1. Didja accidentally blow through the whole, "We're using our real names" thing on registration? No problem, just send me (Mike) a Conversation message and I'll get you sorted, by which I mean hammered-into-obedient-line because I'm SO about having a lot of individuality-destroying, oppressive shit all over my forum.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Discussion areas for the individual classes are unlocked for all users. Let's see if this makes it any more useful. If not, we'll drop this or organize under a single banner to save space and lean things out.
    Dismiss Notice

Darth Trump

Discussion in 'The RedBanned Bar & Grill' started by Doug Gibson, Sep 5, 2017.

  1. Just to be frank here - I had no intention of using any 'ploys' at all.

    I think you missed most of my point on the Contributions data, because you focused on my own personal analysis of the 'why' - how the Hill selected and processed the data that they had, when I suggested that the sample set of who actually was involved in the numbers that they had was too low. I wouldn't say that I was engaging in an "attempt to create some doubt regarding the FEC data" so much as giving my own personal doubts, from experience, on its relationship to the reality of the situation. I'd basically sum it up like this: what the data is specifically is this: contributors from the DOD who gave in excess of $200 did so 86% to the Democratic nominee. My question is basically this: do YOU believe that 86% of the entire Department of Defense are democrats, or leftists, or even would have identified as supporters of Clinton? I'm not attempting to create doubt, beyond expressing my own - I just see that the numbers don't have a direct relationship with any reality that I've seen from my own experiences. Really, though: if an alien read this all, and went into a DHS checkpoint and said "So - 90% of you all are leftist elitists, right?" how do you really think that would go? Aren't you at all incredulous?

    I wasn't expecting quite such an elaborate response on the history of violence and Islam, and much of that isn't really the point I'd meant to look at, which was itself kind of a side point. My point was simply that your language sounded like the language of radicalization. Not as some kind of a ploy, or a scare tactic, or any number of things, but because I don't know what it means for actual dialogue. You've said a few times, in a few ways, that you simply won't engage with a great deal of conversation. Isn't that what you're suggesting doesn't existing in these organizations - an alternative opinion? I'm just befuddled at such a dogmatic opinion involving the idea that groups are in error in having a presumed dogmatic opinion. Or have I gotten it completely wrong?
     
  2. #62 Paul T McGraw, Jan 7, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2018
    Brian,

    Yes, I believe that 86% of the DOD civilian employees are Democrats, with a margin of error. How large is the margin of error? Based on my limited knowledge of statistics, perhaps plus or minus 10%. After a lifetime of experience with Democrats (feel free to substitute leftists if you prefer) I know that Democrats are completely intolerant. They systematically will try to destroy anyone who has an opposing opinion. That includes making sure no one is hired who disagrees with them and actively working to destroy the careers of anyone who disagrees with them. You see this all around us. If a climatologist casts doubt on man made Global Warming, his is fired or hounded out of his position. If a professor or even a high ranking executive, does not support homosexual marriage, they are denounced and forced out. This should come as no surprise to anyone who gives the issue a little honest reflection. Democrats are even proud of their intolerance.

    When I attended college, perhaps five percent of the faculty had views similar to modern Democrats. Today Democrats outnumber conservatives by 12 to 1. Here is a link:

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/

    Even a Democrat must realize that a 12 to 1 ratio of college teachers is no accident. And it certainly is not because Democrats are "smarter" although they think they are, or better educated. The current crop of college graduates these professors are turning out is alarmingly ill-prepared and uneducated.

    http://business.time.com/2013/11/10/the-real-reason-new-college-grads-cant-get-hired/

    There are many, many more articles available about the lack of knowledge of history, civics, science and mathematics of recent graduates. The evidence is overwhelming. But college professors are doing a great job in undermining support for the basic individual freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

    thttps://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/he-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/

    Because of the "False Consensus Effect" people generally tend to think that others are primarily like themselves. (I can provide links if you think I just made that up.) Conservatives believe in fair play (good ends do not justify bad means), tolerance for opposing opinions, rationality and the rights of the individual. Democrats believe the ends justify the means (doing bad things is OK if it accomplishes a good purpose), they see differing points of view as evil, and believe that individual rights must be sacrificed for the sake of the "common good." (Think Lois Lerner.) So Democrats could, would, and do justify destroying the career of a climatologist who disagrees with them by saying, how could any person disagree with us? That must be a terrible person. It is for the common good that we destroy that person,

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11...ge-book-the-global-warming-policy-forum-gwpf/

    There are many, many scientists who "go along" with the irrationality of Global Warming because of fear for their careers.

