ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, October 08, 2012

Mailvox: continuing education

Robwbright, Esq. continues to discover that the lawyer's approach of attempting to poison the well isn't the wisest tactic when dealing with a superintelligence:
 Is human superintelligence armed with facts & logic a legitimate source of authority?

Before you answer, allow me to appeal to another authority - higher than either of us... Note that God answers the above question "No":  He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; and again, "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile." and "Therefore let no one boast in men."

A wise (and pretty intelligent) man once said:  "But may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus, the Messiah, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world!

It is interesting that you always call out someone when they appeal to their own authority, but you CONSTANTLY appeal to and boast about your own superintelligence and consider that acceptable behavior.

Will you directly answer the question "Yes" or "No". It should be a simple question for a superintelligence to answer.
It most certainly is a simple question.  Is "human superintelligence armed with facts and logic" a legitimate source of authority?  No, of course not.  Neither are royal bloodlines, academic credentials, or guild licenses.  None of these things are conclusively determinative of the truth.  But what robwbright quite amusingly reveals in his attempt to impugn my credibility here is that he doesn't even know what an appeal to authority is.

This is readily apparent due to his claim that I "CONSTANTLY" appeal to the authority of my own superintelligence.  This is absolutely and totally false.  I will go so far as to assert that I have never once appealed to the authority of my intelligence in the 11-year history of my WND column or the 9-year history of this blog.  I should welcome the citation of any evidence that purports to prove otherwise.

Now, it is certainly true that I rub the oft-demonstrated fact of my superior intelligence in the face of my critics, for the reason I have often explained.  Both the political Left and the militant atheists regularly resort to the logical fallacy of appealing to the authority of intelligence; in fact, atheists even utilize it in a bizarre and illogical argument against the existence of God.  My overt assertion and subsequent demonstration of an even higher degree of intelligence than most of them can muster thereby removes one of their favorite intellectual weapons from their arsenal and tends to make them look foolish when they attempt to use it to dismiss me in the manner that they dismiss so many others they attack.

This is why you will often see them theorizing that I must be crazy, because they are so attached to their logical fallacy that they literally cannot grasp that someone can be more intelligent than they are and nevertheless reject their left-liberal ideology or their godless scientism... even though it has been statistically demonstrated that there are more high IQ theists than atheists.  IQ-flaunting is a useful rhetorical device that trumps a common rhetorical argument, nothing more.  And it is obviously an effective one, as most of my critics eventually get around to complaining about it sooner or later.

What robwbright tried to do here is the clever legal tactic known as "I know you are but what am I?".  This is the second time he has unsuccessfully tried to attack my intellectual credibility in defending the legal system against my charges of corruption, while repeatedly engaging in the logical fallacy of appealing to his own experience.  Because lawyers are hierarchical credentialists prone to thinking they are more intelligent than everyone else, they are particularly susceptible to the same rhetorical baiting that so easily discombobulates the leftists and the atheists.

No one who is truly intelligent ever appeals to that intelligence because he knows that there is always someone smarter out there, and because he is confident that he can make his logical case based on the relevant facts.  I've already shown how  logic dictates robwbright's claim that legislative law always trumps interpretive rulings MUST be incorrect, given that a) there is a long and sordid history of interpretive rulings trumping legislative law, and, b) the obvious distinction between "an interpretive ruling based on legislative law" and "an interpretive ruling that the judge pretends to have been based on legislative law".

Finally, I have two return questions for robwbright.  First, are you an Officer of the Court?  Second, when you are in the courtroom, is the law what the presiding judge declares it to be?

Labels:

40 Comments:

Anonymous Kriminal October 08, 2012 1:18 PM  

And what was your IQ score? Which test?

Anonymous AXCrom October 08, 2012 1:28 PM  

"What robwbright tried to do here is the clever legal tactic known as "I know you are but what am I?".

This made me nearly choke on my coffee, as I can almost picture his framed JD diploma from the prestigious P.W. Herman School of Law.

Anonymous Azimus October 08, 2012 1:28 PM  

Robwbright, you would be wise to give up if you want to avoid bankrupting your personal philosphies/worldview. Arguing with VD reminds me of Bugs and Daffy arguing what hunting season it is, and you're Daffy. Eventually he'll have you saying things like "I say it's DUCK season, and I say FIRE!" He's very good at finding flaws in arguments that unravel the whole ball of yarn...

