Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do progressives -- err, 'liberals' -- ever have a rational argument? More often than not, they seem to engage in deflection/name calling/temper tantrums.
But hey, after all, they are the "intelligent" ones, right?
Do progressives -- err, 'liberals' -- ever have a rational argument? More often than not, they seem to engage in deflection/name calling/temper tantrums.
But hey, after all, they are the "intelligent" ones, right?
Being a progressive, and being a liberal are two entirely different things. I'd argue that centrist liberals are reasonable. Progressive liberals, on the other hand, not so much.
The problem is that progressives rationalize every wrong-minded ideology they push. When a person can argue that communism is good, even though historical evidence that shows it fails every time, you know they're spun.
They are the intelligent ones, except to intelligent people. When people continually trumpet how smart they are, you can bet they fall well low on the IQ scale as a group.
Being a progressive, and being a liberal are two entirely different things. I'd argue that centrist liberals are reasonable. Progressive liberals, on the other hand, not so much.
The problem is that progressives rationalize every wrong-minded ideology they push. When a person can argue that communism is good, even though historical evidence that shows it fails every time, you know they're spun.
They are the intelligent ones, except to intelligent people. When people continually trumpet how smart they are, you can bet they fall well low on the IQ scale as a group.
Liberal, was the rebranding of Progressives after WW-II and the nations hatred for socialism, of any kind.
The masks only recently came off.
Teddy Roosevelt was the original Progressive and he was a Republican. Then Hoover was also a Progressive Republican.
Liberal, was the rebranding of Progressives after WW-II and the nations hatred for socialism, of any kind.
The masks only recently came off.
Teddy Roosevelt was the original Progressive and he was a Republican. Then Hoover was also a Progressive Republican.
Yes, but this was over 100 years ago. Progressives are basically totalitarians/authoritarians pushing a centralized government. Both the D and R is filled with progressives, and both are aiming for an oligarchy headed by the new elite class of politicians. They only pretend to be different. I'm not sure there has actually been two entirely unique parties in twenty years.
One thing I know for sure... Libertarians must keep from being hijacked. We are the last hope for common sense.
Actuall, quite a number of people have gone through his ideas and evaluated them. Even back to 1972 with the Spiro Latsis study. Just because you ignore them, doesn't mean these things don't exist. Any more than a tiger doesn't exist even when a child closes their eyes, sticks their fingers in their ears, and yells really load.
Some ideas were good, some were bad, some simply didn't work when they were tested (such as Chile in 1982 with the monetary crisis). What Libertarians have made of Friedman...there is no rational argument against because their idolization is not rational in the first place. It is certainly not rational to ignore 40 years of debates and critiques of a persons theories, and call anyone who disagrees a socialist. That is good evidence the person is a wingnut.
Being a progressive, and being a liberal are two entirely different things. I'd argue that centrist liberals are reasonable. Progressive liberals, on the other hand, not so much.
The problem is that progressives rationalize every wrong-minded ideology they push. When a person can argue that communism is good, even though historical evidence that shows it fails every time, you know they're spun.
They are the intelligent ones, except to intelligent people. When people continually trumpet how smart they are, you can bet they fall well low on the IQ scale as a group.
No, I think many of them would score very high on the IQ scale. Highly intelligent people are more susceptible to ideology. It's a phenomenon that is well known to cult leaders and al Qaeda. I once saw a piece on cult members, and the most common members are highly educated. They're more open to new ideas. A google search on this topic lead me to this article from the California State University East Bay.
Similarly, there was an Arab-English man who was recruited by terrorists. After prison time for setting up a car bomb, he was rehabilitated and now works to counter terrorism recruitment on college campuses. He said he goes to college campuses because that's a favorite recruiting site for al Qaeda because those people are more open to their ideas. I tried to do a google search, but didn't have time. I have to go pick up my daughter, but will look for that information later.
No, I think many of them would score very high on the IQ scale. Highly intelligent people are more susceptible to ideology. It's a phenomenon that is well known to cult leaders and al Qaeda. I once saw a piece on cult members, and the most common members are highly educated. They're more open to new ideas. A google search on this topic lead me to this article from the California State University East Bay.
Similarly, there was an Arab-English man who was recruited by terrorists. After prison time for setting up a car bomb, he was rehabilitated and now works to counter terrorism recruitment on college campuses. He said he goes to college campuses because that's a favorite recruiting site for al Qaeda because those people are more open to their ideas. I tried to do a google search, but didn't have time. I have to go pick up my daughter, but will look for that information later.
I doubt the IQ / gullibility linkage. Rather, I think it's a combination of things:
1. Learning style - if you learn by reading a book, without needing experience, then you're used to accepting what you read as factual. You make things into a premise without ever testing the validity of said premise.
2. Lack of principled belief. If you have no principled grounding, you can far more easily be talked into things that would be rejected outright by someone who carefully measured things against principle.
3. Acceptance of moral relativism. Conservatives are often criticized for having only "black and white" views, with no gray. This isn't particularly true. Rather, they generally have a much narrower area of 'gray' with very solid black and white areas. But rarely do conservative people get involved in cults or terrorists, or otherwise, because they reject things out of hand, that violate the clear lines of right and wrong.
It may be more urban legend or perhaps stereotyping, but I also think that highly educated ( liberal arts education, for instance) people have willingly lowered their self defense barriers - they think themselves smart enough to "play with fire and not get burned", so to speak.
I think there are highly intelligent - brilliant even - people from all points of the political spectrum. I find it fatuous to claim that one group is "smart" and the other ones are "dumb."
The differences conservatives, moderates, and liberals have are philosophical. That is all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
