lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: The future of the Republican Party
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 02-23-2009, 03:03 PM   #41
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Well, these past few posts have been quite educational.

I now have a better idea of what actually occurs when matter and antimatter come into close proximity with one another.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-23-2009, 08:37 PM   #42
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
Well, these past few posts have been quite educational.

I now have a better idea of what actually occurs when matter and antimatter come into close proximity with one another.
Sadly I've actually seen worse.


Anyways, my point is several universities including those that SkinWalker used as sources are facing lawsuits of discrimination against Conservatives. There have been a lot of things here recently that demonstrate just how corrupt the Education system is in the United States.

There is even a documentary out there about a teacher scolding elementry school children because they and their parents supported John McCain. (The documentary was done by people from a country in Europe I'll try to find more information on it, cause I'm going off of memory) Many of Academia have their own agenda to take down Conservatives, many want Income Redistribution.

There was another incident in Colorado that I didn't bother to look for that I can think of off the top of my head.

Additionally the Political Science department at the University I go to got in trouble for violating Federal Election Laws by using university printers to make Barack Obama fliers to post all over campus. So there is a major problem.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-23-2009, 09:58 PM   #43
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
No, I'm calling it for what it is or would you care to explain the fact schools are starting to get sued for discrimination against Conservatives.
Would I care to explain irrelevant links to irrelevant and frivolous lawsuits? Sure. The explanation is that the plaintiffs are possibly just crybabies. The fact that some whiny individuals are so full of themselves that the institutions of higher learning aren't tolerant of their ignorance is laughable. In fact, I'd like to thank you for the links, I haven't had a good laugh like this in a while!

Quote:
So don't tell me I'm making it up, oh and each of these sources are referring to seperate cases.
hehe... you clearly didn't read your own "sources" (scare quotes intentional). At least two are the same case and another might be the same frivolous case you link to later in this post.

Quote:
See my sources above
Ha! I did! Thanks!

Quote:
And I consider some of what you have said to be outright flamebait, if I were a muslim and you were bashing the muslim faith you'd be up for a lawsuit about now.
Uh. Nope. I can dis Allah and Muhammad all day long and there would be no threat of law suit. Indeed, Islam is just as much a superstition as Christianity -cult followers of both allow irrational thought to cloud reason.

Quote:
Then why are you trying to paint Christians as just being a bunch of uneducated people.
Please. Get my assertions correct. "[U]neducated" implies a lack of education. What I'm asserting is just what I said: the lower an IQ is the more likely to be conservative and, apparently, religious. The data are clear and empirical but instead of dealing with data sets you choose to create straw man arguments. You're arguing with fallacious reasoning rather than critical thought, demonstrating my assertion with every single post. Good work.

Quote:
And the correlation between educational institutions and discrimination of Conservatives cannot be ignored either. It took me 30 seconds to find 4 seperate lawsuits.
Actually, anyone of sound and reasoned mind would likely ignore these "sources" you've cited. Two are of a disgruntled former student who didn't get hired by the university. Duh. Lots of people don't get hired. She'll get over it. Link to us the article that announces a judge and/or jury sided with the plaintiff on this one, buddy. Two of the others are in regards to superstitious and backwards high schools and educators upset because real institutions of learning are not willing to allow credit for learning mythology and claiming it to be science. Duh. Hats off to the California universities. Anyone who transfers from so-called christian colleges where that nonsense is taught also shouldn't get transfer credits and also be required to take remedial coursework to get up to speed.

So, again, you've made my point for me. If anyone doubted the challenges of religious conservatives to educate themselves, you've helped clarify it.

Quote:
And you're wondering why the hell I'm considering what you're saying is flamebait.
No. I'm not wondering that at all. Your core beliefs and preconceived notions are being challenged by my words. I question the very conclusions you accept blindly and without question. Conclusions to which you consider only that data which are supportive. To someone like you, words like mine are very clearly "flamebait." In the context of this forum and the topics being questioned, discussed, and debated, however, they are not. Discourse in this area could not proceed without these words.

Quote:
You do realize that there are quite a few scientists including Stephen Hawkins that believe in God, as Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Stephen Hawking's "god" -he's often misquoted by under-educated believers (please note that "under" is not synonymous with "un").

Mark Twain also said, "Faith is believing in that which you know ain't so." Do you really want to go head-to-head with quoting atheists and non-religious with me regarding the superstitions of religion.

Quote:
Religious Conservatives tend to be happier because they believe in God and believe there is a purpose to their lives, if you go from the aethiest viewpoint, life has no purpose.
This is an argument from ignorance. You're not an atheist, so you have no idea what atheists believe. I was once a theist -raised in a culture that gave a priori acceptance of the god myth. I can honestly say that my life has great purpose: to live; to love; to leave a legacy. I enjoy living today. I don't torment myself over what might be in some alleged and speculative afterlife that can never be known -I live for now and to make the world a better place for my descendants and my neighbors, which includes you.

Quote:
That's also why Conservatives are more charitible as to the deliberate goading that conservatives don't care about discrimination, that is complete and total garbage.
Hey, it wasn't *my* study. The data are available for you to look at. Perhaps religious conservatives are more charitable because they seek status among their peers and find it through public displays of piety. Personally, I don't care what the means are, the ends are enough. If you think your god wants you to feed the homeless and provide drug counseling to teens, knock yourself out -just don't require these people to convert to your superstition or I'm going to have something to say about your "charity." (I using "you" in the general sense here).

Quote:
Again, you are using data that is biased, as demonstrated in the above articles I found.
You haven't demonstrated that the data are biased. You haven't even demonstrated that the institutions that the data originate from are biased. Even if the institution was biased, applying guilt by association to the researchers who happen to work at the institution and who have made their methodologies transparent and available for peer review is a very, very fallacious argument and underscores a deficit in your education. This isn't a bad thing, but if you insist on continuing to debate such topics, it may benefit you to obtain some education in the fields as well as the general field of philosophy where it pertains to critical reasoning and logic.

Quote:
If this argument were in the reverse I would be in a discrimination lawsuit right now and would have the ACLU would be trying to silence me. Seriously, what you're saying is outrageous.
Right.

Quote:
Explains why various members of the scientific community and academia are being sued.
It explains only that, in the United States, there is a right to civil action via the court system. Show us the case citations to the suits where the plaintiffs were awarded damages. Then you might have something for discussion.

Quote:
Or maybe your scientific studies have tainted data due to wanton bias. Ever heard selectively sampling to skew results.
Sure. Its possible. The data are available for review. I eagerly await your analyses.

Quote:
Or maybe Tommy has it right and you have it wrong.
It doesn't appear so, but I suppose its possible. I eagerly await your analysis of the data.

Quote:
Look at election polling data much?
Not much. No. I detest politics and politicians. Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans -they're all the same to me: sqwaking hens crying about this and that, looking for power and status... meh.

Quote:
Oh the source that you used that Tommycat protests, well the University of California is subject to a lawsuit for discriminating against Christians.

http://www.christianpost.com/Society...-28/index.html

Unbiased source it is not.
HA! You're not serious! Are you? You're saying that a bunch of religious nuts sore that their myths and superstitions aren't getting accepted as science by universities where real educations are obtained is evidence that *my* citation is biased? Cool. I'm liking you more and more.

