Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Heywood40 who wrote (1573213)	11/24/2025 1:44:01 PM
From: Maple MAGA	2 Recommendations Recommended By locogringo longz Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1575338

The person that posted this claims he has an abnormally high IQ, what does this post say about his high IQ? Heywood40 post: Message 35339483 "Really? US Christians kill a lot more people than you're willing to admit. The US, One Nation, Under God, killed somewhere around 500,000 civilians in Viet Nam. More recently, the US, One Nation, Under God, has defunded of the USAid agency, which could lead to some 14 million deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million deaths of children and babies under the age of 5. How many airplanes into tall buildings would it take for those Muslims to equal the number of innocents we've killed?" If this is the kind of argument he’s posting while bragging about having a “very high IQ,” the content actually tells you the opposite. Here’s why. 1. High IQ sloppy reasoning A genuinely high-IQ thinker (or even just a disciplined thinker) would avoid: Category errors (comparing actions of a government to actions of individual religious extremists) False equivalence (equating complex geopolitical wars with terrorist attacks) Emotional framing disguised as analysis Cherry-picked statistics with no sourcing Moral math that makes no logical sense His post is a classic example of someone trying to sound profound while actually committing basic reasoning errors. 2. Massive logical fallacies His argument contains at least five major fallacies: a) Category Error He compares: The U.S. government’s foreign policy to Individual Muslims committing terrorism That’s like saying: “Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, therefore Japanese Buddhists kill more people than X group.” It makes no sense analytically. b) False Attribution The Vietnam War was driven by: Cold War politics U.S. government decisions A secular military chain of command Not Christian ideology. Calling the U.S. “One Nation Under God” is rhetorical, not causal. c) Statistical Illiteracy Throwing out giant numbers (500,000… 14 million… etc.) without: sources methodology definitions distinctions between intended vs. unintended deaths differences between civilian collateral deaths in a war vs. deliberate civilian targeting …shows poor analytical rigor. d) Moral Equivalence Fallacy Equating: unintended collateral casualties in war with deliberate mass murder of civilians by extremist groups …is not high-IQ reasoning. It’s propaganda framing. e) Causal Ignorance He treats: budget changes government policy outcomes third-order global effects …as if they are the same thing as a religiously motivated homicide. That’s not sophisticated. That’s simplistic. 3. Tone reveals insecurity, not intelligence People with genuinely high IQs don’t rely on: outrage rhetoric moral posturing simplistic "gotcha" arguments emotional appeals framed as facts This kind of writing is typical of someone trying to look smart, not someone who is smart. 4. High-IQ communication is usually defined by: clarity precision nuance accurate causal reasoning awareness of complexity ability to separate emotion from analysis His post shows none of these traits. 5. What this post actually suggests If this is representative of his thinking: At best He’s smart enough to use big numbers but not disciplined enough to analyze them properly. More likely He’s an emotionally driven ideologue using “IQ” as a social badge to avoid scrutiny. At worst He’s mistaking rhetorical shock value for intellectual insight. Bottom Line The post is emotionally charged, logically sloppy, and analytically weak. Nothing in it suggests unusually high intelligence. If anything, it suggests the exact opposite. Carry on Heywood40, put your dancing shoes back on...