Latest Episode
Play

Go Back   Keith and The Girl Forums Keith and The Girl Forums Talk Shite

Talk Shite General discussion

View Poll Results: Is Sarah Palin Retarded?
Sarah Palin is a fucking retard 115 63.89%
Sarah Palin acts retarded but she doesn't look it 21 11.67%
Sarah Palin is slightly retarded, the rest is just for attention 27 15.00%
Sarah Palin is NOT retarded and as a retard I find this poll offensive 3 1.67%
I read all the options, where's the one that says she's a retard, I want that one 14 7.78%
Voters: 180. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-14-2010, 03:13 PM   #71 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
BrownEyedBtch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 879
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayroob View Post
EDIT: As an aside, the thing I do like about these kinds of things is that there are charts and graphs. And I love charts and graphs, and even more than regular charts and graphs I love charts and graphs with reanimated corpse at an x intercept. CHARTS AND GRAPHS.
As a sidenote, I wish I had known to pay you to take my Behavioral Science and Statistics class before I admitted to my teacher I just wasn't getting it. I'm not a math person by any stretch of the imagination. Your charts made it a lot easier for me already. Team Hayroob!
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 05:04 PM   #72 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Indian Territory
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkenstein View Post
Substitute "Moron" with "scumbag" and i'll agree with you.
fair enough - done
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 05:13 PM   #73 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Indian Territory
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
This is how smart people debate?

I'm called a caveman for just wanting to punch a man in the face?

I say nay, sirs and ladies. I say nay.
There was a day, not many years ago, that you could see a good fight in the US house of rep. It would be good to go back to that norm.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 05:57 PM   #74 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
spooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by garrym13 View Post
Spooks, I never put forth any theory. I asked you a question, hoping to get an answer. For you to be so against this thread, you sure do visit it a lot. Surely, you have something better to do than torment yourself in a thread that you so disdain.
No, you didn't put forth a theory, I extended your logic on my own for entertainment purposes. I would like to point out, though, that the last half of your post makes no sense. Extending that logic, you would say if MLK was so against segregation, he should have not been down in the thick of it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hayroob View Post
You asked a question I gave an answer you asked the same question again I gave a more detailed answer and then expanded on those details to make sure you were able to track what I was saying. You claim you understood what I said but that I didn't answer your question. As far as I'm concerned if you don't see how plainly I've laid out my answer to your question, then I'm not sure you can be helped.

One last try and then I'm moving on: you asked if understating qualifies as egregious an error as overstating. This is to some extent true, but none of the examples you put forward applied because no one in this thread has posted an opinion that could be labeled unreasonably low. Feel free to refer back to earlier posts and charts for details on why your assertions about the behavior of the posters in this thread is simply wrong.
Done talking with you, lets see if the peanut gallery can help.

Did ANYONE else see him actually say double standard or bell curve in response(the BS graph, while funny, doesn't qualify)? I see where he says there is truth, finally, that understating is as bad as overstating. But I missed where he plainly responded. Just post the quote, I missed it, apologies in advance. Then I would be able to actually respond properly, maybe with graphs of my own.

And can someone explain to me why he(hayroob) is the gold standard in determining what I consider reasonable? I believe my own opinion of Palin's intelligence is on the low side of the truth(her IQ, I estimate between 90 and maybe 110), with "fucking retarded" being the dumbest allowable in the poll, far below "slightly retarded" and the majority of people picking it, I don't see why the majority can't just be unreasonably wrong.

Allow me clarify. Does it sound reasonable to say "fucking retarded" sounds below mild mental retardation? I think so, that would mean she isn't capable of even basic human hygiene. She doesn't seem unwashed to me. Is "fucking retarded" below moderate mental retardation? Perhaps. Is it closest to severe mental retardation? That sounds about right in my interpretation, putting her IQ between 20 and 34. That just sounds unreasonable, regardless of how many voted for it.

All that is off the point, though. hayroob would have to support my logic when I say that anyone in "defense of this dummy(hayroob) forces me to label you as a dummy dumb dumb and take anything you say going forward as suspect." According to everyone's apparent support of this notion, this is perfectly reasonable. Maybe I should put it in a self dismissing graph like hayroob's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoav View Post
i thought laughing and stupid shit was the point of the forums... most people are gluttons for that kind of thing, so i dunno how you're getting your fill if not via supplementation on the forums.
Talk shite is a bit wider of a brush than that, but wouldn't you agree this thread is/has become stupid shit and people are laughing? I know I am.

Well, not this morning, which sucks. Maybe I need another cup of coffee. I come here for the lulz, and they seem to all be missing.

MORE GRAPHS!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by thepetek View Post
To be fair, to really follow Spooky's diet, you can't just eat chicken. You have to spend your days cleaning up after a slob roommate and night shivering like a rain soaked rage filled chihuahua about having to clean up after said roommate until you finally snap and yell at him. It should be called the Mexican maid diet.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 06:52 PM   #75 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
garrym13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Edmond, OK
Posts: 165
Spooks, you do realize that a debate about Palin's brains is quite different than segregation don't you?
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 07:04 PM   #76 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
BrownEyedBtch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 879
Spooky would rather mock everyone else's lack of interest to his standards about American politics than start his own thread.

Palin is functionally retarded.

Does that sum it up nicely?
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 07:50 PM   #77 (permalink)
Senior Member
57-hour Marathon 2015 Kickstarter Backer54-hour Marathon 2013 Kickstarter Backer
 
DWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,046
I agree with Mrs. Palin's policies and think her political experience makes her the ideal 2012 GOP Candidate.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 07:59 PM   #78 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hayroob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Detroitish
Posts: 1,025
Spooky said:
"Would I be correct in assuming that your interpretation is, the further away from the truth you skew her intelligence, the more "dummy dumb dumb" you are?

What then, does it say about intelligence when one understates her intelligence?

Bell curve or double standard?"

The first part is not entirely unreasonable but I don't think a bell curve or a double standard are good descriptors and also I don't concede that even with a bell curve that anything I had said would be unreasonable so I said:

"I don't believe I've portrayed Palins intelligence as anything outside where it is reasonably assumed to be. She is not functionally disabled, she is smarter than your average fry cook, but for someone aspiring to high office she is an incredible dummy dumb. On a bell curve of what could objectively be called her actual intelligence I might come in a little low but i'd be pretty darn close."

Spooky said:
"I just asked questions, I didn't pass judgment. I applied your rules to yourself, so it's your bell curve, not mine."

It's definitely not my bell curve, I never suggested or endorsed the idea of bell curve. I only pointed to the fact that even if it were valid, your logic still wouldn't carry.

Keith said:
"People like to say "uneducated." No one can be called stupid.

Not only do I believe she's stupid, I sincerely believe she's retarded."

Spooky said:
"That puts garrym13 and hayroob in quite a pickle. So either their fearless leader is a dummy dumb or they need to reconsider their views. Either way, their world is rocked."

This is not only attributing your metric to me falsely, but it is applying it poorly and without careful thought for what a good description of the available positions might be. So to make that clear I said:

"I am in no pickle, you arbitrarily created a metric I never consented to the validity of. And then in order for your false metric to hold you assigned your perception of her intelligence to be the objective truth. My assertions thus far have only been that even by your metric I would stand by any statements I've made about her intelligence and that she is of an unimpressive intellect by virtually any reasonable metric."

Spooky said:
"I said I assumed that was your view, you replied without correction to my very logical If/Then statement, what am I supposed to think? If you think it should be a double standard instead of a bell curve, that's up to you, just say so. Granted, you come out looking industrial grade stupid if you choose that option, opening a wide door for people to poke fun at your intelligence. Especially me.

If you thought it was an assumption pulled from thin air, maybe you should stop tossing around the tough vocabulary and focus a bit more on clarity in your vernacular. I mean, read your last sentence(nevermind all the words you misuse), I think it speaks volumes about the jumbled mess going on in your head.

Also, Keith is making the funny, he isn't parroting it. That's another big difference.

Waiting on that clarification, dummy(I get to call you dummy by your own standards, at least until you clarify your views)."

I don't concede that any of the things I've said are inaccurate and I worked to clear up my position since you were stuck in this myopic view where some part of your statements being partially true proved the rest of your entirely false statements to be somehow true. In order to explain why I think what I said and what many others have is reasonable I attempted to explain the idea of range where statements are reasonable that could not be effectively described either by a bell curve or a double standard. So I said:

"Again assigning an either/or of a bell curve or double standard is you projecting what you believe to be my reasoning instead of my actual reasoning.

Since you need to walked by the hand like the petulant (gee gawrsh a turribly big word, prolly shulldnt do dat) child you are:

I believe Sarah Palin to be of an intelligence completely unacceptable for a person aspiring to any type of high office. I believe her capacity for abstract reasoning is very, very low and that she has assumed her political ideology from a very rudimentary understanding of the neo conservative platform that fits well with her again very rudimentary understanding of the Christian faith.

I also believe that a well reasoned case could be made that she is much less intelligent than I perceive her to be. It is possible that while she has basic reasoning and lingual facilities she might be of the intellectual capacity of someone who is categorically handicapped mentally. While this is not my position I could see a person arriving here.

On the other hand I do not believe that any reasonable case could be made that she is actually intelligent and just behaves and speaks as a person who is much, much less intelligent."

Spooky said:
"fail.

Let me quote myself:
"Would I be correct in assuming that your interpretation is, the further away from the truth you skew her intelligence, the more "dummy dumb dumb" you are?

What then, does it say about intelligence when one understates her intelligence?

Bell curve or double standard?"

You really think you answered those questions? We aren't even on the same page. No wonder you misuse words like arbitrary(though I can't explain your drifting tenses in that last sentence I spoke of)."

While I did not directly say the words understating, I did in great detail explain, repeatedly, why it would be more acceptable in this case to understate her intelligence than to overstate it. Explaining what I consider to be a reasonable metric and how I would classify the statements made thus far in the threads is more than enough for any reasonable person to draw conclusions from. But not for spooky so I said:

"A bell curve is centered on the mean and moves out uniformly in standard deviations.

Insert Graph Here

It implies that there is a center from which to deviate and in this case deviation in either direction would imply distance from actual intelligence.

But a much more reasonable way to describe this situation is that there a plateau of reasonable positions.

Insert Graph Here

While there is a space at the start of the chart where someone could understate her intelligence and be seen as unreasonable, it is a very small space and one that no one in this thread has stepped into.

The much larger space where a person could be labeled unreasonable is in the portion where they've overstated her intelligence."

The space below basic linguistic faculties is clearly marked as unreasonable, making it more clear than that verges on ridiculous, but spooky lives to be ridiculous. So I said:

"you asked if understating qualifies as egregious an error as overstating. This is to some extent true, but none of the examples you put forward applied because no one in this thread has posted an opinion that could be labeled unreasonably low. Feel free to refer back to earlier posts and charts for details on why your assertions about the behavior of the posters in this thread is simply wrong."

This apparently was plain enough but then Spooks goes left into crazy land:

"No, you didn't put forth a theory, I extended your logic on my own for entertainment purposes. I would like to point out, though, that the last half of your post makes no sense. Extending that logic, you would say if MLK was so against segregation, he should have not been down in the thick of it?"

That is just pure jibberish. You've extended your false extension of logic I never put forward into a place that makes absolutely no sense to anyone.

Spooks Continues:
"Did ANYONE else see him actually say double standard or bell curve in response(the BS graph, while funny, doesn't qualify)? I see where he says there is truth, finally, that understating is as bad as overstating. But I missed where he plainly responded. Just post the quote, I missed it, apologies in advance. Then I would be able to actually respond properly, maybe with graphs of my own."

How is describing a better metric than you put forward and then backing up that metric with easy to follow illustrations a bad thing. If you can't follow the pretty pictures then you need to take a basic geometry class. Also I hope I've quoted plainly enough for you.

Spooks Continues:
"And can someone explain to me why he(hayroob) is the gold standard in determining what I consider reasonable? I believe my own opinion of Palin's intelligence is on the low side of the truth(her IQ, I estimate between 90 and maybe 110), with "fucking retarded" being the dumbest allowable in the poll, far below "slightly retarded" and the majority of people picking it, I don't see why the majority can't just be unreasonably wrong.

Allow me clarify. Does it sound reasonable to say "fucking retarded" sounds below mild mental retardation? I think so, that would mean she isn't capable of even basic human hygiene. She doesn't seem unwashed to me. Is "fucking retarded" below moderate mental retardation? Perhaps. Is it closest to severe mental retardation? That sounds about right in my interpretation, putting her IQ between 20 and 34. That just sounds unreasonable, regardless of how many voted for it."

This is arbitrary, "Fucking Retarded" is a broad term that means a lot of things to a lot of people. If you want to debate the meaning of this statement than we can do that, but up until now I think I've been pretty clear about where I stand on that term.

Spooks Continues:
"All that is off the point, though. hayroob would have to support my logic when I say that anyone in "defense of this dummy(hayroob) forces me to label you as a dummy dumb dumb and take anything you say going forward as suspect." According to everyone's apparent support of this notion, this is perfectly reasonable. Maybe I should put it in a self dismissing graph like hayroob's."

I'll take this one backwards. My graph was spot on and in no way self dismissing. It described in great detail exactly where I stand and how I approached the statement that initiated this where I dismissed Really as suspect. My logic is self consistent and easy to follow.
As for any way you choose to label me, if you want to put forward a self consistent well documented metric by which you judge the statements made in this thread and show me why I fall into an unreasonable space then you can feel free to call dummy dumb all day long and I promise not to hold it against you. Just don't claim that the metric you made up somehow mandates that my "world is rocked" based on the things Keith says, because that, like the bulk of the things you've said would be entirely false.
__________________
If you like the KATG app feel free to kick in some bucks (or don't)
KATGIPHONE Donation

Last edited by hayroob; 02-14-2010 at 08:01 PM.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 07:59 PM   #79 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hayroob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Detroitish
Posts: 1,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWarrior View Post
I agree with Mrs. Palin's policies and think her political experience makes her the ideal 2012 GOP Candidate.
Your insight shows that you are indeed qualified to be her running mate.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 08:25 PM   #80 (permalink)
Senior Member
57-hour Marathon 2015 Kickstarter Backer54-hour Marathon 2013 Kickstarter Backer
 
DWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayroob View Post
Your insight shows that you are indeed qualified to be her running mate.
It would be an honor.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
Keith and The GirlAd Management plugin by RedTyger