One things for sure, there'll always be something to talk about in the Senate as long as you're posting here.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-23-2009, 11:18 PM   #44
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
Would I care to explain irrelevant links to irrelevant and frivolous lawsuits? Sure. The explanation is that the plaintiffs are possibly just crybabies. The fact that some whiny individuals are so full of themselves that the institutions of higher learning aren't tolerant of their ignorance is laughable. In fact, I'd like to thank you for the links, I haven't had a good laugh like this in a while!
Or you're just dismissing them because they show your sources to be the frauds they are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
hehe... you clearly didn't read your own "sources" (scare quotes intentional). At least two are the same case and another might be the same frivolous case you link to later in this post.
Possibly but these were what I just skimmed through in about 30 seconds as I said, they are not frivalous lawsuits though. And I hate to break it to you, but San Fran is more the lunatic city.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Ha! I did! Thanks!
Then you'll admit at least on of your sources is being sued.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Uh. Nope. I can dis Allah and Muhammad all day long and there would be no threat of law suit. Indeed, Islam is just as much a superstition as Christianity -cult followers of both allow irrational thought to cloud reason.
Actually the way the politically correct groups are it could be classified as a hate crime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Please. Get my assertions correct. "[U]neducated" implies a lack of education. What I'm asserting is just what I said: the lower an IQ is the more likely to be conservative and, apparently, religious. The data are clear and empirical but instead of dealing with data sets you choose to create straw man arguments. You're arguing with fallacious reasoning rather than critical thought, demonstrating my assertion with every single post. Good work.
You know that's the same kind of garbage the Nazis used to justify their treatment of Russians, Jewish People, etc. That they were somehow less intelligent subhuman. I notice scary parallels to what I learned in my World War II history class to what you've been saying.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Actually, anyone of sound and reasoned mind would likely ignore these "sources" you've cited. Two are of a disgruntled former student who didn't get hired by the university. Duh. Lots of people don't get hired. She'll get over it. Link to us the article that announces a judge and/or jury sided with the plaintiff on this one, buddy. Two of the others are in regards to superstitious and backwards high schools and educators upset because real institutions of learning are not willing to allow credit for learning mythology and claiming it to be science. Duh. Hats off to the California universities. Anyone who transfers from so-called christian colleges where that nonsense is taught also shouldn't get transfer credits and also be required to take remedial coursework to get up to speed.
No you're advocating discrimination and your own statements prove it, because they don't require the same thing for Muslim students for whom creationism is also taught, face the facts you just shot your own argument to pieces.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
So, again, you've made my point for me. If anyone doubted the challenges of religious conservatives to educate themselves, you've helped clarify it.
Explains why it was conservative Republicans that backed President Johnson on the Civil Rights laws while Liberal Democrats were member of the KKK. And you can't argue with the truth there as Tommycat brought up. Seriously, I find it interesting that Liberals (in general) tend to be advocates of free speech until that speech is something contrary to their views then they berate, insult, flame, commit charecter assassination, and attempt to silence opposition.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
No. I'm not wondering that at all. Your core beliefs and preconceived notions are being challenged by my words. I question the very conclusions you accept blindly and without question. Conclusions to which you consider only that data which are supportive. To someone like you, words like mine are very clearly "flamebait." In the context of this forum and the topics being questioned, discussed, and debated, however, they are not. Discourse in this area could not proceed without these words.
SkinWalker, don't try to lecture to someone that actually had to take their CITI Certification to actually conduct research, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about and the track records of intellectual dishonesty.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Stephen Hawking's "god" -he's often misquoted by under-educated believers (please note that "under" is not synonymous with "un").
Read a A Case for Faith and A Case for Christ and btw Jesus did exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Mark Twain also said, "Faith is believing in that which you know ain't so." Do you really want to go head-to-head with quoting atheists and non-religious with me regarding the superstitions of religion.
It takes just as much faith to believe God doesn't exist as to believe he does, and I think there is a reason people of faith aren't as maniac depressive as people who don't believe in God. Because they find purpose in their life.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
This is an argument from ignorance. You're not an atheist, so you have no idea what atheists believe. I was once a theist -raised in a culture that gave a priori acceptance of the god myth. I can honestly say that my life has great purpose: to live; to love; to leave a legacy. I enjoy living today. I don't torment myself over what might be in some alleged and speculative afterlife that can never be known -I live for now and to make the world a better place for my descendants and my neighbors, which includes you.
You sure aren't showing it, all I've seen from you is arrogance that you know what's best garbage when you don't. I want to leave a legacy too, but I also believe in life having a point, and that there is a something to cling to when things are going poorly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Hey, it wasn't *my* study. The data are available for you to look at. Perhaps religious conservatives are more charitable because they seek status among their peers and find it through public displays of piety. Personally, I don't care what the means are, the ends are enough. If you think your god wants you to feed the homeless and provide drug counseling to teens, knock yourself out -just don't require these people to convert to your superstition or I'm going to have something to say about your "charity." (I using "you" in the general sense here).
Or perhaps they believe that we are all God's children and therefore we should help one another, not everyone is just thinking about themselves all the time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
You haven't demonstrated that the data are biased. You haven't even demonstrated that the institutions that the data originate from are biased. Even if the institution was biased, applying guilt by association to the researchers who happen to work at the institution and who have made their methodologies transparent and available for peer review is a very, very fallacious argument and underscores a deficit in your education. This isn't a bad thing, but if you insist on continuing to debate such topics, it may benefit you to obtain some education in the fields as well as the general field of philosophy where it pertains to critical reasoning and logic.
The fact they are being sued for persecuting Christians specifically isn't good enough for you? Do you need it to be the KKK style of cross burning before religious persecution becomes apparent?



Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
It explains only that, in the United States, there is a right to civil action via the court system. Show us the case citations to the suits where the plaintiffs were awarded damages. Then you might have something for discussion.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...wnload&id=1489

How does a congressional report sound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Sure. Its possible. The data are available for review. I eagerly await your analyses.
Considering your statements as research fact is the same type of garbage that scientists used to claim that some of my ancestors weren't as intelligent just due to the color of their skin, I would think that it is more likely than your "research" being accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Not much. No. I detest politics and politicians. Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans -they're all the same to me: sqwaking hens crying about this and that, looking for power and status... meh.
Explains why you are pulling stuff straight out of the DNC handbook.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
HA! You're not serious! Are you? You're saying that a bunch of religious nuts sore that their myths and superstitions aren't getting accepted as science by universities where real educations are obtained is evidence that *my* citation is biased? Cool. I'm liking you more and more.
If you've been paying attention to my other debates I've flat out stated that the media is corrupt and mostly made up of far left ideaologues. In case you've noticed your sources are the universities that are being accused of blatent discrimination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
One things for sure, there'll always be something to talk about in the Senate as long as you're posting here.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2009, 01:24 AM   #45
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Or you're just dismissing them because they show your sources to be the frauds they are.
I'm dismissing your "sources" because they're irrelevant and show nothing. They're red herrings and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you truly believe the blog articles and news bits you've linked "show [my] sources to be ... frauds," then there really isn't anything more we can discuss.

Quote:
And I hate to break it to you, but San Fran is more the lunatic city.
What has this comment to do with anything? Are you actually reading the same thread the rest of us are? Wow.

Quote:
Then you'll admit at least on of your sources is being sued.
Uh... no. You haven't shown where a single one of the individuals I cited were named in a lawsuit. Nor would a lawsuit be relevant to our discussion unless it was directly related to their study. Perhaps I overlooked something... could you please look back at the posts I created and under the "references" headings, which individual(s) are named in which lawsuits?

Quote:
Actually the way the politically correct groups are it could be classified as a hate crime.
Nope. Wrong again. I have freedom of speech. I can criticize (and even insult) any religion I chose.

Quote:
You know that's the same kind of garbage the Nazis used to justify their treatment of Russians, Jewish People, etc. That they were somehow less intelligent subhuman. I notice scary parallels to what I learned in my World War II history class to what you've been saying.
The data are what they are... and just because one doesn't like data doesn't mean you can simply dismiss it out of hand. Doing so would make you an ideologue. What you're creating is an ad hominem argument and a straw man -instead of dealing with the premises of the claim, you're mis-characterizing the argument into something that is aligned with an idea you think most people will find repulsive or disagreeable and, thus, an idea you won't have to process. Unfortunately, in a rational discourse, argumentation doesn't work that way. If you want to refute the claim, you'll either have to educate yourself (the citations are probably accessible via your local library) or simply accept that they might be true.

Quote:
No you're advocating discrimination and your own statements prove it, because they don't require the same thing for Muslim students for whom creationism is also taught, face the facts you just shot your own argument to pieces.
No problem, simply insert Muslim school into my comment. My argument stands. Your weak attempt to counter it holds water like a fish net -there are few (perhaps none at all) Muslim high schools or universities in the United States attempting to get their creationist poppycock accepted in real institutions of academia. Perhaps they recognize creationist nonsense for what it is: stupid.

Quote:
Seriously, I find it interesting that Liberals (in general) tend to be advocates of free speech blah, blah, blah...
I wouldn't know. I'm not a "liberal." If anything, I'm a conservative since fiscal and resource conservation are things that concern me, but like I said: I detest politics to begin with. Whenever someone starts making political proclamations, their brains open up and all sense of reason and rational thought is lost to personal ideology.

Quote:
SkinWalker, don't try to lecture to someone that actually had to take their CITI Certification to actually conduct research, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about and the track records of intellectual dishonesty.
Yawn... Yes, suffice it to say your an "expert..."

Quote:
Read a A Case for Faith and A Case for Christ and btw Jesus did exist.
I've no idea what your talking about... but, hey, you're the research expert. Is the underline tag a citation style of APA or MLA? Or something else entirely... ? And you're right, Jesus does exist. He cut my grass just the other day and his wife sells tamales on the weekends in my neighborhood. A real nice guy... doesn't speak much English though.

Quote:
It takes just as much faith to believe God doesn't exist as to believe he does,
Eh.. not so much, no. I'm at least open to the possibility that a god or gods exist. All I need is sufficient evidence or good reason. How about you? Are you open to the possibility that not only is there no god, but that your particular god doesn't exist?

