Posts by Henry Sanchez2

Jacob Cooper5 said:There are people out there with above-average intelligence who do nothing but cause massive damage to society.
Just look at some of the infamous criminals:
Edmund Kemper: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile
Charlene Gallego: IQ 160, involved in serial killings and keeping sex slaves alongside her husband
Jeffrey Dahmer: IQ 145, serial killer, necrophile, cannibal
Ted Bundy IQ 135: serial rapist and brutal murderer

Now, these are just examples from the extreme end of the spectrum—but there are plenty of others who find success in high-society jobs while being absolutely devastating to everyone around them.

The whole thing about measuring intelligence relies on standardized testing, and honestly... that’s where the potential problem lies.
Those tests basically boil down to a mathematical principle of problem-solving. It's almost as if they were designed for a computer.
But even with computers, you have to feed them every single parameter involved in a situation to actually solve it. That’s impossible for humans because recognizing all the variables and their complex interactions during a process requires something much deeper than just computational efficiency.
What we *can* do is make the best possible use of the information available to us. I really think that should be the deciding factor when evaluating true intelligence.
The criminals I mentioned didn't grow up in some isolated jungle, cut off from information. Their intelligence should have been more than enough to connect their actions to the actual meaning and consequences within their own environment. The "meaning" here is that you're doing things that make people miserable—and the consequence is that unhappy people become prone to aggression and all sorts of socially destructive deviations that spread like a disease through your community. And let's be real... do you really think you'll be spared once that sickness starts spreading?

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate intelligence through both micro and macro perspectives? It's hard for me to accept that someone can be "above average" in intelligence if that intellect doesn't include the basic math of multiplying misery—creating an unhappy society where your own risk of becoming a victim of violence increases.

What do you guys think?

Personally, I think you're totally swinging and missing with that "macro perspective" argument.
Intelligence doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ethics or psychopathology.

Jessica Morris6 said:Maybe there’s just something glitching on your end or some setting that isn't quite right... Here is how your post actually looks to everyone else.
https://abload.de/img/capturepukdx.png

Got it. Maybe I need to update my Flash Player or something...
Or maybe I've just cluttered my browsers with way too many ad blockers. I've been a bit paranoid ever since they arrested Julian Assange. 😬

Anyway, I'd rather not get banned here—or worse...

Jessica Morris6 said:There, it worked for you. And honestly, I think using the Forum icon would do the trick for this board too...

I’m seeing absolutely nothing on my end—not logged in, not logged out, not even high on something. Tried it in both Safari and Edge, nothing. But hey, if everyone else is seeing it, I guess I can use their experience as a baseline.
Much appreciated, man. 👍

Another day in paradise 🙂 😵 🙈
Hey, it looks like half my emojis aren't even showing up... 😲

Maybe it’s just my setup—I could be running ancient drivers, outdated software, or some crusty old hardware that belongs in a museum.
Nowadays, everyone is just glued to those little pocket-sized TVs, scrolling away 🙄

Whatever. Thanks for trying to help, guys. I'll figure it out eventually.

Here we go again with the local stuff, @Jessica Morris6.
I’m not interested in clicking through some cluttered, archaic website where I have no clue what they’re even asking—whether I agree to terms or if I checked a certain box—only to end up wrestling with translators just to figure out what some local tech nerd was trying to say in his weird jargon. 🤷
I want something in English, something the whole world actually understands. 😁

Like this?

hmmm...



Is it just me, or is nobody else seeing this image?

Being a neurotic eco-fanatic is a sin, but I guess under certain circumstances, it's fine. Even when it is "fine," they're just spammers dumping piles of links that nobody clicks. They don't even click them themselves—they don't actually read for comprehension—so why should anyone else bother?

Zachary Mendoza2... wow, that's low. Really low. I honestly didn't expect that from you.

