RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual?

RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 6:37:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Bullshit for the fourth time in a row. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML You offer a false equivalency between unpopularity of Congress and the intelligence of individual members, totally ignoring how the institution works and you say I am raising a strawman? Yes, I have not as of yet demonstrated the causal relationship between anti-intellectualism and Congress being the worst ever. But since I have given neither my thought process nor my evidence as to the relationship, how can you claim to know which factors my thought process does and does not ignore? Well, you posted a link to a survey of Congressional disapproval right under your comment that "these guys are terrible" in a thread about anti-intellectualism in american society and governance. And earlier you replied it would be better if politicians stopped farming out their jobs to intellectuals and let the intellectuals govern. If that does not repesent your thought process why are you laying that stuff out in your posts? Then you get all pissy when I suggest alternate reasons for the poor favor of Congress. shrugs

vincentML -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 10:34:17 AM)
quote: I am of the opinion that while parties are a reasonable idea, it is crucial to have votes by the seats be as anonymous as the elections themselves. That prevents coercion and profit, as you lose the ability to prove that a seat voted as agreed on. It may prevent coersion, Aswad. IDK. But I cannot imagine the American electorate allowing secret representation. The idea is quite alien to our history. Is this permitted in any democracy anywhere in the world? Or, are you merely tinkering with schemes of governance? We have a fairly popular meme here: government in the sunshine. Tiz a struggle under the best of circumstances, let alone having legislative secrecy sanctioned. Be well. [:)]

Moonhead -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 10:40:30 AM)
To be fair, a secret ballot works pretty well when the scum in the population are voting a politician into office, so extending the same protection to elected representatives could well put an end to coercion by lobbyists. Of course, it'd also put an end to party donations from lobbyists, so there's no way in Hell it's ever going to happen, is it?

vincentML -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 11:02:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead To be fair, a secret ballot works pretty well when the scum in the population are voting a politician into office, so extending the same protection to elected representatives could well put an end to coercion by lobbyists. Of course, it'd also put an end to party donations from lobbyists, so there's no way in Hell it's ever going to happen, is it? Right. No point quitting my day job to become a Member if there's no corruption available. OTOH, wouldn't want my rep to have a secrete vote to give the PM or Prez extraordinary powers. btw, welcome back [:)]

Moonhead -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 11:08:16 AM)
Thanks, Vincent. It's a fair point about secret votes for entirely dubious agendas, but I'm unsure that would make any difference in the (deeply worrying) case you suggest, particularly as for the last two or three decades our countries have both had a string of elected leaders who clearly don't need the governing body they allegedly represent to vote for them to have added powers that they can just claim by divine fiat, then insist are part of the constitution. (Yes, we do have one of those over here, believe it or not.)

YN -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 11:46:26 AM)
regarding secret ballots in a legislature - An anonymous legislature would function just as poorly, how else will the people hold them to account? And then the potential of voting crimes, even in the legislature, for if the votes are anonymous, who will know if some of them are false, or bribed, especially on a closely debated issue?

Moonhead -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 11:54:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN An anonymous legislature would function just as poorly, how else will the people hold them to account? People can do that now with an open voting record, can they? It's the lobbyists who hold your legislature accountable, not the electorate. The other could be a concern, but you already have bribed votes under the current system. Hell, there's cases on record of lobbyists walking out onto the Texas senate floor and waving a wad of notes about to make it clear that they were buying votes...

YN -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 12:53:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: YN An anonymous legislature would function just as poorly, how else will the people hold them to account? People can do that now with an open voting record, can they? It's the lobbyists who hold your legislature accountable, not the electorate. The other could be a concern, but you already have bribed votes under the current system. Hell, there's cases on record of lobbyists walking out onto the Texas senate floor and waving a wad of notes about to make it clear that they were buying votes... The United States has a different form of a republic (and each state is often it's own case) then we do, but in this instance the matter is the same. And our legislatures in Bolivarian republics are not as nearly as often abused or pressured by lobbyists as by various patrones and government ministries or the military and the Catholic church in some cases. But as for secret votes, even back into the times of Greece and Rome, a public vote in the legislature was a mandate. This is repairing a thing that is not broken. And historically where secret votes or legislatures were tried, the results were not good, the case of Venice is an example, it cost them their freedoms and ultimately their independence. Not to diminish the thread concerning anti-intellectualism and its cure.

leonine -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 1:10:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Come on, really. Not only did Americans make a b-list cretin like Reagan a politician, they made him their national leader. Other countries might choose novelists, poets or artists. Actors are the bottom of the intellectual pile amongst all such creative types - yet, Americans chose not only an actor, but one of the worst actors alive at the time. Seriously, don't you find that at least a bit embarrassing, as an American? And even if it weren't for Ronnie, you'd have Arnie and Clint waiting in the wings - intellectual giants, somewhat not, hmm? Silvio Berlusconi?

