you. Oh, I forgot, you want the attention.

>>2641285
lol yeah, that makes sense right?
IM the one who should fuck off even though i am the one who first made the post to try and initiate scientific discussion?

>lists of insults like a pathetic 5 year old
yeah, you really contrubute SOOOO much don't you?

>>2641296

>NO U

Never change, EK.

>>2641296

Really? To me it looked like you were looking down on 99% of the population with a bit of a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory thrown in on the side.

>>2641296
Stop being a baby (a geuss)

>>2641296

This thread was useless anyway. Quite frankly I saw it as a great opportunity to slam your ass.

>>2641305
how the hell am i looking down on anyone?
where did 99% come from?

you are just assuming things i have never said.

>>2641310
uhuh...
real mature.

>>2641317

What are you, 14?

Maturity is knowing when, not what, to do. To be honest it was in the vain hope that you might give up your trip like that other guy said or that you might fuck off for good.

>>2641312

It's called exaggeration. Have you never come across it before? Should I explain it to you?

>>2641328
patronising cunt.

>>2641334

Why does everyone love troll cock in their mouth?

>>2641341

it was worth it to see EK get shat on

All right, Im going to try to clear something up about modern intelligence.
Now adays, if you want to get a job that getss you laid, you need creativity, rational thinking skills, the ability for abstract thought. If you go upto a lady in abar and say that your a doctor, or an artist, or you make 70 grand a year, or that you developed your own gene therapy to help give your penis 'superior girth'. Your going to get laid.
If you tell her your a plumer, not so much.

And believ it or not, hitting something with a stick didn't take a great amount of intelligence.

EK, the reason people hate you isn't the reaction picks' or the fact that your a girl, or that you post in homework threads even.
Its because youdont contribute.
Look at CCM, he an underage furry, yet most posters on /sci/ enjoy haveing him around, he brings something to the board.

>>2641362
>Look at CCM, he an underage furry, yet most posters on /sci/ enjoy haveing him around, he brings something to the board.
I never realized how unlikely it is that /sci/ generally likes CCM until you summed it up.

>>2641362

Pretty much. The problem is that if you point this out to her she just gets angry and either leaves or shouts "no u".

>>2641362
this is unscientific nonsense, and used to justify your lack of sex

getting laid nowadays does not equal reproduction.

low income families (which correlates quite well with intelligence) tend to have more children.

>>2641405
samefag

If you're a janitor, prove it. Delete this NSFW thread >>2641143

>>2641415
>getting laid nowadays does not equal reproduction.

i'm smart enough to have never got any of the women i've banged pregnant

>>2641362
You cunt. I'm one of the largest contributors. Fucking anon cant even match me.

>>2641432
hey EK, we're both smart

lets non-reproductive sex and not pass on any of our smart genes.

>>2641432
hey EK, we're both smart

let's non-reproductive sex and not pass on any of our smart genes.

>>2641432
Oh yes, you contribute. You contribute in 9th grade physics homework threads and false information on the theory of evolution. I'm surprised people haven't already sent you loads of money and awards to your doorstep for that. Once again: you're not smart or intelligent, not even well-informed, please leave.

>>2641449
hey faggot

prove this wrong >>2641415

>>2641418

It wasn't actually. I was the guy that beat on EK, actually. Oh wait, that's you isn't it.

>>2641418
Just because someone says somthing you dont like doesn't mean hes/shes samefagging

.>>2641415

Valid point, however we also needto consider that nurture plays a great deal in determaning someones intelligence. And evolution takes time.

Because being smart isn't about knowing some school facts. Also we don't know how evolution affects human intellect and abstract thinking.

>>2641165
what he said

my favorite evidence for evolution?

Creationists often cite that there is no evidence of a bridge between relatively unintelligent monkeys and seemingly super intelligent human beings... This may be because they are it.

>>2641587

Fuck off EK.

i like how the atheists make creationism seem simple

>>2641165

to be fair, this doesn't happen in most of the first world.
just america.

>>2641608

go back to /b/ newfag

>>2641518
>Valid point, however we also need to consider that nurture plays a great deal in determaning someones intelligence. And evolution takes time.

okay now i know you are a retard. either you are saying acquired traits are passed on. (hurr durr). or that the stupid people having more kids are actually intelligent, but raised wrong so they grow up stupid. unexpressed genotypes play no part in evolution. so again this won't make us smarter in time.

>>2641635

no it happens all over the first world. more so in europe

>>2641663

Creationism is an extreme fringe in Europe, what are you talking about? Once again, piss of EK. You're not even hiding your writing style.

>>2641663

You've never stopped to consider that some cultures have more children than others? A child may be extremely intelligent, but if the intelligence is not nurtured it can sometimes be difficult to tell.

>>2641677
not EK.

i'm talking about stupid people getting hand outs and preventing natural selection of intelligence traits.

this is self evident. even steve jones thinks evolution has pretty much stopped in humans in "the west", yet this idea seems to have caused a shit storm is this thread.

>>2641684
yes, but this fact is not relevant to reproductive success.

unexpressed genotypes are irrelevant.

>>2641686
not EK here again

by the way. i don't agree that evolution has stopped at all. but the selection pressures have changed so much from your typical ones that the direction evolution is going is in part unknowable.

>Be Hume
>Absolutely destroy Creationism through Cause-Effect arguments
>Even discuss Problem of Evil
>Results in an overestimation of Free Will or an abandonment of traditional worship of God or turns him into a lesser being
>People hang on to their noble lie

>>2641663
Im saying that its not so simple, the reason smart people have smart kids and stupid people have stupid kids may very well be caused by how they are raised, not "lol bad genes".

>>2641692

You dont seriosly think that stupidity attracts more mates, do you?
Also should point out that people growing up with poor parents have higher rate of suicide and depression, lowering their chance of mating.
Your veiws on evolution are way more watered down and simplistic then the actual thing.