• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The essence of Libertarianism is...

CriticalThought said:
No. I consider myself libertarian but I would never make this claim. Neuroscience has taught us quite a bit about human nature. One thing that libertarian philosophy argues is that humans are rational decision makers. The fact is that we are neurologically built to make decisions based on emotions. Our rational oversight is simply a mechanism by which we can weigh pros and cons in order to sway our emotions. However, it is still our emotions, not our rationality, that make decisions. While libertarians have probably the most optimistic view of human nature, it is just as naive as any other. Humans are animals, not intrinsically good or bad, but also not entirely rational. We are pretty much all using the same brain we had 50,000 years ago as cavemen in a modern world. While socially and conceptually advanced compared to other animals, we are still driven by the same mechanisms that kept us alive for hundreds of thousands of years.
Click to expand...

Where do you guys get this crap from?

Libertarian philosophy does not require perfectly rational individuals.
Free market libertarians, worth their salt, will tell you that irrationality required.
 
RightinNYC said:
The second study is conducted by the same guy. Again, I'm asking for something more than a link to an abstract mentioning a study that focuses on a tiny subset of the country.



Again, you haven't really provided anything. Even if we pretend that a small group of white adolescent atheists have an IQ that's a couple points higher than white adolescent religious people, that doesn't indicate anything about religious groups as a whole. Moreover, even if we assume that the average atheist has an IQ that's a few points higher than the average Christian, that doesn't support the ridiculous arguments made by Shewolf. The difference between someone with an IQ of 105 and someone with an IQ of 100 is nearly imperceptible. Her experiences are not the result of IQ differences, but of confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

It doesn't indicate anything about religious groups as a whole... it just indicates that there are some people in those said religious groups with significantly lower iqs dragging down the mean. Some Christians are really smart, but if you meet any of these dummies you'll know it.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
There are lots of links.. but like I said. It pretty much confirmed something that I always sort of felt.. a lot of people raised extremely religious, don't have critical thinking skills and have been sheltered, told what to think, etc. Not all Christians are naive of course, but when you run into one.... better watch out! I have little patience and tolerance for "stupid" people... and some of them, it's like everything you say flies right over their head. It's like talking to a brick wall.. waste of time.. completely void of critical thinking skills, and they are full of indoctrinated rebuttals.
Click to expand...

You realize that it's not possible for you to actually observe a difference between someone with a 105 IQ and a 100 IQ, right? Your own anecdotal observations don't indicate anything.
 
SheWolf said:
It doesn't indicate anything about religious groups as a whole... it just indicates that there are some people in those said religious groups with significantly higher iqs dragging down the mean. Some Christians are really smart, but if you meet any of these dummies you'll know it.
Click to expand...

And there are plenty of stupid atheists dragging down the intelligent ones. Funny how large groups work like that.
 
RightinNYC said:
You realize that it's not possible for you to actually observe a difference between someone with a 105 IQ and a 100 IQ, right? Your own anecdotal observations don't indicate anything.
Click to expand...

How do you know it isn't possible? Just because it is within a standard deviation does not mean it isn't observable.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
How do you know it isn't possible? Just becase it is within a standard deviation does not mean it isn't observabe.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that when someone says "Oh, Christians are on average dumb, I can tell because I talked with them and they're dumb," they don't know what they're talking about.
 
RightinNYC said:
I'm saying that when someone says "Oh, Christians are on average dumb, I can tell because I talked with them and they're dumb," they don't know what they're talking about.
Click to expand...

Not all Christians are dumb.. haha. My uncle is a Christian and he is one of the smartest people I know.. He might even be smarter than any atheist, I know.
 
SheWolf said:
Not all Christians are dumb.. haha. My uncle is a Christian and he is one of the smartest people I know.. He might even be smarter than any atheist, I know.
Click to expand...

Share your reasoning with your uncle and see what he thinks.
 
RightinNYC said:
You realize that the link you posted is from a blog pointing out a multitude of flaws in that study, right?
Click to expand...

From what I read.. it was a good piece about the sides arguing for and against..
 
CriticalThought said:
How do you know it isn't possible? Just because it is within a standard deviation does not mean it isn't observable.
Click to expand...

It's not likely because both 100 and 105 are with in the standard deviation.
If you add in a margin of error, the person with the tested 100 IQ could actually be slightly more intelligent.
 
RightinNYC said:
Share your reasoning with your uncle and see what he thinks.
Click to expand...

I think my uncle agrees with me. He is critical of his church leaders.. we agree that people whom are easily influenced can be led the wrong way by religious leaders. Some church leaders don't eve practice what the bible says. He is more into organized religion than I am. I am not an atheist btw.
 
RightinNYC said:
I'm saying that when someone says "Oh, Christians are on average dumb, I can tell because I talked with them and they're dumb," they don't know what they're talking about.
Click to expand...

While I don't think it is wise to generalize from anecdotal too much, you do have to admit it is difficult at times...



"Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?"

I mean, come on. If you meet enough Christians like that, I imagine you would begin to wonder if intelligent ones actually do exist.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's not likely because both 100 and 105 are with in the standard deviation.
If you add in a margin of error, the person with the tested 100 IQ could actually be slightly more intelligent.
Click to expand...

Margin of error? IQ tests are normed.
 
CriticalThought said:
I mean, come on. If you meet enough Christians like that, I imagine you would begin to wonder if intelligent ones actually do exist.
Click to expand...

No, I understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and actual evidence.
 
Geo Patric said:
it may be insulting and it may be hyperbolic but as to its accuracy.... who can know? there has never been a libertarian society. partly because the term is oxymoronic.

or am i mistaken?

geo.
Click to expand...

BBC News - Ivorian tax-free rebel city flourishes

The north half of the Ivory Coast, is largely left unregulated, the schools are not state funded but are maintained by volunteers.
There are police to enforce basic laws.

This, to me at least, shows that a libertarian society can work.
I wouldn't hurt to at least entertain the thought, based on a real working system.
 
CriticalThought said:
Anecdotal evidence is still evidence. It just isn't highly representative evidence.
Click to expand...

If I tried to argue that left handed people were on average idiots because most of the left handed people I knew were idiots, that would be pretty dumb. This is little better.
 
RightinNYC said:
If I tried to argue that left handed people were on average idiots because most of the left handed people I knew were idiots, that would be pretty dumb. This is little better.
Click to expand...

Like I said, not representative.

If you argued that all the left handed people you knew were idiots, then your anecdotal experience would be quite invaluable.
 
RightinNYC said:
If I tried to argue that left handed people were on average idiots because most of the left handed people I knew were idiots, that would be pretty dumb. This is little better.
Click to expand...

What if atheists thought the earth was only 2,000 years old, considered dinosaurs a hoax, and didn't understand the scientific method.. confused evolutionary fact with theory?
 
ElijahGalt said:
"LEAVE ME ALONE."

Therefore, libertarianism is the antithesis of zealotry.
Click to expand...

I would argue that libertariansim is zealotry, ie. the austrian school of economics. They have a fanatical devotion to a single cause, a "free" market.
 
drz-400 said:
I would argue that libertariansim is zealotry, ie. the austrian school of economics. They have a fanatical devotion to a single cause, a "free" market.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Libertarianism focuses on individualism; not some lame obsession with laissez faire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom