Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Academia and Political Orientation
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BaronVonOwn
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Nov 2002
Posts: 46
Location: United States of America

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

utabintarbo wrote:
It does for me, and it should for anybody who pursues their rational self-interest.

So the guy who lied on his resume to get that job did the morally right thing? If you are entrusted with the care of a sick relative and stand to gain a substantial inheritance, "forgetting" to administer that medicine or causing a "tragic" accident is the morally right thing to do? Is it right for soldiers to rape and loot in wars -- they are usually never brought to justice for these activities. Suppose Bush knew the WMD excuse was bullshit -- he got away with it, and now his cronies have have a bounty of oil resources and contracts -- did he do the right thing? Did OJ do the right thing by "freeing" himself from his wife? Shall I go on?

evoweiss wrote:

However, the ultimate cause of this behavior is that they are descended from individuals that had an increased likelihood of surviving and reproducing because they had genes that predisposed them to feel good about behaving morally, etc.

Righto, and the welfare queen who has 9 kids will eventually be naturally selected, whereas responsible people who don't breed beyond their means will be deselected.

Quote:
People act morally because they think it's the right thing to do, it feels good, etc. Similarly, they avoid acting immorally because it feels bad to do so (guilt, shame, etc.). That is the proximal cause of this sort of behavior and the only one that really matters in ontogenetic time, i.e., during our lifetimes.

They act morally because God will get them if they don't, and they've been given the idea that "it's just the right thing to do." It may feel good, but I doubt that is a major reason. Getting a job, even if it took lies to do it, would probably feel a lot better -- the difference is, people feel guilty about these things because they've been nurtured that way. If you just told a person to do what is in his or her self-interest, and threw out the fairy tales, then I bet your little self-interest/ethics theory would break down awful fast.

Quote:
Any suggested alternative?

Ethical.
_________________
What if we built a large, wooden badger?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
evoweiss
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Posts: 1676
Location: Edinburgh, UK

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi again,

BaronVonOwn wrote:
Righto, and the welfare queen who has 9 kids will eventually be naturally selected, whereas responsible people who don't breed beyond their means will be deselected.


Sounds like an appeal to ridicule to me, but I'll assume the best and bite. First, I don't think the welfare queen is the norm and one oft-forgotten bit of wisdom is that "the plural of anecdote isn't data".

The current situation with welfare is such that some people are going to benefit in terms of number of kids. However, in the long run, those folks do more poorly. Just having more kids is not everything as parental investment is equally important (not all your kids are going to survive and reproduce if you don't care for them).

Quote:
They act morally because God will get them if they don't, and they've been given the idea that "it's just the right thing to do." It may feel good, but I doubt that is a major reason.


Religiosity is a heritable trait. It thus falls under the same rules of natural selection as other mental and physical characteristics. Why are most of us, as a species, prepared to accept religion? Might it be that religiosity is one of the mechanisms that was selected to prevent unethical and promote ethical behavior?

Quote:
Getting a job, even if it took lies to do it, would probably feel a lot better -- the difference is, people feel guilty about these things because they've been nurtured that way.


I don't think it would feel better getting a job by lying; maybe that's just me. As per guilt, behaving ethically, etc., the weight of the evidence, especially that coming from behavior genetics and in peer-reviewed journals, indicates that you're wrong.

People do not resemble their parents because of how they were raised or nurtured, but, instead, because they share genes in common. I can give you plenty of cites if you want, but just look up Sandra Scarr's paper in Developmental Psychology where she laid down the case with evidence for starters.

Quote:
If you just told a person to do what is in his or her self-interest, and threw out the fairy tales, then I bet your little self-interest/ethics theory would break down awful fast.


I'm sorry, but your sentence is a bit hard to follow as I don't know what "fairy tales" you're referring to here. People's attitudes, values, and personalities don't change even with all talk, lecturing, fairy tales, or what-not. They're mostly biologically based predispositions.