    Supporting traditional marriage will get even a top executive fired.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/mozilla-ceo-resignation-free-speech/7328759/

    So, I have provided a lot of evidence. And as I type this, I keep having this nagging suspicion that it is all so futile. But in conclusion regarding Federal Employees, is it surprising that Democrats gradually weed out conservatives from any group, by any means that will work? No, it is not surprising. And the folks in Federal Civil Service are no exception.

    It is interesting that you see the history of Islamic violence as a side issue now, while previously you were blaming the west for Islamic violence, and making some kind of comparison between my defense of freedom and Islamic Jihad. Interesting. As to your assertion that I will not engage in conversation or discussion, I have no idea how or why you could come up with that notion. Now that I have "come out of the closet" as a conservative and exposed myself to the attacks of this community, I might as well continue. I have answered every attack, and every point. I have not run away, although I am old and exhausted by this world. So what are you talking about when you claim I have said in many ways I will not engage in conversation?

    Dogma? Are you using the word as it is defined in a dictionary? If so, God is my final authority on all things, and I hope that every opinion I hold will honor Him. In politics my authority, when I need to look to an authority, are the founding fathers. So the dogmatic opinions I hold, I trace to the principles laid down by those sources.

    It is increasingly clear to me that our culture can not survive. We, the culture as a whole, do not share a common set of basic first principles. And without shared first principles, our culture is doomed to tear itself apart.
     
  3. You might be onto something here, but you (or the article) draw the wrong conclusions! You have proven, that academics are mostly liberals or democrats today in most fields (in so far the polling is correct and properly executed, which I did not check). But the most obvious and logical explanation for that is academics usually forming a liberal political view - closer to what Democrats represent. There is no proof in the article, that somehow conservatives are excluded from academic institutions in any way and if you want to make that claim, you will have to prove THAT!
     
  4. @Paul T McGraw (and others)

    I've read your comments with interest and thanks to you I spend a couple hours roaming the internet about 'Devshirme' and the ottoman Empire. Interesting stuff, though I have admittedly already forgotten half of it since it was well past midnight before I ended my random internet quest :)

    I've refrained from engaging you on the political subject because I am not a US citizen and I don't feel adequately informed/in touch enough with the intricacies of US politics to make precise claims. I will say this: I completely understand how so many people came to vote for Mr. Trump and I do not in any way look down on Trump supporters. That said, I cannot take Trump seriously. He strikes me as a man far too obsessed with bolstering his own ego rather than someone who genuinely has the concerns of the nation and its people at heart. Again, I do understand the sentiment behind why he got elected though, and I am not trying to dismiss everything you've said, though there are certainly some areas where I disagree with you.

    That said, I think the debate so far has demonstrated precisely what I thought would happen (not trying to brag, honest). There are so many topics being raised that there's hardly any time spend to offer nuanced points. The whole history of the Ottoman Empire and whether we can truly consider these stolen Christian youths as slaves or not is an entire debate in of itself. You have now also brought Climate Change into this debate which is a massive topic in of itself (and one I feel slightly more confident discussing about).

    I'd very much like to engage in debate with you about certain topics, but if I do, I won't do it here. The parameters of this debate have not been clearly established and from what I can tell we're starting to reach the point where very broad generalizations are being made about "all democrats" or "all republicans". This feeds the lack of nuance that irritates me so in modern discussion and I very much believe that its this lack of nuance that's causing so much division between people. It's not just you of course, others here have responded with similarly broad replies that touch on all kinds of topics. Frankly, in my view, this debate has become a bit of a mess and I am still not clear as to what exactly is being debated here. It looks to me like we're now comparing belief systems and trying to make objective claims about which belief system is better. I very much doubt this will be a fruitful endeavour for anyone involved.

