Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About INTelliJent

  • Rank
    Veteran Member


  • MBTI


  • Gender
  1. Thanks on the latter, although I don't expect to stick around. I've checked in from time to time but it's mostly the same people with the same positions having the same arguments. I had kind of hoped that more skepticism would have taken hold after the last 8-16 yrs in both typical proggies and cuckservatives of the INTJ bent, but that was apparently mere wishful thinking.
  2. It does but shouldn't amaze me that INTJ's can stomach any politician. They all suck, America will be worse off with any particular political candidate. It's incredibly unfortunate that Sanders seems to be extremely consistent......with terrible, empirically bad ideas. With a gun to my head I'd vote for Trump over the rest of the crowd because at least the damage and the instigator will be unexpected and entertaining instead of completely predictable and a boring asshat.
  3. ischuldt just invoked "But who will build(maintain) the roads??" Not worth responding too past a Yes, without government there to protect property rights, people are going to "infringe" on existing concepts of property rights. But what is more likely on a broad basis: Trying to take what is already being utilized (land use)/defended vs the wide open spaces under corporate/government(a type of corporation) control for the purpose of creating artificial scarcity? Hmm. Everyone is selfish, altruism doesn't exist. Only prosocial behavior.
  4. Explicitly admitting something while simultaneously ignoring it. Everything before a "but" doesn't matter. "Now I know this is going to sound racist but......" Look up implicit. Also see below: You haven't made an argument, correct? We were both referring to the OP's argument, correct? I wasn't talking about "you". I was hoping that "[your]" sufficiently indicated the "universal" you/your/etc, especially given the context. Context: Part of reading comprehension. The basis of the OP is flawed. I critiqued that. I'm not handwaving any apparent correlation. That's of no personal interest to me. Damn, missed one in scanning four pages. My fault for not double checking with the search function. Correction: 1 person. Not surprised it was Monte either. So why phrase your polling that way? Causation is a fickle thing, and you haven't shown anything that even remotely attempts to demonstrate causation. Merely piles of correlative data. My tone probably comes off more hostile than I intend, so I apologize for that before I say this: As a psychology major, it's of extreme personal interest when someone starts misconstruing very subjective data of a correlative nature for use in causal arguments. Regardless, as I said and stasis repeated in more colorful style: You are in fact trying to imply causation with nothing but correlative data even while denying you are doing so. Maybe it's subconscious, and that's the reason for the denial. Religion comes in many flavors. Slavish devotion to the Mother Church is no different than slavish devotion to the Mother Earth, or Mother Government. As thebrainpolice correctly noted, even were there to be some hard evidence of a causal sort regarding ignorance and religion or political leaning, it would be nearly impossible to bring that information up to any productive debate. It is, in fact, entirely unnecessary besides counterproductive. Ideas may be discussed on merit alone much more productively (even if that isn't saying much).
  5. You missed the massively implied "but" in the rest of that post, and in all subsequent posts by not only Tocsin, but by others (never mind the structure of the poll options that has already been highlighted). Reading comprehension involves more than you apparently think it does. Backhanded references to the glaring flaw in [your] argument, wrapped on either side with your flawed argument, are poorly (or maybe not so poorly) disguised attempts at handwaving.
  6. I tried to remember why I hadn't been visiting INTJf for some time and this thread reminded me: #triplefacepalm Not only that, but after four pages no one has pointed out the OP doesn't even get off home plate. If you are too ignorant to know that correlation does not indicate causation, you have no business spewing opinions about anything even remotely related to cause/effect OR correlation.
  7. If Canada had the same Drug war and shared part of the border with Mexico, I think the statistics might be a little more harmonious. A fact that will forever be lost on opponents.
  8. People's inability to locate, analyze, and mitigate their stressors is a major problem. But why teach people how to deal with stress when that is also going to reduce consumerism and political pliability?
  9. The point of laws against those other things is not purely prevention of other acts, like it is for gun control. Those other things you list have a victim. The act of purchasing a gun does not.