Look, I don't just pull my claims out of thin air; I back them up with legitimate links—unlike a lot of the armchair philosophers floating around this thread. If that’s somehow too mentally taxing for some people, and it's easier to just slap a "spammer" label on me... then fine. Even after I provide word-for-word translations of what actual scientific papers say, play videos where experts state things clearly, or present images and data that speak for themselves without me saying a word... am I still just a "spammer" who doesn't understand what they read?
Go ahead, slap the label on me and delete my stuff since you can't actually shut me down with real arguments, right? ☕

If you want to challenge me, do it properly over in the thread about the consequences of AGW. Tell me if I actually wrote something wrong instead of resorting to this cheap labeling. Actually, don't come at me—come at the scientists I'm citing. You could even send a peer-review critique to any of the geoscience sites I've linked. We'd all be thrilled to read that here on this obscure forum, which is basically the biggest one in the US.
The fact that you—and other "big shots" around here—refuse to read what world-renowned experts in their fields are saying... well, it's surprising you don't realize that ignorance isn't a valid scientific argument.

And why did my last two posts vanish? Are we playing games with Orwellian doublethink again?

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Nah. From what I can see, that post is just pushing back against green extremism just as hard as it’s pushing back against laissez-faire extremism. It's a legitimate stance—actually, it's a pretty vital one to take in this era of absolute madness, regardless of what color or ideology is driving the insanity. Besides, the tone of that post fits perfectly with the vibe of the debate you basically set the pace for in the first place.

What kind of dark "green extremism" are we even talking about here?
If astrophysicists announced tomorrow that an asteroid was barreling toward us next year—and that we needed to build a rocket immediately to deflect it—would anyone actually call that "green extremism"?
Since when have they suddenly become scientists? The whole concept of planetary disciplines—it’s such a massive, sweeping idea that people love to throw around when they want to sound profound. But honestly? It often feels like we're just trying to force a square peg into a round hole by pretending everything from geology to sociology fits under one giant umbrella. It's an attempt to unify the chaos, sure, but sometimes you have to wonder if we aren't just overcomplicating things to make ourselves feel more organized than we actually are. "Green extremists"? Please—that’s just a label Trump and his band of fossil fuel fossils slapped on them to shut down the conversation. Look, Biden, maybe you haven't quite caught on yet, but I'm the one actually pointing out that planting trees isn't some magic fix for everything.
Get your head in the game... did you actually sit down and read what I’m saying, or are you just skimming the surface? Sites like— MIT Technology Review i Scientific American Are these sites just propaganda outlets for green extremists? 😵 🤦

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Look, if that post actually got under your skin, maybe you should just stay out of the ring entirely. It’s pretty obvious you aren't exactly in fighting shape right now.

Nah, I’m in peak condition—it’s just that the ref clearly lost his compass. Or maybe he just got spooked by the crowd in the tunnel.
Look, just let us fight by the rules of the game. And hey—maybe try actually reading through them for once, assuming you haven't forgotten how to do that.
The guy I mentioned? He’s basically hunting down anyone whose only "crime" is actually doing real science or trying to be an altruist. It's pretty much a witch hunt against people who just want to help.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Whatever. Let's be real—every single one of these politicians is a demagogue by definition. If they actually stuck to the truth, they wouldn't stand a chance at grabbing power or getting anything done. 🙂

Oh, so we’re at the stage where we’ve started throwing insults now? 🙂 What's with this "you politicians" nonsense? I've spent my entire life earning my keep through honest, hard work.
Since when did a scientifically determined fact stop being the truth and start being just more demagoguery?
What is wrong with you, man? You used to be rational.

Alright, fine. If we’re going to dive into how AGW impacts the natural sciences—specifically who’s actually screwing things up when it comes to politicizing science—then let's go. No problem—I’ve got a mountain of material on that, too. Just don't pull any hypocritical stunts and ban me for "politicizing the topic" when you let everyone else get away with it.

And honestly, your grandfather wouldn't have the stomach for this kind of nonsense.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:I have no idea what you’re talking about—you didn't even include a link. As far as I'm concerned, you can tear apart whoever you want at GE if they actually deserve it.

How am I not? The link is right there along with the quote in the first post... wait, are you seriously telling me this doesn't look like some kind of * demagogue's
garbage?