    So I'd like to challenge everyone to comment what they think the subject of this debate is, because in my estimation, we're already on different wavelengths at that very basic premise, and it's leading to all kinds of unecessary and fruitless arguing.

    In my view, the subject so far has been "Trump".

    In that same view, that subject is so immensely broad and ill-defined that there is no reasonable debate to be had at all. Sure, we can all say what we think of Mr. Trump and then get to bickering about why everyone else is wrong in their estimation of the Donald... but again, I very much doubt that's a fruitful endeavour and would encourage everyone, moving forward, to more clearly outline what case they're trying to make so we can have an actual debate instead of some weird belief-system comparison contest.
     
    Sam Miller and Paul T McGraw like this.
  5. Since the population of the US is split about 50% Democrat and 50% conservative, the fact that less than 10% of college teachers are conservative is proof of discrimination, if you use the same standards as are used to prove discrimination against women or against non-white men. The argument that academics are just naturally Democrats is not credible. Why were most college teachers conservative in the 1970s? Why aren't more conservatives drawn to the high salaries and short working hours of the university? But here is a rather entertaining article that explores the issue fairly.

    https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2010/02/why-are-conservatives-rare-on-college-faculties/
     
  6. Out of genuine interest, Paul, would you then also say that Democrats were being discriminated against in the 1970s? I don't want to engage in this debate, but I am intersted in finding out if you're consistent with your line of reasoning.
     
    Fritz von Flotow likes this.
  7. What Matthias said and ... no, there is at least one perfectly logical reason you could find (if you really wanted) without even looking up something on the internet, why academics are drawn away from the GOP. That is the simple fact that this party is totally in battle with most science! And - wether you like it or not - Universities have a lot to do with science. Fundamental Christians want to teach Adam and Eve instead of evolution, 'conservative economics' and the few actual 'conservative scientists' what to tell us that more than 90% of their colleagues are all wrong and climate change is not influenced by our industries. I could go on with examples, why the GOP has a huge group of religious nut jobs and other kinds of ideological fools that form a big part of what the GOP is.
    The problem with this discussion is, you will probably tell me now, you do not believe in evolution or manly induced climate change ... well, as I said: there just is no common ground between most people and you. Most people? Yes! There might be almost 40% of the American population (not 50%, that is not true) that have voted republican. Yes, but luckily not all of them do share these stupid believes you seem to have ... hence, you already are a minority - in that sense you are right! There will be discrimination against you and it will probably increase over time. Some of the views you hold are simply not acceptable to many people. You have the choice of shutting yourself off with those people that share your views (like you obviously do now) or re-think your views ... nobody forces you to do that, but you will be responsible for the consequences of the majority of people not taking you serious.
     
  8. I am very impressed that you took the time to learn more about Devshirme. I can't imagine the horror of having my son stolen from me. I''m sure you would feel the same.

    Regarding your challenge, I agree that all of this started with the video regarding President Trump, followed by the post condemning anyone who supports President Trump. In answer to your challenge as to what the thread subject is now? I can not honestly tell you. I have tried to answer all of the posts directed towards me to the best of my ability.
     
    Matthias Calis likes this.
  9. No, I would not say that Democrats were discriminated against, although people who think as Democrats do today would have been very rare, hence the 5% estimate. In the 1970's a Democrat at that time was more likely to be a Hubert Humphrey style liberal, not a leftist. Conservatives and liberals usually treated each other with respect. About half of the faculty were probably Hubert Humphrey liberal Democrats. That is why I qualified my original statement. More important than the party label is the ideology. A liberal Democrat of 1980 would not be allowed to run for office as a Democrat today.

    The differences between Democrats and Republicans were far less pronounced in the 1970's and 1980's, and the level of animus was practically nil by comparison. Generally, almost everyone shared at least some foundational first principles. Among these was a belief in the importance of freedom of speech and civil discourse. Of course, cracks were beginning to appear in the social fabric even at that time. Leftist hecklers trying to silence speech they didn't like for example.

    I wonder why several people are attempting to find some inconsistency in my reasoning, while no one seems to challenge the leftists? Except me of course. Seems kind of one-sided.
     
    Matthias Calis likes this.
  10. While I am not a liberal or a conservative (I'm somewhere closer to a classical liberal) I must comment on you use of strawman arguments. First you are representing the GOP as fundamentalist Christians who don't believe in climate change, evolution, etc. Yes, these people do exist and yes they are in the GOP, but it is dishonest to represent the entire party as this. Next, you put "conservative economics" in quotes as if there are a joke. The legendary Chicago School of economics that has hosted economics from Friedman, Becker, Sowell, Roberts, Thaler, etc is considered more right wing. Even today, many Chicago School economist are held in the highest regard and many win the Nobel currently. To dismiss conservative economics as a joke is dishonest. You might not agree with them, but you can't dismiss conservative economist today such as Greg Mankiw, Kenneth Rogoff, Martin Feldstein, John Taylor, Tyler Cowen, and the list can go on forever. As for climate change, there are a lot of conservatives that believe that it is real and is man-made. To say all conservatives deny climate change is also a strawman. One can hold that position that it is man made, and that the EPA needs to be abolished because of it's harm to the economy. In fact, according the the IPCC, the cost to the economy of it's climate regulations will do more harm to the economy that the effects of climate change. https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/using-ipcc-defeat-un-climate-agenda/ Also, there is some we can do to reduce emission, but the proposals do not lower emission, by much. Solar will get there, but the technology is not here yet for it to take over as a leading energy field. I don't think us reducing our emission to a point that climate scientist want is possible without massive economic disaster. Ultimately I believe the solution will be with technological advancements in Carbon Capture tech, but we aren't there yet. We disagree that's fine, but I think pigeon holding the GOP to Christian Fundamentalist is alone is a strawman.
     
  11. Republicans have a majority in the Senate, the House of Representatives, and of course, the President is a Republican. So I don't understand your denial that at least 50% are not in agreement with the leftist agenda. It is not easy to continue to entertain your posts. It seems that you want to debate man-made climate change. Or perhaps science in general. The most important scientific principle is that all science should be based on the scientific method and independently verifiable. So if Paul T. McGraw claims to have a drug which can cure all disease, then I must expect others to subject my claim to analysis using the scientific method. Hopefully, you learned about this in school. To prove my hypothesis I would need to test my cure with verifiably sick people, While also documenting results with a control group who are given a placebo. But that is still not sufficient to claim that I have science on my side. My experiments must be independently verifiable by other scientists who duplicate my research. Only then can I claim science is on my side.

    Now, this is very important. There is no scientific evidence proving man-made Global Warming. None. Nada. What Al Gore and his supporters have is a computer program that they say they believe tells them there is man-made Global Warming. That's all they have. And if you change any of the many, many variables in the program, most of which are just guesses, then the computer will say there isn't any man-made Global Warming. It is as if I had one of those magic 8 balls, asked it, is there Global Warming? And if a "Yes" appears in the window, then WOW. I have proven Global Warming.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. I hope Fritz will respond. I have been careful to avoid mentioning the GOP as Republicans include a rather wide range of thinking on many issues, unlike the Democrats.
     
  13. I would be a little more cautious on the "There is no scientific evidence" claim. There is a lot of evidence. The problem is that a lot of the evidence is exaggerated and/or flawed. However, it is certainly enough for me to believe that man is contributing to it. I think one historical thing to compare it to is the debate that happened on tobacco's health effects. What happened was that there we a lot of studies showing tobacco to have negative health consequences. The tobacco companies then continued to discredit study after study finding minor flaws in order to discredit the claim. Ultimately in the end, we now know that tobacco has health consequences.

    I think the democrats have a rather wide range of views as well. For example, there is a big rift between the Sanders democrats and the establishment Clinton/Biden, etc democrats. I know tons of democrats that reject the intersectionality arguments on the left. I also think there is the Krugman/Keynesian left that is far different from the socialist left.
     
  14. Paul,

    I respect your position, but I wish someone would actually offer some evidence for man-made Global Warming that would stand up to the scientific method. There is no doubt that the earth's temperature is constantly changing. For example the global ice age, or more recently the Little Ice Age of the 13th to 19th centuries. So are we just finishing a recovery from the Little Ice Age, or beginning a new Warm Age? No one really knows. One reason they do not know is that no one knows the ideal average global temperature. Perhaps an average temperature 1% warmer than today could be a boon to the earth and humanity? No one really knows the answer. No statistical analysis has shown any correlation between atmospheric chemistry and temperature in the short or long range. Then we have the trust issue. We should all be wary after the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia revealed a conspiracy to silence dissent and fabricate false data. Many attempts have been made to "spin" the raw truth revealed in the emails, but isn't there always?
     
  15. #75 Fritz von Flotow, Jan 7, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2018
    No, I haven't said all republicans are fundamental Christians, but certainly it is a to big group to simply ignore them.
    You kind of boldly interpret my putting conservative economics in quotes here ...! :) I used the quotes, because conservative does indeed sound like a joke to me, if it is about better growths by the cost of destroying the planet. That is all ...
    I don't want to talk about conservative or liberal in that case, as these terms are in many ways useless anyway to attack the problems our societies are facing now and in the future. There is a big part in the GOP that do not believe in the importance of fighting climate change - absolutely necessary IMO even if it would lead to decreasing national growth! Your current president did cancel the Paris climate agreement, which is the last beacon of hope in that regard. He also denies the human effect on climate change and was elected still ... these facts are hard to deny! You strawman accusations were wrong, as you see.

    In regards to, "let's wait until the technology will bring us the solution": It will be to late then and technologies only develop where there are enough incentives to put money into it. All kinds of alternative energies could in fact be much more advanced and would be replace a lot - if not all - fossil fuel by today, if there wasn't a lobby fighting its progress ... Take the car industry as an example. They already have fine cars running, but there needs to be a national effort to create more infrastructure for these cars. In the US public transport is ridiculously underdeveloped compared to Europe. While it is understandable to me in rural areas, there could be done a lot on the USA to save some emissions (just one of many examples).
    In Germany, a lot of our important export industry is dependent on building cars. These companies have stuck their heads in the sand for way to long before they put more resources into new technology and now they get the bill for their shortfall ...
    Well, I suppose you and I have also very different ideas for how the world is working or what should be done and that is fine in a democracy - we can debate about it (or leave it). I do not intend to persuade everyone of my exact political agenda - not necessary! Democracy is there for that reason, that everybody may cast his vote for that reason (although I don't think that works very well currently). So, I suppose, let's put aside those differences. We do have some common ground at least, which is for example that there is human effect on climate change and something needs to be done about it.
    This thread is rather about the Trump-camp, where alternative facts are created, which make any further discussion relevant. That is why I would like to stick with that. I am not that political, that I desire to have a political discussion on every fucking topic - maybe with my wife or with my best friend, but certainly not on a composers forum.
    I would also like to say goodbye in this thread, as this is taking away way to much time and I don't see Grandpa Paul changing any of his crazy ideas even the slightest bit. I realize it is difficult at that age.
    Also, it is difficult for me to discuss things, that are common sense in my country. I'd rather discuss about things like the 'unconditional basic income' or other approaches to find solutions to the problems that are coming. Paul, one last advice to you regarding your son: Don't be afraid of people with color stealing his job! The danger is rather coming through digitalization. More than 50% of all jobs we have today will be rendered useless (done by machines) in probably 10 to 20 years. And I doubt those people who claim the same amount of jobs will be created in other sectors! This will render 'leftist', 'liberal', 'conservative' and all of those labels useless, anyway! It is just a necessity, if we don't want a civil war raging ... the bunch of disappointed people who (partly) elected Trump is only the beginning ...