YN -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 1:29:06 PM)
All countries worldwide have elected, appointed or inherited fools, reactionaries and criminals at some point. We have reactionary Catholic traditionalists in our legislature who could be, along with the rurales supporting them, happily transported back to the times of the Inquisition and Spanish Imperial rule and arrive functional and pleased with the move. The Germans elected a Austrian paper hanger at one time. Tony Blair? Never mind the examples from China and other nations will millennium of recorded history. One can inspect the world and scarcely find a nation that has not had some such ruler or politician. And often this occurred where the population was highly educated or studied by the standards of the time too.

thompsonx -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 3:09:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx According to the books he authored it was the steroids and not hard work. Cite your source. I've seen Arnold admit to using steroids but he throws around numbers like 5% as to their contribution. I'd love to see where in this book he says that you don't actually need to do any of this stuff just take steroids http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Encyclopedia-Modern-Bodybuilding/dp/0684857219 I am sorry you missed my point. My point was and is that he worked no harder than any of his peers. He used steroids to cheat. Without the steroids he would not have become mr. universe. Now years later it comes out that cheating is a way of life with him...re: his divorce. If you choose to hold up someone as a role model give us someone worthy...not this lying two faced piece of shit.

thompsonx -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 3:30:10 PM)
quote: Anyone under about 55 knows very little that wasn't spoon fed to him by Granma (I think that's how the Cuban's version of Pravda is spelled) and the Castro Brothers' approved educational system. Concerning things like the "gulf of tonkin incident","the bay of pigs incident" "the cuban missile crissis" who had the more accurate reporting granma or cbs,abc,nbc,washington post,new york times,la times?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 5:40:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Anyone under about 55 knows very little that wasn't spoon fed to him by Granma (I think that's how the Cuban's version of Pravda is spelled) and the Castro Brothers' approved educational system. Concerning things like the "gulf of tonkin incident","the bay of pigs incident" "the cuban missile crissis" who had the more accurate reporting granma or cbs,abc,nbc,washington post,new york times,la times? Why don't you pull all the articles out of archives and give us a full report.[:D]

thompsonx -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 5:50:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Anyone under about 55 knows very little that wasn't spoon fed to him by Granma (I think that's how the Cuban's version of Pravda is spelled) and the Castro Brothers' approved educational system. Concerning things like the "gulf of tonkin incident","the bay of pigs incident" "the cuban missile crissis" who had the more accurate reporting granma or cbs,abc,nbc,washington post,new york times,la times? Why don't you pull all the articles out of archives and give us a full report.[:D] Were you not aware that the gulf of tonkin "event" never happened and that was the lever that took us fully into vietnam and 60,000 body bags? Were you not aware that the bay of pigs was a cia opperation? Were you not aware that it was kennedy and not kurschieve who blinked? Were you not aware that because of that the u.s. has signed a treaty pleging to never invade cuba? It was in granma but not the nyt,wp,lat or any mainstream u.s. newspaper or news program.

GotSteel -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 7:03:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx According to the books he authored it was the steroids and not hard work. Cite your source. I've seen Arnold admit to using steroids but he throws around numbers like 5% as to their contribution. I'd love to see where in this book he says that you don't actually need to do any of this stuff just take steroids http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Encyclopedia-Modern-Bodybuilding/dp/0684857219 I am sorry you missed my point. Yeah I hear you, it's still a red herring. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx My point was and is that he worked no harder than any of his peers. He used steroids to cheat. His peer group all of whom worked fucking hard at bodybuilding. I believe the technical calculation was a metric fuckton. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Without the steroids he would not have become mr. universe. shrug I can't say that I know but frankly what the hell does that have to do with my analogy either way? quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Now years later it comes out that cheating is a way of life with him...re: his divorce. If you choose to hold up someone as a role model give us someone worthy...not this lying two faced piece of shit. I never said or implied that Arnold should be considered a role model. Personally I'd love it if the next generation picked role models that spent more time exercising their minds than their lats.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 7:10:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Anyone under about 55 knows very little that wasn't spoon fed to him by Granma (I think that's how the Cuban's version of Pravda is spelled) and the Castro Brothers' approved educational system. Concerning things like the "gulf of tonkin incident","the bay of pigs incident" "the cuban missile crissis" who had the more accurate reporting granma or cbs,abc,nbc,washington post,new york times,la times? Why don't you pull all the articles out of archives and give us a full report.[:D] Were you not aware that the gulf of tonkin "event" never happened and that was the lever that took us fully into vietnam and 60,000 body bags? Were you not aware that the bay of pigs was a cia opperation? Were you not aware that it was kennedy and not kurschieve who blinked? Were you not aware that because of that the u.s. has signed a treaty pleging to never invade cuba? It was in granma but not the nyt,wp,lat or any mainstream u.s. newspaper or news program. Tonkin happened, just not the way we said it did unfortunately. The others Im aware of except Kennedy and Kruschev both blinked. They decided they wanted the human race to continue. Bay of Pigs a CIA op? Is there anyone on the planet who does NOT know that? As for the others, Im waiting for you to dig up the Granma archives. You're so sure they were totally truthful, show us. Even though your post is a hijack, I want to see those links to Granma and the other sources crossreferenced and labelled.

Aswad -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/14/2012 11:33:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead People can do that now with an open voting record, can they? It's the lobbyists who hold your legislature accountable, not the electorate. Bingo. And it's not a good solution, but neither is democracy, so I'll try to defend it: Without a voting record, there is no deliverable as regards bribes, and no confirmation as regards coercion. You can take someone's money, then vote differently anyway and say you voted as agreed. Similarly, you can yield to a threat, vote what you were going to anyway and they have no way to tell you didn't comply. This takes away the motivation to make the attempt. However, the ballot paper should be put in an envelope marked with the correct party, which should be verified before one is allowed to put it into the ballot box. Thus, the totals can be summed on a per party basis, which permits partial accountability. So long as votes are primarily partisan, this will probably suffice. Who makes a motion should also be recorded, so the source of any crap that passes can be clearly identified. As an additional safeguard, one can allow some entity (e.g. POTUS, SCOTUS, majority vote or a seperate body) to say certain motions must be voted on in the open. Politicians are us. I'm inclined to think more of them will do a good job if they're free to do it without being booted for it. They come from the same cultural background, were raised much the same, had the same curriculum in school, watched the same TV stations, read the same books and newspapers, and so forth. Some people are good, some are bad. Most, however, are neither and will behave based on the pragmatics of the circumstances they are in. This doubtless goes for politicians, as well. If you can't trust a candidate to believe in the platform on which s/he was elected, you shouldn't vote for them in the first place. This is just about making sure they have no external circumstance to influence them to act differently from how they were elected to behave. Not that binary systems seem like a good idea anyway, but that's not going to change quickly, if ever. Granted, given the amount of alcohol in my system when I wrote that, it may also just have been a brainfart. IWYW, — Aswad.

GotSteel -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/15/2012 5:02:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Well, you posted a link to a survey of Congressional disapproval right under your comment that "these guys are terrible" in a thread about anti-intellectualism in american society and governance. And earlier you replied it would be better if politicians stopped farming out their jobs to intellectuals and let the intellectuals govern. If that does not repesent your thought process why are you laying that stuff out in your posts? Then you get all pissy when I suggest alternate reasons for the poor favor of Congress. shrugs If you want to point out that I didn't actually get around to demonstrating a causal chain, cool. If you're actually going to point out that there are alternate reasons, I think that's awesome. But unless you are convinced that you have telepathic powers you have no business explaining to me what my position is or what I'm thinking and ignoring. P.S. When I put up a little snippet of a quote, that doesn't that's all there is or that's all I'm aware of on a subject. In this case for instance, here's a little quote doesn't mean there isn't a whole fucking book explaining their position. quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party. The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/15/2012 6:46:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: NO. I am actually saying that intelligent decision making takes into account balancing short term against long term. Sometimes you have to do things in the short term that you don't like in order to get the long term outcomes that society collectively wants. Please give me a real world example from our current political mileu if you are not offering generalities. Who would you have give up what in the short term to get the long term outcomes that society collectively wants? Regards [:)] Universal healthcare coverage. Are we done now?

vincentML -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/15/2012 9:19:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: NO. I am actually saying that intelligent decision making takes into account balancing short term against long term. Sometimes you have to do things in the short term that you don't like in order to get the long term outcomes that society collectively wants. Please give me a real world example from our current political mileu if you are not offering generalities. Who would you have give up what in the short term to get the long term outcomes that society collectively wants? Regards [:)] Universal healthcare coverage. Are we done now? One of the most controversal issues of our times. Misguided or not, many citizens apparently do not agree that UHC is a long term benefit for our society. Some see it to be a disaster. The purpose of the democratic process is to advance one's agenda by persuasion/propaganda and to gather the votes. In the votes lie the power. What is the alternative? A philosopher-king to proclaim the social good and all will sheepishly obey? Seriously, what is the alternative? By what mechanism would the Intellectual(s) gain assent and compliance for the long term social good? We are done whenever you wish it.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875