Zachary Mendoza2 said:The other moderators are just coasting toward retirement, and I’d appreciate it if you didn't drag their names through the mud for no reason. Besides, since you have admin privileges, you can basically wipe someone out with a few clicks if they start causing too much trouble.

Classic. 🙄 "Don't rock the boat too much, or you might upset someone from the holy trinity of administration, sponsors, and relatives."
Is asking for a shred of ethical principle really too much to expect on these forums nowadays?

*Demagoguery is a tactic used by a demagogue; it involves using false statements and empty promises to exploit public fears, inciting hatred, greed, and paranoia.

Historically speaking, a demagogue in ancient Greece was a populist orator who acted as a representative of the people. Today, it refers to an individual, usually a politician, who gains the trust of the masses through false promises, sensationalist accusations, and illusions to manipulate their behavior. Anything described as demagogic is inherently false and intentionally deceptive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagoguery

I could spend all day tearing their arguments apart until they’re blue in the face, but if we have to go back to debunking every single page from scratch, when are we ever actually going to get around to discussing the consequences of AGW?
That’s exactly what these trolls want—to sow doubt, distract everyone, and just throw sand in the public's eyes.

And look, I hate that I have to call you out specifically, Zachary Mendoza2, mostly because it feels like the rest of the PZ moderators have gone MIA. If they've checked out, can management please appoint some new ones? Ideally, someone who isn't part of the crowd of pseudoscientific AGW deniers 😁

Also, am I allowed to give Exiloner a well-deserved verbal beatdown, since you didn't ban him for the absolute garbage he just posted? 😁

Alright :get those drills ready:

Good grief, Zachary Mendoza2—I honestly thought you were one of the few people here actually worth listening to... what on earth happened to you?

William Chavez5 said:Stay out of this. It really isn't your business to be meddling in... A woman might just be telling herself these things because she harbors a deep desire to be a mother someday, and it’s simply too painful for her to admit—to herself, to you, or even to them—that she might never have that chance. Furthermore, bringing up the idea of a child and making such talk given the severity of her illness... it frankly shows a staggering lack of empathy and a failure to truly understand another living soul. Someone who is ill needs nothing but support and encouragement right now, without anyone forcing their predictions or long-term plans upon them. She needs to focus entirely on her health, and everything else is secondary at this moment...

No matter how you slice it, the responsibility of caring for a potential baby would fall squarely on her partner's shoulders, which gives him every right to be the one making the decisions. And another thing, surely her choice of partner wasn't purely accidental? Is her entire life's purpose merely to produce a child? Surely not. She isn't even healthy right now, let alone in a position to go looking for some new partner who would actually want to start a family with a woman whose very presence tomorrow is an uncertainty...

Have you even stopped to consider how much devastation her partner and that baby would face if, God forbid, she were gone, leaving them to carry the crushing guilt of knowing they took such a risk?

I mean, I think we all pretty much understand how the male brain works when libido is driving the bus—it's basically "screw the consequences, just keep going while you can."

So, what exactly is so confusing about the Demonic Males hypothesis?

Look, I’ll lead by apologizing for how aggressive I was earlier. Looking back, I sound pretty obnoxious—honestly, I’m surprised I didn't get slapped with a permanent ban or at least a massive strike—but my point stands. The fact that the mods stay silent when discussions shift toward the actual physical impact humans have on this planet which is a matter of hard, quantifiable data found in countless peer-reviewed studies has turned what used to be a top-tier, genuinely insightful subforum into a circus of pseudo-politics and fake ethics. It used to be the crown jewel of this entire site, but now it’s just degraded.
And yeah, sorry about that cheap attempt at blackmail—I know that kind of tactic never works around here. 😉

To get straight to the point: Have the people here who actually represent scientific thought given up on defending it in public? And if they have—why exactly?

