Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I like how liberals feign intellectualism and charity, all the while eschewing fundamentals of both.Originally posted by: ZeGermans
I like how conservatives make being smart a trait to be ashamed of
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yeah, keep telling yourself that and leave the decisions to the people with IQ's > 130. Thanks.
You just defined elitism.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yeah, keep telling yourself that and leave the decisions to the people with IQ's > 130. Thanks.
You just defined elitism.
Why shouldn't the election be decided for us?
That is how it is done in Russia, China, and Cuba and so goes our economic policy so goes everything else. Money is power, with it taken from you and then dangled back as a gift with a line attached - you'll either starve to death or take the bait and accept this elitism.
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yeah, keep telling yourself that and leave the decisions to the people with IQ's > 130. Thanks.Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I doubt that this will mean much to many people here, but I think it is something to consider.
No, it's not something to consider, much like endorsements from hollywood celebrities or evangelist preachers mean nothing. Their opinions are worth something when it comes to their field of study. Outside of that area, it means nothing.
Some estimates of Hitler's IQ have it above 130 (Link), and actual U.S. Army testing of various high-level Nazis also suggest 130+ IQs (Link2). Obviously, a person can have a genius level mind and a screwy moral compass. I'm filing these endorsements under "irrelevant".
Originally posted by: Descartes
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yeah, keep telling yourself that and leave the decisions to the people with IQ's > 130. Thanks.Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I doubt that this will mean much to many people here, but I think it is something to consider.
No, it's not something to consider, much like endorsements from hollywood celebrities or evangelist preachers mean nothing. Their opinions are worth something when it comes to their field of study. Outside of that area, it means nothing.
Some estimates of Hitler's IQ have it above 130 (Link), and actual U.S. Army testing of various high-level Nazis also suggest 130+ IQs (Link2). Obviously, a person can have a genius level mind and a screwy moral compass. I'm filing these endorsements under "irrelevant".
Wow. We went from Nobel Laureates to Hollywood to the Nazis. I'm speechless and embarrassed.
Originally posted by: davestar
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yeah, keep telling yourself that and leave the decisions to the people with IQ's > 130. Thanks.Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I doubt that this will mean much to many people here, but I think it is something to consider.
No, it's not something to consider, much like endorsements from hollywood celebrities or evangelist preachers mean nothing. Their opinions are worth something when it comes to their field of study. Outside of that area, it means nothing.
Some estimates of Hitler's IQ have it above 130 (Link), and actual U.S. Army testing of various high-level Nazis also suggest 130+ IQs (Link2). Obviously, a person can have a genius level mind and a screwy moral compass. I'm filing these endorsements under "irrelevant".
unreal.
you can link ANY human trait to a number of terrible people.
it is OBVIOUS to ANYONE with any COMMON SENSE that intelligence is a trait that is a net positive for humanity.
but i'm curious... what trait(s) should a person have in order for you to respect his/her opinion?
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Some of you folks seem to think that because someone is intelligent (which I have no doubt is the case for the nobel laureates) in some scientific field makes them more qualified to have an opinion on who should be the president or hold any pollitical office.
What about if they came out and endorsed someone to be the right starting QB for the Dallas Cowboys. Would that merit consideration because they are so smart? Of course not, they don't really have any more qualification to make that determination than anyone else. The same is true for politics. Just because someone is intelligent does not mean their opinion of who should be president merits more consideration. There are intelligent people of all stripes, and some of them don't have the slighest clue about human interaction. Would you want the "Sheldon" character from Big Bang Theory making decisions for you? No? Why not? He's "smart" right? Of course that's just a silly example from TV, but the point is the same. Just because someone is intelligent does not mean the person is qualified to make decisions on my behalf, and I don't want that person making decisions for me. Nobel laureates or not, their opinion is as relevant as those of the hollywood celebrities.
I think you've confused intellectualism with education. I know plenty of uneducated people who are much more intellectual than very educated people. And I have arrived at my conclusion that liberals feign intellectualism by reading this forum. Liberals feel that they have a monopoly on truth and good intentions. They take it as far as they can, denouncing anyone who disagrees with them as an ignorant hillbilly. They want to believe that the unwashed masses are simply too dumb to understand their sophisticated worldview. As a result, they deride anyone who disagrees with them as simple-minded, uneducated, and "anti-science." Need evidence? See the debate on climate change. There are probably about three people (one of whom happens to be me) that visit AT that have any idea about the ins and outs of climate change, yet the rest of you have no problem trumpeting what you feel is some morally and intellectually superior position, thereby demonstrating ignorance beyond any doubt. While the conservatives here generally allow for explanations other than their own, the liberals berate anyone who has the audacity to disagree. That's hardly intellectual.Originally posted by: davestar
conservative rejection of "elitism" is demonstrable. it's practically part of the republican platform. i wonder how you've arrived at your conclusion that liberals feign intellectualism and charity. have you seen studies that show that most college (and beyond) educated people are conservative? do liberals donate to charitable organizations less than their conservative counterparts? for some reason i doubt it, but i'd love to see some empirical evidence to the contrary.
Ah, the usual limp-wristed retort from Robor.Originally posted by: Robor
BS and you know it.
You may not like the fact that people who are smarter than you will always hold more weight than you regarding opinion. However, these are the people that should be running this country, not some dipsht (but you probably voted for the dipsht). And let me guess, do you also cry elitism when Albert Einstein is quoted by people on anything other than science? Then you might not like this one: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yeah, keep telling yourself that and leave the decisions to the people with IQ's > 130. Thanks.Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I doubt that this will mean much to many people here, but I think it is something to consider.
No, it's not something to consider, much like endorsements from hollywood celebrities or evangelist preachers mean nothing. Their opinions are worth something when it comes to their field of study. Outside of that area, it means nothing.
You just defined elitism.
Your kids are reading about their breakthroughs in their science books yet these scientists aren't to be taken seriously? I hope your kids are home schooled, because you (or your kids) may have already allowed these scientists to indirectly make a decision on your behalf (e.g. computer/cell phone/genetic advances = what you purchase). And what the hell does their human interaction have to do with anything?Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Some of you folks seem to think that because someone is intelligent (which I have no doubt is the case for the nobel laureates) in some scientific field makes them more qualified to have an opinion on who should be the president or hold any pollitical office.
What about if they came out and endorsed someone to be the right starting QB for the Dallas Cowboys. Would that merit consideration because they are so smart? Of course not, they don't really have any more qualification to make that determination than anyone else. The same is true for politics. Just because someone is intelligent does not mean their opinion of who should be president merits more consideration. There are intelligent people of all stripes, and some of them don't have the slighest clue about human interaction. Would you want the "Sheldon" character from Big Bang Theory making decisions for you? No? Why not? He's "smart" right? Of course that's just a silly example from TV, but the point is the same. Just because someone is intelligent does not mean the person is qualified to make decisions on my behalf, and I don't want that person making decisions for me. Nobel laureates or not, their opinion is as relevant as those of the hollywood celebrities.
No more idiocracy for me thanks, after 8years of it, I'm full. I'll take a double order of intellictualocracy please.Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yeah, keep telling yourself that and leave the decisions to the people with IQ's > 130. Thanks.Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I doubt that this will mean much to many people here, but I think it is something to consider.
No, it's not something to consider, much like endorsements from hollywood celebrities or evangelist preachers mean nothing. Their opinions are worth something when it comes to their field of study. Outside of that area, it means nothing.
You just defined elitism.
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yeah, keep telling yourself that and leave the decisions to the people with IQ's > 130. Thanks.Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I doubt that this will mean much to many people here, but I think it is something to consider.
No, it's not something to consider, much like endorsements from hollywood celebrities or evangelist preachers mean nothing. Their opinions are worth something when it comes to their field of study. Outside of that area, it means nothing.
You just defined elitism.
I like how conservatives make being smart a trait to be ashamed of
Exactly. I want my leaders to be better than me. Duh.
Special interests funding like that glorified "overhead projector"? :roll:Originally posted by: Xavier434
...and that is something that all of us should want. No one here likes shitty special interest funding that does little to nothing to help out the majority of this country. However, we all love it when money is spent that really does help advance us and this is a special interest group that can really do a lot to make that happen. They are a special interest group that is "for the people" so to speak. Why some of you are rejecting this idea goes way beyond my understanding especially when considering the number of other shitty special interest groups out there that don't do jack for us.
Think of it this way. If they were endorsing McCain would you guys still have a problem with it and find it irrelevant or can you only see it as an opportunity to go up?
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I think you've confused intellectualism with education. I know plenty of uneducated people who are much more intellectual than very educated people. And I have arrived at my conclusion that liberals feign intellectualism by reading this forum. Liberals feel that they have a monopoly on truth and good intentions. They take it as far as they can, denouncing anyone who disagrees with them as an ignorant hillbilly. They want to believe that the unwashed masses are simply too dumb to understand their sophisticated worldview. As a result, they deride anyone who disagrees with them as simple-minded, uneducated, and "anti-science." Need evidence? See the debate on climate change. There are probably about three people (one of whom happens to be me) that visit AT that have any idea about the ins and outs of climate change, yet the rest of you have no problem trumpeting what you feel is some morally and intellectually superior position, thereby demonstrating ignorance beyond any doubt. While the conservatives here generally allow for explanations other than their own, the liberals berate anyone who has the audacity to disagree. That's hardly intellectual.Originally posted by: davestar
conservative rejection of "elitism" is demonstrable. it's practically part of the republican platform. i wonder how you've arrived at your conclusion that liberals feign intellectualism and charity. have you seen studies that show that most college (and beyond) educated people are conservative? do liberals donate to charitable organizations less than their conservative counterparts? for some reason i doubt it, but i'd love to see some empirical evidence to the contrary.
And yes, there is plenty of empirical evidence showing that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Usually when I post this link, the liberals slowly back away from the thread.
Ah, the usual limp-wristed retort from Robor.Originally posted by: Robor
BS and you know it.
I'd settle for them relying on scientific method, reason, logic, wisdom and calculation, instead of doing what the voices in their heads they claim is God talking to them, tells them to do.Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yeah, keep telling yourself that and leave the decisions to the people with IQ's > 130. Thanks.Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I doubt that this will mean much to many people here, but I think it is something to consider.
No, it's not something to consider, much like endorsements from hollywood celebrities or evangelist preachers mean nothing. Their opinions are worth something when it comes to their field of study. Outside of that area, it means nothing.
You just defined elitism.
I like how conservatives make being smart a trait to be ashamed of
Exactly. I want my leaders to be better than me. Duh.
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
No more idiocracy for me thanks, after 8years of it, I'm full. I'll take a double order of intellictualocracy please.Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yeah, keep telling yourself that and leave the decisions to the people with IQ's > 130. Thanks.Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I doubt that this will mean much to many people here, but I think it is something to consider.
No, it's not something to consider, much like endorsements from hollywood celebrities or evangelist preachers mean nothing. Their opinions are worth something when it comes to their field of study. Outside of that area, it means nothing.
You just defined elitism.
The quote a couple above mine, specified I.Q. over 130, there was a reason for that.Originally posted by: Mursilis
Actually, a study has suggested W's IQ was ~125, well above average. Text And yet, how did that turn out? GWB wasn't as stupid as his critics thought, but he still screwed up pretty royally. Obama's pretty smart, but it's no guarantee he'll be a great leader. Nietzsche was pretty brilliant, but I can't imagine any Democrats voting for him. His wasn't exactly a philosophy of charity.
I agree 100%. Unfortunately, it seems that both of these ideas are becoming more mainstream.Originally posted by: Descartes
I agree with you actually. I know a lot of hardcore liberals, many that were previously faux-conservatives, that have assumed the position because they feel it gives them a superior stance. No doubt many feel intellectually superior to others. It's a lot like how atheists will condescend those with faith. I'm sometimes guilty of this.
Then again, I don't really see how this is any different than the hardcore right that feels they're the "real America", that everyone else are just elitists, etc. I grew up in the southwest, lived in the northeast and now live in the south; I've seen every form of elitism that this country offers, from redneck (and I don't use that as a pejorative) elitism to academic elitism.
I wish we could just exclude the extremes in normal discourse, because these people will never be brought into the fold of normal existence.
I think these people are great scientists. However, I also feel that they trivialize themselves by delving into the world of politics. These are men of great ideas and understanding in the objective realms of science. However, policy is not an objective science. By its very nature, it is subjective to the extent that there is not necessarily a right or wrong answer. Indeed, there are often many ways to achieve the desired result, with the added possibility that none are optimal and all are equivalent. For example, if I say that everyone has to pay an extra $5k in taxes this year to support my healthcare plan and you say everyone must invest $5k in communal health savings accounts, whose plan is better? They are essentially equivalent, though one would likely appeal more to the conservatives and one to the liberals. Is either right or wrong? No. Is it objectively wrong to levy a 90% tax on income above $50k/year? No.I think the point of this thread though is that to dismiss some of the brightest and most capable success stories that our country offers diminishes us all, conservative or liberal. As a people, we should promote our best, support them and give them the tools they need to succeed. There's nothing to be proud about being a country that is losing its competitiveness with other countries academically, scientifically, etc.
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yeah, keep telling yourself that and leave the decisions to the people with IQ's > 130. Thanks.Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I doubt that this will mean much to many people here, but I think it is something to consider.
No, it's not something to consider, much like endorsements from hollywood celebrities or evangelist preachers mean nothing. Their opinions are worth something when it comes to their field of study. Outside of that area, it means nothing.
Originally posted by: manowar821
This whole "scientists just want funding" argument is just a bad as the "it's just a theory" argument. Don't make me laugh.
Of course they want funding, because they're stuck within a monetary system. That stifles their ability to help advance technology and sciences, which ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE.
Also, comparing Nobel Prize winning individuals to celebrities is like comparing apples to monkey droppings. These people actually DESERVE your attention, if only for a minute or two.
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: manowar821
This whole "scientists just want funding" argument is just a bad as the "it's just a theory" argument. Don't make me laugh.
Of course they want funding, because they're stuck within a monetary system. That stifles their ability to help advance technology and sciences, which ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE.
Also, comparing Nobel Prize winning individuals to celebrities is like comparing apples to monkey droppings. These people actually DESERVE your attention, if only for a minute or two.
So we can expect these signed individuals to offer their scientific minds for free going forward?
THAt would be proof positive they are thinking beyond their own needs. Although I highly doubt thats the case.....
For example. the first signed Alexai Abrikosov I couldnt find.
But number 2....Peter Agre...
Click
Xing Zong and Jidi Liu, of Duke University Chinese Students and Scholar Association (DCSSA), recently had an interview of the winner of the 2003 Nobel Prize in Chemistry Peter Agre, who is now Vice Chancellor for Science and Technology at the Duke University Medical Center about his experiences, his opinions about science.
Now theres a guy getting PAID. Damn right he wants more money in his system. As for #3, Sidney Altman. This guy has a complete grocery list of Universities he has worked for.
Click
But of course, it has NOTHING to do with the money does it. In fact I bet all the undersigned names donated any proceeds from Nobel or other prices right back into scientific research didnt they.......