Here's a question for you: What would you predict would be the outcome of having people who behave unethically raise a child whose biological parents behaved ethically or vice versa? If I'm reading your above argument correctly, I image you're conclude that the child would resemble its adoptive parents, right? If so, that's contrary to what research of this sort has shown.

Best,

Alex
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
utabintarbo
n00b
n00b


Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 53
Location: Warren, MI, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BaronVonOwn wrote:
utabintarbo wrote:
It does for me, and it should for anybody who pursues their rational self-interest.

So the guy who lied on his resume to get that job did the morally right thing? If you are entrusted with the care of a sick relative and stand to gain a substantial inheritance, "forgetting" to administer that medicine or causing a "tragic" accident is the morally right thing to do? Is it right for soldiers to rape and loot in wars -- they are usually never brought to justice for these activities. Suppose Bush knew the WMD excuse was bullshit -- he got away with it, and now his cronies have have a bounty of oil resources and contracts -- did he do the right thing? Did OJ do the right thing by "freeing" himself from his wife? Shall I go on?


Go on if you wish. You are merely proving you ignorance of the meaning of "rational".

To be rational is to conform to objective reality. Lying on one's resume is not in one's best interest in that one will soon gain a reputation in the field as one who does not stick around in a job very long. This is not looked kindly upon.

The objectivity part comes in when one puts oneself in the other person's position and determines what one would wish that person to do if the positions were reversed. The Golden Rule.

And why does this always seem to turn into a Bush bash? :roll:

Bob
_________________
Let the market decide!

And in case it wasn't apparent, sarcasm is yet another of the free services I offer. :roll:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
evoweiss
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Posts: 1676
Location: Edinburgh, UK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

utabintarbo wrote:
And why does this always seem to turn into a Bush bash? :roll:


Yeah, no kidding... I'm not a big Bush fan, but I also don't think he's the root of all (or even most) evil. The bashing does, however, get boring after a while, especially on threads that were not debates of some policy of the current administration.

I have no problem if some thread is aimed at debating some policy and the pro- and anti-people have at it. Hell, I may even join in, but it seems as if nearly everything is framed in some anti-Bush ideology or what-not. Honestly, I'd feel the same way if Kerry becomes president and everything turns into a Kerry bash.

By the way, one thing that amuses me greatly is this organization moveon.org. They were initially formed to stop the whole impeachment thing with Clinton. The idea was that we should just "move on". Well, it seems like they've never "moved on" as they still grip about the 2000 election.

Best,

Alex
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BaronVonOwn
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Nov 2002
Posts: 46
Location: United States of America

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

utabintarbo wrote:
Go on if you wish. You are merely proving you ignorance of the meaning of "rational".

To be rational is to conform to objective reality

Au contraire -- I don't remember that being under the definition of rational. You're the one who seems to be confused, you are thinking of the definition of truth.

Quote:
Lying on one's resume is not in one's best interest in that one will soon gain a reputation in the field as one who does not stick around in a job very long. This is not looked kindly upon.

So the only problem with lying on a resume is that you might get caught, eh? Boy, you're providing quite an education in ethics. I think you're missing the point of my examples -- I provided examples of what were supposed to be "perfect crimes" -- the ones you can get away with, no sweat, and you have substantial rewards. In your vision of ethics, "perfect crimes" are morally upright.

Quote:
The objectivity part comes in when one puts oneself in the other person's position and determines what one would wish that person to do if the positions were reversed. The Golden Rule.

Once again, you're ignorant. You've mixed up objectivity with consistency.

Quote:
And why does this always seem to turn into a Bush bash?

I posed a hypothetical scenario -- hence the word "suppose" in my original post. Don't be so thin-skinned.

evoweiss wrote:
Sounds like an appeal to ridicule to me, but I'll assume the best and bite. First, I don't think the welfare queen is the norm and one oft-forgotten bit of wisdom is that "the plural of anecdote isn't data".

So any use of colloquialisms is an appeal to ridicule? If you'd like my writing to be drier, that can be arranged. It is well-known that the poor breed more than the rich, just look at the birth rates of third-world countries compared to industrialized countries.

Quote:
However, in the long run, those folks do more poorly. Just having more kids is not everything as parental investment is equally important (not all your kids are going to survive and reproduce if you don't care for them).

Evolution doesn't work as much in modern society. Welfare, free health care etc. defeats evolution. See the "Social Darwinism" thread.

Quote:
I don't think it would feel better getting a job by lying; maybe that's just me. As per guilt, behaving ethically, etc., the weight of the evidence, especially that coming from behavior genetics and in peer-reviewed journals, indicates that you're wrong.

You'd feel better having a job as opposed to not having a job, which was my original point.

As far as your evolutionary argument goes, I have the following criticisms. First of all, I think you're dangerously close to social Darwinism. You're essentially saying that what is fit is good, and unfit is bad. Secondly, if evolution results in morality, why is there racism, sexism, etc. so deeply entrenched in so many societies? Why is it that the rich hoard much more money than they need, leaving billions of people around the world dying from starvation or insufficient medical care? Why is history essentially told as a series of wars? Notice a theme here? Most of these trends are "us vs. them," factional affairs. Do you see what your evolutionary cooperation morality is? Yours is a "partners-in-crime" or "honor-among-thieves" morality. One faction exploiting another, but intrafaction interaction is "moral." But really, this type of morality only makes that group more cohesive so they are more efficient in defeating other faction. Thirdly, you haven't accounted for the impact of civilization and police forces on evolution. Maybe some of the worse crimes -- murder, theft, etc. -- were deselected because people who did that got their heads chopped off. So the point is, your morality is dependent upon certain anthropological conditions. My last criticism is that you still haven't accounted for sleazy or underhanded tactics. Obviously, murder and robbery are deselected, but what about those "perfect crimes?"

And as you seem to be going along with the "self-interest = good" sentiment, I'll pose the "perfect crimes" problem to you too: is it only wrong if you get caught?
_________________
What if we built a large, wooden badger?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kope
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 17 May 2004
Posts: 136

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's really fairly simple.

Academia leans towards big government policies because academia exists at the behest of big government.

Research grants from government or government backed programs and public universities are the most common sources of income for the academic.

We tend to identify "liberal" with "big government," though of course any such identification is largely immatereal in the real world.

Also, because most members of academia have never had to produce anything to the satisfaction of a customer, they really just don't understand market forces -- with the noted exception of those who actively study subjects such as economics. Again, we tend to identify those who support relatively free and open markets as "conservative," and those who are for controlled markets as "liberal." But again, such identifications really have little bearing in the real world.

Oddly, the current administration is all about controlling markets and big government . . and we still hear about it being so conservative . . .
_________________
"Computers are useless -- they only give you answers!" -- Pablo Picasso
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wdreinhart
Guru
Guru


Joined: 11 Jun 2003
Posts: 569
Location: 4QFJ12345678

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apologies if this has all been discussed before, but I didn't see it when I skimmed the first three pages of this thread.

Firstly, Please don't judge all of academia by the literature, art, and (gods save us all) cultural studies professors. They might make more noise and get more mainstream press, but ultimately most of a college's faculty aren't nearly as far-out as they are. You're not going to see many nuclear engineering professors voting for the green party :D (or probably for the democrats, either).

Second, a lot of conservatives approach academia with a big chip on their shoulder. An anti-intellectual attitude (surprise, surprise) irritates intellectuals. Here's a hint: the way to impress a liberal is NOT to start off the encounter by announcing that you're proud to be a homophopic, eurocentrist, male-chauvanist ecosystem-destroying White, Christian, American Male and no goddamn pinko hippie with a PhD is ever going to make you reconsider your ways. Implying that academics only have jobs because of "big government" or repeating the old "those who can, do..." saw are probably not good techniques either. Also, a candidate who publicly brags about his own ignorance is as offensive to people who dedicate their lives to learning as one who carries a photo of Jane Fonda posing on that NVA flak gun would be to Vietnam veterans.

Third, the conservative "movement" (if they even use that word) and the republican party have aligned themselves with Christian fundamentalism. That puts off a lot of educated people. No literature professor wants a leader who lives by just one book. Nobody who teaches biology or geology wants to vote for a creationist; who would want a leader that thinks their life work is literally lies concocted by the devil? f the republicans want scientists back, it's going to take a lot more than vague promises about funding NASA; they need to distance themselves from anti-science ideologies. The black-and-white moralism that conservatives have adopted doesn't leave room for any subtleties in international affairs. Geographers, historians, and international affairs professors aren't going to like a candidate that tosses all their theories out the window, labels every nation on earth as either "good" or "evil" according to his interpretation of Christian morality, and conducts foriegn affairs based only on that classification. Casting Americans as "God's chosen people" might play well with focus groups in the midwest, but it makes people who study international cultures cringe.

Anyway, I hope this nudges the debate back toward the original topic instead of "yet another open season on Bush" thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
evoweiss
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Posts: 1676
Location: Edinburgh, UK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi again,

BaronVonOwn wrote:
Evolution doesn't work as much in modern society. Welfare, free health care etc. defeats evolution. See the "Social Darwinism" thread.


The social Darwinists are a minor fringe group and they are, frankly, wrong. They don't quite understand evolution by natural selection as they are of the belief that evolution means 'progress'. Evolution simply means that species will change when the environmental conditions favor one set of genes over another. If the environment changes so as to include free health care, etc., the selective pressures will change and other genes may or may not be selected as a result. Darwin couldn't have made this any clearer in his writings.

Quote:
You'd feel better having a job as opposed to not having a job, which was my original point.


I've been without work and just made do with less. My best friend has been without work for long stretches and did similarly. He's never lied to get a job nor behaved unethically in those times. Sure we would have felt better with a job, but getting jobs by lying and cheating would have felt worse than just tightening our belts. In the long run, honesty pays off more. There are plenty of other people who go without work rather than pursue dishonest means to get work.

Quote:
First of all, I think you're dangerously close to social Darwinism. You're essentially saying that what is fit is good, and unfit is bad.


No, you're reading things into what I am saying that simply are not there. I am saying that moral behavior, etc. are adaptations that conferred advantages to those who had them in the past. Those genes were passed on and, hence, most of us have a 'moral instinct'. Furthermore, that instinct probably works by making us 'feel good' when we do something good or 'feel bad' when we do something bad.

Jealousy and aggression are also adaptations in that they were likely things that promoted survival and reproduction. However, I do not think either of these things is 'good'.

In short, and let this be on the record: Whether something is good or bad in my eyes has no relation to whether they promoted fitness in the past.

Quote:
Secondly, if evolution results in morality, why is there racism, sexism, etc. so deeply entrenched in so many societies?


For the same exact reason: the instinct to do those things and behave in those ways in the past promoted survival and reproduction. This doesn't mean they are good things now or in the past. It only means that they 'worked' in thas past and increased the likelihood of survival and reproduction in those that possessed these traits. If you're in a band of hunter-gatherers and food is scarce, as it likely was, you would be more likely to survive if you distrusted others outside your group than if you trusted them.

Additionally, I think that seeing these things for what they are makes it far easier to learn how to eliminate those things. Much racism, by the way, was eliminated pretty accidently. By ending segregation you brought people into contact with one another and, while many of the older generation still had their prejudicial attitudes, the younger lost theirs for the most part. In a sense, those individuals that whose parents were discriminated against become part of the 'new tribe' as it were.