Aaron Anderson51 said:Here’s the deal: my husband has this buddy who’s been seeing the same girl for about three years now. They’re both in their early thirties, and they’ve already done the whole family introduction thing where everyone hangs out...
The thing is, she’s dealing with some heavy stuff—malignant ovarian tumors. She’s had surgeries and chemo multiple times, but the tumors just keep coming back every single time. Her doctors are basically telling her there’s only one way to actually get healthy: she needs to have both ovaries and her uterus removed.
But she’s digging her heels in because she wants kids, so she’s putting off the surgery to hold onto that chance. She knows he isn't ready for marriage or fatherhood either, so she's willing to wait another two or three years, even if it means wrecking her hormonal balance or, honestly, risking her life given what she's fighting...

So, here’s where the drama starts. My husband let it slip to me that her boyfriend actually has zero interest in having kids with her—not now, not ever. I totally lost it because, given everything she's going through, that feels incredibly selfish and just plain dishonest.
When I pressed him on why the guy is wasting both of their lives if there's no future there, he just shut down and wouldn't say another word...

I really want to know what you guys think. Am I just being dramatic over nothing, or am I right to be pissed? And should I tell her what he said?
What’s eating at me most is that I have no clue if they’ve even talked about this. I assume they have, but I can't help but wonder if he's giving her the straight truth or if he's just sugarcoating it, saying "not right now" when he really means "never."
Because if he's lying, she's living in this total fantasy land, throwing away her health and her time on someone who isn't going to give her what she needs... maybe even losing her last shot at being a mother in the process.

If she actually knew the truth, she’d have two real paths: 1. If she loves him enough to accept his stance, she could go ahead with the surgery and save her life. 2. Or, she could stop wasting her breath on him and find someone else who actually wants the same things she does.

Then there’s that other classic scenario... where he *has* told her everything, but she’s doing that thing women sometimes do where she thinks she can change his mind if she just waits long enough...

What would you do if you were in my shoes? Would you step in and talk to her, or just stay out of it and let them handle their own mess? Especially since if I do stick my nose in, it’s definitely going to cause a massive blowout in my own relationship too...

There’s also a third scenario: she gets that surgery ASAP, and then down the road when things settle, they adopt an orphan—of which there are plenty. Look, once you bring a child into the world, you're locked in for life; you can't just walk away from that responsibility. Maybe that friend of yours realizes that too—maybe he isn't just acting out of pure selfishness (assuming money or other obligations aren't driving the bus)—but even then, dealing with a potentially terminal illness is hardly a "favorable" situation.

Aaron Anderson51 said:Here’s the deal: my husband has this buddy who’s been seeing the same girl for about three years now. They’re both in their early thirties, and they’ve already done the whole family introduction thing where everyone hangs out...
The thing is, she’s dealing with some heavy stuff—malignant ovarian tumors. She’s had surgeries and chemo multiple times, but the tumors just keep coming back every single time. Her doctors are basically telling her there’s only one way to actually get healthy: she needs to have both ovaries and her uterus removed.
But she’s digging her heels in because she wants kids, so she’s putting off the surgery to hold onto that chance. She knows he isn't ready for marriage or fatherhood either, so she's willing to wait another two or three years, even if it means wrecking her hormonal balance or, honestly, risking her life given what she's fighting...

So, here’s where the drama starts. My husband let it slip to me that her boyfriend actually has zero interest in having kids with her—not now, not ever. I totally lost it because, given everything she's going through, that feels incredibly selfish and just plain dishonest.
When I pressed him on why the guy is wasting both of their lives if there's no future there, he just shut down and wouldn't say another word...

I really want to know what you guys think. Am I just being dramatic over nothing, or am I right to be pissed? And should I tell her what he said?
What’s eating at me most is that I have no clue if they’ve even talked about this. I assume they have, but I can't help but wonder if he's giving her the straight truth or if he's just sugarcoating it, saying "not right now" when he really means "never."
Because if he's lying, she's living in this total fantasy land, throwing away her health and her time on someone who isn't going to give her what she needs... maybe even losing her last shot at being a mother in the process.

If she actually knew the truth, she’d have two real paths: 1. If she loves him enough to accept his stance, she could go ahead with the surgery and save her life. 2. Or, she could stop wasting her breath on him and find someone else who actually wants the same things she does.

