US ill with powerful mutant strain of ignorance anti-rationalism anti-intellectualism

[rdean]

Maybe because both the author and the OP are engaging in projection.

If that's not addressing the premise, what would be?

2% of scientists don't believe in "evolution".

87% believe in Climate Change.

6% of scientists are Republican.

That means only a third of Republican scientists don't believe in evolution.

Yet, what percentage of Republicans believe in evolution? Shall we go find out? I'm sure the answer is hilarious.

It's clear, the Republicans do not trust scientists. The least educated don't believe the most educated. To Republicans, scientists are either idiots with no common sense who are without social skills and "too smart" and "over educated" to take care of themselves or scientists are lazy "elitists" who rest on their degrees, get government money and do nothing to contribute to the country.

I've heard this argument in various forms on this site at least a hundred time.

 

[Oddball]

Did you really think that you needed to provide even more evidence?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe because both the author and the OP are engaging in projection.

If that's not addressing the premise, what would be?

2% of scientists don't believe in "evolution".

87% believe in Climate Change.

6% of scientists are Republican.

That means only a third of Republican scientists don't believe in evolution.

Yet, what percentage of Republicans believe in evolution? Shall we go find out? I'm sure the answer is hilarious.

It's clear, the Republicans do not trust scientists. The least educated don't believe the most educated. To Republicans, scientists are either idiots with no common sense who are without social skills and "too smart" and "over educated" to take care of themselves or scientists are lazy "elitists" who rest on their degrees, get government money and do nothing to contribute to the country.

I've heard this argument in various forms on this site at least a hundred time.

Climate change "science" it can't be proven, only believed in.

 

[Smash_Hits]

But.... you claim intellectual superiority. And if you are even vaguely intellectual, you would know that backing up your opinion by linking to any unreliable source (and that includes both e-how and wiki) is - academically - ridiculous.

How can I take you seriously as an intellectual when you do not provide academically valid sources?

Check out this link:

Past Climate Change | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Notice how there are links all through the article, citing many sources of information. Now, if this story was from the "Strangers had the best candy" site with all the embedded links, after checking out the links, I would use it.

Now, here is an example of a link from the Heritage Foundation:

Is Washington Doing Enough to Save the Economy? - AskHeritage

There is one link in particular in the paragraph:

But don’t tell that to the Obama stimulus apologists, though. In an interview on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace remarked that in light of the dismal economic numbers, the Obama Administration’s policies and near $1 trillion stimulus “isn’t working

See, on right wing sites, they will start off with, "But don’t tell that to the Obama stimulus apologists", they are already trying to sway the reader before any information is presented.

My opinion on why the stimulus isn't working as well as it should is because it contained far too many tax cuts. Then there was the mistake of giving it to the states, a plan which was forced on the Democrats by Republicans.

The worst part is the over 100 Republican congressmen who voted against the stimulus but who have taken credit for jobs in their states that came from the stimulus package.

So it is possible to read an article from a site and determine if it's something you would use or if it's bullshit.

I don't need to check out your links. Thanks. I have access to solid, scientifically accurate information of my own. I require no spoon feeding by others.

But, the fact remains, that you use the media and sites like e-how and wiki as 'proof'. Therefore, you have not intellectual credibility. Because, if you were in the slightest bit, academic you would know that none of these sites is acceptable as 'proof'.

Translation: I'll only use sources that support my preconceived ideas. Also, I can't be bothered to read your argument, mostly because I know that I'm wrong.

OP is right. Modern conservatives are mostly idiots who hate anybody smarter than they are.

 

[rdean]

Maybe because both the author and the OP are engaging in projection.

If that's not addressing the premise, what would be?

2% of scientists don't believe in "evolution".

87% believe in Climate Change.

6% of scientists are Republican.

That means only a third of Republican scientists don't believe in evolution.

Yet, what percentage of Republicans believe in evolution? Shall we go find out? I'm sure the answer is hilarious.

It's clear, the Republicans do not trust scientists. The least educated don't believe the most educated. To Republicans, scientists are either idiots with no common sense who are without social skills and "too smart" and "over educated" to take care of themselves or scientists are lazy "elitists" who rest on their degrees, get government money and do nothing to contribute to the country.

I've heard this argument in various forms on this site at least a hundred time.

Climate change "science" it can't be proven, only believed in.

Like "Gawd". Only with "climate change", you can collect "data".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Check out this link:

Past Climate Change | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Notice how there are links all through the article, citing many sources of information. Now, if this story was from the "Strangers had the best candy" site with all the embedded links, after checking out the links, I would use it.

Now, here is an example of a link from the Heritage Foundation:

Is Washington Doing Enough to Save the Economy? - AskHeritage

There is one link in particular in the paragraph:

But don’t tell that to the Obama stimulus apologists, though. In an interview on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace remarked that in light of the dismal economic numbers, the Obama Administration’s policies and near $1 trillion stimulus “isn’t working

See, on right wing sites, they will start off with, "But don’t tell that to the Obama stimulus apologists", they are already trying to sway the reader before any information is presented.