You cite many examples of the bad things. In part they were likely due to our evolved evolved human nature, but so were the good things. As per those good things: the abolition of slavery, the establishment of laws, the production of works of art, massive progress in the sciences, philanthropy, more wealth and better living conditions for everybody, increases in life expectancy, protection of the weak, women's suffrage, children's labor laws, mechanization, safer working environments, the green revolution which saved millions from famine in India, etc.

Quote:
Thirdly, you haven't accounted for the impact of civilization and police forces on evolution. Maybe some of the worse crimes -- murder, theft, etc. -- were deselected because people who did that got their heads chopped off. So the point is, your morality is dependent upon certain anthropological conditions.


Laws are created by people. People have evolved to value certain behaviors and to devalue other behaviors (exploitation, murder, rape, etc.). Usually, as most in the society agree to what is 'bad,' they codify and enforce these things.

I should note that, depending on how efficacious the enforcement of the laws are, there will be some fraction of individuals who get away with it and manage to breed. However, the laws and the like do keep their number in check. They are the minority.

Quote:
My last criticism is that you still haven't accounted for sleazy or underhanded tactics. Obviously, murder and robbery are deselected, but what about those "perfect crimes?"


The individuals who commit the petty crimes and aren't caught have other problems which get them into trouble when it comes to mating, etc. The fact is, they're part of a troublesome minority, the competitively disadvantaged that pursue an 'alternative strategy'. This is a whole new ball of wax and deals with evolutionary stable strategies.

Quote:
And as you seem to be going along with the "self-interest = good" sentiment, I'll pose the "perfect crimes" problem to you too: is it only wrong if you get caught?


I never said or implied that self-interest is "good" or "bad" and I am beginning to think you're not reading what I have written carefully. I merely said that it was a fact of the nature of organisms, human and otherwise. I also said that self-interest led to the evolution of ethical and moral behaviors as well as the darker side of human nature and that it probably works by making "being moral" feel good and making "being immoral or unethical" feel bad. There will be individuals pursuing alternative strategies, but they are the minority.

As per your question. My answer is no. Now a question: What gives you the feeling that I would think otherwise? If somebody is exploiting others, it's not right. Most people realize this instinctively or can grasp the concept with no real direct instruction. If they don't grasp the concept, others have evolved means to deal with them.

BaronVonOwn (and anybody else interested), please read some of the things I have recommended to you. You will come to realize that evolutionary psychology, broadly defined, is not quite what most people think it is. I really do think you'll find the work of Lewis Petrinovich fascinating.

Now, to the peanut gallery I pose the following question: I felt that my thoughts and informed opinions on the matter were either misunderstood or misrepresented here (I'm not going to assume malice and mean no offense). Was anybody under the impression that I was laboring under the beliefs that were attributed to me in the post I replied to?

If it is the case that my opinions, etc. are being misrepresented or not given a fair reading, then I don't think there's any point in continuing this debate, especially as I have tried to do my best to give a fair reading to the points made by BaronVonOwn.

Best,

Alex


Last edited by evoweiss on Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kope
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 17 May 2004
Posts: 136

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wdreinhart wrote:


Firstly, Please don't judge all of academia by the literature, art, and (gods save us all) cultural studies professors.


Very true. However, even in the sciences you'll tend to find that the universities are more liberal than the average american.

Quote:

Second, a lot of conservatives approach academia with a big chip on their shoulder. An anti-intellectual attitude . . .


Equally true is that it's not a good way to impress a conservative by starting off assuming their ignorant or anti-intellectual. Far too many liberals confuse a refusal to accept their assumptions as a refusal to think rationally.


Quote:

Third, the conservative "movement" (if they even use that word) and the republican party have aligned themselves with Christian fundamentalism.


It would be more fair and historically accurate to state that the Christian fundamentalists aligned themselves with the republican party and then took over large segments of it -- particularly in the rural south.

