He did very well relative to the others enrolled in one of the prestige universities in a field which you think likely to attract smart people and this is not direct evidence of him being smart? That's peculiar.

I make posts in RGT to explore issues and yes sometimes I do change my position from time to time. However in the case of why I was exiled from politics the facts are quite clear. ElliotR did not like me being critical of him at least according to ElliotR's reply to me asking him why he exiled me.

Now I am sure you would rather that I was exiled for defending hilariously terrible positions so in your own mind you create that fantasy and make it your reality.

What fun would it be if there was an end.

Lots bro I want the high score

Surely some students at Havard Law school have average IQs and graduate magna simply because they study 10 hours a day and don't skip any classes.

Just because you have a degree from HLS doesn't mean your IQ is 130+

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWjlCaIrQo

You didn't create the thread to explore the issue. You explicitly stated, in the thread title, that the argument is compelling. Not that it might be compelling, not that it could be compelling if X, Y, or Z. You would easily be forgiven for this if you were a new posters; but you have a long history of doing this. You state things as if they are fact when in reality you are hugely misguided, most of the time by creationist web sources.

Of course not. In a similar vein, just because you're a smoker it doesn't mean you're going to die of heart disease.

Nope....this is just a fantasy you create for yourself because I crush you time and again on here. If anyone gets whacked down it is you. If fact I will crush your assertion again. Here is the Original Post from that thread and perhaps you can point to all the things stated as fact(there is one but I think most if not all accept it as true).

So would you say that if one is smoker it is direct evidence they will die of heart disease? Or if they have heart disease is that fact direct evidence they are a smoker?

I'd say it was more likely.

Your reply to my stating that you have been corrupted by creationist web sources is to quote yourself in the thread in which you were undeniably corrupted by a creationist web source. I think my work is done here.

So you can say that its likely Obama has 130+ IQ because of circumstantial evidence....but you can't really say he has a 130+ IQ until he demonstrates it unambigiously.

No...you said this.

And my response proved you wrong.

Also I wouldn't call ClosertoTruth a creationist website. Take a look at the participants.

http://www.closertotruth.com/participants

There are a lot of atheists on there.

You claimed to have no evidence that he was smart - "Obama has not done anything to indicate to me that he is particularly smart." and that's just wrong. He has done something. He's done extremely well in a competitive, intellectual field which attracts smart students at one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

The fact that he might actually just be a very lucky, hardworking moron doesn't mean you don't have evidence that he's smart.

Max Raker on crushing threads.

Also, if he's that smart, where's my proof at homie?

Actually no. First of all, I was speaking generally, and you are attempting to apply it to only one situation. Second, you did actually portray your opinion as fact in that very post; you stated "the fact that our universe is so large". It was already explained to you multiple times in that thread, and at least 3 times by me specifically, why we cannot objectively categorize the universe as large or small, yet you've gone ahead and done it again tonight. Do you remember what I said or should I explain it again?

This shows how you have no idea about law. Studying will never be enough to overcome bad critical ability. To go on to teach shows he has ability to present critical knowledge well. 12 years of it!!!

Law is not about regurgitating facts, at least academically.

Persuasion, critical ability and presentation are signs of being smart, and are necessary for academically succeeding in law

lol

Stu, in order to be smart, one needs to put in time at a particular area he wants to be smart about. So if you want to be smart in the area of physics you need to put in hundreds/thousands of hours of reading, doing research, etc in that area. Sitting on your ass and not reading a damn thing won't make you a genius...

So if you are suggesting Obama got there because he studied hard then he must have a knowledge of those areas of study and is definitely smarter then you in that field.

There are no brilliant people who are smart in a specific field without putting in a lot of time into studying that field. Brilliance does not just come from above, it is hard work combined with luck(this includes, where you were born, time, money, parents, environment, etc).

No there is no level playing field when you are making the baseless assertion. If I said all people in the UK believe in the tooth fairy and you said, no they don't are we on an equal playing field? What a ridiculous suggestion to think that anyone can basically claim anything and its a legitimate opinion.

By 'owt special you obviously mean he's not in the top 0.001% of the population or something right? Since his achievements put him in any reasonable 'special' bracket. What politician is intelligent in your opinion if Obama is not?

This is a ridiculous discussion, the man's academic achievements are incredible and put him in the top fraction of the population but some people don't like him therefore he is not especially intelligent.

How many hours of hard work and study would Obama have to endure to score high on an IQ test? None because we are talking about raw intelligence. Your point is moot.

Anyways I think I am done with this thread...at least until another line of discussion developes.

<boggles at Stu's posts itt>

Obama spearheaded a campaign that raised almost $1B and elected him PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES as a minority, junior senator from Illinois who had never defeated a Republican in a general election.

He handled uncertainty that would destroy an ordinary person's ability to put two words together---much less stay on message for months on end in situations of extraordinary stress and exposure.

That sort of mental stamina alone qualifies him as mother****ing brilliant under any interesting use of the word.

IQ test is not the only way to figure out if someone is smart or not... YOU clearly are being dishonest here...

so to you if a 14 year old scores 190 on IQ but through out his life does not spend any time studying anything and ends up a janitor for the rest of his life and can still score 190 on IQ this person deserves to be called smart? on the other hand someone who scores 120 but studies hard and ends up finishing college, law school , becomes a state senator at pretty young age, then becomes a president of US is not good enough to be called smart? lol


one of the definitions of the word "smart" is a word "knowledgeable". DO YOU THINK a person who spends 1000 hours reading about the subject and is able to show that he understand the subject well is not knowledgeable?

Fair enough. Would you mind responding to my last post though (or at least this bit):

You claimed to have no evidence that he was smart - "Obama has not done anything to indicate to me that he is particularly smart." and that's just wrong. He has done something. He's done extremely well in a competitive, intellectual field which attracts smart students at one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

Because I'm surprised you don't see that as contrary to your initial position. I'm not talking about whether he has an IQ greater than 130 (I don't think IQ has much to do with being smart) but it seems to me you are taking the rather odd view that the fact Obama did well in law at Harvard doesn't count as evidence of smartness on the grounds that you can think of another state of affairs which may explain the data (ie - he might be a lucky and/or hardworking guy of average intelligence). The fact is there are always alternate explanations for any evidence we observe - it doesn't imply that what we see is not evidence, just because it isn't a strict logical implication.