Fine, that's what I meant...sorry it got lost in translation here.

Its not a big deal, I just don't want people to think I am labeling any political party or movement as stupid, or unintelligent. Its more about attitude and choices, to me.

 

Ok, even if I concede this equivalence to you, doesn't that just mean the gun-toting racists statement wasn't really all that bad, just a little hyperbolic and otherwise inconsequential?

 

I think it is inconsequential, however, it's also ignorant. When someone says, Tea-Partiers are gun toting racists, but say nothing of the racists in their own party, to me, that makes them a hypocrite, and again, conveniently ignorant.

I think it is inconsequential, however, it's also ignorant. When someone says, Tea-Partiers are gun toting racists, but say nothing of the racists in their own party, to me, that makes them a hypocrite, and again, conveniently ignorant.

 

We're talking about the party of inclusiveness, right? I'm sure there are some racists included but I'd venture to guess the ratio is exponentially smaller.

We're talking about the party of inclusiveness, right? I'm sure there are some racists included but I'd venture to guess the ratio is exponentially smaller.

 

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Well I will be sure of that but thanks anyway.

Are we talking about Democrats or liberals? Important distinction!

 

Again, one of the main tenants of American liberalism is anti-racism and pro-social-justice. Gun-toting racists don't really fit in that mold, but they do fit in the crazy fringe survivalist libertarian minarchy mold.

I want to add that the left has it's own forms of new age woo hippie anti-science crap (HuffPo loves that garbage), but it isn't a major policy point like it is for many Republicans.

Are we talking about Democrats or liberals? Important distinction!

 

Again, one of the main tenants of American liberalism is anti-racism and pro-social-justice. Gun-toting racists don't really fit in that mold, but they do fit in the crazy fringe survivalist libertarian minarchy mold.

 

Well, liberals that properly classify themselves as such, not them. But there are many that have no idea what being a liberal is, and they classify themselves as one, when they aren't.

 

I don't know what the ratio of racists is in the republican vs democratic party is, and frankly, I don't care what it is...the sad truth is, it exists, and it exists on both sides...in 2011.

 

That's the truly sad part.

 

If anything, I'm racist against BigSqwert. He's an Android user and I'm a iOS user. Clearly, I'm superior to him. ;D

I'm watching Ken Burns' Civil War this week so I'm a little hyper-sensitive to this country's terrible racist past.

I'm watching Ken Burns' Civil War this week so I'm a little hyper-sensitive to this country's terrible racist past.

 

You should be hyper-sensitive to this country's terrible and current racist present.

I'm not sure anyone really thought NPR didn't lean left. Thing is, some of what he said is true - about the Tea Party and GOP twisting together in a way that amplifies the extremists, and the anti-intellectualism present on the right. But he obviously went over the line labeling the entire party, or movement, as racist.

 

NPR doesn't think NPR leans left.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/lo...0,4190788.story

 

Also this. No entitlement problems in this country. None at all.

 

Why the f*** is a director of the park district getting 240k a year? That's more than the President. This country is so f***ed.

 

Actually that isn't true anymore.

NPR doesn't think NPR leans left.

 

Just like Fox doesn't believe Fox leans right.

You should be hyper-sensitive to this country's terrible and current racist present.

 

touche'

No, I still think you need to explain how the VP of fundraising exerted influence over editorial control of NPR's news programs. Just saying "VP's pal around, of course he did!" doesn't really count.

 

I don't have a dog in this race, but to think a VP of fundraising especially doesn't have influence is naive at best. Do you really think that people donating lots of money aren't using that as a threat to either add or pull coverage of certain topics or ideas? That happens all of the time. I can't believe a scenario where a person in charge of fundraising wouldn't exert a lot of influence on a non-profit organization, because they are the ones dealing directly with the desires of the donors.

Just like Fox doesn't believe Fox leans right.

 

Nah, internal memos show they're unabashedly biased and without journalist integrity.

 

Oh, to throw some more logs on the anti-intellectual fire, I'll just say:

 

Nah, internal memos show they're unabashedly biased and without journalist integrity.

 

Oh, to throw some more logs on the anti-intellectual fire, I'll just say:

 

I'll note here...you didn't explain it.

