Richard Dawkins Hits The GOP On The Head

Sundial

Class Warrior
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
1,231
Reaction score
110
Points
48
Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,091
Points
245
Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.
You should provide links instead of just copying things from other forums.

Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact - On Faith - The Washington Post

By the way, Dawkins is wrong.

Again.

there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all.
Evolution is a theory that is accepted because it works. If someone proved that evolution does not fit all the evidence science would discard it in a heartbeat, and go with another theory that works. There is no more room for dogmatic beliefs in science than there is in anything else, and Dawkins insists on approaching the debate with the dogmatic belief that he has all the answers. The real problem with Dawkins is he set himself up as "The expert" on evolution, and the less educated public goes along.

Science is about doubt. Everything in science is up for debate, that is how it works. Even facts are debatable, and evolution is not a fact.

For the less educated here that will attack me for this, fuck off. I am not saying evolution, or something like it, did not happen. I am just saying that Dawkins is wrong when he claims there is no doubt about it being a fact.

For the ignorant that will praise me for this, you can fuck off too. Doubt is the one certainty in life, and the only thing you can be sure of is you will never have the answers. If your dod cannot stand up to the universe being a few billion years old than He is not really God. If you are not willing to question your beliefs you should not defend them.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,556
Reaction score
23,551
Points
2,180
Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.
Apparently Dawkins hasn't payed attention to U.S. politics and noticed intellectual heavyweights like Maxine Waters, Joe Biden, Algore, Anthony Wiener, Sheila Jackson Lee . . . . and the list goes on.
 

Afanasy

Rookie
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Points
1
Dawkins' tone here of condescension and elitism is contrary to the democratic spirit. I do not mean here the Democratic Party, but the spirit leading to an advocation of democracy. This spirit is clear on a few things. One is that the everyday citizen is a better advocate for the people's rights and a better depository of the power to maintain those rights than any other. Whereas elitist intellectuals insist on their superiority in deciding what is best for the people, the people know full well that the most dangerous people on the planet are intellectual elitists. Now, the people may be wrong in their reasoning, and humble attempts to gently inform them of this can be needed at times, but where they are rationally less qualified to lead or choose their leaders, they are generally poetically and intuitively right. They rightly believe that it is more important to them and their rights to elect someone who has their heart in the right place than has their head on straight. Minds are easier to correct in good-hearted people than hearts are to correct in elitist prigs.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,329
Reaction score
13,654
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.
Dawkins strikes me as another British liberal who just sits there tsk-tsking when the parade has passed his miserable little Island by.
 

Warrior102

Gold Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
16,554
Reaction score
4,120
Points
183
Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.
Who the fuck is Richard Dawkins ?
 

Warrior102

Gold Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
16,554
Reaction score
4,120
Points
183
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_PgHG-1tl0&feature=fvst]funniest family fued answers/bloopers - YouTube[/ame]
 

Mr.Nick

VIP Member
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
9,604
Reaction score
714
Points
83
Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.
Richard Dawkins? of the same element er crystals of David Ike and Noam Chomsky?

Remember when Ben Stein embarrassed him?

"crystals"

Really??
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
America has a history of periodically going through periods of KNOW-NOTHINGISM.

Americans have always had a heathy disrespect for intellectuals.

We generally don't want intellectuals for leaders.

Ideally what we need are folks who are leaders, first, but who are also intellectuals.

But NOW, during this period of anti-nllectualism, intellectualism is thought a flaw of character, rather than a benefit in leadership.

Hence we get people who think that folks like Palin, or Bachman can make good leaders.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top