  10. I don't understand why Beck doesn't get quite the same denigration around here as Alex Jones. Beck is following Jones' format to the T, and throwing in Zionism for some personal flair.
  11. This forum has been over all this before. A. Murder is not the only violent crime B. Those other countries also do not incarcerate nearly the same amount of people. Why? The Drug War. Prohibition mindset. Flowing from that, we also have the border issue with Mexico. C. Many of those 3 per 100,000 difference come from cities in areas with strict gun control. Like Chicago. So that relatively small difference in murders (3 out of 100,000 or less, which encompasses those killed with and without guns), can be reasonably attributed in part to prohibition of both guns and drugs. Now when we turn our attention to OTHER crimes, we find the US looks much more favorably. Like, your odds in Britain of having someone burglar your residence (while you are home even) is much higher than the US.
  12. Those places aren't safer as a whole. In fact, it's already been shown that they are often more dangerous. The danger just doesn't include a gun as often. Once you factor in the fact that most of the gun violence in the US is concentrated in specific places, outside of those (horrible to live in anyway) areas, you are levels of magnitude safer in the US, than basically any other "Developed" country. Like I said: Opportunity cost, diminishing returns, and unintended consequences. These terms, of course, don't mean anything to the self proclaimed mommies and daddies of all us ignorant childrens, regardless of party affiliation. I see no meaningful difference between Westboro Baptist, Lindsey Graham, and (the) larkins. Paternalistic arrogance with dangerous implications.
  13. Where did I argue for fertilizer restrictions? And I have as big a problem with the TSA and it's mission as I do with the ATF. That appeal isn't going anywhere with me. Different issues require different approaches, and yet you have one approach: Create a bureaucracy, give them some ink and guns, and let them make as many people into criminals as possible. Government is probably the best vehicle for killing, stealing, and wasting. It's where you tack on "But fewer people dying is pointless". That goes back to that false dichotomy I pointed out to Purgatid in the same post. No, I will readily acknowledge there is power outside the halls of Washington, or London, or any other capitol. But most power uses that power as a proxy, or fights it. The rest of us get the shift either way. Of course not all cartels are drug cartels. Like I said, there are the "Federales" and the "CIAs" and so on.
  14. I don't care to any real degree whether crimes are committed with legal or illegal guns. Committing the crime was illegal. Did that stop it from happening? No. Gun control is about criminalizing something to prevent something ELSE from happening, and paying for it all with funds extracted at (irony) gunpoint. So while I'll agree that 90% figure is probably incorrect, it doesn't matter. Opportunity cost, diminishing returns, unintended consequences. It's a false dichotomy to suggest "Either do something about this 10% or you want people dead!" It is more easy to kill someone with a gun than a knife. It is also possible to defend yourself, unarmed, against a knife attack: If you have a reasonable physical or training advantage. I'm smaller than average. Taking on someone even mano a mano is going to be uneven odds in a lot of cases for me. Guns are the great equalizer. So what if someone else get's the drop on me with a gun? I'm not really any worse off than I was before. Home made creations are ah, "comin round soon". If we are going to roll with dichotomies, better to do nothing than the wrong thing. Which is what gun control is. The wrong thing. Why is there gun trafficking? These guns are being purchased by someone for some reason. How about we look at the reasons instead of trying to play whackamole with the prohibition hammer? But that's taboo, because that will begin to call in to question the role of government in causing these problems in the first place, instead of constantly giving cause to increase the scope of the meddling. I've got a barn full of straw and fish nearby if you've run out. Oh noz, 10,000 guns being purchased by cartels to protect themselves from other cartels and also the cartel called The Federales. Where did cartels come from again? They didn't come into existence purely to traffic guns from the US. Guns are a tool to enable them to protect their business/market. A market with rules created by government policy. Let's apply the same wrongheadedness we applied to drugs to guns and help make either worse cartels, more cartels, or maybe even something more worse than cartels.