My opinion on why the stimulus isn't working as well as it should is because it contained far too many tax cuts. Then there was the mistake of giving it to the states, a plan which was forced on the Democrats by Republicans.

The worst part is the over 100 Republican congressmen who voted against the stimulus but who have taken credit for jobs in their states that came from the stimulus package.

So it is possible to read an article from a site and determine if it's something you would use or if it's bullshit.

I don't need to check out your links. Thanks. I have access to solid, scientifically accurate information of my own. I require no spoon feeding by others.

But, the fact remains, that you use the media and sites like e-how and wiki as 'proof'. Therefore, you have not intellectual credibility. Because, if you were in the slightest bit, academic you would know that none of these sites is acceptable as 'proof'.

Translation: I'll only use sources that support my preconceived ideas. Also, I can't be bothered to read your argument, mostly because I know that I'm wrong.

OP is right. Modern conservatives are mostly idiots who hate anybody smarter than they are.

welcome

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The representative was the OP, ya projecting dope.

I think intellectuals are a "good" thing and I don't share occult beliefs.

You do have occult beliefs, you just want to pretend you don't.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

2% of scientists don't believe in "evolution".

87% believe in Climate Change.

6% of scientists are Republican.

That means only a third of Republican scientists don't believe in evolution.

Yet, what percentage of Republicans believe in evolution? Shall we go find out? I'm sure the answer is hilarious.

It's clear, the Republicans do not trust scientists. The least educated don't believe the most educated. To Republicans, scientists are either idiots with no common sense who are without social skills and "too smart" and "over educated" to take care of themselves or scientists are lazy "elitists" who rest on their degrees, get government money and do nothing to contribute to the country.

I've heard this argument in various forms on this site at least a hundred time.

Climate change "science" it can't be proven, only believed in.

Like "Gawd". Only with "climate change", you can collect "data".

Climate Change is your Gawd

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Americans seem relatively healthy. Seriousy, where would we be if the GOP hadn't gained the majority in congress last November? Democrats wouldn't have been talking about ways to cut deficit spending. They would have spent the US into 3rd world status. When democrats had total control of government the president hired a communist former leader of an arson and looting rampage to his "green jobs" board. What was he thinking? Obama refered to the US Chamber of Commerce as a sinister tool of the GOP. How is the stimulous working? We spent a trillion dollars to try to get democrats elected and the unemployment rate went up.

The right wing held millions of unemployed hostage threatening to cut off their benefits unless Obama turned another trillion over to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Is that how Republicans "saved money"?

Bush and the Republicans held both houses and the presidency for 6 straight years. Name a single success, besides the fact they had both houses and the presidency.

Obama is a failure for not cleaning up what Republicans did to this country fast enough.

But seriously, a smart black man? The right winger will never accept him for those two reasons alone.

You want to know the most amusing thing about this whole thread?

Jacobson is condemning both the right and the left in her book. She not only talks about the resurgence of fundamental religion, she talks about how the intellectual wasteland that only dropouts occupied in the 50s and 60s became the foundation of modern liberalism. The problem she sees lies as much with people like you as it does those on the right who think only with ideology.

Please, feel free to continue to prove she is right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Any time a political faction comes along and tells you that smart people are evil and need to be pushed out of our teaching system to make room for ....... well........ people who are not smart but agree with that poltical faction you can bet you are being manipulated into accepting something in the political realm that is not in your self interests.


"dont listen to thoise people over there that have all this edumacation, they are just pointy headed liberals"


It is perpitrated by the people who KNOW the experts are right but they need people to ignore the facts so they can have their way to some pile of money.


How anyone can fall for such blatent stupidity is beyond the pale.

Isn't pointing to someone and claiming he, or she, is good simply because they have an education just as bad as claiming they are evil because they have one? I find it makes more sense to judge people by what they do rather than by what they say, or what kind of education they have.

Take Obama as an example, he said he would change the way things are being done, and what he did was continue the polices that Bush used that were proven to be wrong. That tells me that his education is wasted on a person who only does what he has seen other people do before him. That does not make him evil, but it definitely proves that he is not good.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

that article is from 1975.

so?

Unlike right wingers, scientists are always "learning". They write books, not study just one.

Glen Beck wrote a book.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The right’s anathema to objective evidence and ‘intellectualism’ is predicated on the fact that such evidence often conflicts with conservative dogma.

And you counter that with...

You don't, because you do not have the intellectual capacity.

For example, consider Michele Bachmann’s 2006 statement that the Constitutional concept of separation of church and State is a ‘myth’:

Separation of church and state

While many have challenged that the group causes schools to run afoul of the separation of church and state, both Bachmann and YCRBYCH deny that the constitutional prohibition exists.

In fact, Bachmann urges people to give money to the organization for the stated purpose of bringing Christ into public schools.

