Posts by goldenjackal6

Daniel Chase13 said:🤦

And once again—for goodness' sake, I don't know how many times I have to say this—I am not Disney.
I'm not out here advocating for a Flat Earth. At least on that front, everyone should be able to tell that I'm definitely not Disney.

Even Peter, that loyal little apostle, felt the need to talk back to Jesus whenever it suited him.

Man, Elvis Presley, why are you being so sensitive? It’s on you to offer forgiveness, but let God handle the judgment. Isn't that how it works?

My buddy over there missed the mark a bit—Hitler used to target people struggling with serious mental health issues too.

Let’s be real: anyone peddling snake oil to folks who are already down is just straight-up trash. They’re basically profiting off someone else's misery just to line their own pockets.

I don't see anything twisted or unhinged about that post, aside from a few choice insults. The issue is you aren't actually reading for comprehension; you're just zeroing in on specific words and pulling them out of context to feed into whatever fantasy you've got going on.

Honestly, I’m dying to know which specific words you’re calling "twisted and sick."

Daniel Chase13 said:🤦

No, that's not it at all. Let me try explaining this one more time—since it seems I haven't been making myself clear enough:

When I talk about "mentally ill" individuals, I don't mean every single commenter who voiced an opinion against Dusparin's views, nor am I referring to everyone I happen to disagree with. I am specifically talking about that subset of commenters who used truly hateful, twisted, and deranged language toward him.
The issue isn't simple criticism or having a different perspective—it's the sheer shock of the vitriol and the disturbing thoughts being spewed out there.
Words and ideas like that... they honestly only come from deeply disturbed minds.
A person with a healthy, stable mindset simply wouldn't think to write something like that.

I have no clue what you personally consider to be "twisted and deranged" words. You sure talk a big game, but you aren't actually saying anything of substance.

Honestly, I’m pretty convinced you’re just making all this up as an excuse to go ahead and throw insults yourself.

It’s pretty ironic, honestly. Calling people mentally unstable just because you can't wrap your head around their opinion is a massive red flag that you might be the one struggling upstairs.

Pure pathology. 🤣

Honestly, I wouldn’t even be surprised if "Daniel Chase13" was actually just Duspara running a burner account. It wouldn't be the first time some demagogue used a fake handle just to pat themselves on the back and shill their own brand all over social media.

Charles Gonzalez19 said:I didn't even drop anyone's name in the post you just quoted.
Where on earth did you get this preposterous assumption that I was talking about him? 🙂

The whole thread is literally centered around one specific guy whose full name is right there in the title.

Charles Gonzalez19 said:Look, you’ve already decided that because someone is a racist misogynist who calls scientists and atheists "Satanists"—and labels frauds as "doctors"—they can't possibly have a legitimate, well-reasoned argument regarding vaccines. That right there? That’s a prejudice.

🤣

The funniest part? I haven't even bothered to write a single damn word about Elvis Presley yet.

Daniel Chase13 said:Come on now, let's not be so quick to judge—especially since you usually pride yourself on fighting against prejudice.
You really should come meet the guy for yourself.

What kind of prejudices am I even talking about?

Daniel Chase13 said:Come on now, try not to be so judgmental. You’re supposed to be the one fighting against bias, right?
Just come meet him in person.

Since his neighbors—you know, the people who actually live near him and know his character—voted him into the local city council ( maybe Duspara is actually a much different person behind closed doors than what you've made up in your head.

Yeah, well, Americans are pretty famous for picking the most talented smooth-talking demagogues whenever they head to the polls.

Everything is just falling apart. 🤣

Daniel Chase13 said:It seems like Duspara is always sitting right at the top of the discussion threads on this forum. 😉

https://i.ibb.co/mHHKKxP/fdsfds.png 🤣

Daniel Chase13 said:Atheism is perhaps the greatest fallacy out there—but let's be clear: those atheists who genuinely believe in it and argue from a place of sincerity aren't being dishonest. They aren't liars; they are simply people who truly believe what they hold to be true.

Wait, how exactly is atheism a lie?