Quote:
You sure aren't showing it, all I've seen from you is arrogance that you know what's best garbage when you don't.
Oh, I'm very sorry. I don't mean to give that impression. I'm actually not that bright. I git a lot readin' dun, but I've never been very good at choosing good garbage from bad. I urge everyone to never take my word for anything I say and to question it all! The last thing I would wish for is anyone to take anything I say as gospel truth without first looking further into whatever claim or opinion I'm asserting.

But you don't even give me the courtesy of inquiry. Hell, you don't give yourself the courtesy of inquiry given the duplicated "sources" that you so vociferously stated were not duplicated! Come on guy! I'm not asking you to give up your beliefs or your politics! I'd be disappointed and hurt if you did. And I have more respect for you than to expect you to do so.

One of the reasons I come off so harshly is that sometimes it takes a harsh word to jumpstart someone's thinking. If I put you on the defensive, suddenly you have to look critically at your positions... and you shouldn't be afraid to do this! Yeah, I'm arrogant. I can admit that. But I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong -but only if I truly am. What you have before you is several decades of constantly revised positions which have continually refined themselves. Had you met me on the net in 1996, you wouldn't believe I was the same person -my beliefs and critical thought was that unrefined. I was about your age, actually.

Quote:
Or perhaps they believe that we are all God's children and therefore we should help one another, not everyone is just thinking about themselves all the time.
I hope that's true. I'm willing to go with that explanation for now. Look! We have some common ground!

Quote:
The fact they are being sued for persecuting Christians specifically isn't good enough for you? Do you need it to be the KKK style of cross burning before religious persecution becomes apparent?
Ah-ah... there you go again with the straw man. While the civil suit may be initiated by those that perceive it as a persecution against Christians, the reality is that this is a learning institution charged with educating its students with knowledge and scientific fact, not the superstitions and mythology of religions. There is no tradition of scientists and science educators picketing or suing churches to get science installed in the Sunday school classroom... why should it be tolerated the other way around. If Christians are able to get their mythology accepted as "truth" and taught as "science," where would the line be drawn? Would not the Zuni with their concept of creation vis a vis the Corn Goddess have to also be taught? What of Muslim ideas of "science?" The education institutions of the United States that are refusing to accept high school credits where creationism is taught are upholding patriotic, American values by not establishing any one religion over another. By not creating a state-sponsored religion. Moreover, students are free to gain acceptance via their SAT scores -if I understand the issue correctly (and its been a while since I reviewed it), SAT scores still take priority in university acceptance.

Have you noticed that none of the suits against the universities have favored the plaintiffs?

Quote:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...wnload&id=1489

How does a congressional report sound?
It doesn't satisfy the question I asked. You're creating a red herring ... please, one thing at a time. I'm more than willing to look over that 29 page report that doesn't appear to have any punitive judgment (from what I've read so far, kudos are due for the Smithsonian for not tolerating superstition in a place of real science), but first you'll have to address the question that was actually asked: where are the punitive damages awarded by the courts in one of these civil suits you keep bringing up?

Quote:
Considering your statements as research fact is the same type of garbage that scientists used to claim that some of my ancestors weren't as intelligent just due to the color of their skin, I would think that it is more likely than your "research" being accurate.
This is a complete and utter straw man. An ignorant and under-educated one to boot. Sorry... I'll spend no more time on such nonsense.

Quote:
Explains why you are pulling stuff straight out of the DNC handbook.
I don't know what this handbook is. Can you link to it or is it in a library? I don't follow (can someone shed light on this?).

Quote:
If you've been paying attention to my other debates I've flat out stated that the media is corrupt and mostly made up of far left ideaologues. In case you've noticed your sources are the universities that are being accused of blatent discrimination.
People get "accused" of stuff all the time. Usually by nuts with a "mission" but that's beside the point. To end this post, I'll just recap:

I posted hard, empirical data. You posted "no its all biased, dude!"

I posted citations to the individuals who conducted studies. You posted, "they're all getting sued, man!"

What you haven't posted are rebuttals to the empirical data (hint: I'm willing to email a couple of these to you in PDF form if you'd only ask. "But you gotta ask me nicely" [/Col. Jessup]). You also haven't cited legal decisions from the civil courts which show damages awarded or that the plaintiffs even had a favorable outcome.

Garfield, please don't take me the wrong way. I sense you getting worked up and it might benefit you to pause a bit before responding. Thinking some is good to. Like I said, I'm not expecting you to change you mind or your beliefs. But I'd like to think that there exists some common ground out there that we could stand upon and engage in rational discourse. We can't do that if you toss fallacious argument after fallacious argument into the fray.


Recommended reading: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2009, 10:28 AM   #46
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
I'm dismissing your "sources" because they're irrelevant and show nothing. They're red herrings and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you truly believe the blog articles and news bits you've linked "show [my] sources to be ... frauds," then there really isn't anything more we can discuss.
They are already being sued for discrimination towards Christians, and you're claiming they aren't biased?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
What has this comment to do with anything? Are you actually reading the same thread the rest of us are? Wow.
I haven't looked but isn't one of your sources from there?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Uh... no. You haven't shown where a single one of the individuals I cited were named in a lawsuit. Nor would a lawsuit be relevant to our discussion unless it was directly related to their study. Perhaps I overlooked something... could you please look back at the posts I created and under the "references" headings, which individual(s) are named in which lawsuits?
The University they work at was sued, which puts the people you used as sources in doubt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Nope. Wrong again. I have freedom of speech. I can criticize (and even insult) any religion I chose.
Okay, and I have the freedom of speech to point out how you're trying to justify intolerance of people of faith.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
The data are what they are... and just because one doesn't like data doesn't mean you can simply dismiss it out of hand. Doing so would make you an ideologue. What you're creating is an ad hominem argument and a straw man -instead of dealing with the premises of the claim, you're mis-characterizing the argument into something that is aligned with an idea you think most people will find repulsive or disagreeable and, thus, an idea you won't have to process. Unfortunately, in a rational discourse, argumentation doesn't work that way. If you want to refute the claim, you'll either have to educate yourself (the citations are probably accessible via your local library) or simply accept that they might be true.
No, I'm calling it what it is and that is an attempt to justify the atheist ideaology as being superior by saying only stupid people believe in God. And don't even try to to give me the garbage (which I underlined) because I probably know a heck of a lot more about World War II than you do, considering I've studied the topic for a class.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
No problem, simply insert Muslim school into my comment. My argument stands. Your weak attempt to counter it holds water like a fish net -there are few (perhaps none at all) Muslim high schools or universities in the United States attempting to get their creationist poppycock accepted in real institutions of academia. Perhaps they recognize creationist nonsense for what it is: stupid.
Well in case you haven't noticed they aren't holding the same discriminatory behavior on students from Muslim schools, so it is discrimination end of discussion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I wouldn't know. I'm not a "liberal." If anything, I'm a conservative since fiscal and resource conservation are things that concern me, but like I said: I detest politics to begin with. Whenever someone starts making political proclamations, their brains open up and all sense of reason and rational thought is lost to personal ideology.
Dude, if you are conservative than Nancy Pelosi would be Ann Coulter. Don't give me that song and dance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Yawn... Yes, suffice it to say your an "expert..."
I'm saying I know more about researching than you do, and I know how easy it is to skew results based on ideaology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I've no idea what your talking about... but, hey, you're the research expert. Is the underline tag a citation style of APA or MLA? Or something else entirely... ? And you're right, Jesus does exist. He cut my grass just the other day and his wife sells tamales on the weekends in my neighborhood. A real nice guy... doesn't speak much English though.
Referring to Jesus as in around over 2000 years ago.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Eh.. not so much, no. I'm at least open to the possibility that a god or gods exist. All I need is sufficient evidence or good reason. How about you? Are you open to the possibility that not only is there no god, but that your particular god doesn't exist?
It doesn't sound like it at all from your statements, every other statement you've stated suggests you despise people that believe in God. As far as the idea of there being no God, that wouldn't add up if you look at some of the events that took place in the Bible. Particularly look at the Exodus, also didn't they find a bunch of Egyptian Chariots in the Red Sea?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
But you don't even give me the courtesy of inquiry. Hell, you don't give yourself the courtesy of inquiry given the duplicated "sources" that you so vociferously stated were not duplicated! Come on guy! I'm not asking you to give up your beliefs or your politics! I'd be disappointed and hurt if you did. And I have more respect for you than to expect you to do so.
I was in a hurry and should have looked at the links I posted more thoroughly. However you didn't investigate your sources as far as potential for bias either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
One of the reasons I come off so harshly is that sometimes it takes a harsh word to jumpstart someone's thinking. If I put you on the defensive, suddenly you have to look critically at your positions... and you shouldn't be afraid to do this! Yeah, I'm arrogant. I can admit that. But I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong -but only if I truly am. What you have before you is several decades of constantly revised positions which have continually refined themselves. Had you met me on the net in 1996, you wouldn't believe I was the same person -my beliefs and critical thought was that unrefined. I was about your age, actually.
Well here is the thing, it is impossible to disprove God's existence, nor is it possible to prove he exists. Just because you can't observe God doesn't mean he doesn't exist, and the fact you can't scientifically disprove his existence (and scientists that claim they can aren't being honest quite frankly).


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Ah-ah... there you go again with the straw man. While the civil suit may be initiated by those that perceive it as a persecution against Christians, the reality is that this is a learning institution charged with educating its students with knowledge and scientific fact, not the superstitions and mythology of religions. There is no tradition of scientists and science educators picketing or suing churches to get science installed in the Sunday school classroom... why should it be tolerated the other way around. If Christians are able to get their mythology accepted as "truth" and taught as "science," where would the line be drawn? Would not the Zuni with their concept of creation vis a vis the Corn Goddess have to also be taught? What of Muslim ideas of "science?" The education institutions of the United States that are refusing to accept high school credits where creationism is taught are upholding patriotic, American values by not establishing any one religion over another. By not creating a state-sponsored religion. Moreover, students are free to gain acceptance via their SAT scores -if I understand the issue correctly (and its been a while since I reviewed it), SAT scores still take priority in university acceptance.
That explanation would fit except for the fact that they admitted students from Muslim schools but denied entry to students from Christian Schools. Therefore your entire justification doesn't fly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Have you noticed that none of the suits against the universities have favored the plaintiffs?
That doesn't mean it isn't happening, it used to be that nobody won any Civil Rights lawsuits concerning discrimination based on race.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
It doesn't satisfy the question I asked. You're creating a red herring ... please, one thing at a time. I'm more than willing to look over that 29 page report that doesn't appear to have any punitive judgment (from what I've read so far, kudos are due for the Smithsonian for not tolerating superstition in a place of real science), but first you'll have to address the question that was actually asked: where are the punitive damages awarded by the courts in one of these civil suits you keep bringing up?
Again have you ever heard of reverse discrimination? And as I've pointed out it used to be the same way concerning lawsuits involving race.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
This is a complete and utter straw man. An ignorant and under-educated one to boot. Sorry... I'll spend no more time on such nonsense.
Sorry you find the truth offensive, that was the closest comparison that fit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I don't know what this handbook is. Can you link to it or is it in a library? I don't follow (can someone shed light on this?).
Have you been in a coma for the last 10 years? You can see it almost all the time in the media.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
People get "accused" of stuff all the time. Usually by nuts with a "mission" but that's beside the point. To end this post, I'll just recap:
Oh so I suppose in your view the leader of the Weather Underground is a respectable Professor. Anyone deliberately targetting children in my view doesn't deserve respect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I posted hard, empirical data. You posted "no its all biased, dude!"
If the data is biased it isn't valid data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I posted citations to the individuals who conducted studies. You posted, "they're all getting sued, man!"
Any time you have a study that says nonreligious people are more intelligent than religious people, it's a sign that the person conducting the study has an agenda. It's called common sense, study history sometime because there are numerous examples in history of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
What you haven't posted are rebuttals to the empirical data (hint: I'm willing to email a couple of these to you in PDF form if you'd only ask. "But you gotta ask me nicely" [/Col. Jessup]). You also haven't cited legal decisions from the civil courts which show damages awarded or that the plaintiffs even had a favorable outcome.
So then going by your line of reasoning one could argue black people aren't as intelligent as white based on studies done years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Garfield, please don't take me the wrong way. I sense you getting worked up and it might benefit you to pause a bit before responding. Thinking some is good to. Like I said, I'm not expecting you to change you mind or your beliefs. But I'd like to think that there exists some common ground out there that we could stand upon and engage in rational discourse. We can't do that if you toss fallacious argument after fallacious argument into the fray.
It's what you consider a fallacious argument, I consider your arguments to be a fallacious argument too, it goes both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Last edited by GarfieldJL; 02-25-2009 at 04:05 PM. Reason: Editted for clarity
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2009, 01:57 PM   #47
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
They are already being sued for discrimination towards Christians, and you're claiming they aren't biased?

I haven't looked but isn't one of your sources from there?

The University they work at was sued, which puts the people you used as sources in doubt.

However you didn't investigate your sources as far as potential for bias either.

If the data is biased it isn't valid data.
These are fallacious examples and it doesn't follow that because one group or individual files civil suit against a university that the data resulting from research conducted by individuals within that university are therefore suspect. None of the individuals I've indicated as references for data are named in any legal action. Nor have you shown their data to be obtained via poor methodology. You simply assert, ignorantly I might add, that "they're biased so they can't be trusted."

This is completely and utterly illogical, especially from someone who dares to talk one's self up so boldly with statements that amount to "I'm a better researcher than you!" Many would view this as a childish mentality. Luckily, I think better of you than that.

But, more to the point, all scientific research is subject to bias. Researchers are aware of this and design their studies, surveys, and research to eliminate bias as much as possible. Indeed, most good researchers will field their result to colleagues, asking them to be brutally critical so that they can get all points of view. In the end, this is where the methodology section of a good research write up comes in, making the biases transparent and outlining what the researchers did to overcome bias.

And I haven't even shown the tip of the iceberg on one of the studies. Their research, which shows the negative correlation of intellect with conservative ideology is startling. But their methods are sound and their results clear. The authors are also very clear that they make no speculation as to the causation and that they're only looking at the correlation.

But, hey. That's what we're starting to expect from you... whenever data doesn't support your conclusion, you can't accept it. When it does, it must, therefore, be good data. That, in itself, is fallacious reasoning (a.k.a. circular reasoning).

Quote:
Okay, and I have the freedom of speech to point out how you're trying to justify intolerance of people of faith.
Absolutely. I'll even help you: people of faith should not be tolerated when they impose their superstitions on the rest of society. Regardless of their faith. Be they Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Navajo, whatever.... once they start demanding that the rest of society adhere to superstitions specific to their particular brand of religion these people of faith have no reason to be tolerated. Of course, if they keep to themselves, I can tolerate them just fine.

Quote:
And don't even try to to give me the garbage (which I underlined) because I probably know a heck of a lot more about World War II than you do, considering I've studied the topic for a class.
Cool. You took a class.

Quote:
I'm saying I know more about researching than you do, and I know how easy it is to skew results based on ideaology.
Your kewl resurch skillz rock.

Quote:
It doesn't sound like it at all from your statements, every other statement you've stated suggests you despise people that believe in God.
You couldn't be farther from the truth. But I'll admit, its hard to see the other side of me when I'm forced to provide rational and reasoned arguments. I'm sorry. I don't get all wishy-washy and namby-pamby just because I'm afraid reason and rational thought will offend someone. If you assert it publicly and use a religious reason to support an argument, I'm going to throw your superstitions back in your face every time.

Quote:
As far as the idea of there being no God, that wouldn't add up if you look at some of the events that took place in the Bible. Particularly look at the Exodus, also didn't they find a bunch of Egyptian Chariots in the Red Sea?
It would add up if you read biblical literature and mythology with an objective eye and not that of someone with an a priori belief. And, no, "they" didn't find "a bunch of Egyptian Chariots in the Red Sea." I'm an archaeologist, so if you want to discuss this topic, I ask that you start another thread since I'll probably make a few posts that are longer than the short ones I've made in this thread lately.

Quote:
Well here is the thing, it is impossible to disprove God's existence, nor is it possible to prove he exists.
Why would anyone care to?

Quote:
Just because you can't observe God doesn't mean he doesn't exist, and the fact you can't scientifically disprove his existence (and scientists that claim they can aren't being honest quite frankly).
This sentence wasn't structured to well, so I hope I've inferred your meaning correctly. There are many, many things that cannot be "scientifically proved" when it comes to "existence." Zeus, Apollo, Gilgamesh, Marduk, and the were-jaguars of ancient Mesoamerica cannot be scientifically disproved. Yet there are no good reason to accept any of them to be true. I'm more than willing to revise my beliefs about your god (or anyone else's) once I'm presented with good reason. Can you say the same? Can you admit here that you would be willing to give up belief in a god if good reason were shown to you?

Quote:
That explanation would fit except for the fact that they admitted students from Muslim schools but denied entry to students from Christian Schools. Therefore your entire justification doesn't fly.
Which one of those Muslim schools did not have a science curriculum that teaches evolution in the science class?

Quote:
Oh so I suppose in your view the leader of the Weather Underground is a respectable Professor. Anyone deliberately targetting children in my view doesn't deserve respect.
Again, we don't seem to be participating in the same thread. I can only assume that this is some sort of straw man argument and a gross mis-characterization of what I originally said. Such a mis-characterization affords you a cop-out rather than actually address the point at hand. This, my friend, is a fallacious argument and has no bearing on the original statement. I ask you to please stay on topic.

Quote:
Any time you have a study that says nonreligious people are more intelligent than religious people, it's a sign that the person conducting the study has an agenda. It's called common sense, study history sometime because there are numerous examples in history of this.
It could also be that there is someone who noticed a trend and is looking for answers. The data are the data and they still stand, mocking you with scientific methodology while you go about creating straw men, knocking down windmills, and hoping people will chase your red herrings. In the end, your very words are confirming the data I cited. This is fascinating to an anthropologist like me, I must say.

Quote:
So then going by your reasoning black people aren't as intelligent as White based on studies done years ago.
Mod Note:You'll need to quote the place I stated this, publicly retract this racist accusation, or receive an infraction. Being a fair person and a lenient moderator, I'll allow you the opportunity of 24 hours to PM me, edit your post, or retract your accusation unless you are able to quote, word-for-word where I've implied that the people of one ancestry are more or less intelligent than another. Hopefully, if an infraction is applied, you don't have enough points to auto-ban.

Quote:
It's what you consider a fallacious argument, I consider your arguments to be a fallacious argument too, it goes both ways.
Sorry, but you don't get to just make a baseless accusation of fallacy. You'll actually have to demonstrate it. If you'll look through your various posts and notice the appeals to authority, arguments from ignorance, and the straw man and red herring arguments you've presented, you can see examples of fallacious argumentation. Just because you disagree or don't want what I'm saying to be true doesn't give you reason to say "it goes both ways," because it doesn't. If, however, you can specify which of my arguments and assertions were fallacious, cite the type of fallacy and why you think a fallacy exists, then I'll need to revise my position or change it. Or, counter argue why the reasoning is sound. None of this, by the way, have you done as your fallacies have been pointed out. This is indicative of poor reasoning or at least a refusal to acknowledge reason and evidence of the assertion that there is a negative correlation between cognitive ability and conservative beliefs.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2009, 07:24 PM   #48
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
Mod Note:You'll need to quote the place I stated this, publicly retract this racist accusation, or receive an infraction. Being a fair person and a lenient moderator, I'll allow you the opportunity of 24 hours to PM me, edit your post, or retract your accusation unless you are able to quote, word-for-word where I've implied that the people of one ancestry are more or less intelligent than another. Hopefully, if an infraction is applied, you don't have enough points to auto-ban.
I'm guessing you misinterpretted what I said, and I'm sorry for not wording it in a way that you wouldn't jump to that conclusion, but for the record I never called you a racist if you actually read what I said, I was comparing the research you were using to past instances where people came up with research to justify their personal prejudgices (sp?). I stated that by your reasoning then, that research done in the 1800s would be valid as well. In other words by using that line of reasoning you can come up with that research (which you and I both know is a bunch of garbage) as being accurate.

To sum it up my point is that you need to look at historical instances of where the scientific community tried to manipulate data to promote stereotypes. To be completely blunt, I was not accusing you of being a racist, I was pointing out that your line of reasoning was faulty because by using that line of reasoning one could justify the results of those experiments seen in the 1800s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Sorry, but you don't get to just make a baseless accusation of fallacy. You'll actually have to demonstrate it. If you'll look through your various posts and notice the appeals to authority, arguments from ignorance, and the straw man and red herring arguments you've presented, you can see examples of fallacious argumentation.
The fact that the research is highly subjective and that we have no information as to who they tested and the geographic locations where the samples were taken. This indicates the research was quite likely biased and the sample was taken in a manner to skew the results. Further based on what I've shown, it seems that research professionals that believe in God, probably aren't willing to admit it due to fear of religious discrimination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Just because you disagree or don't want what I'm saying to be true doesn't give you reason to say "it goes both ways," because it doesn't. If, however, you can specify which of my arguments and assertions were fallacious, cite the type of fallacy and why you think a fallacy exists, then I'll need to revise my position or change it. Or, counter argue why the reasoning is sound. None of this, by the way, have you done as your fallacies have been pointed out. This is indicative of poor reasoning or at least a refusal to acknowledge reason and evidence of the assertion that there is a negative correlation between cognitive ability and conservative beliefs.
There is such a thing as common sense, tests that say that people with a certain beliefs aren't as intelligent as others for instance doesn't pass the smell test. You can tell right off that the researcher had an ax to grind. Whenever you have research that says someone of a particular religion, race, etc. isn't going to be as intelligent as another individual for those reasons, then you can tell that the research is probably not accurate.

I am glad you at least waited for me to clarrify what I was saying in case you were misinterpreting what I was saying.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2009, 08:28 PM   #49
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
The fact that the research is highly subjective and that we have no information as to who they tested and the geographic locations where the samples were taken.
Oh? You actually read the research article? Or you're just asserting that this information is inaccessible to prevent having to accept the validity?

In fact, I believe the specific study in question about the IQ of atheists being statistically significantly higher than theists is data taken from surveys conducted by the US Department of Labor, so the data wasn't even taken by the researcher in question, and your assertions of bias and skewed sampling fall flat.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2009, 08:39 PM   #50
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior View Post
Oh? You actually read the research article? Or you're just asserting that this information is inaccessible to prevent having to accept the validity?

In fact, I believe the specific study in question about the IQ of atheists being statistically significantly higher than theists is data taken from surveys conducted by the US Department of Labor, so the data wasn't even taken by the researcher in question, and your assertions of bias and skewed sampling fall flat.
And the data that justified racism was taken by the Smithsonian Institute if I remember correctly. You have to be very careful about any study that involves race or religion, the vast majority of the time you're going to see the research skewed by someone with an ax to grind. Newsbusters found a pretty good example here recently.

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/9993.html

But News Busters also found:
http://www.indiana.edu/~telecom/peop...abe_resume.pdf

And

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_m...9/p92589-1.php

The Newsbusters Article is here: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...d-gop-presiden

Interesting Quote:
Quote:
The other co-author, Maria Elizabeth Grabe, has an interesting 2006 research project listed online in her curriculum vitae: a paper titled ""Bill O'Reilly's 'No Spin Zone': Using 1930s Propaganda Techniques and Constructing Villains, Victims, and The Virtuous." It says it was well-received at an international conference in Dresden, Germany. The paper is here, and compares O'Reilly to Father Charles Coughlin, an anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi radio host of the 1930s.
-- Newsbusters.org
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-25-2009, 12:24 AM   #51
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
I'm guessing you misinterpretted what I said, and I'm sorry for not wording it in a way that you wouldn't jump to that conclusion, but for the record I never called you a racist if you actually read what I said,
You said, "by your reasoning black people aren't as intelligent as White based on studies done years ago."

That, categorically, is not my reasoning and I made no comment at all about the ancestry of people. I cited data which are demonstrating a clear, negative correlation between intelligence and conservative beliefs. That has nothing to do whatever with ancestry.

You have just over 12 hours remaining. I suggest you edit your post, but if you prefer, a public apology for mis-characterizing my comments for your own ends will go a long way to developing a bit of respect from me. This mis-characterization implies that I'm a racist, whether you chose to admit or not and whether thats what you intended or not. Just over 12 hours....

Quote:
To sum it up my point is that you need to look at historical instances of where the scientific community tried to manipulate data to promote stereotypes.
No I don't. The data I'm citing from the studies I'm citing have nothing whatever to do with historical pseudoscience. These studies have nothing to do with ancestry or ethnicity and are backed by empirical data.

Quote:
The fact that the research is highly subjective and that we have no information as to who they tested and the geographic locations where the samples were taken.
The data are not subjective -they are empirical. The methodologies include the demographics of the samples. You need only look at the papers cited.

Quote:
I am glad you at least waited for me to clarrify what I was saying in case you were misinterpreting what I was saying.
You're not done yet. You've mis-characterized my comment which cites data regarding beliefs by attempting to equivocate it to pseudoscientific studies in history that derided ancestry and ethnicity. This is a prime and clear example of a straw man argument, which is a form of ad hominem argument. You'll need to edit your post and/or post an acknowledgment that my position and comment is being mis-characterized. I'll settle for simply you editing the post. 12 hours. Tick-tock.

Beyond that, I appreciate your participation here. Please don't get me wrong. Which is the reason I'm affording you this opportunity.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-25-2009, 01:11 AM   #52
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Conservatism and Intelligence

What follows are brief excerpts from an article in-press and my own commentary, which describes the negative correlation between intelligence and conservative beliefs. I cited the article elsewhere in this thread, but I'll include the citation at the end of this post.

I can't post the entire article here due to Fair Use restrictions, but you should be able to find the journal Intelligence at your local university library or online via your local public library's internet access. You should even be able to order it via your public/uni library through the Inter Library Loan (I'll try to include the DOI to make this easier)

Quote:
Abstract
Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States' universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores.
The abstract gives an overview of the hypotheses of the author, which is that there is a negative correlation between conservatism and cognitive ability. That is to say, the more cognitively capable a person is, the less likely they are to be conservative.

In this abstract, you can also get a sense of the methodology used, which includes a sampling of 2854 people (n=2854), including 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students. What was evaluated for cognitive ability were SAT scores, etc. (see the abstract).

More on methodology
To rate conservatism, the author drew on successful survey questions from other research that was able to establish levels of conservatism through the use of scaling questions with answers (like strongly and completely disagree to strongly and completely disagree).

Questions rated the degree to which an individual subscribes to conventional religious beliefs, the degree to which an individual subscribes to various justifications of self interest; the degree to which an individual subscribes to patriotism, consitutionalism, humanism, existentialism, neoliberalism, and functionalism; and the degree to which an individual subscribes to subjective experiences (paranormal experiences, personal mysticism, etc.).

Example statements (to which the respondent chose the degree to which they agreed or disagreed) were: "religion should play hte most important role in civil affairs;" "worldly possessions are the greatest good in life;" "I love and am devoted to my country;" and "some objects have magical powers."

The results showed a negative correlation between conservatism and cognitive ability:
Quote:
Overall, both IQ and Conservatism are important in assessingthe country's economic and political status, with Conservatism showing a somewhat better predictive validity. Again, I wish to refrain from making causal inferences. All that can be said from the data at hand is that two psychological variables — cognitive ability (or IQ) and Conservative syndrome — appear to form a nexus with demographic, economic, sociological, health and political/legal variables at the country level of analysis.
The author describes "conservatism" thus:
Quote:
The Conservative syndrome
describes a person who attaches particular importance to the respect of tradition, humility, devoutness and moderation as well as to obedience, self-discipline and politeness, social order, family, and national security and has a sense of belonging to and a pride in a group with which he or she identifies. A Conservative person also subscribes to conventional religious
beliefs and accepts the mystical, including paranormal, experiences. The same person is likely to be less open to intellectual challenges and will be seen as a responsible “good citizen” at work and in the society while expressing rather harsh views toward those outside his or her group. Our data
also show that countries differ along similar albeit somewhat broader dimensions of Conservatism. This paragraph's description of the Conservative syndrome is a narrative listing of psychological processes captured by the scales and items that define Conservatism factor in this and other studies of ours.
In his final concluding remarks, the author notes that he makes no attempt to speak to the causes of the results. He raises several questions: does IQ (cognitive ability) influence individuals' decisions to be conservative, or does conservatism influence one's IQ?

If anyone is interested, I'll also give a similar treatment to one of the other studies, the Nyborg study on intelligence and religiosity perhaps. I thought about adding it to this post, but I'm tired and have a full day tomorrow.


By the way, Nyborg is a researcher at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. Stankov is at the National Institute of Education in Singapore.

References:

Stankov, L., (2009). Conservatism and cognitive ability, Intelligence , doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.12.007


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-25-2009, 11:43 AM   #53
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
You said, "by your reasoning black people aren't as intelligent as White based on studies done years ago."
Yes I did, by your line of reasoning those studies would be perfectly valid, I'm not saying you believe those studies, but your line of reasoning can be used to say those studies were valid. Hmm, the only other thing I may have to apologize for is not including the word "line" but other than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
That, categorically, is not my reasoning and I made no comment at all about the ancestry of people. I cited data which are demonstrating a clear, negative correlation between intelligence and conservative beliefs. That has nothing to do whatever with ancestry.
You're going off on a red herring, and btw, you did insult people's heritage and insulted people because of their religion, which is discrimination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
You have just over 12 hours remaining. I suggest you edit your post, but if you prefer, a public apology for mis-characterizing my comments for your own ends will go a long way to developing a bit of respect from me. This mis-characterization implies that I'm a racist, whether you chose to admit or not and whether thats what you intended or not. Just over 12 hours....
Only thing I'll apologize for is the misinterpretation on your part. If I were going to call you a racist, I would just flat out call you it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
No I don't. The data I'm citing from the studies I'm citing have nothing whatever to do with historical pseudoscience. These studies have nothing to do with ancestry or ethnicity and are backed by empirical data.
Actually it's just like the pseudoscience, your line of reasoning can be used to validate those studies. And as far as empirical data, I somehow doubt that. You've used every chance you had to bash people based on whether or not they believe in God, which is religious discrimination. I'm not going to back off that statement because that's the truth.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
The data are not subjective -they are empirical. The methodologies include the demographics of the samples. You need only look at the papers cited.
Then if you really believe that I got some land to sell you on Jupiter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
You're not done yet. You've mis-characterized my comment which cites data regarding beliefs by attempting to equivocate it to pseudoscientific studies in history that derided ancestry and ethnicity. This is a prime and clear example of a straw man argument, which is a form of ad hominem argument. You'll need to edit your post and/or post an acknowledgment that my position and comment is being mis-characterized. I'll settle for simply you editing the post. 12 hours. Tick-tock.
That exact kind of study was done before by the Nazis in the 1930s. That is a fact, and you can argue it all day long, but the facts are the facts. You're just dismissing it because it completely invalidates your sources.

Addendum:
Btw, I edited the post to clarify what I was saying, I completely disagree with your interpretation though.

Last edited by GarfieldJL; 02-25-2009 at 01:38 PM. Reason: Addendum
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-25-2009, 09:43 PM   #54
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Yes I did, by your line of reasoning those studies would be perfectly valid, I'm not saying you believe those studies, but your line of reasoning can be used to say those studies were valid. Hmm, the only other thing I may have to apologize for is not including the word "line" but other than that.
Thank you for the adjustment. Sometimes a single word or syllable can make significant differences in what gets implied or inferred.

Let me also offer a clarification by actually outlining my line of reasoning.

The research I cited used empirical methods.
Their methods produced results.
The results are a product of empirical study.

Empirical studies have quantifiable data.
Quantifiable data from empirical sources are not subjective and have objective outcomes.
When the methods are understood and the data are acknowledge, the resulting correlations are undeniable until such time as specific flaws in the methodology are exposed.


What you've chosen to do, is equate two of the references I cited to the pseudoscientific and poorly researched speculations of a primarily Victorian age, but also the early 20th century. You didn't specify which "race studies" you were using as an analogy, but I'm familiar with several. Each had very serious methodological flaws -entire books have been written on this topic.

The research I cited earlier in this thread (and again a couple posts up) does not appear to suffer any methodological flaws.

Therefore, the line of reasoning I'm using is that empirical data, which survives modern peer review, can offer conclusions which cannot easily be denied with out detailed analysis of the researcher's methods.

Quote:
You're going off on a red herring, and btw, you did insult people's heritage and insulted people because of their religion, which is discrimination.
I don't believe I ever stated that I didn't insult anyone's 'heritage.' That's a term which carries a lot of meaning, so it really isn't useful. I do, however, maintain that I've never insulted anyone's ancestry or ethnicity -which is very different from "heritage." There is no demonstrated "red herring" fallacy at work in my statement since I'm asserting that the data I cited is drawing a negative correlation between cognitive ability and conservatism and cognitive and religiosity. This is all an attempt to keep the focus on the topic, not cause it to go astray as a red herring would. Indeed, I'm answering a red herring, not creating one.

Quote:
Actually it's just like the pseudoscience, your line of reasoning can be used to validate those studies.
Wrong. See above.

Quote:
And as far as empirical data, I somehow doubt that. You've used every chance you had to bash people based on whether or not they believe in God, which is religious discrimination. I'm not going to back off that statement because that's the truth.
There is, without a doubt, an objective truth involved in our discussion. However, it cannot be approached without critical thought, logical reasoning, and rational discourse. The constant introduction of fallacious logic obfuscates the arrival of this discourse to the objective truth. I won't pretend to know this objective truth, but I'm confident that I'm closer to it than not. You can "doubt" the research are empirical data all you'd like (and doubt is a good thing), but you'll need to analyze the data and demonstrate the flaws in the methods before asserting its wrong, otherwise you're just saying, "No! I disagree! Why? Errrmmm... because, that's why!"

Quote:
That exact kind of study was done before by the Nazis in the 1930s.
Wrong. See above.

Quote:
That is a fact, and you can argue it all day long, but the facts are the facts. You're just dismissing it because it completely invalidates your sources.
No facts have been presented that invalidate the data presented by the research I cited. Believe me, if it did, I'd publish a paper in Intelligence in the very next issue and have something really cool to add to my CV! So if you really have some facts that invalidate it, I'm very open to reading them and ready to revise my assessment!


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 05:12 AM   #55
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
What I actually said (initially) was:

I thought I was actually complimenting or at least defending the republican party by pointing out that it is actually diverse and maturing past its stereotyped role of the past and developing into a more eclectic and progressive party. The core values of the republican party are beginning to shift, though there does seem to be an effort by some to continue to appeal to their alleged "base," which are conservative but fundamental christians who are demonstrably the more ignorant and undereducated of our society.
Whoops... actually I owe you an appology. You did say alleged "base" and I missed that part. Since the GOP has really become more and more diverse as of late, and our appeal has moved on more or less from strictly the evangelicals to the average joe. We are moving more centrist in most areas, and headed more toward an inclusive party. My bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
Republicans are fast catching up in education.
Woah hold up there. We actually exceed when you don't start to rework the statistics with "corrections for X." That's how statistics get manipulated to show whatever you want them to. Then again I don't pin a person's value based on their education level. And if you're ever stranded on the highway, I doubt you'll ask that tow truck driver if he has an Ivy league education before you'll let him help you out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
The data I posted for tommy was intended to show that there are some general feelings among non-republicans (and even some moderate republicans) that the things he was claiming not to exist actually does appear to exist.
That goes to the perception thing. Perception is not always the truth. In my perception the "Liberals" are pot smokin hippies. It don't make it true. I am not claiming that they don't exist. Just that the extent to which they exist is exaggerated so as to be easily attacked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
Rather than take each point of data and refute it logically, he chose to simply cast all the data aside as if they are magically refuted by his mere disagreement or an accusation of "bias." This type of fallacious reasoning is also a generalization that can be cast toward the republican party and, it is hoped, will become extinct among them as educations improve.
I certainly wouldn't trust data gathered and collected by Rush Limbaugh to be accurate about the Democrats. If you provided a source from a neutral source. IE one that doesn't have ties to an organization that specifically slams the Republicans(as is the case of "Facing South") yet never slams the Democrats. Or Dr. Massengill who's works have all been significantly against religion(at least the ones I have read). Just because she has a PHD doesn't absolve her from being biassed against religion. Ok though... I counter with Spirituality in Higher Education which shows a positive influence of spirituality.

Oh and refuting with a simple cast of "bias" is not limited to Republicans and conservatives. If you want I'm sure garfield can point to some significant posts that have had that used against his arguments.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 08:46 AM   #56
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Stankov and Nyborg appear to be about as neutral as they can get. I still don't see any issue with Massengill's data. I see you disagreement and objection to her "agenda" and "bias," but there's no quantification of this bias and "agenda" and why they might affect her data. If her methods have deficiencies, then you've cause to doubt her research. Otherwise, we simply must accept that all researchers have an agenda (they call these research questions) and biases (they filter these through rigorous methodology and peer review).


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 10:53 AM   #57
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
Stankov and Nyborg appear to be about as neutral as they can get. I still don't see any issue with Massengill's data. I see you disagreement and objection to her "agenda" and "bias," but there's no quantification of this bias and "agenda" and why they might affect her data. If her methods have deficiencies, then you've cause to doubt her research. Otherwise, we simply must accept that all researchers have an agenda (they call these research questions) and biases (they filter these through rigorous methodology and peer review).
The intelligence thing I brought up was subject to peer review as well. Never take any study involving race or religion at face value.


Btw, an Ivy league education doesn't mean one is intelligent, it just means they studied in a particular field. There are other colleges out there.

I just found something else that makes you wonder what these Professors were taught:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020603332.html

Supposedly because they didn't vote for Obama they are slavery loving racists? Excuse me, this is a College Professor shouldn't he have learned that there are other reasons one wouldn't have voted for Obama.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 01:16 PM   #58
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
The intelligence thing I brought up was subject to peer review as well. Never take any study involving race or religion at face value.
That isn't an argument. Like SkinWalker said, if you can demonstrate the bias of the researchers and back it up with evidence and/or show a flaw in their methods, that would be an argument, simply saying "they're biased because they're part of academia" without even giving evidence of such is not a valid argument.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 04:15 PM   #59
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac7142 View Post
That isn't an argument. Like SkinWalker said, if you can demonstrate the bias of the researchers and back it up with evidence and/or show a flaw in their methods, that would be an argument, simply saying "they're biased because they're part of academia" without even giving evidence of such is not a valid argument.
And I suppose this incident that Newsbusters picked up on isn't more than a little out of line too?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-w...tt-head-insult


Seriously, a researcher comparing Bill O'Reilly to a Nazi in one of the articles I brought up about IU, and that doesn't indicate a conflict of interest? What do they need to do for you to acknowledge that they aren't objective? Them running around without any clothes on with "I hate Conservatives" spray painted on their backsides, seriously.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 07:20 PM   #60
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
And I suppose this incident that Newsbusters picked up on isn't more than a little out of line too?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-w...tt-head-insult


Seriously, a researcher comparing Bill O'Reilly to a Nazi in one of the articles I brought up about IU, and that doesn't indicate a conflict of interest? What do they need to do for you to acknowledge that they aren't objective? Them running around without any clothes on with "I hate Conservatives" spray painted on their backsides, seriously.
You haven't shown that anyone SkinWalker cited was biased, I didn't even see their names mentioned in the articles you've linked, and from what you have linked, I'm beginning to think that your argument is simply "well they graduated from/work for a university, they have a liberal bias". If that's your argument, I'd like you to read up on Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly to see my counterpoints to that argument, Coulter in particular graduated from Cornell, an Ivy League school, and there is no way in hell you can say she has a liberal bias.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 07:34 PM   #61
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac7142 View Post
Coulter in particular graduated from Cornell, an Ivy League school, and there is no way in hell you can say she has a liberal bias.
Of course she does, Jaymack. Everyone has a liberal bias. Everyone.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 07:39 PM   #62
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac7142 View Post
You haven't shown that anyone SkinWalker cited was biased, I didn't even see their names mentioned in the articles you've linked, and from what you have linked, I'm beginning to think that your argument is simply "well they graduated from/work for a university, they have a liberal bias". If that's your argument, I'd like you to read up on Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly to see my counterpoints to that argument, Coulter in particular graduated from Cornell, an Ivy League school, and there is no way in hell you can say she has a liberal bias.
I have read some of O'Reilly's works thank you kindly oh and I'm not just going after SkinWalker's sources I'm going after the bulk of academia. You have IU with one thing, the University I go to getting in trouble with the Feds for using campus computers and printers to print Barack Obama campaign fliers.

I'd advise you guys to read some of the following:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/15...nd-bill-ayers/

links to:

http://www.tallahassee.com/article/2...4/1006/OPINION

---------------------------


http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/06...iers-daughter/

Btw, there is the video from the Swedish Documentary attached to the blog, which is the only reason why I'm using the blog. Generally I don't like reading Michelle's blogs because sometimes she goes overboard but there were some things that were actually quite scary, assuming the jest of these articles are true.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...2881384.column


This kind of stuff is what is being taught in schools, the student in this article demonstrates that fact perfectly. So as I asked before, how blatent does it have to be for you to admit there is a problem?
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 08:36 PM   #63
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
I have read some of O'Reilly's works thank you kindly oh and I'm not just going after SkinWalker's sources I'm going after the bulk of academia.
Then your argument, in addition to being fallacious, has no place in this thread, unless you'd care to narrow it down a bit and give reasons as to why SkinWalker's sources can't be trusted besides this poisoning the well fallacy.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 08:49 PM   #64
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...2881384.column


This kind of stuff is what is being taught in schools, the student in this article demonstrates that fact perfectly. So as I asked before, how blatent does it have to be for you to admit there is a problem?
Follow up article to the one above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kass
But it’s also true that if Catherine lived in a beet-red community and wore an Obama shirt, she’d get a similar negative, intolerant and ugly reaction. And certainly some Republican children would outrage their grammar/lit teachers by wanting her crucifixed as well.

All such outrage is predictable. Whether red or blue or right or left, many adults don’t get it. But Catherine Vogt sure gets it: Children learn their politics from their parents.
It's not the teachers, it's the parents. Get it right.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 08:50 PM   #65
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac7142 View Post
Then your argument, in addition to being fallacious, has no place in this thread, unless you'd care to narrow it down a bit and give reasons as to why SkinWalker's sources can't be trusted besides this poisoning the well fallacy.
No, it has a place in the thread, just cause it shows there is a systematic problem in academia which shows those sources can't be trusted, and common sense indicates those studies are propaganda pieces, doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the thread, quite the opposite it does belong in this thread.

Seriously, teachers bashing a student for wearing a McCain T-Shirt, and we have worse examples on the college level, and that isn't a cause of concern.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
It's not the teachers, it's the parents. Get it right.
That part is the reporter's analysis, that doesn't mean that would actually happen. And this situation isn't an isolated incident if you look at my other sources that I provided. There were some instances of outright indoctrination similar to the Hitler Youth Movement stuff or at least the videos looked similar enough, I'll try to dig up that stuff if you'd like.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 08:55 PM   #66
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
No, it has a place in the thread, just cause it shows there is a systematic problem in academia which shows those sources can't be trusted, and common sense indicates those studies are propaganda pieces, doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the thread, quite the opposite it does belong in this thread.

Seriously, teachers bashing a student for wearing a McCain T-Shirt, and we have worse examples on the college level, and that isn't a cause of concern.
Dredging up crap about other professors doesn't serve to refute anything said in this thread. It doesn't even serve to prove your point, since you haven't been able to show evidence that this problem is widespread, chronic, or exclusive to liberal teachers or professors.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 09:04 PM   #67
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
That part is the reporter's analysis, that doesn't mean that would actually happen. And this situation isn't an isolated incident if you look at my other sources that I provided. There were some instances of outright indoctrination similar to the Hitler Youth Movement stuff or at least the videos looked similar enough, I'll try to dig up that stuff if you'd like.
You used the article to assert the fact that teachers teach their students intolerance. I have shown you that it they in fact do not teach their students intolerance; it comes from their parents.

I think we're done here.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 09:11 PM   #68
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac7142 View Post
Dredging up crap about other professors doesn't serve to refute anything said in this thread. It doesn't even serve to prove your point, since you haven't been able to show evidence that this problem is widespread, chronic, or exclusive to liberal teachers or professors.
  • Who the heck taught the teachers? -- Professors
  • Who works at Universities? -- Professors
  • Who did the study? -- Professors

Btw,

http://www.au.dk/en/news/210906a

And another coauthor of a particular work was also found to improperly gather data to skew results.
Quote:
It was also found that the “data point” that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
You used the article to assert the fact that teachers teach their students intolerance. I have shown you that it they in fact do not teach their students intolerance; it comes from their parents.
And I stand by that statement, parents aren't the only ones that serve as role models to children, teachers do too.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 09:17 PM   #69
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
  • Who the heck taught the teachers? -- Professors
  • Who works at Universities? -- Professors
  • Who did the study? -- Professors
[/url]
better quit school then and go live up in the ****ing mountains where there's no internet



jesus every post you make is ****ing word salad and 90% fallacies









seriously i'm ****ing done trying to interpret your bull**** **** you i'm out



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 09:17 PM   #70
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
And I stand by that statement, parents aren't the only ones that serve as role models to children, teachers do too.
There is nothing in that article that corroborates your statement, thus you cannot use it to prove your point. Nice try, though.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 09:20 PM   #71
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
There is nothing in that article that corroborates your statement, thus you cannot use it to prove your point. Nice try, though.
Look at the articles again, it is one maybe two of SkinWalker's sources getting suspended or other disciplinary action for fraudulent research. That throws some of his source's credibility into doubt right there.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 09:25 PM   #72
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Look at the articles again, it is one maybe two of SkinWalker's sources getting suspended or other disciplinary action for fraudulent research. That throws some of his source's credibility into doubt right there.
I am talking about that specific article and your specific assertion that teachers teach their students political intolerance. I made no statements on any other thing that you have posted.

Again, there is nothing in that Trib article that supports your statement that teachers teach their kids political intolerance.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 09:29 PM   #73
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
I am talking about that specific article and your specific assertion that teachers teach their students political intolerance. I made no statements on any other thing that you have posted.
Read the article, it states the students weren't the only ones acting intolerant putting it mildly...

Then there is the video from the Swedish documentary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
Again, there is nothing in that Trib article that supports your statement that teachers teach their kids political intolerance.
Ever heard if teachers do it, permit that kind of behavior, etc. the students will do so too thinking that they won't get in trouble for it.

Parents aren't the only people that teach children how to behave, teachers do so as well, because they are an authority figure.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 09:42 PM   #74
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
I noticed that you've cast a few red herrings and others have chased them. Let's bring this back on topic, shall we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
The intelligence thing I brought up was subject to peer review as well.
We wouldn't know. You haven't cited the "thing" you brought up. What specific research are you referring to? There have been many, some of which were peer reviewed -and utterly skewered by their peers.

Quote:
Never take any study involving race or religion at face value.
Agreed. This is why I took the time to examine and evaluate the methodologies.


Quote:
Btw, an Ivy league education doesn't mean one is intelligent, it just means they studied in a particular field. There are other colleges out there.
I do not dispute this. Nor have I asserted it. Indeed, on of the studies I cited used students from community colleges in its sample. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Quote:
I just found something else that makes you wonder what these Professors were taught:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020603332.html

Supposedly because they didn't vote for Obama they are slavery loving racists? Excuse me, this is a College Professor shouldn't he have learned that there are other reasons one wouldn't have voted for Obama.
This has zero relevance to studies I cited. Zero.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 09:44 PM   #75
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Read the article, it states the students weren't the only ones acting intolerant putting it mildly...
Please find me the part where it says that teachers were intolerant towards the girl performing the experiment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Ever heard if teachers do it, permit that kind of behavior, etc. the students will do so too thinking that they won't get in trouble for it.
Nowhere in the article does it state that teachers permitted that kind of behavior in their classrooms. It is dishonest and fallacious to assume so.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 10:04 PM   #76
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
I noticed that you've cast a few red herrings and others have chased them. Let's bring this back on topic, shall we?
They aren't red herrings, though I'm not sure people realize what the implications of some of what I posted yet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
We wouldn't know. You haven't cited the "thing" you brought up. What specific research are you referring to? There have been many, some of which were peer reviewed -and utterly skewered by their peers.
http://www.au.dk/en/news/210906a

Having problems getting article to come up but it is concerning one of your sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Agreed. This is why I took the time to examine and evaluate the methodologies.
Well first two people I looked up have gotten into serious trouble concerning academic dishonesty.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I do not dispute this. Nor have I asserted it. Indeed, on of the studies I cited used students from community colleges in its sample. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
That is in the second source I presented concerning Academic dishonesty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
This has zero relevance to studies I cited. Zero.
The fact one of the researchers you mentioned was suspended from his job for academic dishonesty in his research isn't relevent? I wasn't born yesterday, that is at least one source that just lost credibility, and that was just the first one I investigated.

In reference to that particular source though, I'm showing there is a systematic problem, and showing incidents in multiple states and even countries outlines that there is a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
Please find me the part where it says that teachers were intolerant towards the girl performing the experiment.
Oh you mean

Quote:
But students weren't the only ones surprised that she wore a shirt supporting McCain.

"In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain," Catherine said.

If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.

"Later, that teacher found out about the experiment and said she was embarrassed because she knew I was writing down what she said," Catherine said.
-- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...2881384.column

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
Nowhere in the article does it state that teachers permitted that kind of behavior in their classrooms. It is dishonest and fallacious to assume so.
Considering the shear number of people, it is safe to say that teachers permitted it in the classroom, or in the halls.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 10:10 PM   #77
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
"In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain," Catherine said.
That doesn't sound very intolerant at all.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 10:14 PM   #78
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
That doesn't sound very intolerant at all.
That was just one example, and part of it is the tone in which it is delivered, furthermore there were examples that didn't make it into the article.



Anyways back to SkinWalker's source here is a quote from my reference:

Quote:
Mr Holm-Nielsen says, “There is a clear case of official misconduct on the part of Professor Nyborg. By way of disciplinary punishment, I have therefore issued Professor Nyborg with a severe reprimand. This matter is thus closed – and his suspension from duty is now revoked.”
--AARHUS University
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 10:19 PM   #79
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Considering the shear number of people, it is safe to say that teachers permitted it in the classroom, or in the halls.
Do you have exact numbers? Did you specifically ask the child if she was accosted in the classroom or in the halls? If your answers are no, then you have no right or bearing to make this fallacious inference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
That was just one example, and part of it is the tone in which it is delivered,
Where does it address the tone in which it was delivered?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
furthermore there were examples that didn't make it into the article.
Where are these examples and can you properly source them?




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-26-2009, 10:29 PM   #80
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
Do you have exact numbers? Did you specifically ask the child if she was accosted in the classroom or in the halls? If your answers are no, then you have no right or bearing to make this fallacious inference.

You mean to tell me that these all happened in the hallway? This wouldn't have just happened in the halls, since teachets were involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
Where does it address the tone in which it was delivered?
Oh you mean:

Quote:
If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.
-- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...2881384.column

That was actually rather easy to find and I'm not a lit major.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
Where are these examples and can you properly source them?
They are inferred they didn't give specifics in the article, but it is inferred from the article.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > The future of the Republican Party

Tags
discovery institute, escr, focus on the family, gop, roe v. wade

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:15 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.