“[Public schools] are teaching children that there is separation of church and state, and I am here to tell you that is a myth. That’s not true,” Bachmann said at the group’s 2006 fundraiser in Minneapolis. “And they explain to children in the public school system what a myth that is. And that’s what I love about this ministry … We want kids to come to the truth and that’s why this ministry is so absolutely vital. We need them in every public school classroom across the state to tell young people, ‘You Can Run But You Cannot Hide.’”

Bachmann to raise funds for controversial Christian punk ministry | Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media.

In McCollum v. Board of Education, School District 71 (1948), however, the Supreme Court clearly indicates this is a fundamental Constitutional doctrine:

Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a 'wall of separation,' not of a fine line easily overstepped.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Since decisions by the Supreme Court become part of Constitutional case law, and the case law becomes part of the Constitution, separation of church and State is indeed part of the Constitution, it is not a ‘myth’ as Ms. Bachmann would have us believe.

Needless to say this plays well to many on the right, mostly ignorant of the Constitution and facts of Constitutional case law. And as Bachmann is a trained attorney, she should be aware of McCollum, indicating she is willfully ignorant.

The TPM seems the epicenter for willful ignorance and anti-intellectualism, their bleating about ‘getting back’ to the Constitution makes no sense whatsoever, as if over 200 years of Supreme Court rulings and cumulative case law don’t exist. Indeed, we’ve never ‘left’ the Constitution.

The TPM and others on the right are certainly entitled to disagree with given rulings, but that does not give them license to ignore the law of the land or disseminate falsehoods about the meaning of the Founding Document.

See what I mean?

Instead of taking the argument on its merits, you counter by arguing that the Supreme Court disagrees, and that proves Bachman is wrong. It actually doesn't, all it proves is that she and the Supreme Court justices that voted that way disagree about the interpretation of the meaning of that concept and how it is actually applied.

Just an FYI, what you did is a logical fallacy known as an argument from authority.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think the right has a problem with intellectual leadership. They see their leadership in terms of "rigid dogma". The left has scientists. Scientists are always learning and exploring and gathering new data which causes them to alter their viewpoint. The right sees this as being unable to "make up your mind".

I know the left does.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's common knowledge that today's rank & file Repub voters detest book- larnin'. Buckley would turn over in his grave knowing what conservatism has become. Sad that.

The rank and file Democrats are the ones that voted in Prop 8 in California. I think that makes them just as ignorant and bigoted as you think the Republicans are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hm. Nobody attacking the author whose book is discussed in the OP. But lots of partisans attacking the left wingers on this thread instead.

Maybe there is a case for an "Age of Unreason" after all....

Why attack the author when it is so much more fun pointing out that the left wing moonbats are making assumptions about what she said that have nothing to do with what she actually said?

 

[Smash_Hits]

It's common knowledge that today's rank & file Repub voters detest book- larnin'. Buckley would turn over in his grave knowing what conservatism has become. Sad that.

The rank and file Democrats are the ones that voted in Prop 8 in California. I think that makes them just as ignorant and bigoted as you think the Republicans are.

Source?

See what I mean?

Instead of taking the argument on its merits, you counter by arguing that the Supreme Court disagrees, and that proves Bachman is wrong. It actually doesn't, all it proves is that she and the Supreme Court justices that voted that way disagree about the interpretation of the meaning of that concept and how it is actually applied.

Just an FYI, what you did is a logical fallacy known as an argument from authority.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court is the highest authority. Bachmann is not. And it isn't a fallacy if the agreement is that the authority in question is what sets the rules in the first place.

Glen Beck wrote a book.

Glenn Beck is in on this conspiracy - USATODAY.com
The rest of his books he probably "wrote" though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Source?

Are you serious?

Obama won California by almost 25%. That was the same election that saw Proposition 8 win by 5%. Who do you think voted in that election?

Martians?

The Supreme Court is the highest authority. Bachmann is not. And it isn't a fallacy if the agreement is that the authority in question is what sets the rules in the first place.

Yes it is. That same authority legalized Jim Crow laws and slavery. The constitution did not change after they ruled, yet they still reversed the ruling. That means that, despite being the highest authority, they can be wrong. Citing them as proof that someone is wrong is no more valid than appropriate than citing God.

Glenn Beck is in on this conspiracy - USATODAY.com
The rest of his books he probably "wrote" though.

And?

 

[hortysir]

That would make Rdean, in what the CDC would refer to as, "Patient Zero"

 

[daveman]

It's common knowledge that today's rank & file Repub voters detest book- larnin'. Buckley would turn over in his grave knowing what conservatism has become. Sad that.

I agree, if by "common knowledge" you mean "mindless leftist echo-chamber talking points".

Seriously, I have never seen a group of people so convinced of their own superiority based on so little.

Are you all aware that "being a liberal" really isn't a major achievement worthy of adulation and instant respect?

 

[daveman]

Unless they link to proof.

"I don't need to check out your links. Thanks. I have access to solid, scientifically accurate information of my own. I require no spoon feeding by others. "

Wow, sounds awfully "closed minded". Pity.

We've covered that in another thread. You're as closed-minded as any fundamentalist. True story.