Hannah Alvarez2 said:Man, this looks like something straight off of Spredex. 🤣

Yo man, when are you finally coming back to Earth?

analogwalker8 said:So, here's the thing—some smart people are straight-up villains, but let's be real, not every bad person out there has a high IQ. I wouldn't go so far as to say there’s a direct cause-and-effect link between being evil and being brilliant. Honestly, you've got plenty of folks who are just plain malicious or even a bit dim, but they lack the actual mental horsepower to pull off anything sophisticated. And look, we really need to stop treating high intelligence like it's some kind of monster under the bed. At the end of the day, what actually makes someone a solid member of society—or even just a decent human being on a spiritual level—isn't just their brainpower. It's their heart, their grit, their temperament, all that stuff. Plus, if we're talking about "intelligence," we have to remember it isn't just one single thing. You can have a killer or a master manipulator who is terrifyingly good at logical reasoning, yet they might be completely bankrupt when it comes to emotional intelligence or understanding themselves. There are layers to this, you know?

I don't know, man. I feel like the whole art of manipulation actually relies on having high emotional and intrapersonal intelligence. Empathy—which is probably what you’re getting at here—and EQ are two completely different, independent gears in the machine. They aren't the same thing.

Anything involving complex thought processes goes hand-in-hand with high intelligence, regardless of whether the person is a saint or a total jerk.

Antisocial behavior—what most people just call being "evil"—is mostly shaped by how someone was raised, not by their IQ. Honestly, there are way more average or even below-average people out there acting like villains; it’s just that because they lack the brainpower, they aren't nearly as successful at pulling off their schemes, so they end up being less sensational and often go completely unnoticed.

Contrary to what chocobella thinks, there’s a mountain of research done on prison populations that shows a massive overrepresentation of people with below-average intelligence and a significantly lower presence of high-IQ individuals compared to the general public. So, yeah, being "evil" definitely isn't a hallmark of high intelligence.

Then again, everyone’s idea of "high intelligence" is pretty subjective. To some folks, an average person might seem like a genius, while someone with a 150 IQ might actually come across as a complete moron simply because the gap in understanding is just too wide for them to bridge.

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?

Honestly, the damage done to society by people who weaponize their intelligence to manipulate millions just for their own selfish gain is immeasurable. We’re talking about those ideological and spiritual leaders who use their wits to pull strings on a massive scale just to line their own pockets or feed their egos. It's one thing to be smart, but using that brainpower to play God with people's lives? That's a whole different level of messed up.

Look, the guys you’re bringing up—I mean, sure, they’re notorious for being absolute monsters and having some seriously messed up pathology—but they didn't actually leave this massive, lasting scar on society at large. I mean, unless your definition of "society" is strictly limited to the tiny group of people who actually crossed paths with their victims, which, let's be honest, is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the country.

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?

Look, we can talk about extreme pathology all day long if we want to, but let's be real: not a single one of those types actually makes it in a modern corporate environment. It just doesn't work.

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?

Honestly, if you really sit down and think about it, the human brain is basically just a high-end computer. It’s all processing power, inputs, and outputs. We like to act all sophisticated, but at the end of the day, we're just running complex biological software. You've got your hardware—the neurons and all that physical stuff—and then you've got the software, which is our consciousness and everything else. It's wild when you consider how much data we're actually crunching every single second without even realizing it. It makes you wonder where the line is between a machine and a person, you know?

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?

They aren't born that way, but they grew up in incredibly dysfunctional homes, totally cut off from any kind of empathy or positive reinforcement. They were constantly exposed to violence, whether they were the ones being hit or just watching it happen. Because that’s their baseline reality, violence actually makes sense to them. Their intelligence just gives them the tools to carry out their crimes more efficiently and come up with better excuses for why they did it.

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?

Honestly, that sounds like a totally arbitrary conclusion that doesn't hold water. One major tragedy doesn't just flip a switch and turn someone into a sadistic psychopath.

What these types—serial killers, I mean—actually have in common is narcissism. It’s all about satisfying their own impulses. They see themselves as untouchable, the smartest guys in the room, superior to everyone else, and basically infallible. Because of that, they can't even wrap their heads around the concept of consequences. In their own minds, they're gods; consequences simply don't exist for them.

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?

Being highly intelligent doesn't make you immune to mental illness. If anything, there's often a higher tendency toward developing certain psychological issues in people with higher IQs.

People who aren't particularly bright usually have a seriously warped view of what high intelligence actually is. They treat it like some sort of "third eye" that unlocks all the secrets of the universe, expecting these people to act like some hybrid reincarnation of Jesus Christ and Stephen Hawking. It couldn't be further from the truth; it's a double-edged sword, not some magical superpower.