User:Hojimachong/Sandbox

Work In Progress What follows is a critique of Andrew Schlafly's essay, Liberal Intellectualism, the original text of which can be found here. Other RWers, please feel free to contribute.

Andy's Original Essay It is interesting to observe how the liberal ideology, and liberal arguments, appeal most to educated, informed persons who are short on intellectual achievements of their own. Put another way, the biggest advocates of liberal arguments are the intellectual wannabees or pseudo-intellectuals.	Hoji's Response Conversely, some of the biggest advocates of Conservative viewpoints are outspokenly anti-intellectual. In addition, the fact that some Liberals are intellectual lightweights, doesn't invalidate the fact that most intellectual heavyweights are Liberals. Even Conservatives like John Dean concede that Conservatism, unlike Liberalism, doesn't have a strong theoretical foundation.
1 Examples of not-quite-intellectuals who promote liberal arguments include:	1 Examples of not-quite-intellectuals who promote Conservative thought are: Examples of total dumbasses who promote Conservative thought include: The Assfly, Ann Coulter, CP's sysops
2 John Kerry privileged youth, weak student at Yale, no original work Al Gore privileged youth, poor graduate student, tried to claim credit for the internet. Bill Clinton may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at Georgetown, never released his grades, failed to earn a degree at Oxford, no original work or ideas. Henry Kissinger speaks very few languages well for a diplomat, had no insights or noteworthy work, mishandled Vietnam War and Soviet Union. Robert McNamara described as a "whiz kid," he wrote or did nothing of significance, mishandled Vietnam War.	2 Makes us think of another privileged youth who attended Yale, and who graduated with a GPA of 2.35[1]. Bush also scored in the 25th percentile in the Texas Air National Guard test... not too impressive[2]. Gore's exact words were "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet." Indeed, internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn concede that "No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time."[3] This one was dismissed a long time ago, give it up... Did nothing of significance? President of Ford Motor company, U.S. Secretary of Defense, President of World Bank. From 1961 to 1964, presided over the largest peacetime buildup in U.S. military history.[4] At Ford, was one of the strongest advocates for the introduction of seat belts and received substantial credit for Ford's expansion and success in the postwar period.[5] At World Bank, was described as "the conscience of the West" for his efforts to persuade the industrialized world to commit more capital to improving life in have-not nations.[6]
3 Richard Dawkins Stephen Jay Gould Noam Chomsky J. Robert Oppenheimer	3 An Oxford professorship not enough for Dawkins [7]? What qualifications does Andy need in an intellectual? You might disagree with Chomsky, but calling him a lightweight shows either ignorance, maybe wilful, of some of his defining role in and lasting contributions to the sciences of Linguistics, Philosophy, Computer Science and Psychology.
4 John Maynard Keynes	4 4
5 Laurence Tribe	5 5
6 Jon Stewart	6 Neither Jon Stewart nor anyone else besides Andrew S. has ever claimed that he is an "intellectual". He is a comedian, and the successful host of the "fake news" show, The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. In spite of this, he does quite well grappling head to head with such conservative luminaries as the "triumphalist" William Kristol.
7 There are two primary motivations for the liberal advocacy by pseudo-intellectuals: it is easier for them to obtain acclaim from the liberal press than from real intellectuals they genuinely fail to understand certain abstractions, such as:	7 There are two primary motivations for the conservative advocacy by pseudo-intellectuals: it is easier for them to obtain acclaim from the conservative press than from "real" intellectuals, whoever THOSE are.
8 how cutting taxes often increases government revenue (Laffer Curve)	8 Actually, cutting taxes can only increase revenue under very limited circumstances (which the United States has not had since Reagan's tax cuts. See Supply side economics.
9 how guns save more lives through deterrence and prevention than they harm	9
10 how childbirth has a positive effect on health, and thus abortion harms health	10 For the sake of argument, I will accept the claim that childbirth always has a positive affect on health (though I don't think that death is considered a "positive" affect). What I don't see is how having an abortion automatically is bad for your health - it's sort of a false dichotomy. By this logic, everybody that is not having babies - including men - are purposely harming themselves. Abortion may rob people of the "health benefits" of childbirth, but there is no proof offered to show that it is inherently harmful.
11 how cease-fires always help a determined opponent in war	11 Given that no nations or groups go to war for frivolous reasons - whatever the opposition thinks - one can consider every combatant to be 'determined'. Hence, this point equates to the position that 'ceasefires are pointless'. If ceasefires are pointless, this by reduction is an argument for fighting all wars as military operations without diplomatic dialogue until the complete annihilation or capitulation of the enemy is acheived. Or, global thermonuclear war.
12 how arms limitations treaties always helps a dishonest adversary	12 Similarly to #11 above, since enemies by definition behave dishonestly towards each other, arms limitations treaties are pointless. Hence, the point essentially argues that 'unlimited arms buildup is preferred'.
13 they expect superficial, flawed logic to persuade others, such as: claiming that inequality in outcome implies discrimination	13 They expect fearmongering and emotional appeals to convince people of blatantly false assertions, such as: Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction, and was insane enough to attempt to use them against anything the USA cared about. Pretending that Science supports their assertion that a 2000+ year-old compilation of fairy tales is intended by God to be used as a biology, physics, and history textbook.
14 demanding equal treatment for genders in all situations	14 Claiming that specific reproduction related parts of the anatomy decide (above all other factors) which sex is better at activities from decorating, to acting as the earthly representatives of imaginary friends. (Which requires a penis....I don't want to KNOW why!)
15 claiming that the gay agenda is like the civil rights struggle by African Americans	15 If homosexuality is indeed an immutable trait, then yes, the struggle is exactly the same. Anybody who is gay will tell you that you can't "choose" to be gay - you are or you aren't. Those who say they were "cured" are either living a lie, or never were gay to begin with. Conversely, even if homosexuality was entirely a choice, it doesn't change that fact that homosexuals are currently being unfairly persecuted. Homosexual marriage is a victimless "crime". Remember, most Republicans back in "the day" fought against interracial marriage, using the Bible as justification.
16 insisting that government can reduce poverty with more programs	16 "The problem isn't people being poor. The problem is people not having any money." -- Noted Liberal Intellectual icon, Ronald Reagan.