Quote:

That puts off a lot of educated people. No literature professor wants a leader who lives by just one book. Nobody who teaches biology or geology wants to vote for a creationist; who would want a leader that thinks their life work is literally lies concocted by the devil? If the republicans want scientists back, it's going to take a lot more than vague promises about funding NASA; they need to distance themselves from anti-science ideologies.


What should also put off educated people is a failure to be able to accept that one can hold a religious belief and be a good scientist, or a good study of literature, etc.

My brother-in-law, for example, is a very devout Christian. He also happens to be the author of lots of stuff like this.

It is this sort of arrogance that really muddies the waters. The irony of this entire line of reasoning is really rather enjoyable. Nothing like taking the long way around to say "oh, the real problem is that conservatives are just too stupid to be in academia."
_________________
"Computers are useless -- they only give you answers!" -- Pablo Picasso
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wdreinhart
Guru
Guru


Joined: 11 Jun 2003
Posts: 569
Location: 4QFJ12345678

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kope wrote:

It would be more fair and historically accurate to state that the Christian fundamentalists aligned themselves with the republican party and then took over large segments of it -- particularly in the rural south.


Who took over who's party is pretty irrelevant at this point. If the rational conservatives want the majority of scientists and engineers (who were mostly republicans up through the 1970s) back, they need to split with the biblical literalists.

Kope wrote:

My brother-in-law, for example, is a very devout Christian. He also happens to be the author of lots of stuff like this.


I wish the PDF link was working so I could read his paper. It would be interesting to see if his discussion on the origin of those stellar shells mentions dates more than 6000 years in the past. If it does, then he's not part of the "fundamentalist Christian" group that I'm complaining about. Being a devout Christian *and* a reasoning scientist is great. It's just the people who want literal 6-day creation taught in historical geology class that irk me.

Kope wrote:

It is this sort of arrogance that really muddies the waters. The irony of this entire line of reasoning is really rather enjoyable. Nothing like taking the long way around to say "oh, the real problem is that conservatives are just too stupid to be in academia."


It's only fair. The thread started with a round-about way of accusing academics of being too stupid to see the self-evident truths of conservatism and implying that they would all be conservative if they had to work in the "real world".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kope
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 17 May 2004
Posts: 136

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wdreinhart wrote:

It's only fair. The thread started with a round-about way of accusing academics of being too stupid to see the self-evident truths of conservatism and implying that they would all be conservative if they had to work in the "real world".


I'm pretty sure that good rhetoric, regardless of political affiliation, doesn't sum up to "well he started it!" Such retorts are fine when you're a 7 year old and got caught fighting with a sibling. They tend to be less acceptable at older ages.

I do think there's some truth to the point that academia is filled with people who have never held jobs outside of academia. The demands and criteria for success, particularly in small companies where margins are exceedingly thin and often you see owners working 16-20 hour days to meet customer demands, are different.

I've worked for very small companies, universities, and large public coorporations . . . and I have to say that the lowest stress levels is definitely in the university setting. I can't even begin to count how many grants for research that basically was "let's re-do the same project someone else did last year for verification" I saw pass through the department (large, public medical research university). Sure the researchers put in their time in the lab, but they really didn't have to worry about producing anything to the satisfaction of a customer who could refuse to pay if it wasn't what they wanted.

I tend to beleive that people who have never worked as an entrepeneur, trying to get their own company off the ground really don't tend to get many economic realities. When you're your own boss, you think about where every penny that crosses the desk comes from and where it goes, so you start to think about things like public policy in terms of "who pays?" rather than in terms of "who benefits?"

I don't think it MAKES academics liberal. But I do think that the lack of personal experience with that sort of daily reality means that it's easier to think of problem solutions in terms of just proposing some additional public program.

My personal favorite example of this is public education. You never hear the academics talking about increasing efficiency in education -- getting more kids educated with fewer resources. A lack of perspective that is not only appearant to someone who owns their own business, but indicates to such a person that the person doing the proposing has no understand of the full impacts of their proposals.

Of course, as I noted above, being for big government really doesn't make one liberal -- look at Bush's approach to government and governmental expanse.

Oh, and as an aside -- no my brother-in-law is not a biblical literalist. But then, neither is the average Christian. Biblical fundamentalism is not mainstream, no matter how loudly they scream that they are. However, that doesn't seem to stop folks from making statements that are so broad that they end up stating that anyone who happens to believe in a God as creator shouldn't be considered as a good scientist or a can't be an intelligent person -- even if said person holds no belief that is in any way contrary to the findings of modern science.
_________________
"Computers are useless -- they only give you answers!" -- Pablo Picasso
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wdreinhart wrote:
Second, a lot of conservatives approach academia with a big chip on their shoulder. An anti-intellectual attitude (surprise, surprise) irritates intellectuals. Here's a hint: the way to impress a liberal is NOT to start off the encounter by announcing that you're proud to be a homophopic, eurocentrist, male-chauvanist ecosystem-destroying White, Christian, American Male and no goddamn pinko hippie with a PhD is ever going to make you reconsider your ways.


This thread started with such a post, but the approach was tactfully played with a hint of ignorance, so as to smooth over the staple implied insults. Clever tactics probably picked up at a local university.

My thoughts on this are simple enough. I find knowledge is independent of learning institutions, but not mutually exclusive, and in this I mean real world "know how".

People who are naturally insightful do not need 4,5 or 7 year degrees to prove this trait. It is already there. On the other hand, I have great respect for those who would work hard to get through such trials and learn something in addition to what they already inherently possess, all the while acquiring their degree, in some cases a type of degree being required for certian jobs.

One thing I am sure of is that the question itself, "are they smarter, or just inexperienced?", is borne of inexperience. But, here, it is more of a politicalcally motivated rant merely delievered in question form. It is obvious that the element offering the query has already answered their own request, and uses it as a mechanism for popular mainstream political band-waggoning and vitriol. Very transparent, but I guess clever if the query is coming from a freshman in highschool, err, I mean college.

I question the validity of the original question itself. It smells wholly unreal to me.
Back to top
wdreinhart
Guru
Guru


Joined: 11 Jun 2003
Posts: 569
Location: 4QFJ12345678

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kope wrote:

I'm pretty sure that good rhetoric, regardless of political affiliation, doesn't sum up to "well he started it!" Such retorts are fine when you're a 7 year old and got caught fighting with a sibling. They tend to be less acceptable at older ages.


Sarcasm doesn't transmit over the internet very accurately. My point wasn't "he started it" it was that if you look at anything that's critical of your position, you can find a reason to be insulted by it. People's minds work differently, and that probably has something to do with why they gravitate toward different paths through life. Maybe there's just no way to discuss those differences without someone feeling that they're being insulted.

Kope wrote:

Oh, and as an aside -- no my brother-in-law is not a biblical literalist. But then, neither is the average Christian. Biblical fundamentalism is not mainstream, no matter how loudly they scream that they are. However, that doesn't seem to stop folks from making statements that are so broad that they end up stating that anyone who happens to believe in a God as creator shouldn't be considered as a good scientist or a can't be an intelligent person -- even if said person holds no belief that is in any way contrary to the findings of modern science.


I don't know how I could possibly have made it *more* clear that I was talking about a certain minority of Christians who take the Bible literally rather than all Christians collectively and still formed a coherent sentence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Slyde
Guru
Guru


Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 314

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bushwacka wrote:
This thread started with such a post, but the approach was tactfully played with a hint of ignorance, so as to smooth over the staple implied insults. Clever tactics probably picked up at a local university.

Ah. Nice way to dance around the issue. Nice to know that you are a career politicians and long time hypocrit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Slyde wrote:
bushwacka wrote:
This thread started with such a post, but the approach was tactfully played with a hint of ignorance, so as to smooth over the staple implied insults. Clever tactics probably picked up at a local university.

Ah. Nice way to dance around the issue. Nice to know that you are a career politicians and long time hypocrit.


Now, that is funny responce :twisted:

hahahahaha, oh man, my stomach hurts ............
Back to top
val
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 234

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

headache wrote:
Could it be that it is because they are smarter than your average right wing nut?


ding ding ding ding ding. You get a cookie!!! :D

Um, I was conservative until I actually studied U.S. history a little.

Edit: sorry to bump up such an old thread. Didn't notice... :oops:
_________________
My log saw what happened to Laura Palmer. Go ahead. Ask it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leafo
n00b
n00b


Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 68
Location: Denmark

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

val wrote:
Um, I was conservative until I actually studied U.S. history a little.

Interesting. What made you change your opinion?
_________________
Science is 10% new data and 90% confirmation!
Religion is 100% superstition and 0% confirmation!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
val
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 234

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leafo wrote:
val wrote:
Um, I was conservative until I actually studied U.S. history a little.

Interesting. What made you change your opinion?


The immense suffering people in the country endured before labor laws and welfare. The atrocities commited by our government in other countries throughout most of our history and the utter bullshit spewed to justify it. The oppression of the working class by the upper class. The fact that coporations own both parties and the two party system is merely a divide and conquer system of control.

In a nutshell.
_________________
My log saw what happened to Laura Palmer. Go ahead. Ask it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leafo
n00b
n00b


Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 68
Location: Denmark

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

val wrote:
In a nutshell.


Succint nutshell.

One more question, since I like to peruse both sides of a question.
What made you a conservative beforehand?
_________________
Science is 10% new data and 90% confirmation!
Religion is 100% superstition and 0% confirmation!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
val
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 234

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leafo wrote:
val wrote:
In a nutshell.


Succint nutshell.

One more question, since I like to peruse both sides of a question.
What made you a conservative beforehand?


Ignorance of all of the above. :oops: As well as influence from family members and talk radio.
_________________
My log saw what happened to Laura Palmer. Go ahead. Ask it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leafo
n00b
n00b


Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 68
Location: Denmark

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

val wrote:
As well as influence from family members and talk radio.

Ahem, What I'm digging for is what issues they were influencing you with back then? How did you percieve liberals as compared to conservatives on certain issues (for instance welfare, labour laws, corporate economics and foreign policy)?
What minor (and more belieable) prejudices do both sides harbour about eachother?
_________________
Science is 10% new data and 90% confirmation!
Religion is 100% superstition and 0% confirmation!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
val
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 234

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leafo wrote:
val wrote:
As well as influence from family members and talk radio.

Ahem, What I'm digging for is what issues they were influencing you with back then? How did you percieve liberals as compared to conservatives on certain issues (for instance welfare, labour laws, corporate economics and foreign policy)?
What minor (and more belieable) prejudices do both sides harbour about eachother?


And what I'm saying is, I didn't know much then. I was 18. I didn't want money "wasted" on social programs which I thought of as the government paying people to be irresponsible and lazy. I didn't realize that poor people were living in extremely poor conditions before welfare or that far more money is wasted on the military and other government bloat. Not to mention the interest on the national debt. I believed that all the US wars had been waged for legitimate reasons (except for maybe Vietnam). I didn't realize they were waged to make money for the elite while the working class were the ones sent to do the grunt work and die in poor conditons during these wars. I thought liberals were unrealisitc. Sorry, my answers are so short. I just don't have time right now to write out all of my thoughts.

Prejudices/Stereotypes:

Liberals are Volvo driving, bleeding-heart pansies.
Conservatives are rifle toting rednecks or Christian fundamentalists or both.

PS: Read "The People's History of the United States". This is what totally changed my perspective.
_________________
My log saw what happened to Laura Palmer. Go ahead. Ask it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum