39 replies to this topic

[suspire]

So this quote from Savage from another thread spurred me to a question I've been mulling over for months now:

They spit in the face of the Founding Fathers of America...

Savage is remarking on how Obama supporters/liberals/yada-yada-yada hates the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. But it makes me wonder, why do conservatives like the Founding Fathers so much?

I mean, your typical ultra right-wing Evangelic Christian would be opposed to the Founding Fathers on a number of counts.

The Founding Fathers were among the best and brightest of their time--they were they very epitome of "the elite". In today's world, the conservatives rail against those perceived to have a high intelligence, a vaunted education, a learned background, or intellectual curiosity. But all of those traits were possessed by the Founding Fathers in spades. They were the smartest guys in the room. These days, conservatives prefer the "folksy" yet less educated/less intelligence Bushes and Palins of the world--they are the current heroes of the conservatives. Yet, those same conservatives venerate the Founding Fathers, who were without a doubt, the intellectual opposites of a G W Bush or a Sarah Palin (George Bush Sr. might have been more their speed).

The modern day conservative hates the media and claims it is under the control of "the elite". In the Founding Father's day, they loved and used the media voraciously; it was a conduit for their revolutionary agendas and their post-War positions. They--the elite-controlled it.

The Founding Fathers were Renaissance Men and acolytes of science and information--today's average conservative (barring a few on this forum, for obvious reasons) distrust and dislike science, considering it to be the enemy of good Christian values.

A number of the Founding Fathers had serious concerns with Christianity or religion of any form (Paine, Jefferson, etc)--today's conservative wraps themselves up in God with every breath they take.

These are just a few of the things that disconnect the Founding Fathers from today's conservative. In many ways, I am sure the Founding Fathers if they were to rise from the grave, would look at these die-hard, wrapped-in-the-flag conservatives and be aghast; they would be antithetical to what the Founding Fathers stood for and believed in.

This isn't to say conservatives dislike the Constitution more or less than liberals. Each side has issues or concerns with points of the Constitution: Some conservatives want re-interpretations of the 1st Amendment. Some liberals want the same for the 2nd Amendment. Some conservatives dislike the 19th Amendment--Anne Coulter for instance--and so on. I won't stoop to the same levels that conservatives do and say they hate the Constitution. I do sometimes wonder, however, if they: A) Understand it. B) Actually know much about the Founding Fathers they venerate so dearly.

[RighteousReason]

So this quote from Savage from another thread spurred me to a question I've been mulling over for months now:

They spit in the face of the Founding Fathers of America...

Savage is remarking on how Obama supporters/liberals/yada-yada-yada hates the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. But it makes me wonder, why do conservatives like the Founding Fathers so much?

I mean, your typical ultra right-wing Evangelic Christian would be opposed to the Founding Fathers on a number of counts.

The Founding Fathers were among the best and brightest of their time--they were they very epitome of "the elite". In today's world, the conservatives rail against those perceived to have a high intelligence, a vaunted education, a learned background, or intellectual curiosity. But all of those traits were possessed by the Founding Fathers in spades. They were the smartest guys in the room. These days, conservatives prefer the "folksy" yet less educated/less intelligence Bushes and Palins of the world--they are the current heroes of the conservatives. Yet, those same conservatives venerate the Founding Fathers, who were without a doubt, the intellectual opposites of a G W Bush or a Sarah Palin (George Bush Sr. might have been more their speed).

The modern day conservative hates the media and claims it is under the control of "the elite". In the Founding Father's day, they loved and used the media voraciously; it was a conduit for their revolutionary agendas and their post-War positions. They--the elite-controlled it.

The Founding Fathers were Renaissance Men and acolytes of science and information--today's average conservative (barring a few on this forum, for obvious reasons) distrust and dislike science, considering it to be the enemy of good Christian values.

A number of the Founding Fathers had serious concerns with Christianity or religion of any form (Paine, Jefferson, etc)--today's conservative wraps themselves up in God with every breath they take.

These are just a few of the things that disconnect the Founding Fathers from today's conservative. In many ways, I am sure the Founding Fathers if they were to rise from the grave, would look at these die-hard, wrapped-in-the-flag conservatives and be aghast; they would be antithetical to what the Founding Fathers stood for and believed in.

This isn't to say conservatives dislike the Constitution more or less than liberals. Each side has issues or concerns with points of the Constitution: Some conservatives want re-interpretations of the 1st Amendment. Some liberals want the same for the 2nd Amendment. Some conservatives dislike the 19th Amendment--Anne Coulter for instance--and so on. I won't stoop to the same levels that conservatives do and say they hate the Constitution. I do sometimes wonder, however, if they: A) Understand it. B) Actually know much about the Founding Fathers they venerate so dearly.

why do conservatives like the Founding Fathers so much?

Intelligence, foresight, wisdom, values, their ridiculous resolve (just who the hell makes war on the British?).... I could go on...

In today's world, the conservatives rail against those perceived to have a high intelligence, a vaunted education, a learned background, or intellectual curiosity. But all of those traits were possessed by the Founding Fathers in spades. They were the smartest guys in the room. These days, conservatives prefer the "folksy" yet less educated/less intelligence Bushes and Palins of the world--they are the current heroes of the conservatives. Yet, those same conservatives venerate the Founding Fathers, who were without a doubt, the intellectual opposites of a G W Bush or a Sarah Palin (George Bush Sr. might have been more their speed).

Are you crazy? Conservatives hate George Bush. We hate John McShame. To say that you think conservatives prefer less intelligent people shows how silly/ignorant your POV is here.