I'll give it a shot. You're elitist when you think your particular view of the world is more important than well established facts that are universal across all cultures. Just because you happened to be raised by parents of a certain religion doesn't make the world view of that particular religion more important than other religions or actual science which transcends all of them.

 

Galileo was an elitist?

"well-established facts" is a key point there.

 

edit Galileo was also coming up with a new paradigm, and new understanding of the world. That's different than rejecting 150+ years of established research in favor of an older paradigm that contradicts known evidence.

Edited March 9, 201115 yr by StrangeSox

I'll give it a shot. You're elitist when you think your particular view of the world is more important than well established facts that are universal across all cultures. Just because you happened to be raised by parents of a certain religion doesn't make the world view of that particular religion more important than other religions or actual science which transcends all of them.

 

Well, if you're talking about me specifically, i'm not religious at all, so I have no horse in this race. I hate both sides for this very reason. I think the Pope is every bit as close-minded as your precious scientists. Both are equally self-rightous about their beliefs. It's just more annoying from people like you because you bring intelligence into the debate, as if questioning science makes you a dumb person. That's bulls***.

 

And that's not being anti-science. That's being a neutral observer that science can only get you so far and that it still requires faith to believe the theory. Science is wrong all the time. Is it a better system than believing what a book written 2000 years ago tells you? Sure? But that doesn't mean it's wrong to question it. It doesn't make it the de facto right answer.

 

Is it dumb to denounce evolution? Sure. But it's equally dumb to claim that it's the only possible answer and that any other potential answer is just stupid people who hate using logic to answer questions (or as SS puts it, people who rely on emotion and religious belief).

 

The first bolded just screams pot meet kettle btw. If you're using global popularity of a belief, religion has science beat pretty easily.

 

 

Well, if you're talking about me specifically, i'm not religious at all, so I have no horse in this race. I hate both sides for this very reason. I think the Pope is every bit as close-minded as your precious scientists. Both are equally self-rightous about their beliefs. It's just more annoying from people like you because you bring intelligence into the debate, as if questioning science makes you a dumb person. That's bulls***.

 

And that's not being anti-science. That's being a neutral observer that science can only get you so far and that it still requires faith to believe the theory. Science is wrong all the time. Is it a better system than believing what a book written 2000 years ago tells you? Sure? But that doesn't mean it's wrong to question it. It doesn't make it the de facto right answer.

 

Is it dumb to denounce evolution? Sure. But it's equally dumb to claim that it's the only possible answer and that any other potential answer is just stupid people who hate using logic to answer questions (or as SS puts it, people who rely on emotion and religious belief).

 

The first bolded just screams pot meet kettle btw. If you're using global popularity of a belief, religion has science beat pretty easily.

This entire post is full of fail.

Just....no.

 

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Well, if you're talking about me specifically, i'm not religious at all, so I have no horse in this race. I hate both sides for this very reason. I think the Pope is every bit as close-minded as your precious scientists. Both are equally self-rightous about their beliefs. It's just more annoying from people like you because you bring intelligence into the debate, as if questioning science makes you a dumb person. That's bulls***.

 

And that's not being anti-science. That's being a neutral observer that science can only get you so far and that it still requires faith to believe the theory. Science is wrong all the time. Is it a better system than believing what a book written 2000 years ago tells you? Sure? But that doesn't mean it's wrong to question it. It doesn't make it the de facto right answer.

 

Is it dumb to denounce evolution? Sure. But it's equally dumb to claim that it's the only possible answer and that any other potential answer is just stupid people who hate using logic to answer questions (or as SS puts it, people who rely on emotion and religious belief).

 

The first bolded just screams pot meet kettle btw. If you're using global popularity of a belief, religion has science beat pretty easily.

 

Questioning scientific theory is one thing...questioning proven scientific fact is another.

 

For example, gravity isn't a theory, it's a fact, you cannot question it's existence. That said, there is a LOT of scientific theory taken as fact...questioning such science, IMO, is not bad, and it's probably what you actually meant to convey here.

This entire post is full of fail.

 

It's rejection of the scientific method as the best tool for gathering and understanding knowledge, putting acceptance of scientific knowledge on par with religious belief in a bizarre equivalence (word of the day!). Which is a pretty good definition of anti-intellectualism.

This entire post is full of fail.

 

Try defending your position instead of being a smart ass.