The Political Thread

[Van Buren Supernova]

Intelligence IS related to common sense.

 

But IQ score to intelligence, remains to be seen. There are a lot of people with high IQ but not common sense, and vice versa.

And if he had high score, that's the last straw.

 

I read he is not holding Eid dinner, a quite long traditions by previous president?

But I think it's better. Otherwise it could be super artificial and awkward, and why would anyone attend dinner host by someone who is so closemindedly judgemental about who they are?

[Surelock]

On the other hand, do any of you think it's possible that Sherlock has a high IQ but lacks some common sense?

[Arcadia]

He seems to lack much sense of self preservation, is that the same thing?

I'm still trying to parse the difference between IQ and intelligence. Of course, there's different kinds of intelligence too, just to complicate things. Alas, I don't have enough common sense to figure any of this out. :P

Another question in the game my friends and I were playing the other night was: "Name something you are afraid of that begins with "O". My answer: Orange president. :D

[Surelock]

Well IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient so it's kind of difficult to specify how it's difference from Intelligence.

 

In other news:

 

 

 

 

Wasn't Trump supposed to save U.S. jobs?

 

 

 

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

On the other hand, do any of you think it's possible that Sherlock has a high IQ but lacks some common sense?

Interesting question.

 

I believe there is no concrete answer for it.

It depends on how you define common sense I suppose.

 

To me, Sherlock definitely has good common sense, he understands things in not judgemental way (arguable!). He is not a racist, homophobic, sexist or xenophobic. I believe he looks at people, as people, flesh and blood which the only things that should differentiate them are their level of idiocy and what sides they are on. He doesn't judge people from attributes and labels, only idiots and bigots do so. And he knows how things work, that you don't go around boasting about doing something, WITHOUT the actual knowledge of knowing how it could be done. Boasting about things you know, that is different. Although it's not commonly desirable, I defend the right of capable people to boast, it's achievement and they sort of deserve it. That's why I don't have problem with Sherlock's arrogance.

 

But I have a lot of problems with people who are only good at talking. Especially those that people look up to, the biggest no no. Once you are not acting merely for your own behalf, you owe everyone who believes in you the best, the accurate, the correct way, the burden of moral and social resposibilities. That is how I look at politicians, religious leaders, teachers, parents. Don't screw up. Get your facts right because you are not speaking for yourself. And have good common sense because as now we see, the impact of having influential stupid person can make, it's disastrous.

 

That kind of common sense, Sherlock is one of the best. He may be judgemental in a way, but not in stupid way, he is open minded and know what is supposed to be.

 

 

However, if the definition of common sense lies on stuff like social awareness, manners, what is proper and not, I don't think he cares to be good at it. But I don't really put priority to these kind of common sense. To me, it's just standard set by people with particular views.

I do agree that if he chose occupations that requires him to be properly mannered, the common sense is for him to cater to that. But since he is not, I don't think it's the requirement, as said, it's not the common sense that me and most likely him find importance for.

In fact, I find "nice face mask" and fake politeness (not that I say there is no genuine politeness) much more disturbing than 'rude' honesty.

 

So yah, imho, in short: Sherlock has good common sense.

[Arcadia]

The Republicans failed to ram through their so-called "health care reform." Badly. Eh heh heh heh heh heh.
 
Not that they probably won't succeed eventually, but it's just so much fun to see them keep tripping over themselves. No doubt Trump will find a way to blame Hillary.

[Surelock]

Trump demonstrates to all men how not to behave around a female journalist:

 

https://twitter.com/CaitrionaPerry/status/879804904696496128

 

 

[Fantasy Lover]

 

 

The Republicans failed to ram through their so-called "health care reform." Badly. Eh heh heh heh heh heh.

 

Not that they probably won't succeed eventually, but it's just so much fun to see them keep tripping over themselves. No doubt Trump will find a way to blame Hillary.

or Obama.

[Pseudonym]

Apologies if this has already been posted - not followed this thread for a while. 