In the Founding Father's day, they loved and used the media voraciously;

They and we love FREEDOM OF SPEECH, we will KILL and DIE for it- we hate this incestuous government-media complex that has in effect become a propaganda wing of the Democrat party.

today's average conservative distrust and dislike science, considering it to be the enemy of good Christian values.

This is absolutely absurd. What about the liberal obsession with everything "New Age", and eastern spiritualism? This is far worse for reason and rationality. At least theology promotes SOME degree of reason, whereas the liberal stuff attacks the concept of reason *directly*!

This isn't to say conservatives dislike the Constitution more or less than liberals.

You are wrong again here. A recent (and rather shocking) survey showed that around 80% of people who support Barack Obama believe that the Supreme Court should base its decisions not on the Constitution, but on what's "fair." On the other hand, the strong majority of McCain voters believe that the Supremes should look to our Constitution as the final authority.


Finally, the Founding Fathers and other great thinkers that built this country are all set squarely against communism and marxism in their philosophy, which is a deeply held conservative position.

I've thrown these quotes out more than once already, but here they are again:

We know that Barack Obama had a strong affinity for Marxist ideology, marxist philosophy of government, marxist professors, marxist and communist student groups in college, attended socialist conferences, had close personal relationships with communists such as Frank Marshall Davis, subscribes to a marxist theology, and he has spoken his communist/marxist views in public in many instances, most recently in telling Joe the plumber he wants to "Spread the wealth around".

Compare Obama's philosophy to people like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; it is a positive good in the world. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for him self" - Abraham Lincoln

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

[RighteousReason]

A number of the Founding Fathers had serious concerns with Christianity or religion of any form (Paine, Jefferson, etc)--today's conservative wraps themselves up in God with every breath they take.

I can tell you the truth right now- a lot of this move towards Christianity is based on the fact that liberal ideology is so anti-reason, anti-logic, anti-rationality that something so ridiculous as religion comes out looking like a philosophy of reason.

Secondly, liberal ideology has gone so off the Hollywood deep end on moral issues that it is frightening.

from MichaelSavage.com just today:

CNN: Legalized prostitution could help San Fran economy
(Newsbusters.org) A CNN legal analyst said there was a case, not for decriminalized prostitution, but for legalization, which she claimed would "boost the economy in these economic times ...

this is just a small example, a drop in the bucket of stories about the disintegration of morality, ethics, and justice in America today.

Surely you agree that despite their disagreements on the concept of theism, all of the Founding Fathers believed very deeply and strongly in morality?

Edited by Savage, 25 October 2008 - 01:14 AM.

[RighteousReason]

A number of the Founding Fathers had serious concerns with Christianity or religion of any form (Paine, Jefferson, etc)--today's conservative wraps themselves up in God with every breath they take.

I can tell you the truth right now- a lot of this move towards Christianity is based on the fact that liberal ideology is so anti-reason, anti-logic, anti-rationality that something so ridiculous as religion comes out looking like a philosophy of reason.

Secondly, liberal ideology has gone so off the Hollywood deep end on moral issues that it is frightening.

from MichaelSavage.com just today:

CNN: Legalized prostitution could help San Fran economy
(Newsbusters.org) A CNN legal analyst said there was a case, not for decriminalized prostitution, but for legalization, which she claimed would "boost the economy in these economic times ...

this is just a small example, a drop in the bucket of stories about the disintegration of morality, ethics, and justice in America today.

Surely you agree that despite their disagreements on the concept of theism, all of the Founding Fathers believed very deeply and strongly in morality?

This is why conservatives, and, like, 95% of Americans, if you haven't noticed, have a religious philosophy.

[suspire]

A number of the Founding Fathers had serious concerns with Christianity or religion of any form (Paine, Jefferson, etc)--today's conservative wraps themselves up in God with every breath they take.

I can tell you the truth right now- a lot of this move towards Christianity is based on the fact that liberal ideology is so anti-reason, anti-logic, anti-rationality that something so ridiculous as religion comes out looking like a philosophy of reason.

Secondly, liberal ideology has gone so off the Hollywood deep end on moral issues that it is frightening.

from MichaelSavage.com just today:

CNN: Legalized prostitution could help San Fran economy
(Newsbusters.org) A CNN legal analyst said there was a case, not for decriminalized prostitution, but for legalization, which she claimed would "boost the economy in these economic times ...

this is just a small example, a drop in the bucket of stories about the disintegration of morality, ethics, and justice in America today.

Surely you agree that despite their disagreements on the concept of theism, all of the Founding Fathers believed very deeply and strongly in morality?

This is why conservatives, and, like, 95% of Americans, if you haven't noticed, have a religious philosophy.

There is so much to respond to, and I continue to get the feeling that arguing with at least a few of you will serve no purpose; there is no common ground whatsoever. Still, in some weird, vain, crazy hope that something will penetrate, I'll respond to a few things:

I'll avoid the more outlandish stuff like Obama is a Marxist, media-is-controlled-by-Democrats and all that rot and just passingly make a few remarks in the hopes of answering some things:

1) Bush is still loved by many conservatives. Despite poor approval ratings, he is still well liked by 20% or so of the country. Those are not liberals--most would self-label as conservatives. Moreover, Bush (and Palin) were well loved by the conservatives and at the time the conservatives venerated Bush (his first term and at least some of his second term), he still represented the antithesis of the Founding Fathers (as does Palin now--who is still venerated by many who would call themselves conservatives).

2) Most liberals are not into New Age or Eastern Spiritualism. I don't know a single one who is, unless you count the few Buddhists I know who practice Buddhism, not as a religion, but as a code of conduct. Remarkably, those Buddhists I do know who practice such are very peaceful and moral people. But I think if you took a poll of liberals, you wouldn't find even a large minority who said they were into New Age or Eastern spiritualism.

3) I'd be interested in seeing the "poll" of Obama supporters and who conducted it. Stats can be doctored and manipulated to be made to look like anything anyone wants. For example, I am sure it'd be easy enough to get a poll that said 80% of all McCain supporters felt that the Supreme Court shouldn't base its decisions on the Constitution, but on God's will, the Bible, or the Ten Commandments.

4) Quoting certain comments by specific Founding Fathers does not actually reflect their practice and action--Jefferson, for instance, was notorious for desiring small government, while expanding both government and territory to unprecedented levels during his administration. The Founding Fathers--which conservatives often seem to miss--were vastly more complicated, and often incredibly contradictory--than a few catch-phrases and quotes.

5) The Founding Fathers were vehemently opposed to foreign wars, yet it would be difficult to argue that the conservatives of the last 8 years have not been on the forefront of beating the drum for war in foreign countries, like Iraq, Iran, etc. Much of the foreign policy of conservatives would be opposed by the Founding Fathers.

6) You take extremes and push them as examples for why conservatives act like they do: "Liberals want prostitution and are immoral, so hence conservatives are hardcore in their Christian faith!" A) Most liberals are not in favor of legalizing prostitution. We'd have major initiatives by large percentages of the population in the U.S. to legalize prostitution in the U.S. if this were the case. B) Liberals are just as moral as anyone else. No more, no less. C) Even if you disagree with "B", which I am sure you do since anyone not of your point of view seems to be the anti-Christ, this does not mean that conservatives need to be Christians to be moral. One does not beget the other. Conservatives, just as easily, could be moral atheists with a perfectly constructed moral code derived from the laws of the land, the Constitution and the examples of the Founding Fathers they so venerate. Yet, this is not the case and if anything, they often stand in direct opposition of atheism and are often antagonistic to science (ala Intelligent Design, Stem Cell research, etc).

P.S.: I am guessing you'd self-label as a conservative. Yet, your dependence and reliance on a single(or highly limited) source of information (Michael Savage--you'd almost think the guy was your personal Messiah), would be contrary to the Founding Fathers. They sought knowledge widely and deeply, from varied sources and were often suspicious of demagogues and cults of personality.

Edited by suspire, 25 October 2008 - 03:12 AM.

[luv2increase]

Stats can be doctored and manipulated to be made to look like anything anyone wants.

I absolutely agree!

or the Ten Commandments.

What is immoral about the Ten Commandments, and what is wrong with abiding by them? Is there something that I'm missing here?

[RighteousReason]

A number of the Founding Fathers had serious concerns with Christianity or religion of any form (Paine, Jefferson, etc)--today's conservative wraps themselves up in God with every breath they take.

I can tell you the truth right now- a lot of this move towards Christianity is based on the fact that liberal ideology is so anti-reason, anti-logic, anti-rationality that something so ridiculous as religion comes out looking like a philosophy of reason.

Secondly, liberal ideology has gone so off the Hollywood deep end on moral issues that it is frightening.

from MichaelSavage.com just today:

CNN: Legalized prostitution could help San Fran economy
(Newsbusters.org) A CNN legal analyst said there was a case, not for decriminalized prostitution, but for legalization, which she claimed would "boost the economy in these economic times ...

this is just a small example, a drop in the bucket of stories about the disintegration of morality, ethics, and justice in America today.

Surely you agree that despite their disagreements on the concept of theism, all of the Founding Fathers believed very deeply and strongly in morality?

This is why conservatives, and, like, 95% of Americans, if you haven't noticed, have a religious philosophy.

There is so much to respond to, and I continue to get the feeling that arguing with at least a few of you will serve no purpose; there is no common ground whatsoever. Still, in some weird, vain, crazy hope that something will penetrate, I'll respond to a few things:

I'll avoid the more outlandish stuff like Obama is a Marxist, media-is-controlled-by-Democrats and all that rot and just passingly make a few remarks in the hopes of answering some things:

1) Bush is still loved by many conservatives. Despite poor approval ratings, he is still well liked by 20% or so of the country. Those are not liberals--most would self-label as conservatives. Moreover, Bush (and Palin) were well loved by the conservatives and at the time the conservatives venerated Bush (his first term and at least some of his second term), he still represented the antithesis of the Founding Fathers (as does Palin now--who is still venerated by many who would call themselves conservatives).

2) Most liberals are not into New Age or Eastern Spiritualism. I don't know a single one who is, unless you count the few Buddhists I know who practice Buddhism, not as a religion, but as a code of conduct. Remarkably, those Buddhists I do know who practice such are very peaceful and moral people. But I think if you took a poll of liberals, you wouldn't find even a large minority who said they were into New Age or Eastern spiritualism.

3) I'd be interested in seeing the "poll" of Obama supporters and who conducted it. Stats can be doctored and manipulated to be made to look like anything anyone wants. For example, I am sure it'd be easy enough to get a poll that said 80% of all McCain supporters felt that the Supreme Court shouldn't base its decisions on the Constitution, but on God's will, the Bible, or the Ten Commandments.

4) Quoting certain comments by specific Founding Fathers does not actually reflect their practice and action--Jefferson, for instance, was notorious for desiring small government, while expanding both government and territory to unprecedented levels during his administration. The Founding Fathers--which conservatives often seem to miss--were vastly more complicated, and often incredibly contradictory--than a few catch-phrases and quotes.

5) The Founding Fathers were vehemently opposed to foreign wars, yet it would be difficult to argue that the conservatives of the last 8 years have not been on the forefront of beating the drum for war in foreign countries, like Iraq, Iran, etc. Much of the foreign policy of conservatives would be opposed by the Founding Fathers.

6) You take extremes and push them as examples for why conservatives act like they do: "Liberals want prostitution and are immoral, so hence conservatives are hardcore in their Christian faith!" A) Most liberals are not in favor of legalizing prostitution. We'd have major initiatives by large percentages of the population in the U.S. to legalize prostitution in the U.S. if this were the case. B) Liberals are just as moral as anyone else. No more, no less. C) Even if you disagree with "B", which I am sure you do since anyone not of your point of view seems to be the anti-Christ, this does not mean that conservatives need to be Christians to be moral. One does not beget the other. Conservatives, just as easily, could be moral atheists with a perfectly constructed moral code derived from the laws of the land, the Constitution and the examples of the Founding Fathers they so venerate. Yet, this is not the case and if anything, they often stand in direct opposition of atheism and are often antagonistic to science (ala Intelligent Design, Stem Cell research, etc).

P.S.: I am guessing you'd self-label as a conservative. Yet, your dependence and reliance on a single(or highly limited) source of information (Michael Savage--you'd almost think the guy was your personal Messiah), would be contrary to the Founding Fathers. They sought knowledge widely and deeply, from varied sources and were often suspicious of demagogues and cults of personality.

outlandish stuff like Obama is a Marxist, media-is-controlled-by-Democrats

Man, pull your head out of your

Bush is still loved by many conservatives.

You obviously don't know anything about conservatism. Let me just say that we appreciate his hard line stance on Islamic extremism. His fiscal socialism, open borders policies, and just about everything else we absolutely despise. Bush is not loved by conservatives. McCain even less so.

You take extremes and push them as examples for why conservatives act like they do

No, I took one very small, pedestrian example out of a massive trend of similar stories.

your dependence and reliance on a single(or highly limited) source of information

What a completely ridiculous accusation... dear lord.

demagogues and cults of personality.

REALLY? LIKE, WHO WOULD THAT REPRESENT, TODAY?

[RighteousReason]

Conservatives, and like 95% of Americans, have a religious philosophy because they believe that morality is important and that reason and logic should always be given a chance against mindless self-indulgence.

There are crazies on either side, but this is the mainstream reasoning on the right.

Edited by Savage, 25 October 2008 - 03:20 PM.

[RighteousReason]

Stem cell research is one tiny example, all alone in the wilderness. Besides, its not like there was some insane ban on the research. There was only a half-assed, non-sensical ban on federal funding. Private funding is responsible for most scientific research in the US anyway.

Show me one other major -practical- issue where religious craziness has gone mainstream.

Intelligent design is mainstream because that kind of goes hand in hand with theism. But that's a subtle philosophical point. Who knows if the Big Bang happened randomly or by intelligent design. Creationism is disturbingly rampant but certainly not mainstream, and definitely has little or no practical implication (putting a sticker on a text book saying evolution is "just a theory"). Any time they try to do something practical regarding creationism it gets shut down and annihilated by sane people- on the left and on the right.

Edited by Savage, 25 October 2008 - 03:27 PM.

[suspire]

What is immoral about the Ten Commandments, and what is wrong with abiding by them? Is there something that I'm missing here?

Thank you for proving my point.

demagogues and cults of personality.

REALLY? LIKE, WHO WOULD THAT REPRESENT, TODAY?

I'll take "Who is Sarah Palin?" for a $1,000, Alex.

[luv2increase]

I'll take "Who is Sarah Palin?" for a $1,000, Alex.

I'm really sick about people talking so negatively about Sarah Palin. She didn't do a thing to anyone. She has the highest approval rating as a governor in the United States! Does that not count for anything? She decided to give birth to her latest baby even though she knew it had Down's Syndrome. This means she wholeheartedly believes in what she believes. What she speaks, she believes. She is not two-faced, and she has better morals than probably 99% of the people in the United States. She likes to hunt, so what. The human race has been a race of hunterer-gatherers since our inception into this world. The majority of the people living in this world eat meat. You can't blame her for doing what she loves and was raised to do.


So, empathy, what is so wrong with Palin? What has she done to you? What has she done that hurt her state or our country or anyone that lives in our country? It is sad how Republican women get treated so cruelly by the media, and Democratic women do not. Obama's wife said that for the first time in her life she is proud of her country, yet she gets treated like a goddess by the media. Why is this?

Edited by luv2increase, 25 October 2008 - 11:07 PM.

[Connor MacLeod]

3) I'd be interested in seeing the "poll" of Obama supporters and who conducted it. Stats can be doctored and manipulated to be made to look like anything anyone wants. For example, I am sure it'd be easy enough to get a poll that said 80% of all McCain supporters felt that the Supreme Court shouldn't base its decisions on the Constitution, but on God's will, the Bible, or the Ten Commandments.

A link to the poll that Savage is referring to is below. It was conducted by Rasmussen - a well respected pollster.

http://www.rasmussen...me_court_update

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama's supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge's sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

[RighteousReason]

A link to the poll that Savage is referring to is below. It was conducted by Rasmussen - a well respected pollster.

http://www.rasmussen...me_court_update

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama's supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge's sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

Hahaha... oh man. I never even imagined that poll was so thoroughly legitimate.

Just drives my point home, I guess.

[Connor MacLeod]

A link to the poll that Savage is referring to is below. It was conducted by Rasmussen - a well respected pollster.

http://www.rasmussen...me_court_update

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama's supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge's sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

Hahaha... oh man. I never even imagined that poll was so thoroughly legitimate.

Just drives my point home, I guess.

Yeah, the polling results are pretty interesting, though not particularly surprising. I posted it here back a couple months ago. Needless to say, the usual suspects who were constantly harping on about Bush's undermining of the constitution over the past 8 eights were pretty much completely silent.

[RighteousReason]

A link to the poll that Savage is referring to is below. It was conducted by Rasmussen - a well respected pollster.

http://www.rasmussen...me_court_update

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama's supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge's sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

Hahaha... oh man. I never even imagined that poll was so thoroughly legitimate.

Just drives my point home, I guess.

Yeah, the polling results are pretty interesting, though not particularly surprising. I posted it here back a couple months ago. Needless to say, the usual suspects who were constantly harping on about Bush's undermining of the constitution over the past 8 eights were pretty much completely silent.

Barack Obama said: "The Constitution 'reflected fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day'"

Michael Savage has it right. He is just like an arrogant little kid. Just some third-rate loony communist college professor.

[Connor MacLeod]

The Founding Fathers were Renaissance Men and acolytes of science and information--today's average conservative (barring a few on this forum, for obvious reasons) distrust and dislike science, considering it to be the enemy of good Christian values.

There are many on the Left who fear science as well. For example, the possibility of differences in the distribution of intelligence (as measured by I.Q. for example) across racial groups is more or less akin to trampling on the Cross or denying the divinity of Jesus for most liberals. And this issue will likely be coming to the fore soon enough with the advances of genetics. In fact, I suspect the day is not that far off when legislation will be passed to suppress research into the genetic factors of human intelligence for fear that some groups might be offended. Academia is already self-censoring on this subject.

A number of the Founding Fathers had serious concerns with Christianity or religion of any form (Paine, Jefferson, etc)--today's conservative wraps themselves up in God with every breath they take.

The Lefties sure do love them some Thomas Paine. Yeah, he was good for stirring up the Revolution, but beyond that he was pretty marginal in terms of the of building the nation. The fact is that the majority of the Founding Fathers were pretty traditional Christians, and even the ones that weren't (e.g. Thomas Jefferson, and perhaps Benjamin Franklin) were still very much in favor of the promotion of Judeo-Christian virtues, which they viewed as having a positive impact on society. Franklin for example contributed a considerable amount of time, money and effort during his life helping to establish churches of various denominations even though he himself was not a regular member of any of these (beyond his youth when he was a member of the Congregationalist church.)

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 28 October 2008 - 02:45 AM.

[Zenob]

There are many on the Left who fear science as well. For example, the possibility of differences in the distribution of intelligence (as measured by I.Q. for example) across racial groups is more or less akin to trampling on the Cross or denying the divinity of Jesus for most liberals. And this issue will likely be coming to the fore soon enough with the advances of genetics. In fact, I suspect the day is not that far off when legislation will be passed to suppress research into the genetic factors of human intelligence for fear that some groups might be offended. Academia is already self-censoring on this subject.

I might have just found another candidate for the ol'ignore list. There is so much BS in that one little paragraph. For one thing, trying to claim there is some kind of racial link to IQ is pseudoscience. It's just been garbage pushed by various crack jobs and racist groups. There simply is no "fear" involved in pointing that out. It's definitely not the same thing as pointing out that 3/4s of the people on the far right hate science because it contradicts their fantasy about jesus riding to church every sunday on the back of a dinosaur. To then go from that to making the paranoid claim that we are going to start seeing "anti IQ" research is just loony. I'm not even going to touch the "america is a christian nation" fantasy that is going on in the second paragraph.

[Connor MacLeod]

I might have just found another candidate for the ol'ignore list.

That's ok, I understand. It is only human to react with anger and fear to things which contradict cherished beliefs to which you have long clinged to. If you find this uncomfortable, then please put me on your ignore list as I have no wish to upset you.

There is so much BS in that one little paragraph. For one thing, trying to claim there is some kind of racial link to IQ is pseudoscience. It's just been garbage pushed by various crack jobs and racist groups. There simply is no "fear" involved in pointing that out.

That reaction was expected - emotional, irrational and entirely unscientific. Nobody likes it when the divinity of their Jesus is denied.

I'm not even going to touch the "america is a christian nation" fantasy that is going on in the second paragraph.

Why did you put "america is a christian nation" in quotes? I certainly didn't write that. Perhaps you are having an argument with someone else? Also, if you wouldn't mind, please point out the "fantasy" in which I'm indulging in the second paragraph. I thought my statement regarding the faith of the Founding Fathers was reasonably accurate considering its brevity.

[niner]

A link to the poll that Savage is referring to is below. It was conducted by Rasmussen - a well respected pollster.

Rasmussen is well respected by Conservatives... And heavily quoted by them.

[Zenob]

That's ok, I understand. It is only human to react with anger and fear to things which contradict cherished beliefs to which you have long clinged to. If you find this uncomfortable, then please put me on your ignore list as I have no wish to upset you.

What exactly would be contradicting me? I pointed out that every "study" that showed a racial bias in intelligence has been demonstrated to be junk. If I'm wrong, please point me to a study that hasn't.

That reaction was expected - emotional, irrational and entirely unscientific. Nobody likes it when the divinity of their Jesus is denied.

Again, instead of attempting to paint my response as emotional, attempt to support your claim.

Why did you put "america is a christian nation" in quotes? I certainly didn't write that. Perhaps you are having an argument with someone else? Also, if you wouldn't mind, please point out the "fantasy" in which I'm indulging in the second paragraph. I thought my statement regarding the faith of the Founding Fathers was reasonably accurate considering its brevity.

It's standard operating procedure for far righties to attempt to paint the founding fathers as all devout christians. Its the first step in their "America is a christian country" two step dance. Usually the second step involves copy and pasting junk off David Barton's website. If this wasn't your attention, you can disregard my comment.

[Connor MacLeod]

That's ok, I understand. It is only human to react with anger and fear to things which contradict cherished beliefs to which you have long clinged to. If you find this uncomfortable, then please put me on your ignore list as I have no wish to upset you.

What exactly would be contradicting me? I pointed out that every "study" that showed a racial bias in intelligence has been demonstrated to be junk. If I'm wrong, please point me to a study that hasn't.

Here's a link article from Journal of Psychology, Public Policy and Law. It is a publication of the respected American Psychological Association.

http://taxa.epi.umn....04/2/235-2.html

And here's the abstract to whet your appetite:

Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability

The culture-only (0% genetic-100% environmental) and the hereditarian (50% genetic-50% environmental) models of the causes of mean Black-White differences in cognitive ability are compared and contrasted across 10 categories of evidence: the worldwide distribution of test scores, g factor of mental ability, heritability, brain size and cognitive ability, transracial adoption, racial admixture, regression, related life-history traits, human origins research, and hypothesized environmental variables. The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in Black-White differences in mean IQ. The implication for public policy is that the discrimination model (i.e., Black-White differences in socially valued outcomes will be equal barring discrimination) must be tempered by a distributional model (i.e., Black-White outcomes reflect underlying group characteristics).

[luv2increase]

For one thing, trying to claim there is some kind of racial link to IQ is pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience? I don't think so. Asians have a higher IQ than caucasians, and caucasians have a higher IQ than African Americans.


http://www.library.f...ogic.com/iq.htm

The black-white gap is 15 points when measured on the Wechsler tests, 18 on the Stanford-Binet. Both tests are, of course, normed so as to produce an average of 100, but the white average is a bit higher. On the Wechsler metric, whites and blacks average 102 and 87, respectively. On both tests, the gap between the races is almost exactly 1 SD (standard deviation). The gap of 1 SD has been observed since the earliest days of intelligence testing.

1 SD is very significant. During my lifetime, I have seen this in life. The African American people in which I've known seemed a little less intelligent, and their grades in school greatly reflected that. It has been my observance, although I don't see an African American any less of a person or beneath me so to speak because of this.

[Zenob]

Here's a link article from Journal of Psychology, Public Policy and Law. It is a publication of the respected American Psychological Association.

http://taxa.epi.umn....04/2/235-2.html

Gotta learn to vet those sources better. J Phillpe Rushton(Jensen isn't much better) is a nutjob who attends eugenics conventions. His methodology has also been shown to be flawed and he has been shown to simply ignore evidence that contradicts his claims.

Let's take a look at some of Rushton's crack scientific work:

Articles in the Canadian press based on interviews with Rushton's first-year psychology students claim that in 1988 Rushton surveyed student participants by asking "such questions as how large their penises are, how many sex partners they have had, and how far they can ejaculate."^[27] First-year psychology students at UWO are required "to participate in approved surveys as a condition of their studies. If they choose not to, they must write five research papers. Also, many students feel subtle pressure to participate in order not to offend professors who may later be grading their work. However, if a study is not approved these requirements do not apply at all."^[27] For not telling them they had the option to not participate without incurring additional work, Rushton was barred from using students as research subjects for two years.^[27]

Also in 1988, Rushton conducted a survey at the Eaton Centre mall in Toronto where 50 whites, 50 blacks, and 50 Asians were paid to answer questions about their sexual habits. For not receiving the UWO's ethics committee's explicit permission, the administration at the University of Western Ontario reprimanded Rushton. This was "a serious breach of scholarly procedure," said University President, George Pederson.^[27]

Yeah, he looks like he's really doing some hard hitting science there...

Like I said, there isn't any real science to suggest a genetic link between race and IQ. The only known differences our cultural. Like japanese kids being basically driven to be the absolute best they can from an early age compared to american kids who have a tendency to sit on their asses and play video games instead of study.

Here's some further reading:

"J. Philippe Rushton is best known for his dubious work as a race scientist, proposing such theories as an inverse relationship between brain and penis size and the general notion that blacks are not as smart as whites. Recently, the venomous psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario in Canada -- a man who heads up and also is subsidized by the racist Pioneer Fund -- unleashed yet another attack, saying "Toronto the Good" had been wrecked by "black people." "

http://www.splcenter...cle.jsp?aid=580

Anyone referencing this turkey to support their racist beliefs is suffering from a massive cranial rectal inversion.

[luv2increase]

Like I said, there isn't any real science to suggest a genetic link between race and IQ. The only known differences our cultural.

Cultural is exactly what I was getting at. The majority of the areas in our country where there is a high African American population are also those areas where the high school dropout rate is the highest. So instead of those people getting smarter in school, they only get street smarts in learning how to sell drugs without getting caught. This goes for both whites and blacks in these areas in which I am speaking of. It is just unfortunate that there are more black people in these areas, therefore there would be more uneducated black people than white people. Concluding from this, we can see why the discrepancy exists. Concluding from that, you can see the white people generally have a higher IQ score of 1SD than black people "in a generalized society as a whole".

[Connor MacLeod]

Gotta learn to vet those sources better.

The article I cited was published in a well-respected refereed journal. If you have ever published an article in a journal you will know that they are typically pretty well vetted - especially when it is something as contraversial as this. In any case, certainly the reviewers of that APA journal are better equipped than non-experts like you or I to judge the scholarly value of that work. Apparently it met their standards and they published it.

J Phillpe Rushton(Jensen isn't much better) is a nutjob...

I'm sure many "intelligent" people in the establishment were saying the same thing about Galileo Galilei back in the day as well. These sorts of attacks are certainly an effective way to squelch ideas that just don't sit right with your articles of faith. Of course religious fanatics of all sorts have long engaged in this sort of thing, so you are merely another example in a long line.

The fact of the matter is that Rushton, despite the contraversial nature of some of his work, is a serious researcher with well over 250 publications - many in major academic journals; he is also a Fellow in several major mainstream scientific organizations. And Arthur Jensen has over 400 scientific publications in refereed academic journals. The fact is that in all likelihood either one of these men will have contributed more to human scientific understanding in a month, than you will contribute in your entire lifetime; yet you write them off by calling them "nutjobs" simply because their research clashes with your unscientific views regarding the existence of some mysterious and heretofore unexplained force in evolution that causes (historically) geographically disparate groups of humans, to evolve - despite the countless random fluctuations of populations, evolutionary adaptations to environment, etc. - in such a manner as to result in racial groups which are perfectly in accordance with our modern politically correct notions of fairness and such.

Yeah, he looks like he's really doing some hard hitting science there...

Did you bother reading the article, weighing the logic and force of the authors' arguments, and perhaps looking into their citations? Or instead did you thoughtlessly prejudged the work, and immediately set about looking for dirt on the internet for the purpose of character assassination? I think I know the answer. In any case, thanks for proving my point.

[Zenob]

The article I cited was published in a well-respected refereed journal. If you have ever published an article in a journal you will know that they are typically pretty well vetted - especially when it is something as contraversial as this. In any case, certainly the reviewers of that APA journal are better equipped than non-experts like you or I to judge the scholarly value of that work. Apparently it met their standards and they published it.

You don't seem to understand how the peer review process works. Getting published isn't some kind of confirmation that what is in the article is correct. Getting published just means it rises to the minimal level required by that journal(it varies from journal to journal) to be published. Once it is published is where the REAL peer review starts. When other people in the same field read the article/study and begin to dissect it. That is where Rushton basically melts. He has sloppy methodology AND he ignores evidence that contradicts him. Those are two things you don't do in real science. This has been pointed out repeatedly in his "research".

I'm sure many "intelligent" people in the establishment were saying the same thing about Galileo Galilei back in the day as well. These sorts of attacks are certainly an effective way to squelch ideas that just don't sit right with your articles of faith. Of course religious fanatics of all sorts have long engaged in this sort of thing, so you are merely another example in a long line.

What a complete load of bullshit. For one thing, Rushton is sure as hell no Galileo. Not even close. Galileo did REAL science. Rushton measures dicks to try and prove that black people aren't as smart as white people. Does that sound like real science to you? And speaking of fanatics, which one of us is attempting to use the discredited junk of a known racist to justify their personal beliefs hmm?

The fact of the matter is that Rushton, despite the contraversial nature of some of his work, is a serious researcher with well over 250 publications - many in major academic journals; he is also a Fellow in several major mainstream scientific organizations. And Arthur Jensen has over 400 scientific publications in refereed academic journals. The fact is that in all likelihood either one of these men will have contributed more to human scientific understanding in a month, than you will contribute in your entire lifetime; yet you write them off by calling them "nutjobs" simply because their research clashes with your unscientific views regarding the existence of some mysterious and heretofore unexplained force in evolution that causes (historically) geographically disparate groups of humans, to evolve - despite the countless random fluctuations of populations, evolutionary adaptations to environment, etc. - in such a manner as to result in racial groups which are perfectly in accordance with our modern politically correct notions of fairness and such.

I got news for you buddy, it don't matter how many articles he publishes, it's what's IN them that counts. THAT is where he fails hard(and you for that matter). Trying to appeal to his number of publications or his associations is just an appeal to authority. It's his actual claims/research that have failed the review process by his peers, not his publication record. Or do you think that there is something to his claim of a genetic link between dick size and "racial intelligence"? lol

Did you bother reading the article, weighing the logic and force of the authors' arguments, and perhaps looking into their citations? Or instead did you thoughtlessly prejudged the work, and immediately set about looking for dirt on the internet for the purpose of character assassination? I think I know the answer. In any case, thanks for proving my point.

You shouldn't be talking about logic when you are comitting logical fallacies bud. It's also not character assassination to point out someones mistakes/errors. YOU were the one that said that there is real science to support a genetic link between race and intelligence. I pointed out that the only "research" that says that is bogus nonsense put out by discredited wackos. You then apparently went to google, did a search, and posted a link to an article that was written by ONE OF THE WACKOS I WAS TALKING ABOUT. Now you are crying about character assassination? Because you didn't bother checking your sources? I was right, full on cranial rectal inversion...

[Connor MacLeod]

YOU were the one that said that there is real science to support a genetic link between race and intelligence.

What mechanism do you propose that causes (historically) geographically disparate groups of humans, to evolve - despite the countless random fluctuations of populations, evolutionary adaptations to the various living environments, etc. - in such a manner as to result in racial groups which the *exact* same cognitive potential (in spite of the many other physical differences due to genetic variation.)

Think about it. The issue isn't whether or not there is any genetic variation in congnitive ability between races (or any other physical characteristic) - scientifically speaking that is the only plausible position. The real question is whether or not these differences are practically-speaking significant enough to have real impact on individuals, communties, and societies. Many on the Left cling religiously to this unscientific notion that there are *no differences* whatsoever, because they fear that once they admit that there must necessarily exist some differences (though perhaps very small), it opens the door to the possibility that those differences may actually be significant. This is one instance of where the Left shows its anti-science creds.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 29 October 2008 - 04:41 PM.

[Zenob]

What mechanism is it that you propose that causes (historically) geographically disparate groups of humans, to evolve - despite the countless random fluctuations of populations, evolutionary adaptations to the various living environments, etc. - in such a manner as to result in racial groups which the *exact* same cognitive potential (in spite of the many other physical differences due to genetic variation.)

Gave up on defending the wackjob you sited as a reference? ok, moving on.

The main screwup you just committed is that you are lumping ALL races together as if each one has it's own separate IQ or something. There are idiots and geniuses in all racial groups. If you average them any difference is negligible.

Think about it. The issue isn't whether or not there is any genetic variation in congnitive ability between races (or any other physical characteristic) - scientifically speaking that is the only plausible position. The real question is whether or not these differences are practically-speaking significant enough to have real impact on individuals, communties, and societies. Many on the Left cling religiously to this unscientific notion that there are *no differences* whatsoever, because they fear that once they admit that there must necessarily exist some differences (though perhaps very small), it opens the door to the possibility that those differences may actually be significant. This is one instance of where the Left shows its anti-science creds.

Don't try speaking for science, you don't know enough about it. For one thing, where is some actual scientific proof that there IS some quantifiable difference intellectually from one race to another that is genetic? Before crying about "the left" suppressing some imaginary evidence that you(I'm assuming you are white) are "genetically gifted" compared to other races, you might want to actually try FINDING some scientific evidence for it first. Until then you are just trying to blow smoke up everybodys asses.

To be quite frank, I'd put Neil DeGrasse Tyson up against any of the "intellectuals" of the far right(who are overwhelmingly white) ANY day of the week. He'd reduce them to quivering piles of jello in less then 5 minutes.

[Connor MacLeod]

What mechanism is it that you propose that causes (historically) geographically disparate groups of humans, to evolve - despite the countless random fluctuations of populations, evolutionary adaptations to the various living environments, etc. - in such a manner as to result in racial groups which the *exact* same cognitive potential (in spite of the many other physical differences due to genetic variation.) Gave up on defending the wackjob you sited as a reference? ok, moving on.

That's "cited," not "sited."

In any case, would you mind trying to answer the question? Please give it a try. You don't even have to have data to back it up. I just want you to briefly describe an even remotely plausible biological mechanism which could account for the *exact* equality in distribution of genetic cognitive potential across (historically) geographically disparate groups of humans.

The main screwup you just committed is that you are lumping ALL races together as if each one has it's own separate IQ or something.

I think you meant "lumping all individuals of a given race together as if each one [i.e. race] has its own separate IQ..." Certainly I am not doing that. There is variability that needs to be accounted for at several levels - variability of individuals within the same family all the way up to the variability of between broad racial groups.

There are idiots and geniuses in all racial groups.

Obviously.

If you average them any difference is negligible.

How do you know? Upon what studies do you base this claim?

For one thing, where is some actual scientific proof that there IS some quantifiable difference intellectually from one race to another that is genetic?

NATURAL HISTORY OF ASHKENAZI INTELLIGENCE
G COCHRAN, J HARDY, H HARPENDING - Journal of Biosocial Science, 2005 - Cambridge Univ Press

Albert Einstein is reputed to have said that ‘Things should be described as simply as
possible, but no simpler.’ The same principle must be invoked in explaining Einstein
himself. In this study, the hypothesis that the high intelligence test scores observed in
the Ashkenazi Jewish population are a consequence of their occupation of a social
niche over the last millennium that selected strongly for IQ is evaluated. The evidence
of high intelligence test scores in this population, approximately one standard
deviation higher than the north-western European average, is summarized, and then
the relevant social history. We suggest that there was an increase in the frequency of
particular genes that elevated IQ as a by-product of this selective regime, which led
to an increased incidence of hereditary disorders.

Before crying about "the left" suppressing some imaginary evidence that you(I'm assuming you are white) are "genetically gifted" compared to other races...

I'm pretty happy with what nature has bequeathed to me as an individual. I have no need or desire to assert the "superiority" on my own race.

[RighteousReason]

Zenob you are debating a scientific point... don't get upset when your intuition gets rejected.

Most measures of g positively correlate with conventional measures of success (income, academic achievement, job performance, career prestige) and negatively correlate with what are generally seen as undesirable life outcomes (school dropout, unplanned childbearing, poverty)[17]. IQ tests that measure a wide range of abilities do not predict much better than g. Scientific publishings of findings of differences in g between ethnic groups (see race and intelligence) have sparked public controversy.

http://en.wikipedia....lligence_factor
http://en.wikipedia....nd_intelligence

To blame it all on racism is absurd. To blame any of it on racism these days is suspicious... racial minorities, homosexuals, and other special interest groups love to play the victim these days in order to coerce people into giving them special advantages.

Edited by Savage, 30 October 2008 - 07:33 PM.