Then there’s that other classic scenario... where he *has* told her everything, but she’s doing that thing women sometimes do where she thinks she can change his mind if she just waits long enough...

What would you do if you were in my shoes? Would you step in and talk to her, or just stay out of it and let them handle their own mess? Especially since if I do stick my nose in, it’s definitely going to cause a massive blowout in my own relationship too...

It really comes down to whether you want to spend your life watching from the sidelines or actually getting in the game.
And honestly? It might be worth taking a hard look at your own relationship, too—asking yourself how much you actually care about being with someone who refuses to leave their comfort zone, especially when it comes to respecting your values and having your back.

At the end of the day, anyone can give advice, but finding the right way to say it is the hard part. Sometimes, staying quiet does less damage than speaking up and making things worse.
Did I say "sometimes"? I meant almost always.
Look, there’s no perfect answer here. The old saying is true: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Every single comment in this thread holds some weight depending on which angle you're looking from.
Just do whatever your conscience tells you to do.

Look, McCarthyism, Orwellian doublethink, and Kafkaesque proceedings really shouldn't be lumped together under one subforum just because people want to use them as trendy labels... for instance:

Exiloner said:"Everything that needs to happen"?! Give me a break—that kind of anarchic logic is insane. It's like burning down an entire forest just so you have some empty space to plant a few trees 🤦. That’s the exact same bullshit: burning everything down just to build "everything" from scratch.

Honestly, the people who think in terms of "whatever it takes" terrify me. Those are the types who will end up killing you, themselves, their own families, and selling out their entire country and community all for the sake of some fixed, unyielding idea.

And please, don't pull that hypocritical "did anyone report the post?" routine again. Whether members reported them or not doesn't change the fact that this kind of labeling is constantly slipping through your fingers.
Sure, it'll be easiest for you to just wipe the slate clean like you always do—it's become a habit by now—but there's one little catch called a screen saver that's eventually going to come back and bite you in the ass. 😁

Jessica Morris6 said:imgur.com, postimages.org

USA wants you to sign up.
Honestly, just forget about it—I’m already over-registered with enough sites as it is.

And I have no clue what BuzzFeed is even asking for. Probably some nonsense.

BuzzFeed
2019 Copyright. All Rights Reserved.

The Sponsored Listings displayed above are served automatically by a third party. Neither the service provider nor the domain owner maintain any relationship with the advertisers. In case of trademark issues please contact the domain owner directly (contact information can be found in whois).

Is there actually a decent site out there where I can just click, paste an image from my hard drive, and call it a day—just like the good old days with Imgur? That's all I want! -as seen in the post?

Jeffrey Chase442 said:Seriously, what gives... TinyPic went belly up back in 2019—what kind of software are people even using to host images these days?

Yeah, I was wondering the exact same thing.

Terry Reed13 said:If you’re looking to talk about the American Civil War—specifically that whole messy dynamic between the North and the South—then let's get into it. It wasn't just some simple disagreement; it was a fundamental clash of two entirely different ways of life. You had the industrial powerhouse of the North staring down the agrarian, plantation-driven economy of the South, and once those tensions boiled over, there was no turning back. It’s one of those historical moments where you realize how deeply divided a single nation can actually become when its core values start pulling in opposite directions. 🤔 Even you aren't right on this one.

Southerners aren't actually claiming they aren't Americans—it’s just that losing the Civil War left a bitter taste in their mouths, along with all the baggage that comes with it. It’s not that being called an American bothers them; it’s more that they can't stand the fact that the capital is sitting way up North.

Exactly—that’s precisely why they fought. It was all about who gets to control the capital and where that seat of power sits—just like the territorial disputes you see over in Canada. And honestly? They don't seem to give a damn that a huge chunk of the population—whether they're Black, Latino, or just anyone else they consider an outsider—also goes by the name "American." 🤣

Terry Reed13 said:I’m telling you again—your comparison just doesn't hold water.

I don't know—you’ve really started playing games lately.