quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Oh, we don't care what you do with what's left of your money!
Funny, but still not true. The left wants regulation and/or prohibition on how people spend their money on tobacco, their homes, their businesses, the size of their toilet tanks, guns, political speech, etc.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strangely, many on the "right" (and in many cases most) are perfectly okay with regulations on homes, businesses, some forms of political speech, drugs similar to tobacco, and even many classes of weaponry. I don't have any data on toilet tank regulation among the right.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of those tendencies aren't authoritarian. For instance, its been understood since the conception of modern economics that an economy without laws (aka regulations) protecting the operation of the market is an ineffectual economy.
Its also been known for quite some time that letting anybody who cares to acquire, say, chemical weapons, is problematic for those in a society who prefer to stay alive.
I have no particular excuse for those who support the suppression of political speech .
A willingness to impose laws isn't authoritarian, its when people support laws out of a desire to control that it becomes authoritarian.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I didn't say Sterling said there were no experts outside academia. I specifically used the word "unbiased" in describing his (implied) claim. Here's what he said:
Nor did I say that academia is the only place to find unbiased experts. I said that it's much easier to justify hiring experts with a predisposition to find particular ends if you first disqualify experts from academia.
quote:He's said they have this motive to discredit academia. He hasn't come close to proving that they have that motive.
I stated a possibility, I noted it was a cynical one, and I don't need to prove anything to state a possibility, least of all to you.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: A willingness to impose laws isn't authoritarian, its when people support laws out of a desire to control that it becomes authoritarian.
I agree and disagree. I think all laws are implemented out of a desire to control (events, resources, people, etc.) Perhaps it would be better to inject the word "purely" in? But then I don't think anyone ever really supports a law purely out of a desire to control; it's always with an eye to the "greater good." I don't know, but I think the definition as it stands is unsatisfactory.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nor did I say that academia is the only place to find unbiased experts. I said that it's much easier to justify hiring experts with a predisposition to find particular ends if you first disqualify experts from academia.
No, but you definitely implied it: "Where else would you draw experts in fields like economics, environmental science, and business, if not directly from businesses that obviously have something to gain from fudging the numbers?" You then posited "academia" as the pleace to find people who don't "obviously have something to gain from fudging the numbers?"
quote:I stated a possibility, I noted it was a cynical one, and I don't need to prove anything to state a possibility, least of all to you.
I didn't say you did have to prove anything to me. Not in the least. I was merely responding to someone's request that I back up my equally valid and equally supported by evidence statement of possibility. Surely you agree that's fair.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a broad sense of control, all laws are intended to control, yes; I'm speaking in a narrower sense. Somewhat analogous to the tests done to determine if speech-limiting laws are in violation of the first amendment -- is the law aimed at ends the government has a legitimate interest in? Does it advance those ends? Does it minimally impinge speech in doing so? Is it content-neutral? et cetera.
A similar test could easily be envisioned (though not be used in courts, it would belong with the legislature) for determining if a law avoids being about control.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, but you definitely implied it: "Where else would you draw experts in fields like economics, environmental science, and business, if not directly from businesses that obviously have something to gain from fudging the numbers?" You then posited "academia" as the pleace to find people who don't "obviously have something to gain from fudging the numbers?"
To refine: "experts" in a field drawn directly from companies with a financial stake in coming to particular findings, who are likely to have a continued stake in said companies, have a clearly defined conflict on interest with regard to the research they will be doing.
Overcoming the appearance of impropriety requires dismissal of other fields from which such experts could easily be drawn.
Conceivably if you could find former industry experts who do not have a continued financial stake in such findings, you could also avoid the appearance of impropriety. But I suspect such individuals would also be dismissed in many situations, likely for the stated reason that their research or techniques are out of date.
I speak in the alleged mindset of those who would engage in such a strategy, with regard to avoiding the appearance of impropriety, albeit in an admittedly satirical tone.
quote:I didn't say you did have to prove anything to me. Not in the least. I was merely responding to someone's request that I back up my equally valid and equally supported by evidence statement of possibility. Surely you agree that's fair.
If you see that as your intent, then yes, I would agree that's fair.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: A willingness to impose laws isn't authoritarian, its when people support laws out of a desire to control that it becomes authoritarian.
I agree and disagree. I think all laws are implemented out of a desire to control (events, resources, people, etc.) Perhaps it would be better to inject the word "purely" in? But then I don't think anyone ever really supports a law purely out of a desire to control; it's always with an eye to the "greater good." I don't know, but I think the definition as it stands is unsatisfactory.
posted
Yeah. Like marshmallows. They're really good, but brother, you gotta pay money for them.
You don't ever just see someone giving away marshmallows, now do you? Don't think so. That would be plain crazy.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: You know, most of the complaints posted here about intellectuals I've heard about Christians. Just change Intelligence with Morally Superior, and Smart with Pious.
Except intellectuals aren't identified as a common belief group. There is no "intellectual conclave," we have no doctrine, and that makes it very different. The reasons some people are wary of religious people will be different because they are a group.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Religious people" aren't a common belief group either except in a very broad sense. The loud ones can give that impression. Maybe I should call them "pseudo-religious".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, isn't this whole thread about treating Intellectuals as a common belief group, and then criticizing them en-masse, the way some do with religious folks?
Anyway, I've discovered the solution. Its a quick little test to see if you are really a dangerous intellectual or a dangerous anti-intellectual.
The Intellectual/Anti-Intellectual Quiz
Questions
A) Evolution is
5) Proven by my intellectual superiority 4) A major scientific theory that defines the slow and measurable growth and diversity of life from the earliest stages to present by ways of... 3) How God created the world 2) Not how God created the world. 1) God's joke on intellectuals, designed to lead those with more learning than faith into humiliations galore. 0) A plot of Satan.
B) Communism failed in Russia because:
5) I was not there to lead it as theoretically it should have been led. 4) because Russia was a vast agricultural economy and Communism as described by Engles and Marx is based on the evolution of a capitalist/manufacturing economy. Forced to change its structure to meet this new dynamic, totalitarian influences…… 3) To much corruption, to little motivation for the working man. 2) The US made it fail. USA! USA! 1) Godless systems always fail. 0) It was a plot of Satan’s
C) Beliefs other than your own 5) Are wrong. 4) Are worth considering with an open mind, ready to spark exciting and interesting debate to follow, preferably following Roberts Rules of Order. 3) Are confusing 2) Can be divided into those which are Christian, and may be right, and those that are wrong. 1) Are UnAmerican 0) Are plots by Satan.
D) Democrats are 5) In need of my enlightened and intelligent leadership 4) Are one of the two historical political parties in the United States, a deviant from the original Whig party, in the early 1900’s they transformed themselves into a populous party…. 3) In a good position for the next elections 2) In trouble, as usual. 1) Godless heathen who deserve our wary pity and our most stringent efforts to evangelize them. I suggest a mission to DNC Headaquarters. 0) A plot by Satan
E)God is:
5)A plot from Satan 4)Not to be found in any one religion, but through the study of the world and all its knowledge 3) Love. 2) Yes. God Is. 1) All I care about. 0) Proven by my moral superiority.
Add all the numbers from your choices together to get your score:
25) You are THE intellectual, but then again, you knew that. 20-24) You party in the Ivory Tower. 15-19) You bask in the shadow of the Ivory Tower. 10-14) You laugh at those in the Ivory Tower. 5-9) You have explosives and know how to use them on the Ivory Tower. 1-4) You work vigorously to direct God’s awesome might—fire, brimstone, lightning and the occasional hurricane—at those heathen who dare build a new Tower of Babel. 0) I would comment on this, but you know that this quiz was a plot of Satan’s.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by Irregardless: On the whole, though, the mainstream media expends a decent amount of effort to make the U.S. military look like rapacious butchers.
As opposed to, say, it being more of an unhealthy media interest in authority figures involved in scandal (Bill Clinton, etc.)?
quote:posted by Irregardless: No, but I don't see that as particularly pro-military. It's more of an unhealthy media interest in unpleasant things happening to pretty young girls (Natalie Holloway, etc.).
posted
A) 4 B) 3 C) 3, 4, and 5. Solid 4. D) Between 2 and 3, but closer to 3. Gonna give 'em a 2.85 E) Afraid I don't see an attractive answer there. I'm gonna have to go ahead and give myself a -13.85.
I always suspected you were a minion of Beelzebub.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm strongly tempted to modify some of my fuzzy boundaries to get down to the 10-14 range. I guess I'm more likely to try to take down the Ivory Tower from within.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since some are not pleased with the questions, I will add a few more, and update the scoring later.
F) Assume there are 1,000,000 types of animals. In that case, how many animals did Moses put on the Ark?
5) I don't do math. 4) Ooooh, a hypothetical. I love hypotheticals. I could do hypotheticals all day. May favorite was..... 3) Um, 2,000,000 2) Well, there were 2 of each animal, plus him, his wife, his son's and their wives, let me look that up.... 1) 0. Moses didn't put any on the Ark. Noah did. 0) Your question is obviously....a plot of Satan's.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must comment: Engles and Marx were intellectuals, yes. But so, clearly, were Franklin and Jefferson. And the men whose writing they drew upon in drafting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, Dan, as I recall, there were supposed to be seven pairs of the clean kinds of animals, and one pair of the rest. So the 2 million would not be correct. Can I get 6 points? Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I pointed out that it's wrong in a different way from the way it was intended to be wrong?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
G The best sport is 5) Chess 4) One that does not involve sweating. 3) Football, Baseball, Basketball, or Hockey 2) Enjoyed with a cold beer. 1) Drinking cold beers. 0) Is a plot of Satan's to take us away from prayer.
H How much wood could a woodchuck chuck 5) Is that a European Wood Chuck or an African Wood Chuck? 4) Woodchucks do not have oposable thumbs, so their ability to chuck, or throw, a peice of wood is nil. 3) As much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood. 2) Not as much as I can. 1) Woodchuck, them is darn good eatin. 0) Woodchucks are a plot...well, maybe not, but tongue twisters are a plot by satan to trick us into blaspheme.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM-1 extra I-point for taking the time to point out a factual error. Another extra I-Point for vigourous debate defending your reasoning.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