 

Interview with London Bridge first responder cop on his fight alone with the three terrorists. 

 

http://news.sky.com/story/hero-officer-describes-fight-with-london-bridge-attackers-10930282

[Arcadia]

Things like this is why I have a hard time hating cops like a proper liberal is supposed to.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Things like this is why I have a hard time hating cops like a proper liberal is supposed to.

Cops definitely should not be hated; however, bad cops need to be removed through proper legal chsnnels as they give their fellow cops a bad name.

[T.o.b.y]

Things like this is why I have a hard time hating cops like a proper liberal is supposed to.

Are we? Dunno, I have never been much afraid of the police but then, the German forces are different anyway. And what do people think would be a good alternative? No police and we all just get guns and try to protect our rights by ourselves? That doesn't sound very liberal to me...

[Pseudonym]

Ditto, I don't hate cops and have never assumed I should, maybe this is a European/American split. I'm sure some sections of society dislike them, but I don't think it's as big an issue as it seems to be in America. 

[Arcadia]

Well, I was being a bit facetious. But there's a lot of liberal angst about police right now, due to all the incidents of black men being killed by police. And while I don't deny that prejudice towards blacks exists, I find it difficult to automatically condemn the police for their actions, like some people seem to. I tend to assume there's more to the story than what we see on the news, rather than tending to assume the men killed were guiltless. A few people seem to think that makes me a bad liberal.

[Pseudonym]

Ah, I see. They do seem to be a bit trigger happy over there, but it's hard to tell what's actually going on - I don't like to make sweeping assumptions about the reality of other country's authorities (with the exception of the Trump). The case that was in court last week where the cop got off for killing a black guy looked pretty horrific. 

[Van Buren Supernova]

Yup, the problem with everything being in the open now, people are too quick to jump into assumptions. Everything should be case to case basis, I hate to say it, even for Trump. Ugh.

 

So, the ban is on?

[Surelock]

I tend to assume there's more to the story than what we see on the news, rather than tending to assume the men killed were guiltless. A few people seem to think that makes me a bad liberal.

 

I think these few people may take offense to your remark because ideally the police need a very good reason to shoot someone. 

 

Guns are deadly. Just because a police officer sees someone doing something that appears to be wrong doesn't mean they should immediately grab their gun and shoot. The police can't shoot you for any offense. You need to make a pretty big offense in order for an officer to fire his gun. Shooting a gun should be a last resort and ideally an officer should have a compelling reason to do so. 

 

I'm not sure what you exactly mean by when you say you believe 'there's more to the story'. The thing is even if there is more to story, is that enough to justify shooting a man?  As I said earlier, the reasons needed for an officer to shoot a man need to be compelling and compelling reasons are difficult to hide.

 

For example, suppose a black man takes out a gun first and threatens to shoot a hostage and then ends up getting shot by the police.  That would be a justified reason for an officer to use their guns to shoot a man. However it would also be difficult for the media to twist this story and make the officer look trigger happy. There was a compelling reason for the officer to use his gun (the black man threatened a hostage) and that compelling reason is difficult to hide.

 

However I don't see this applying to the majority of black men who have been shot by the police in the U.S. over the past few years. I'm not saying all the black men shot were 100% innocent. I believe a good number of them committed offenses but I think their offenses were minor and not something worth being shot over. However it looks like many members of the U.S. Police force shoot black men over any offense (e.g. drug trafficking etc). That's why I think so many liberals are quick to condemn the police. 

[Arcadia]

Ah, I see. They do seem to be a bit trigger happy over there, but it's hard to tell what's actually going on - I don't like to make sweeping assumptions about the reality of other country's authorities (with the exception of the Trump). The case that was in court last week where the cop got off for killing a black guy looked pretty horrific.

 

Yes it did, and from the outside looking in, I can't fathom how he got off. I do note that he was promptly fired once the trial was over, though. For whatever that might mean.

 

Yup, the problem with everything being in the open now, people are too quick to jump into assumptions. Everything should be case to case basis, I hate to say it, even for Trump. Ugh.

 

So, the ban is on?

 

​Apparently, to some extent and with several exceptions. But there's already questions of whether it affects immigrants or not, so expect more court cases.

 

 

I tend to assume there's more to the story than what we see on the news, rather than tending to assume the men killed were guiltless. A few people seem to think that makes me a bad liberal.

 

I think these few people may take offense to your remark because ideally the police need a very good reason to shoot someone. 

 

Guns are deadly. Just because a police officer sees someone doing something that appears to be wrong doesn't mean they should immediately grab their gun and shoot. The police can't shoot you for any offense. You need to make a pretty big offense in order for an officer to fire his gun. Shooting a gun should be a last resort and ideally an officer should have a compelling reason to do so. 

 

I'm not sure what you exactly mean by when you say you believe 'there's more to the story'. The thing is even if there is more to story, is that enough to justify shooting a man?  As I said earlier, the reasons needed for an officer to shoot a man need to be compelling and compelling reasons are difficult to hide.

 

For example, suppose a black man takes out a gun first and threatens to shoot a hostage and then ends up getting shot by the police.  That would be a justified reason for an officer to use their guns to shoot a man. However it would also be difficult for the media to twist this story and make the officer look trigger happy. There was a compelling reason for the officer to use his gun (the black man threatened a hostage) and that compelling reason is difficult to hide.

 

However I don't see this applying to the majority of black men who have been shot by the police in the U.S. over the past few years. I'm not saying all the black men shot were 100% innocent. I believe a good number of them committed offenses but I think their offenses were minor and not something worth being shot over. However it looks like many members of the U.S. Police force shoot black men over any offense (e.g. drug trafficking etc). That's why I think so many liberals are quick to condemn the police.

 

I essentially agree with you, and again, I was being a bit facetious ... I have a friend who won't even let me finish a sentence if she thinks I'm not toeing the "liberal line" (as she defines it) and it's that kind of thing I had in mind when I said it. The idea that I'm not "allowed" to consider the other side of the story. I smack her upside the head when she gets like that and we get on with it.

 

But, basically, yeah, I agree that this country is far, far too enamored with using guns to solve problems. Mix that with an innate bent towards racial profiling, and voila!  you have a civil rights crisis.

 

From what little I know of the most recent case, the defense was able to convince the jury that the officer genuinely thought his life was being threatened, and that made the shooting justified. However, his department apparently saw it otherwise, and fired him. I tend to agree with his department; but I wasn't in the courtroom. And we've destroyed the trust in so many of our institutions in this country, I guess I'm just reluctant to see the same thing happen to the jury system. *sigh* I don't much like the world I'm living in right now.

[Pseudonym]

So, my friend emailed this to me today. Might not be so amusing if you're not familiar with Theresa May, but those of you who said you liked Monty Python in the other thread may get a kick out of it. 

 

[Fantasy Lover]

Your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries.

[Surelock]

So a co-host on Fox News offered a unique rebuttal to the Democrat's claims that Trump's Terrible Healthcare Plan would leave millions without health insurance and cause hundreds and thousands of them to die:

 

 

 

 

Wow we don't need to worry about our healthcare because we're all going to die one day. Why bother trying to cure our diseases? Why do we eat food when we're just going to get hungry again? Why drink water when we're just going to get thirsty again? 

[J.P.]

Why do not push that red button instead?

[Fantasy Lover]

Just when I thought nobody could be worse than Trump, speaking about Trump I found this http://the-daily.buzz/a/theres-a-fake-time-magazine-cover-of-donald-trump-hanging-at-his-golf-courses?utm_content=inf_10_1163_2&tse_id=INF_2e3724705c3411e790011d41b85aaeb5

[Arcadia]

Reason #5998 why I love the Washington Post. :d

[Van Buren Supernova]

Have you guys read about his insulting tweets, the facelift-gate, that even condemned by many Republicans?