IQ (moved subtopic)
^^Hey Luciom, can you remind me again how smart JD Vance is? Above, same, or below the average MAGA chode?
I have no problem with schools using affirmative action to help people like Vance with humble backgrounds.... but maybe not in law school where these idiots start becoming dangerous. And they got to find smarter people then Vance or the whole thing just looks ridiculous and all you're doing is de-valuing your own department.
Of course they did. I didn't argue otherwise. But Luciom said "Nothing republicans did as a majority ever came close to considering Biden Ok health wise in say may 2024. It was absurd , completely impossible to defend, yet almost every democrat did defend that truly obscene claim with very real consequences." I mean...
Which idea/action that has majoritarian support among republicans do you consider more of a negation of basic truth, dumber, more obscene than denying POTUS is fully incapable of discharging his duties?
Except one side is actually objectively far, far more terrible by any reasonable person's measure. So no, neither they nor their supporters are "the same".
It simply isn't.
For example doing too much "for the climate" (which is what most democrats want) is exceptionally worse that not doing anything.
Between choosing to ban all fossil fuel cars in 2035, and never banning them, it's not even close than never banning them is the far better choice.
Between fully open borders and deporting all illegals, it's not close that deporting all illegals is far preferable.
And so on.
It simply isn't.
For example doing too much "for the climate" (which is what most democrats want) is exceptionally worse that not doing anything.
Between choosing to ban all fossil fuel cars in 2035, and never banning them, it's not even close than never banning them is the far better choice.
Between fully open borders and deporting all illegals, it's not close that deporting all illegals is far preferable.
And so on.
This, but the exact opposite.
Which idea/action that has majoritarian support among republicans do you consider more of a negation of basic truth, dumber, more obscene than denying POTUS is fully incapable of discharging his duties?
You won't believe this right, but most of them think there is a magic old man in the sky watching everyone and that they are uniquely empowered to force other people to do or not do things based on "his wishes" and some stupid old book.
the status quo is preferable to wild radical change in basically all cases if you are rational.
there are infinite ways to make things worse and very few ways to make things better, so the a priori assessment of any radical proposal is "it is trash and far worse than doing nothing", and this generalizes.
You won't believe this right, but most of them think there is a magic old man in the sky watching everyone and that they are uniquely empowered to force other people to do or not do things based on "his wishes" and some stupid old book.
76% of democrats vs 90% of republicans are fairly certain or absolutely certain a god (or more) exists.
can't really use this to differentiate the parties I am sorry
the status quo is preferable to wild radical change in basically all cases if you are rational.
Not if the status quo carries with it dire consequences. You dispute the dire consequences part, but if you agreed with it, you wouldn't be arguing that the status quo is preferable.
In any case, I don't know that "the status quo is always preferable" is an unassailable truth. Sounds like some banal reactionary maxim.
76% of democrats vs 90% of republicans are fairly certain or absolutely certain a god (or more) exists.
can't really use this to differentiate the parties I am sorry
The democrats don't try to use these beliefs, dumb as they are, to force their will upon others in a theocracy, though. So, while they might share the "negation of basic truth" part, but they don't share the "obscene" part.
I never got a response on this from the anti-IQ testing crowd. It was a serious question. coordi? Gregory? smartDFS? Anyone else?
I'm not anti-IQ testing. I just believe that IQ is one of many variables when it comes to predicting the likelihood that a person is successful in a given area. It's definitely a good predictor of success but not the only one. As for what intelligence is - if we're talking about IQ, then it's the specific areas measured by those tests insofar as they're able to accurately measure them (pretty good). I don't think IQ tests in and of themselves have anything to say about environment, values, wisdom, emotional well-being, interests, etc. There may be correlations between those things and IQ scores, but they're still their own categories.
Which idea/action that has majoritarian support among republicans do you consider more of a negation of basic truth, dumber, more obscene than denying POTUS is fully incapable of discharging his duties?
That democrats are communist/marxist/socialist. That Trump won the election in 2020. That Trump is an honest person. That a newly formed zygote has as much moral significance as a baby. That there should be no common sense gun control. That Christianity should be used to guide government policy. QAnon and related conspiracy theories. That our country is falling apart and horrible.
Oh yeah and did I mention climate denial?
That democrats are communist/marxist/socialist. That Trump won the election in 2020. That Trump is an honest person. That a newly formed zygote has as much moral significance as a baby. That there should be no common sense gun control. That Christianity should be used to guide government policy. QAnon and related conspiracy theories. That our country is falling apart and horrible.
Oh yeah and did I mention climate denial?
All this, and pretty much every other belief they have about Trump or Covid.
The democrats don't try to use these beliefs, dumb as they are, to force their will upon others in a theocracy, though. So, while they might share the "negation of basic truth" part, but they don't share the "obscene" part.
sure, paternalism as a legislative desire doesn't directly stem from religious belief in a father figure in the sky...
roflmao
every single time democrats want to legislate behavior in any topic of life to substitute to individual choice they do so inspired first and foremost by their religious instict.
from attempts to censor hate speech to gun control to smoking bans, it's religiosity and theocracy all the way.
sports betting bans? alcohol control?
California doesn't even have legal prostitution ffs
you talk from Europe where some left is actually atheist.
in the USA they are all puritans
sure, paternalism as a legislative desire doesn't directly stem from religious belief in a father figure in the sky...
roflmao
every single time democrats want to legislate behavior in any topic of life to substitute to individual choice they do so inspired first and foremost by their religious instict.
from attempts to censor hate speech to gun control to smoking bans, it's religiosity and theocracy all the way.
sports betting bans? alcohol control?
California doesn't even have legal prostitution ff
Wtf? How are you getting that gun control, smoking bans and gambling restrictions have anything to do with religion?
That democrats are communist/marxist/socialist. That Trump won the election in 2020. That Trump is an honest person. That a newly formed zygote has as much moral significance as a baby. That there should be no common sense gun control. That Christianity should be used to guide government policy. QAnon and related conspiracy theories. That our country is falling apart and horrible.
Oh yeah and did I mention climate denial?
I take the "democrats are socialist" under the expansive use of the term, as they are relative to republican, but some of the rest, wtf?
like 10% of people are abortion extremists in the USA (no abortion no exception). Kansas refused an abortion ban lol.
most republicans know trump isn't honest, they just think democrats are even worse.
qanon is fringe, ultra niche
country is falling apart is a subjective judgement, can't really claim it's objectively false (or true) in any actual sense
yes they claim as a majority 2020 elections were stolen. still not worse than having a mentally incapacitated POTUS and denying he is mentally incapacitated by far.
Wtf? How are you getting that gun control, smoking bans and gambling restrictions have anything to do with religion?
because restricting "vice" is a purely religious phenomenon.
the concept vice exists as a concept AND that the state has to teach (and enforce) morals is intimately religious.
paternalism is theocracy
It simply isn't.
For example doing too much "for the climate" (which is what most democrats want) is exceptionally worse that not doing anything.
Between choosing to ban all fossil fuel cars in 2035, and never banning them, it's not even close than never banning them is the far better choice.
Between fully open borders and deporting all illegals, it's not close that deporting all illegals is far preferable.
And so on.
Bro used "fully open borders" and as an example of a majoritarian Democratic position but then gets mad when I say QAnon is a republican position. LOL
because restricting "vice" is a purely religious phenomenon.
the concept vice exists as a concept AND that the state has to teach (and enforce) morals is intimately religious.
paternalism is theocracy
Gun control and smoking bans are not about restricting vice or about morals at all. Gambling restrictions are 50/50 morals vs other reasons. You have a stronger case with alcohol and prostitution.
Paternalism is not theocracy. We have paternalism here in the UK when it comes to e.g. gambling and it has nothing to do with theocracy. Theocracy is inherently paternalistic, but paternalism is not inherently theocratic. You have your Venn diagram the wrong way round.
Bro used "fully open borders" and as an example of a majoritarian Democratic position but then gets mad when I say QAnon is a republican position. LOL
I should have used "mostly open borders sorry.
58% of democrats oppose mass deportations of people the law in theory don't allow to stay in the country
https://www.axios.com/2024/04/25/trump-b...
you are open borders if you aren't willing to kick out every single individual who isn't authorized to be in the country.
Gun control and smoking bans are not about restricting vice or about morals at all. Gambling restrictions are 50/50 morals vs other reasons. You have a stronger case with alcohol and prostitution.
Paternalism is not theocracy. We have paternalism here in the UK when it comes to e.g. gambling and it has nothing to do with theocracy. Theocracy is inherently paternalistic, but paternalism is not inherently theocratic. You have your Venn diagram the wrong way round.
smoking bans are about restricting vice and they tell you that's it, no other rationale to ban smoking in parks and whatnot.
smoking bans are about restricting vice and they tell you that's it, no other rationale to ban smoking in parks and whatnot.
The rationale is public health concerns, whether you agree that it's valid or not. Also probably something about not doing it in front of children to make them more likely to start, I'd imagine.
that's vice yes. public health concerns mean "this is bad for you" (=vice) and I don't want to allow you to do that because it's bad for you.
that it's bad "for the soul" or "for public health" is absolutely identical, same framework, same rationale, same thinking process, same people