    Cheers!
     
  16. I think it's clear why in academia there are almost only democrats left, while in the past the ratio was more balanced. It is because since Reagan, and particularly since George W. Bush, the Republican Party has changed to something that no one with the intellectual capacities necessary for having a career in academia could possibly assent to. (The correlation betwenn IQ and political sympathies is statistically significant - a fact that even a person who is sceptical about anthropogenic climate-change cannot easily wipe away.)

    Now, as to the rhetorical two-side-ism. Suppose a man who likes taking away other people's belongings. If he claimed that the law, which is designed to inhibit and punish this kind of behaviour, would impose undue boundaries to his freedom of action, and thereby violate his fundamental rights - we would laugh at him! And we would laugh at absolutely everyone taking 'his side' in this matter. Why is that? Because the case is so absolutely clear: Someone is unjustifiably invoking his fundamental rights for the sole purpose of maintaining a habit that is harming other people. But the arguments that are usually brought forward from conservative side against liberal 'identity politics', i.e. the actual enforcement of equal rights for all people, are exactly of that kind! What Mr McGraw perceives as curtailing his freedom of speech - that certain utterances are met with indignation nowadays - is similar to the criminal complaining about the hardships that the law imposes on him, since now he has to stop habitually harming others. And, by the way: people who really suffer the violation of their fundamental right of freedom of speech are sitting in chinese, russian and turkish prisons at this very moment. That in western societies you can't easily spill out misogynist, racist or homophobic insults anymore without facing outrage is very far away from an actual situation where human rights are violated, and it bothers me greatly when people don't understand the difference.
     
  17. #77 Paul T McGraw, Jan 9, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2018
    Your post is so silly I almost didn't respond. First, I do not believe any studies conducted by leftists or liberals that purport to claim that leftists have a higher IQ than conservatives. Leftists lie and falsify data. No self-serving junk science here, please. Even if it were true, your posting an IQ comparison is hurtful to me and every conservative, so you must remain silent on the issue if you believe your own argument that freedom of speech must be curtailed if it hurts someones feeling. Next, will you claim that Asians are the superior race because they score by far the highest on legitimate IQ tests? Perhaps you want all college teachers to be Asian? And do you look down upon the poor low IQ folks simply because they were born with a lower IQ? Why would you want to hurt those people? And which group or race of people has the lowest average IQ score? Are they also inferior in your mind because they are in a group, or race with a lower IQ than average? Are you a racist and a bigot? How dare you mention IQ scores.

    You think that having your feelings hurt somehow overrules the basic right of free speech? Using your argument it is obvious that all leftist and liberal speech must be banned because it is hurtful to me and millions of others. You are habitually harming me and all other conservatives. So no more leftist speech. Safe zones need to be established on every campus where all leftist and liberal speech must be banned to protect conservatives from the irreparable harm of having to listen to destructive ideas like yours. Conservative teachers must be provided to keep conservative students safe from exposure to harmful and bigoted ideas such as you express. Live by your own beliefs, apply your own rules to yourself, and never speak or write of any leftist or liberal causes or beliefs ever again.
     
  18. But then you did! You're the silly rabbit, Paul!

    Unfortunately, you're missing most of my points. The major one: Being laughed at for saying something clearly wrong is not a limitation of the freedom of speech. Facing outrage for saying despicable things is not a limitation of the freedom of speech. Having to deal with the fact, that when you say certain things, people might think you're a moron, is not a limitation of freedom of speech, although it might create tangible problems for you (for example: you're not getting that girl that you have a crush on, because she thinks you're dumb). All of that whiny "I'm not allowed to be an asshole in public anymore, because now it has consequences" is not a limitation of the freedom of speech. A true limitation of the freedom of speech would be: I say (for example) "The chancellor is mentally not well," and tomorrow morning a Secret Police Force picks me up and escorts me to some underground dungeon and tortures me.

    So, no, I do not
    Say what you want, but deal with the reactions. Thanks for the faulty logic, though. It leads us quite effortlessly to the next point.

    I don't have any information about the party affiliation of the creators of the study, they might have been sad GOP members. But looking at the average IQ ratings of each of the states of the US, and then at who they usually vote for, gives enough of an indication of tendencies beyond the threshold of statistical significance.

    Now to this word-salad:
    I, for one, have not claimed that anyone is superior. Unlike you, it seems (because otherwise you wouldn't feel insulted), I do not hold the opinion that people with lower IQs are lesser human beings. I was talking about the correlation of IQ and political sympathies in an entirely axiologically neutral way, and only, because in the realm of academia, this correlation does bear some significance, if republicans are under-represented here. It's essentially like small chubby guys being under-represented in the NBA.
     
  19. #79 Paul T McGraw, Jan 9, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2018
    "I think it's clear why in academia there are almost only democrats left, while in the past the ratio was more balanced. It is because since Reagan, and particularly since George W. Bush, the Republican Party has changed to something that no one with the intellectual capacities necessary for having a career in academia could possibly assent to. (The correlation betwenn IQ and political sympathies is statistically significant - a fact that even a person who is sceptical about anthropogenic climate-change cannot easily wipe away.)"

    I will try to restate in simpler language. You are defending the imbalance in political views among college teachers by claiming that liberals and leftists are more intelligent, and therefor better equipped intellectually to be college teachers. You cite as evidence for your contention IQ studies. Based on your flawed argument a ratio of 12 Asian teachers for every 1 teacher of another race would be justified by IQ scores. Do you understand now?

    Even if this disparity in average IQ scores exist, which I do not believe, then it is supposed to be what, an average of 105 to an average of 95? Now you might not understand this, but a standard distribution, which IQ scores usually exhibit, would indicate that some of the 105 group will have scores below 105 and some above 105. (To compute an average you add all of the scores, then divide by the number of scores in the group. This is also called a mean.) The 95 group will have some scores above 95 and some below 95. Some in the 105 group will have scores below 95, some in the 95 group will have scores above 105. To simply the statistics behind a standard IQ distribution, if college teaching positions were awarded strictly on the basis of IQ, and if your assertion is correct, then assuming average scores of 105 and 95 the distribution should be about 52.5 to 47.5. Roughly equal or at most 6 to 4. This may have been difficult for you to follow. You might need to ask an intelligent friend for help to understand the mathematics involved. But the conclusion should be obvious, a 12 to 1 ratio is not an accident, and can not be supported by an argument dependent upon IQ scores.

    If you truly advocate freedom of speech for everyone, which I would contend was not your previously stated position, then we have no disagreement regarding free speech. I have no argument with you or anyone else laughing at whomever you like. It is also your right to use inflammatory and insulting characterizations, such as "moron". Although your use of that term as a pejorative is insensitive and hurtful towards your victim and towards those who are truly intellectually challenged. I hope you will remember our exchange the next time you hear of "safe zones" at schools. Based on your belief in the first principle of free speech I trust that you will speak out in defense of free speech and in opposition to safe zones. In general, another very good first principle to follow is to treat others as you would wish to be treated.
     
  20. Thanks, Paul. I'm aware of the fact that IQ scores follow a Gaussian distribution, because the tests are gauged relative to it, and the more reliable the gauging, the more clearly the accumulated results of a population will approximate a Gaussian distribution, too (- a tautology, really). Unfortunately - the intellectual requirements for outstanding academic achievements, on the other hand, have nothing to do with a Gaussian distribution. You cannot, therefore, assume that the statistical difference between conservative and progressive IQ in the general population would show proportionately in college teaching positions. But - thanks for thinking that through together, I really appreciate talking to someone who clearly understands the intricacies of the matter. :)
     

Share This Page