Mike Flannigan wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" <jackball@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:6JXNg.7198$v%4.4893@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>Mike Flannigan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Leif Erikson" <jackball@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:LiWNg.7168$v%4.2364@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>>l_muqtadir@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>alsandorz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because Liberals score much lower on IQ tests than
>>>>>>>the population at large.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ad hominems? That's all you can come up with?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No. An ad hominem attack would be me saying "alsandorz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is a
>>>>>piece of dog ****." Attributing Liberal behavior to Liberal stupidity
>>>>>is called correlating.
>>>>
>>>>The problem is the statement is not sup****ted. You have never seen
>>>>anything to sup****t your claim that "Liberals" [sic] socre lower on IQ
>>>>tests than the public at large.
>>>>
>>>>In fact, in my admittedly limited experience, liberals - I'm not one,
so
>>>>don't take this as any kind of defence of contem****ary American
>>>>liberalism - generally seem *more* intelligent than either
conservatives
>>>>or the population overall.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is that why they
>>
>>Who is "they", dummy?
>
>
> Please refer to your above post. The subject is "liberals", dummy.
WHO, dummy? Don't give me your stupid caricature of
people at the opposite extreme from your extreme view,
dummy. Name names, dummy.
>
> See what I mean about this guy not being the sharpest knife in the
drawer,
> folks?
See what I mean about you being an incompetent ad
hominem-slinging extremist, dummy?
> Plus, I do believe his calling me a "dummy" was an empty, sophomoric ad
> hominem.
No, dummy. An ad hominem is when I am trying to refute
your argument, but instead of going at the argument
itself, I attempt to do so by attacking you. But I'm
not doing that, dummy. In the first place, you don't
have an argument for me to attack. In the second
place, dummy, I'm only calling you "dummy" because I
think you're a dumb extremist ****bag. I hope that
clarifies it for you, dummy.
>>You're certainly not talking about the several Ph.D. holders in
economics
>>and political science whom I know and who consider themselves "liberal"
on
>>most social issues (and, in the case of the poli-sci guy, on
everything.)
>
>
> I am if they espouse left-wing economics and political science. Or, are
> liberal on social issues.
No, you're not. They never said anything about ad
hominem, dummy.
>>>stupidly ask, "Ad hominem? That's all you can come up with?" when
>>>someone addresses an ad hominem attack in kind?
>>
>>Your comment about "Liberals" [sic] having low IQ was an empty,
sophomoric
>>ad hominem.
>
>
> I didn't say liberals have a low I.Q..
Some other dummy wrote, "Because Liberals score much
lower on IQ tests than the population at large." You
defended his comment; you agree with it.
> I said, "Which one of you low I.Q.
> liberals cross posted in us.military.army? Can a liberal have a low
I.Q.,
> dummy?
Sure one can, dummy. However, I believe based on
accurate empirical observation that smart and
intelligent people have an unfortunate tendency to
embrace contem****ary liberal values. A lot of this has
to do with being somewhat arrogant about their
intelligence, and their belief that being more
intelligent means they're also smarter about
everything, including things far outside their fields.
As I say, I consider it unfortunate, but I don't
think it can reasonably be denied.
>>>Perhaps you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer either, heh?
>>
>>There's another.
>>
>>The fact is, your claim is demonstrably false. IQ positively correlates
>>well with education, and education positively correlates well with a
>>tendency to hold liberal political beliefs. Not all intelligent people
>>are well educated, and not all well educated people are liberals - me,
for
>>example - but the tendencies are not seriously in dispute.
>
>
> A disconnect from reality and an indoctrination under the guise of an
> education correlates well with a tendency to hold liberal political
beliefs.
They may well be somewhat disconnected from reality on
many issues. I don't think they're any more
disconnected from reality than fundamentalist Christian
hicks who are conservative. Conservative, and also
unintelligent and stupid.
> That the majority of our institutes of higher learning are decidedly
> left-wing is not seriously in dispute.
Depends on the issues in question. On a lot of issues,
most notoriously "multi-culturalism", they are.
However, business, economics, the hard sciences, and
the professional schools other than law don't seem to
be dominated by leftwing thinking. In any case, most
people who have university degrees don't take a lot of
that multi-culti crap seriously anyway.
|
