Intelligence as a negative??

[BA11]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Enlighten me. How could politics talk shift to focus more heavily on the economy? Right now that is pretty much all anyone talks about.

It was more an indicment of how much we talk about social issues. I can't turn on the TV without hearing about a gay rights rally or a politician saying gays getting married is an abomination against the universe.

They need to be non-issues in this election, as it is one of the most important in our history. None of the social controversies will have any real impact in the next four years, but another four years of spending, inflation and poor financial policies could really screw. Someone needs to step up, unify us SOMEHOW and start changing things, because when our financial structure collapses around us democrats and republicans will be fighting over the same scraps and won't give a damn who supports gay marriage.

 

[Whatyousay]

For example, howabout we just get rid of marriage licenses all together and just give out domestic partnerships. Let society deal with marriag on its own.

But that's not what God wants.

 

[tantacles]

Oh I wasn't implying that you used such factors, merely that americans as a whole are terrible at choosing their own issues.

As for social issues, I wish the government would stop getting involved in a lot of it. For example, howabout we just get rid of marriage licenses all together and just give out domestic partnerships. Let society deal with marriag on its own.

I have no problem with domestic partnerships for all. Equality is the name of the game. That some partnerships receive benefits others don't, however, is the real concern here.

And while I recognize that it COULD be a state's rights issue, DOMA prevents those marriages/unions from being recognized federally. The biggest impact that has is on immigration: A fair number of people don't meet their partners in the United States. Without offering citizenship to the foreign spouse/partner, the domestic one is unlikely to stay.

ETA: And just because I can't resist it: If a presidential were willing to perform sexual favors for everyone in the United States, then I think his looks would be a valid factor in the race. Admittedly, though, I was not asked to make out with Obama during the last election, so I had to vote for him solely on the issues he stood for, unfortunately.

 

[BA11]

Or we could just insert language into the constitution to give gays all legal rights and protections under the law. Then we would never have to talk about it again.

It's a states rights issue, and nobody is currently guranteed the right to marry in the constitution. Gays already have equal rights and protections from a constitutional standpoint, they arent even denied the majority of financial benefits from marriage as civil unions grant that in most states. The only thing they are currently denied is a marriage license. I just wish all the states would approve it already, because I don't care if they get married. It's such a dumb thing to still be fighting about.

 

[ppfizenm]

It was more an indicment of how much we talk about social issues. I can't turn on the TV without hearing about a gay rights rally or a politician saying gays getting married is an abomination against the universe.

They need to be non-issues in this election, as it is one of the most important in our history. None of the social controversies will have any real impact in the next four years, but another four years of spending, inflation and poor financial policies could really screw. Someone needs to step up, unify us SOMEHOW and start changing things, because when our financial structure collapses around us democrats and republicans will be fighting over the same scraps and won't give a damn who supports gay marriage.

someone else explain what is wrong with this.

 

[ppfizenm]

It's a states rights issue, and nobody is currently guranteed the right to marry in the constitution. Gays already have equal rights and protections from a constitutional standpoint, they arent even denied the majority of financial benefits from marriage as civil unions grant that in most states. The only thing they are currently denied is a marriage license. I just wish all the states would approve it already, because I don't care if they get married. It's such a dumb thing to still be fighting about.

and this.

 

[tantacles]

and this.

The real ramifications of not having equal marriage are far beyond his grasp, I think. You know I'm not touching this.

 

[BA11]

The real ramifications of not having equal marriage are far beyond his grasp, I think. You know I'm not touching this.

Is the fabric of America going to unwind because gays arent allowed to get married? No. They should have the right to, but we'll still be arguing about it years from now if they don't. We won't be arguing about anything if our financial situation doesnt change over the course of the next few administrations. This "real ramifications" nonsense is dramatic language driven by a belief that any ounce of social justice for a few outweighs potential social downfall for all.

I'm not sure what's more disturbing, the fact that many people think gay marriage affects the viability of this nation or how ignorant many truly are to the depths of our current financial troubles. We're not as far from what Greece is going through as people would like to think we are.

One day gays will be allowed to get married in every state, and that will be a great day for Americans. It will not be a day that is looked back on as landmark day in America's journey to survive as a nation. Now I'll wait for the standard and erroneous womens rights and minority rights comparison by the constitutionally ignorant.

 

[BA11]

and this.

Domestic partnerships with are now allowed in thirteen states now IIRC, and civil unions are allowed in another seven plus D.C. Six others work around it and have legislation that grants same-sex "households" financial benefits similar to marriage and various others have loopholes for filing taxes together and receiving discounts on insurence and the like. Only ten states specifically deny all marriage/union rights in every form to gay couples via legislation. None of this means I'm in support of the current situation, but if you're going to act like I'm an idiot you can at least address it and not play it off simply because you don't know or care to look up the facts.

Yes, I misspoke in typing that most grant them as a result of civil unions, my bad on that.

 

[Bartemius]

Is the fabric of America going to unwind because gays arent allowed to get married? No. They should have the right to, but we'll still be arguing about it years from now if they don't. We won't be arguing about anything if our financial situation doesnt change over the course of the next few administrations. This "real ramifications" nonsense is dramatic language driven by a belief that any ounce of social justice for a few outweighs potential social downfall for all.

I'm not sure what's more disturbing, the fact that many people think gay marriage affects the viability of this nation or how ignorant many truly are to the depths of our current financial troubles. We're not as far from what Greece is going through as people would like to think we are.

One day gays will be allowed to get married in every state, and that will be a great day for Americans. It will not be a day that is looked back on as landmark day in America's journey to survive as a nation. Now I'll wait for the standard and erroneous womens rights and minority rights comparison by the constitutionally ignorant.

Domestic partnerships with are now allowed in thirteen states now IIRC, and civil unions are allowed in another seven plus D.C. Six others work around it and have legislation that grants same-sex "households" financial benefits similar to marriage and various others have loopholes for filing taxes together and receiving discounts on insurence and the like. Only ten states specifically deny all marriage/union rights in every form to gay couples via legislation. None of this means I'm in support of the current situation, but if you're going to act like I'm an idiot you can at least address it and not play it off simply because you don't know or care to look up the facts.

Yes, I misspoke in typing that most grant them as a result of civil unions, my bad on that.

This is...very reasonable, actually.

Edit: don't agree with calling anyone an "idiot" though. One of the few things that can dramatically weaken otherwise reasonable posts in the eyes of the accused

 

[zherussianbear]

If you are intelligent, you are incapable of being empathetic.
Thus, if doctoring requires empathy, doctors must be *****s, and you, dear friend, should leave SDN immediately in pursuit of alternative career options.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I heard something on the radio today that I thought was mirrored in the latest MD vs DO smack-down. The topic was on the elections but more specifically focused on Rick Santorum and his strategy of basically saying that Barack Obama thinks he is smarter than the all inclusive "us". The piece highlighted the right's use of liberal elitist as a person who believes he is more intelligent, has better taste, knows better than the hard working blue collar folks. The piece also talked about what the term elitist meant to the left, namely a person of great wealth. The problem with the left's characterization of the word, it was pointed out, was that these blue collar workers see these really wealthy people and think, okay, I'll be there soon, while they see the intellectuals as something that they can never obtain and perceive that they are being looked down on because of that fact.

My question really is why should it be taboo to recognize that certain people are smarter than others? We praise people for genetic gifts like beauty and athleticism constantly, while recognizing that we could never be that fast or naturally good looking. Why then is intelligence being turned into a negative? Some people are just smarter than others.

Brad Pitt's nose, jawline, hair, and ab's may be different than mine. It doesn't make him better looking.
nuff said

 

[SpecterGT260]

This matter would be specifically about opinion. He has knowledge, but he lacks the ability to apply his perceptions in keeping with his understanding, because he paints his understanding with a limited and flawed brush. He changes his mind on his beliefs seemingly based on how he feels about something, and not absolute truths. While it's great his mind is creative, there lacks a particular foundation of principles (and I'm not talking about having a lack of educational science).

If you disagree with this, that's fine! It's just my opinion.

Thanks for the permission 👍
Hawking's real genius is in his ability to take some of the most mathematically complicated concepts ever conceived and write them in a way that a 7th grader could understand (age at which I finished "A Breif History of Time", for anyone thinking this is senseless hyperbole). I don't think you really grasp the complexity of the "information lost" hypothesis concerning black holes which is, to my knowledge, the only thing that he has published with any notable controversy around it.

If you are intelligent, you are incapable of being empathetic.
Thus, if doctoring requires empathy, doctors must be *****s, and you, dear friend, should leave SDN immediately in pursuit of alternative career options.

This is simply wrong.... although I think you are trolling someone and I just couldnt tell exactly who.

 

[DeterminedDoc]

I think the bigger picture here is that no one likes to think that they are stupid. Intelligence is a necessary trait in order to survive, unlike beauty or athleticism where extreme proficiency is not necessary.

Sure you don't need to be a PhD to get by in this world, but you do need some level of intelligence. People just want and like to feel intelligent about themselves, even if they are blue collar workers.

But I agree, if you are intelligent and successful (white collar) then there is nothing wrong with showing that off or letting people know you are better then them as long as you aren't too much of a douche about it (its ok to be kind of a douche).

 

[slatermd]

*snip*
...not capable of making incredibly educated financial decisions without advisors. Some men, like Newt, are regarded are gurus in various political fields. He would dance circles around Bush or Obama in a financial debate, it wouldnt even be fair.

Newt's blah blah blah...this country's biggest issue right now is our financial situation and he is remarkably bright and well-spoken on the subject. *snip* I just know I want no part of Mitt Romney.

Some of what you've said in this discussion is sensible, but not this. You say your main concern is our financial situation, but you want no part of Romney? And you think Gingrich is a financial Guru? I'm not sure what basis you used for that appraisal.

Without endorsing either candidate, let's look at two indicators of financial savvy: personal wealth and their track records managing budgets.

Gingrich's net worth: ~$6.7 million in 2010. Primarily derived from his controlling interests in various businesses. Though his businesses bear his name, there is no indication that he actually runs the budgets "without advisors."

Romney's net worth: somewhere between $190 - 250 million (too large to get an exact count I guess...fluctuating investments and all), derived from various sources: capital gains on investments, arbitrage, and payouts from the very successful private equity firm he co-founded and ran, Bain Capital. He openly admits that he relies on financial consultants and advisors to manage his personal wealth in blind trusts, however the success of Bain Capital, budget and all, is attributed almost entirely to Romney's financial/economic savvy.

Private sector aside, the two have very different track records with government budgets.

In 1997, during one of Gingrich's terms as speaker for the Republican majority, he was a huge part of the congressional plan to balance the budget by 2002. He patted himself on the back after he successfully pressured Clinton to submit a balanced budget in 1999. How's that working out for us?

Romney, on the other hand, walked into a budget as governor of Massachusetts that was running a $650 million deficit in the middle of the fiscal year, and was projecting a $3 billion deficit for the following year. By the end of his term the state ran a $700 million surplus. After he left office, the deficits returned.

I don't care for either candidate, but if finance is your main issue it seems like you got your wires crossed.

I don't think Gingrich has much chance of actually making the ticket; he seems like a piece of political strategy by the GOP. Send him out to campaign and collect the far right while Romney scoops up moderates. Romney gets on the ballot and brings his moderate votes with him; the far right that was planning on voting for Gingrich begrudgingly gives their votes to Romney. This wouldn't work as well the other way around (i.e. if Gingrich gets on the ballot not all Romney supporters will end up voting for him).

Putting your intelligence out there is not elitist. Bragging about your intelligence and trying to prove that you are more intelligent than others is elitist though.

I would agree that "putting your intelligence out there," is not necessarily elitist, but it could be.

What I find to be true in almost all cases is that "putting your intelligence out there," in all of the different ways that phrase could be interpreted, effectively demonstrates the upper limit of your intelligence.

The most intelligent people I know, not coincidentally, are also the humblest people I know...they don't "put it out there" at all. Their intelligence allows them to relate well to people down a large intellectual gradient without condescension or haughtiness. They acknowledge disparities in intelligence as a fact of life, rather than highlighting them for the sake of comparison and deeming themselves to be superior. In spite of any outward signs of their intelligence (advanced degrees, accolades etc.), you don't feel like they are above you, because they don't feel that way either.