... but then if you want to pass through the fire and be a more refined thinker as a result, I invite you to continue...

Anonymous Salt October 08, 2012 1:30 PM  

Robwbright, you would be wise to give up if you want to avoid bankrupting your personal philosphies/worldview.

If they are capable of being so bankrupted he'd be wise to continue.

Blogger James Dixon October 08, 2012 1:33 PM  

Well, since Vox is a member of Mensa, we have a lower limit. From Wikipedia:

"Mensa's only requirement for membership is one score at or above the 98th percentile on certain standardised IQ or other approved intelligence tests, such as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. Because different tests are scaled differently, it is not meaningful to compare raw scores between tests, only percentiles. For example, the minimum accepted score on the Stanford-Binet is 132, while for the Cattell it is 148.[8] But most IQ tests are designed to yield a mean score of 100 with a standard deviation of 15; the 98th-percentile score under these conditions is 130.82."

It's also worth noting that Vox's debating style, extensive reading background, and equally extensive vocabulary all act to enhance the effectiveness of his IQ, especially in a forum such as this.

Anonymous The Stranger October 08, 2012 1:35 PM  

Dr. Sarfati, the head spokesman for Creation Ministries International, plays simultaneous games of blind chess. For fun. With his max number of games played simultaneously currently at twelve.

Not trying to prove anything with regard to lawyers or creationism here. Just noting that every now and again I run into classes of intelligence that outstrip mine by a ridiculous amount. An event I find mildly discomfiting.

Anonymous bw October 08, 2012 1:49 PM  

Ah, yes.

The fighting retreat using the shorn-sheep Chuchianity appeal.

You shouldn't be smart and have knowledge! God doesn't Use That Bitch! You should be Wise! Like Jesus...and Me.

Anonymous bw October 08, 2012 2:10 PM  

If they are capable of being so bankrupted he'd be wise to continue. Salt

Preach it


Exactly. By all means, seek and work it out. Why does anyone ever come to a place like this if not for that? Now the Ego is gonna take some hits like never before...but that is the exact point. And it will be Painful - like a cleansing fire.

The power of I didn't know that or I've always been somewhat wrong, possibly greatly is liberating.

Believing lying and incorrect authorities and then discovering the false belief is a nightmare for many egos. IF they ever care to seek it out. It is quite liberating for those willing to see it. It is salvation.

The ultimate psychological truth, the foundation of Christianity, is that no man is a hero to himself.
- Chesterton

Blogger James Dixon October 08, 2012 2:28 PM  

> Just noting that every now and again I run into classes of intelligence that outstrip mine by a ridiculous amount.

We all do.

> An event I find mildly discomfiting.

I can't really say that's the case for me, but then when I met a woman whose intelligence was that much greater than mine, I married her. :)

Anonymous Noah B. October 08, 2012 2:36 PM  

I had a feeling the lawyerly defense of lawyers wasn't going to work out well.

Anonymous WaterBoy October 08, 2012 2:46 PM  

"the clever legal tactic known as "I know you are but what am I?""

Otherwise known as the Schoolyard* Defense.

*Not to be confused with that other schoolyard tactic, "My dad can beat up your dad", which is known as the Daddy Defense.

Blogger James Dixon October 08, 2012 2:51 PM  

> I had a feeling the lawyerly defense of lawyers wasn't going to work out well.

Well, it might if it were being argued before a judge.

Anonymous Invid October 08, 2012 3:00 PM  

Don't know he/she will answer but I am a practicing attorney in the US and essentially, in court, the law is what the judge says it is (it is possible for them to be overruled on appeal).

Anonymous Sexual Chocolate Imperion October 08, 2012 3:02 PM  

Speaking of a superintelligence. For those who have played Deus Ex: Human Revolution, I believe the most intriguing character is Eliza Cassans. The most enlightening dialog with Cassans is, "SHE won't let me tell you." I guess a superintelligence even has a boss...

Oh, and speaking of lawyers ...

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 08, 2012 3:32 PM  

... even though it has been statistically demonstrated that there are more high IQ theists than atheists. IQ-flaunting is a useful rhetorical device that trumps a common rhetorical argument, nothing more.

Does Mensa track demographic data? That's a low-hanging WND article if I ever saw one.

An atheist of measured IQ x must accept that there are y religious people who have higher measured IQs than they do. Therefore, atheists cannot claim that their superior critical thinking talents are to blame for their atheism.

You could just repeat the same basic idea ad nauseum and maybe the point will get across to the crowd Dawkins is trying to convert.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 08, 2012 3:35 PM  

Hell, now that I think about it I write it myself. I could probably stretch it into book form and sell a million copies.

Something to consider.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 08, 2012 3:37 PM  

*Not to be confused with that other schoolyard tactic, "My dad can beat up your dad", which is known as the Daddy Defense.

Nor with the GOP tactic "My country can beat up your country," which is known as American Exceptionalism.

Anonymous Noah B. October 08, 2012 3:38 PM  

"Hell, now that I think about it I write it myself. I could probably stretch it into book form and sell a million copies."

I touch on that very subject in my new book, "The Power Of Thinking."

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 08, 2012 3:49 PM  

Never understood the valorizing of ostensible "IQ" w/r/t individuals, on various HBD or race-realist leaning sites. IQ is a useful tool in the aggregate for analyzing various long-term outcomes and trying to understand yoiks!, what will become of the world?!, under these or those given conditions. What it does on an individual scale is a little more uncertain. "My IQ can whup your IQ," or vice versa, is, at bottom, just sort of an uninteresting thing to think about. On the other hand, "This group/aggregate IQ sugggests a high probability of certain particular long-term social outcomes in comparison to that other group/aggregate IQ's projected results, and therefore the related policy questions are worth questioning" is the sort of thing that an honest man can debate over the course of a good dinner. Or maybe on a Steve Sailer thread.

If the teams you want to set up are Lawyers Versus Smart-Arse Expat Writers, well by all means, have at it. Personally I think you've defined your terms in a fundamentally mistaken way, but then, that's just me.

Way back in the mists of the seventies, some people thought Rick Wakeman was ridiculous, and other people (fewer I believe in number) thought he was a genius, and lots of other people didn't think about him at all. Go figure. When the laundry was finally all done and pressed and put away in the linen closet, it turned out he had a few boisterous resounding keyboard solos on "Fragile" and "Close to the Edge," and some really admirable moments on "Tales from Topographic Oceans," and some good stuff on "Going for the One" as well... and that's about it. Now that's still a good deal more to boast about than your average lounge piano-player, but then again it isn't Schumann, either.

Well what can you do. The isle is full of noises, like a man once said; and it always was, and we hope it always will be, or at least until Christmas, like another man said.





Anonymous CMC October 08, 2012 3:51 PM  

Just now getting continuing education reference...

Anonymous Poli_Mis October 08, 2012 3:57 PM  

What a great bit of lawyering. Now, I think even less of his awful kind. Not an easy feat. Great job, ahem, Esquire.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan October 08, 2012 3:57 PM  

I thought my early retirement, good health, and bailing out of real estate at the top of the market was a sign of fairly high intelligence.

Then I ran my %$##!! hand through the table saw and cut the ever lovin' bejeeeesus out of myself.

$#@!!!!!!!! Ouch.

Sometimes I'm dumb as dirt.

My lawyer is smart though. He avoids power tools. haha.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 08, 2012 4:33 PM  

"the clever legal tactic known as "I know you are but what am I?""

Isn't that the basis of 90% of Liberal arguments these days? Noticing the racialism of the l]Left makes you a racist. Observing that faimly courts are rigged against men makes you a gender bigot. Complaining that high taxes are impoverishing you means you hate the poor. And pointing out that credentialed idiots in academia don't know what they're talking about makes you an anti-intellectual.



Anonymous Idle Spectator October 08, 2012 4:35 PM  

Don't let that nasty Vox scare you with his large, throbbing arms.

His bird intelligence is no match for my ultraintelligence.

Free hugs.

Blogger JDC October 08, 2012 4:46 PM  

*Not to be confused with that other schoolyard tactic, "My dad can beat up your dad", which is known as the Daddy Defense.

Nor with the GOP tactic "My country can beat up your country," which is known as American Exceptionalism.


Or the, just ignore the dark skinned fella in the corner dressed in drag, strangely resembling L.T. - whilst I decorate your back with bite marks in my own white panties and garter ensemble. This is known as Marv Albertsism.

Anonymous FP October 08, 2012 5:11 PM  

Only a lawyer could say "legislative law always trumps interpretive rulings", well and the vampires who stand to benefit.

One of my favorite examples being the Navarro child support/paternity case in CA. The feminists sure were pushing for that case's appeal to not be certified with the official court record.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 08, 2012 5:49 PM  

It was funny reading robbingthebright's comments on the other post.

"Yes, a lawyer is certainly talking. Yes, this is Hell. I am ok with that. You must acknowledge this to get through this."

Anonymous Res Ipsa October 08, 2012 7:50 PM  

@ robbingthebright or any lawyer who wants to take a crack at it:

Traditionally to practice law one has had to pass a “bar exam”. Before law schools were plentiful, students would “read for the law” and then sit the exam. While it is still legal in some states to “read for the law” and sit the exam, many if not most jurisdictions require graduation form an ABA accredited law school and then the exam. Then and only then you get the magic “bar card” that allows you to practice.

If you’re not a guild of market fixing sludge with morals lower than the proverbial lot lizard, why required admission to any ABA accredited institution?

Why not allow anyone who can pass the exam practice law?

Anonymous UnwiringMinds October 08, 2012 8:13 PM  


If you’re not a guild of market fixing sludge with morals lower than the proverbial lot lizard, why required admission to any ABA accredited institution?

Why not allow anyone who can pass the exam practice law?


Indeed. Why not?

I'd love to hear the answer to this one...

Anonymous III October 09, 2012 12:06 AM  

Vox, would you kindly put the search bar back on your blog. I do link to certain categories of your blog... like homeschooling. Thank you.

Blogger IM2L844 October 09, 2012 12:13 AM  

Mensa's only requirement for membership is one score at or above the 98th percentile...

Not true. They also require you to send them money which, if I remember correctly, Vox doesn't do. Ironically, sending them money is not automatic disqualification for membership.

Anonymous Stilicho October 09, 2012 5:46 AM  

If you’re not a guild of market fixing sludge with morals lower than the proverbial lot lizard, why required admission to any ABA accredited institution?

Why not allow anyone who can pass the exam practice law?

Indeed. Why not?

I'd love to hear the answer to this one...


The ABA would make less money that way. Many of the problems with the legal system and lawyers complained of here were created or exacerbated by the ABA after it became a liberal Jewish organization. The only farce bigger than its accreditation scam is its judicial qualification/recommendation scam. Few non-liberal attorneys even bother to be members. The ABA does artificially inflate its membership by automatically enrolling all law school graduates as members for free for the first few years.

The old system did work better, but anyone with a pulse and half a brain can get a legal union card with little effort. Time and money will be extracted though.

Anonymous Rantor October 09, 2012 5:51 AM  

@bw, thanks for the quote, (The ultimate psychological truth, the foundation of Christianity, is that no man is a hero to himself. - Chesterton)

I don't think it applies to narcissists ... like the leader of the free world. (what exactly is free about it?

Blogger Markku October 09, 2012 7:32 AM  

Vox, would you kindly put the search bar back on your blog. I do link to certain categories of your blog... like homeschooling. Thank you.

It is there, right in the up left corner. Graphically it is misleading, as it leads you to believe that it is a search for the entire Blogger, but it does search just here.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 October 09, 2012 9:09 AM  

Intelligence involves three things: IQ, knowledge, and wisdom. I've seen so many people with high-powered degrees and IQs to boot argue like fools.

The thing is, no matter what degrees you have, no matter what books you've read, and no matter what your IQ is, none of that makes a lick of difference if you lack wisdom.

Anonymous T14 October 09, 2012 11:01 AM  

Can someone give me a working definition of wisdom?

Anonymous Stilicho October 09, 2012 12:16 PM  

Can someone give me a working definition of wisdom?

Recognizing the difference between what you can do and what you should do and acting accordingly.

Anonymous Grendelizer October 09, 2012 2:17 PM  

I've always assumed Vox's posturing was tongue-in-cheek. Along the lines of Rush Limbaugh. Ha! (Had to get THAT one in!) Anyway, I think SOMEBODY needs to grow a sense of humor, or forgot to take his aspie meds. . . .

Anonymous Grendelizer October 09, 2012 2:27 PM  

I've always assumed Vox's posturing was tongue-in-cheek. Along the lines of Rush Limbaugh. Ha! (Had to get THAT one in!) Anyway, I think SOMEBODY needs to grow a sense of humor, or forgot to take his aspie meds. . . .

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 09, 2012 7:37 PM  

Noah B.,

Any book by the Ilk is worth checking out.

JDC,

I'm too frightened to google whatever it is you're talking about.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts