Conservatives vs Liberals

[Yamato]

I think the point is simply to have this argument. I have yet to get a chance to look into agents scientific studies which were the whole point of this thread and weren't even linked in the op.

It probably doesn't matter. If we are talking book smarts, than it's probably true. Universities fool and guilt their students into becoming or believing they're liberal. So when you take a study about who is most educated the result will obviously get that skew. The implication of this thread is that righties lack intelligence, outright, as in non-existent, which is just filled with hubris.

Now, agent calls me, I presume, an anomaly. That's absurd. I know lots of people just like me who are anything but lacking in intelligence. Book smarts are great don't get me wrong. Nothing wrong with education. At the same time there is nothing wrong with being well versed in general knowledge. I'm certainly a general knowledge kind of guy. The big difference between myself and friends of mine who went to universities is that all they know is their job, literally. Other than that they couldn't wipe their own butts without a manual for direction. They often lack common sense, compassion and any ability to problem solve anything if it doesn't involve crunching numbers. In most cases their parents also paid for their education. I truly feel far more accomplished in my life than I would of I'd haven taken their path. The things I've built, fixed, solved, taken on, completed, ect; is far more satisfying than achieving a degree in one single aspect of life that if not for first world living would be utterly useless. While I could potentially broaden my horizons into a different line of work all these guys with degrees are stuck to find one job in basically one field if things went south for them.

Even if he has his scientific studies, he ate his own foot on that one unless he thinks that intelligence itself has no value. Pretty sure way of ruining a marketplace incidentally, forcing the issue from above as to what our values are and how to price them accordingly.

I think the problem with universities is more the opposite. Too many liberal arts degrees that are way too broad, with no specific skill sets for any lucrative professional career, and the vast majority of students have no idea what they're going to be doing after college because they have no professional skills or trade. That's why I went back to school for an engineering degree. I realized how useless these university degrees are. Compared to a good trade school they're a waste of money anymore. If someone has passion and intelligence, they can learn just as well on the internet for zero tuition anymore if all it's going to be is simpleton liberal arts knowledge. There's plenty of very valid degrees out there but my IQ wasn't high enough when I was 18 to understand which ones those were. Actually I followed my girlfriend to the same university because I wasn't thinking with my head. Keynes was lionized in Econ 101/201 too, and I don't mean the professors, I mean the textbooks they were teaching from. Friedman got a footnote and o/w it was Rothbard-who? I learned there were three kinds of economics. Microeconomics, macroeconomics, and Keynesian economics. There's no such thing as Einsteinian physics, which is remarkable to me in comparison but Keynes played so well with the Establishment he offered a way to win, win or lose! And that was the kind of economics these academics could believe in. You could self-teach yourself that too, like you have all the other things you mentioned. Used textbooks are for sale everywhere. Granted when I was a teenager I needed the structure and the discipline that came with it, but at this point in my life, if I want to do something myself I figure it out myself and do it. I'm restoring a sports car atm and I know exactly what you mean when you feel that fulfillment. It's rewarding to go from zero knowledge to knowing every nut and bolt on the car.

[MysticStrummer]

After reading through all this, it certainly appears that the divide and conquer strategy is working well on the general population.

What a world, what a world.

[Guest]

IMHO anyone that reads any study critiquing the "intelligence" of one group or another should question the intelligence of the people performing the study.

"we could get a pile of grant money and solve some important problems, but since we only have hamster-like intellect let's study who's smarter us or them."

Why ?

If the study is sound of methodology then the conclusions are sound.

It has a rather important baring on outcomes, if we continue to elect Conservatives who are either unable or unwilling to assess objective evidence we end up with some very bad results. Hence we have a Republican party which has set its heart against science and objective evidence in formulating its policy. Climate change denial and the war on the EPA as Republican party policy as just the most obvious examples of what I mean.

The tendency of Conservatives to choose belief over evidence is a very dangerous approach when applied to national government.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 22, 2014 by Guest

[Guest]

I think the problem with universities is more the opposite. Too many liberal arts degrees that are way too broad, with no specific skill sets for any lucrative professional career,

It is not the function of Universities to train a person to do a job (though everyone would like to believe it is). It never was the purpose of universities to do so. The purpose of a degree is to gain a broad and functional grasp of a subject which allows the person to study further in depth when needed for a roll. The question is - when did the situation become where employers expected to get their training done for them at no cost and for them to expect that their specific focused roll could be done by someone fresh out of college without on job training.

It is this comodifying of degrees and the fundamental misunderstanding of their purpose by both employers and students which is at root fault here. Most people do not need degrees to do their job and would be far better served by specific on the job training (apprenticeships) at nominal pay - but employers reneged on their side of the bargain a long time ago. If you really believe in the supremacy of the markets you could not fail to agree with me.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 22, 2014 by Guest

[Yamato]

It is not the function of Universities to train a person to do a job (though everyone would like to believe it is).

They all believe it because that's what they're told, whatever the traditional purpose of universities may be. And no, plenty of universities prepare students for specific jobs; plenty of liberal arts degrees do not.

when did the situation become where employers expected to get their training done for them at no cost and for them to expect that their specific focused roll could be done by someone fresh out of college without on job training.

When it happens all the time, because jobs are on-the-job training when you have the skills to do it. There is no better training for a job than doing it. Even for internships real work is done, it's just done under the tutelage of experienced professionals.

[MiskatonicGrad]

Why ?

If the study is sound of methodology then the conclusions are sound.

It has a rather important baring on outcomes, if we continue to elect Conservatives who are either unable or unwilling to assess objective evidence we end up with some very bad results. Hence we have a Republican party which has set its heart against science and objective evidence in formulating its policy. Climate change denial and the war on the EPA as Republican party policy as just the most obvious examples of what I mean.

The tendency of Conservatives to choose belief over evidence is a very dangerous approach when applied to national government.

Br Cornelius

So you are saying that if the republicans would give up trying to stop the government from spending billions on policies that may or may not help stave off a coming apocalypse that science is having a hard time proving we are causing in the first place they would be alright in your book?

as far as your other point, really belief over evidence. do you really want to use liberals as a poster child for that? me as a conservative believe if you make somebody work for something instead of a hand out they become a better person. I believe if you spend more than you make you will never get out of debt. I believe the majority of studies of this kind are done by people with an agenda and should be either ignored or taken with a grain of salt.

[CrimsonKing]

There are rubes on both sides of our little political coin,i prefer to stay away from picking sides.We just need more people with common sense.Also if my grammar on this site gives anyone presumptions about my intelligence i could care less,im not here to win a d**n pulitzer prize

[Yamato]

Remember this steaming turd in the back seat?

"Finances work differently for nations than they do for an individual's personal finances! Federal governments and their central banking systems get to run up as much debt as they want!"

So, it's better to get forced to do one thing, while the government does the opposite! The government has its own in-house lender of last resort, and we don't. Now that my friends, is "Equality."

[MiskatonicGrad]

sorry Yamato I keep forgetting money behaves differently in your hands if the rabble but you in office as opposed to punching a clock.

[Guest]

So you are saying that if the republicans would give up trying to stop the government from spending billions on policies that may or may not help stave off a coming apocalypse that science is having a hard time proving we are causing in the first place they would be alright in your book?

as far as your other point, really belief over evidence. do you really want to use liberals as a poster child for that? me as a conservative believe if you make somebody work for something instead of a hand out they become a better person. I believe if you spend more than you make you will never get out of debt. I believe the majority of studies of this kind are done by people with an agenda and should be either ignored or taken with a grain of salt.

The science is irrefutable - it is only belief which allows Republicans to deny it.

The point about belief over evidence is that if you believe something that runs counter to the evidence - then its time to change the belief rather than the evidence. Conservatives would rather attempt to change the evidence to suit their belief - and hence the attack on the EPA because it runs counter to their belief that markets can solve all problems - when markets clearly have no interest in solving the problems of pollution without the compulsion of the EPA.

Your good home spun belief about what is good for the poor and unemployed aint worth a bean if it runs counter to the evidence. The evidence shows that there aint enough jobs to go around and that all the compelling of the poor to "get on their bike and find a job" aint going to change that basic fact.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 22, 2014 by Guest

[Agent0range]

So maybe men get paid more on average because they're smarter than women on average? Why isn't that a legitimate reason for paying them more?

What are you gonna do about it? What's the point of this "smarter than you" mentality as it applies to conservatives vs. liberals?

What are you gonna do about it? Post it and discuss it, like I did. You are a funny guy Yamato. Come on here cry about the big bad government. Cry about equality. Cry about marijuanna being illegal. What are you gonna do about it? Post on some obscure forum and hope someone sees it? Keep posting away Yamato, you are making a difference! What are you gonna do about it?

[preacherman76]

Seriously? When and where have I EVER put you in a Christian box, sir? I don't even know what that means.

Is what I witnessed in that church group "doing the job right?" It sounded like it, when you leave a supportive reply to it and fail to reveal what you just said above. Saying that boys are violent by nature, okay, and are they God-fearing nationalists by nature too? Or does pledging allegiance to the flag every morning have something to do with it? Kids are products of their culture, they're infused with the values that their parents instill in them. But when these boys get their first girl pregnant by accident and realize they're on the hook for $250k of their future earnings because that girl also happens to share their views on abortion, their "nature" will get adjusted naturally real quick.

I really thought this through before I responded. Really I owe you an apology. I thought those days were over, but I guess I still get knee jerk reactions when in defense of the flock. In truth I would have been just as creeped out as you were.

An analogy would be that it's easy to hate Social Security. It's hard not to cash the check when it's your turn to do so. Just claiming we believe something is one thing; being willing to actually sacrifice for our beliefs is quite another.

I don't put anyone in a "Christian box" because there is no such box. If I take everything Jesus said in a volume and look at how Christians act which is anything but, if there is a box then there's a giant hole in the box they're all spilling out of. Nobody listens to turn the other cheek. Nobody, not even you.

You do put some folks in the christian box. Sometime fairly, sometimes, to me, not so much. I admit, on here, I definitly dont turn the other cheek as much as maybe I should. Then again, if we could really be Christ like, then his sacrifice wouldnt have been necessary.

[F3SS]

It has a rather important baring on outcomes, if we continue to elect Conservatives who are either unable or unwilling to assess objective evidence we end up with some very bad results. Hence we have a Republican party which has set its heart against science and objective evidence in formulating its policy. Climate change denial and the war on the EPA as Republican party policy as just the most obvious examples of what I mean.

The tendency of Conservatives to choose belief over evidence is a very dangerous approach when applied to national government.

Alright. How come fifty or so years of the war on poverty haven't solved a darn thing and year after year liberals want to keep implementing more welfare policies? It's been a giant let down, a waste of money and a destroyer of the parts of society who suck it up the most. Liberals never believe what they are doing is wrong, only that they haven't been able to do enough of it.

As for climate change... When a simple 10 day forecast is accurate time after time I'll possibly begin to consider a 100 year forecast as worth thinking about. As it is, and I know because my job is very dependent in weather conditions, weather predictions from 1-3 days out often turn out different and always change on a daily basis.

[Agent0range]

Alright. How come fifty or so years of the war on poverty haven't solved a darn thing and year after year liberals want to keep implementing more welfare policies? It's been a giant let down, a waste of money and a destroyer of the parts of society who suck it up the most. Liberals never believe what they are doing is wrong, only that they haven't been able to do enough of it.

As for climate change... When a simple 10 day forecast is accurate time after time I'll possibly begin to consider a 100 year forecast as worth thinking about. As it is, and I know because my job is very dependent in weather conditions, weather predictions from 1-3 days out often turn out different and always change on a daily basis.

And what is the conservative plan on those issues? To do absolutely nothing? Why is it that conservatives are always slamming a plan, but never able to offer an alternative?

[aztek]

they try to stop bad plans from implementing, this is a good deed in itself. i do not have to have a correct answer to know wrong answer is a wrong answer.

especially when it was tried and proven wrong over decades.

Edited April 22, 2014 by aztek

[F3SS]

And what is the conservative plan on those issues? To do absolutely nothing? Why is it that conservatives are always slamming a plan, but never able to offer an alternative?

And what is your plan? More bureaucracy and more taxation? To what end?

[Guest]

And what is your plan? More bureaucracy and more taxation? To what end?

Let them starve ! It builds moral fibre.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 22, 2014 by Guest

[Agent0range]

And what is your plan? More bureaucracy and more taxation? To what end?

And what is your plan? More bureaucracy and more taxation? To what end?

That, right there, is what is wrong with America. The fact that you fire back with that question shows that there is no hope. I stated maybe 5 posts ago that I am against safety net programs. But, I am not naive enough to think that nothing needs to be done. They are difficult questions that I asked, but they must be acknowledged. The answer is not do nothing, and the answer can't be given with a question, as you attempted to do. That is what makes you think I am a liberal though. Because I ask the tough questions instead of ignoring them. I can live with that...

[F3SS]

That, right there, is what is wrong with America. The fact that you fire back with that question shows that there is no hope. I stated maybe 5 posts ago that I am against safety net programs. But, I am not naive enough to think that nothing needs to be done. They are difficult questions that I asked, but they must be acknowledged. The answer is not do nothing, and the answer can't be given with a question, as you attempted to do. That is what makes you think I am a liberal though. Because I ask the tough questions instead of ignoring them. I can live with that...

No I think you're a liberal because you are. But who cares what I think? Secondly, I don't know what to do or that nothing needs done. I'm quite sure that climate change hysterics is more about fear mongering to rile people in favor of big government and big taxes than it is about solving any problems. Seriously though, how can I put stock in a 100 year forecast when a ten day forecast is rarely accurate?

[Agent0range]

No I think you're a liberal because you are. But who cares what I think? Secondly, I don't know what to do or that nothing needs done. I'm quite sure that climate change hysterics is more about fear mongering to rile people in favor of big government and big taxes than it is about solving any problems. Seriously though, how can I put stock in a 100 year forecast when a ten day forecast is rarely accurate?

Hopeless.

[F3SS]

Hopeless.

That's quite a convincing argument you have there. Is bureaucracy and taxation your solution?

[Guest]

Denial rather than engagement - it the creed, and I think its ample evidence of the opening premise.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

That's quite a convincing argument you have there. Is bureaucracy and taxation your solution?

Keep repeating that mantra, it will save you from reality

Br Cornelius

[Agent0range]

That's quite a convincing argument you have there. Is bureaucracy and taxation your solution?

If I had a solution, do you think I would ask the question? The one thing I do know is that "nothing" is NOT the solution.

[F3SS]

Denial rather than engagement - it the creed, and I think its ample evidence of the opening premise.

Neither one of you will acknowledge my concerns. Once more, why should I take stock in a 100 year forecast when a ten day forecast is rarely accurate and is your solution amount to anything more than bureaucracy and taxation?