By putting it out there I don't mean saying something "I am better than you". I am referring to merely doing something that demonstrates your intelligence like winning an award or (gasp) becoming a doctor.

Well, becoming a doctor isn't necessarily a great metric of intelligence. There are many who slip through the cracks.

If you have to put your own intelligence out there you probably arent as intelligent as you think you are. Intelligence is a very noticable trait.

I agree with the first sentence. As per my comment above, I disagree with the second. Intelligence is noticeable up to a point. If it seems extremely noticeable, then you are actually noticing the limits of that person's intelligence and self-awareness, compounded by his or her insecurity. They are "acting" smart, allowing other's to witness it, and every time someone acknowledges their intelligence it feeds their ego.

This seems subtle when you first start to notice it, but after a while it sticks out like a botched boob job and a face full of botox.

This is simply wrong.... although I think you are trolling someone and I just couldnt tell exactly who.

Untargeted...just dangling the bait for anyone to bite.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I'm slightly appalled that you arent treating politics as the purely objective science that it is....


🙄

 

[SpecterGT260]

Untargeted...just dangling the bait for anyone to bite.

a-HA! cant tell if I took the bait.... or caught the trap....

 

[ppfizenm]

Some of what you've said in this discussion is sensible, but not this. You say your main concern is our financial situation, but you want no part of Romney? And you think Gingrich is a financial Guru? I'm not sure what basis you used for that appraisal.

Without endorsing either candidate, let's look at two indicators of financial savvy: personal wealth and their track records managing budgets.

Gingrich's net worth: ~$6.7 million in 2010. Primarily derived from his controlling interests in various businesses. Though his businesses bear his name, there is no indication that he actually runs the budgets "without advisors."

Romney's net worth: somewhere between $190 - 250 million (too large to get an exact count I guess...fluctuating investments and all), derived from various sources: capital gains on investments, arbitrage, and payouts from the very successful private equity firm he co-founded and ran, Bain Capital. He openly admits that he relies on financial consultants and advisors to manage his personal wealth in blind trusts, however the success of Bain Capital, budget and all, is attributed almost entirely to Romney's financial/economic savvy.

Private sector aside, the two have very different track records with government budgets.

In 1997, during one of Gingrich's terms as speaker for the Republican majority, he was a huge part of the congressional plan to balance the budget by 2002. He patted himself on the back after he successfully pressured Clinton to submit a balanced budget in 1999. How's that working out for us?

Romney, on the other hand, walked into a budget as governor of Massachusetts that was running a $650 million deficit in the middle of the fiscal year, and was projecting a $3 billion deficit for the following year. By the end of his term the state ran a $700 million surplus. After he left office, the deficits returned.

I don't care for either candidate, but if finance is your main issue it seems like you got your wires crossed.

I don't think Gingrich has much chance of actually making the ticket; he seems like a piece of political strategy by the GOP. Send him out to campaign and collect the far right while Romney scoops up moderates. Romney gets on the ballot and brings his moderate votes with him; the far right that was planning on voting for Gingrich begrudgingly gives their votes to Romney. This wouldn't work as well the other way around (i.e. if Gingrich gets on the ballot not all Romney supporters will end up voting for him).

I could agree with this to an extent if the candidates weren't brutalizing each other. I honestly don't think the GOP really expects to take the presidency this year. Obviously they would like to and will make every effort but I don't think they expect it to happen. If I had to speculate I would say they are playing the long game at the moment, vying for future elections over this one.

 

[slatermd]

I could agree with this to an extent if the candidates weren't brutalizing each other. I honestly don't think the GOP really expects to take the presidency this year. Obviously they would like to and will make every effort but I don't think they expect it to happen. If I had to speculate I would say they are playing the long game at the moment, vying for future elections over this one.

I agree. I think that short-term strategy could make it a little less of a blowout, but I don't think they have any illusions of actually winning this election. It's also giving them a chance to litmus test a variety of candidates and potential VP's for the next ticket.