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

[California Girl]

that article is from 1975.

so?

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

So, if you're such an 'intellectual', how come you link to e-how to back up your 'opinion'?

 

[rdean]

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

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.

I was in a very long cab ride one time and the driver pointed out some "religious" event that was taking place. Well, I can never resist talking religion with someone on the right because they rarely know much. So I told him I thought it odd everyone says Jesus is such a man of peace when Jesus said something like, I didn't come in peace, but carry my father's sword. The driver said that's not in the Bible and the only people Jesus hated were "homos". I said that Jesus talks about poverty over 1,500 times but never mentions gays a single time. He said that's not true. I said, "Have you ever read the Bible?" He said, and this is verbatim, "I don't have to read the Bible, my Pastor tells me what it says".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

I learned that the Dem Party was taken over by EnviroMarxists since 1975.

What changed in the "science"?

I thought we knew since 1850 that additional wisps of atmospheric CO2 would melt the ice caps, spawn killer tornadoes, create Cat 5 hurricanes, kill all the sea coral?

What changed?

Understanding brought about by careful study and improvements in technology.

I know it's difficult. The right wing not fond of study, or learning. Someone wrote a book thousands of years ago and they can't believe anything in it could be wrong or out of date. If a mind can't be changed in thousands of years, how likely that it can be changed in 36?

Yes, it's is difficult.

Are you saying that information on atmospheric CO2 prior to 1975 is unreliable?

What changed?

Do you have any specifics?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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".

Are Obama and Biden examples of this "intellectual leadership"?

 

[rdean]

so?

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

So, if you're such an 'intellectual', how come you link to e-how to back up your 'opinion'?

If it's true, it doesn't matter where the link is to, even Fox is right once in a while. That's why I like links. If one is untrue, it's usually easy to find out why. Untrue links don't usually have any kind of supporting data or statistics. If they quote someone, it's someone who no one has ever heard of and you can't find their name on the internet.
No links at all usually means all they know is a "talking point". Like "trickle down works", or "Obama's a Marxist" or "it's cold outside so climate change is a lie".

 

[rdean]

I learned that the Dem Party was taken over by EnviroMarxists since 1975.

What changed in the "science"?

I thought we knew since 1850 that additional wisps of atmospheric CO2 would melt the ice caps, spawn killer tornadoes, create Cat 5 hurricanes, kill all the sea coral?

What changed?

Understanding brought about by careful study and improvements in technology.

I know it's difficult. The right wing not fond of study, or learning. Someone wrote a book thousands of years ago and they can't believe anything in it could be wrong or out of date. If a mind can't be changed in thousands of years, how likely that it can be changed in 36?

Yes, it's is difficult.

Are you saying that information on atmospheric CO2 prior to 1975 is unreliable?

What changed?

Do you have any specifics?

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

So, if you're such an 'intellectual', how come you link to e-how to back up your 'opinion'?

If it's true, it doesn't matter where the link is to, even Fox is right once in a while. That's why I like links. If one is untrue, it's usually easy to find out why. Untrue links don't usually have any kind of supporting data or statistics. If they quote someone, it's someone who no one has ever heard of and you can't find their name on the internet.
No links at all usually means all they know is a "talking point". Like "trickle down works", or "Obama's a Marxist" or "it's cold outside so climate change is a lie".

Translation: I got caught making shit up.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

I learned that the Dem Party was taken over by EnviroMarxists since 1975.

What changed in the "science"?

I thought we knew since 1850 that additional wisps of atmospheric CO2 would melt the ice caps, spawn killer tornadoes, create Cat 5 hurricanes, kill all the sea coral?

What changed?

Understanding brought about by careful study and improvements in technology.

I know it's difficult. The right wing not fond of study, or learning. Someone wrote a book thousands of years ago and they can't believe anything in it could be wrong or out of date. If a mind can't be changed in thousands of years, how likely that it can be changed in 36?

Just to review:

Discovered CO2 was a ghg in 1850

USA harnessed the power of the atom and detonated a bomb 1945

First weather satellite launched 1960

Landed a man on the Moon 1969

What happened since 1975?

 

[rdean]

I learned that the Dem Party was taken over by EnviroMarxists since 1975.

What changed in the "science"?

I thought we knew since 1850 that additional wisps of atmospheric CO2 would melt the ice caps, spawn killer tornadoes, create Cat 5 hurricanes, kill all the sea coral?

What changed?

Understanding brought about by careful study and improvements in technology.

I know it's difficult. The right wing not fond of study, or learning. Someone wrote a book thousands of years ago and they can't believe anything in it could be wrong or out of date. If a mind can't be changed in thousands of years, how likely that it can be changed in 36?

Just to review:

Discovered CO2 was a ghg in 1850

USA harnessed the power of the atom and detonated a bomb 1945

First weather satellite launched 1960

Landed a man on the Moon 1969

What happened since 1975?

I gave you a good link and you refused to read it. I can't make you learn or force you to read. Don't get made at me, after all, you sit in front of the Internet. Learn something. Find something out. Give yourself a reason to write.

 

[Dot Com]

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.

 

[California Girl]

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

So, if you're such an 'intellectual', how come you link to e-how to back up your 'opinion'?

If it's true, it doesn't matter where the link is to, even Fox is right once in a while. That's why I like links. If one is untrue, it's usually easy to find out why. Untrue links don't usually have any kind of supporting data or statistics. If they quote someone, it's someone who no one has ever heard of and you can't find their name on the internet.
No links at all usually means all they know is a "talking point". Like "trickle down works", or "Obama's a Marxist" or "it's cold outside so climate change is a lie".

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?

 

[California Girl]

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.

You need to evaluate your use of the phrase 'common knowledge'. Just saying.

 

[rdean]

So, if you're such an 'intellectual', how come you link to e-how to back up your 'opinion'?

If it's true, it doesn't matter where the link is to, even Fox is right once in a while. That's why I like links. If one is untrue, it's usually easy to find out why. Untrue links don't usually have any kind of supporting data or statistics. If they quote someone, it's someone who no one has ever heard of and you can't find their name on the internet.
No links at all usually means all they know is a "talking point". Like "trickle down works", or "Obama's a Marxist" or "it's cold outside so climate change is a lie".

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.

 

[California Girl]

If it's true, it doesn't matter where the link is to, even Fox is right once in a while. That's why I like links. If one is untrue, it's usually easy to find out why. Untrue links don't usually have any kind of supporting data or statistics. If they quote someone, it's someone who no one has ever heard of and you can't find their name on the internet.
No links at all usually means all they know is a "talking point". Like "trickle down works", or "Obama's a Marxist" or "it's cold outside so climate change is a lie".

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'.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Understanding brought about by careful study and improvements in technology.

I know it's difficult. The right wing not fond of study, or learning. Someone wrote a book thousands of years ago and they can't believe anything in it could be wrong or out of date. If a mind can't be changed in thousands of years, how likely that it can be changed in 36?

Yes, it's is difficult.

Are you saying that information on atmospheric CO2 prior to 1975 is unreliable?

What changed?

Do you have any specifics?

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

How does posting articles you didn't bother to read and don't back up your point helpful to your argument?

Is this something Progressives "intellectuals" do?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Understanding brought about by careful study and improvements in technology.

I know it's difficult. The right wing not fond of study, or learning. Someone wrote a book thousands of years ago and they can't believe anything in it could be wrong or out of date. If a mind can't be changed in thousands of years, how likely that it can be changed in 36?

Just to review:

Discovered CO2 was a ghg in 1850

USA harnessed the power of the atom and detonated a bomb 1945

First weather satellite launched 1960

Landed a man on the Moon 1969

What happened since 1975?

I gave you a good link and you refused to read it. I can't make you learn or force you to read. Don't get made at me, after all, you sit in front of the Internet. Learn something. Find something out. Give yourself a reason to write.

Yeah I was actually on the back deck enjoying a morning coffee.

Again, you didn't bother to read the article you posted. It's a classic example of Progressive Argument Posted Article Disconnect Syndrome.

I see it all the time here

 

[Wonky Pundit]

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....

 

[Oddball]

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

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

 

[rdean]

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'.

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.

 

[Provocateur]

I see you had to borrow the big words in the title from someone else.



Color me unsurprised.