Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes

[phkrause]

[doug yowell]

Why doesn't someone paste the concluding paragraph of the study? A US study of homosexual "prejudice" was also included. Again, there was no comparative evidence with left wing ideology.IOW, how can prejudice in left wing authoritarianism be predicted? As if prejudical tendancies were exclusively the result of right wing influences/authoritarianism exploiting the-less-than capable-of-discerning,underdeveloped intellect.How does the study explain the resistence to the normalcy of homosexuality amongst the right wing leadership and why it is bad in the first place?

[doug yowell]

The The study does not, at all, say that conservatives are less intelligent. What it does so is that less intelligent people who are conservative are more likely to be prejudiced.

.

And how is that prejudice defined? "Less intelligent people who are conservative are more likely to .....? What's the prejudice here?Accept homosexuality as a viable morally acceptable lifestyle? Accept same sex marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage? No longer believe that homosexuality is a sin? Isn't that a legitimate part of the definition? What's the answer to this observation: Less intelligent people who are liberal are more likely to be prejudiced? If IQ is part of the equation then there must be a correlating result,yes? Unless it is the backhand way of prooving the left wing ideology and authoritarianism has little effect on the lowered IQ.Fact is that prejudice has no ideological or intellectual barriers and one needs no study to show it.

[Bravus]

The study as a whole took in two studies about racial prejudice and one about anti-homosexual prejudice, and the results were robust across all three studies.

Discard the homosexuality study entirely, and the conclusions of the research still stand.

Unless you wish to now claim that racial prejudice is totally fine now too, and it's evil left-wing propaganda to call it prejudice at all?

[John317]

Who reads more of, and are better acquainted with, the writings and viewpoints published by those they disagree with-- the "conservatives" or the "liberals"?

I don't know too many "progressives/liberals" who take time to study conservative perspectives. On the other hand, I know quite a few conservatives who often read, or listen to, the views of liberals. This applies to religion as well as to politics. I hope I'm wrong about this and that a bunch of people prove it to me.

[CoAspen]

Hmm...are we already seeing that?

[Bravus]

I think you'll find I *understand* conservative perspectives pretty well. I don't agree with them, but I understand them, and even some of the commitments underlying them.

I'm not entirely sure it's relevant to this thread, though: 'knowledgeable' and 'intelligent' are not the same thing.

A. No-one is saying conservatives are less intelligent and

B. Intelligence and being well-informed might be related but they're not the same thing.

[John317]

....Unless you wish to now claim that racial prejudice is totally fine now too,

Strange thing is, Bravus, that I almost never hear of anyone on the Left talking about the evils of prejudice among blacks, and there's a great deal of it.

Prejudice is bad all the way round-- no matter what group or what race.

But it's common in the USA for blacks-- following the lead of Malcolm X-- to talk about the impossibility of blacks being "racist," because it's been defined in such a way that only whites in the US can possibly be racist. Racism, on this view, is an ecomonic power used against a group of people to oppress them and keep them in the lower classes.

I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King-- we should judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. If only that could be put into general practice. As it is, I know of people who actually want to be judged by the color of their skin. Some think that their characters shouldn't matter. I know MLK wouldn't agree.

[Woody]

You bring up some excellent points John. I am very confident that if MLK were alive today - that he would be a Republican.

[doug yowell]

Who reads more of, and are better acquainted with, the writings and viewpoints published by those they disagree with-- the "conservatives" or the "liberals"?

I don't know too many "progressives/liberals" who take time to study conservative perspectives. On the other hand, I know quite a few conservatives who often read, or listen to, the views of liberals. This applies to religion as well as to politics. I hope I'm wrong about this and that a bunch of people prove it to me.

You're absolutely right. Conservatives are subjected to exclusively liberal ideology from the time they enter kindergaften to they get their PHD from Harvard. The mainstream media (print,TV)is admittedly dominated by left wing ideology in every poll taken.Every union representative group is 100% left. The right has talk radio and the majority of the Fox news editorial staff.Any lack of familarity with liberal ideology is probably due to some sort of Rip van Winkle syndrome, not exclusive immersion in prejudice promoted by right wing racists.

[John317]

My main point is that no matter what side one takes in either politics or religion, one should be willing to consider the other person's viewpoint and that means being willing to discuss ideas with people of a different or even opposite perspective.

[doug yowell]

Unless you wish to now claim that racial prejudice is totally fine now too, and it's evil left-wing propaganda to call it prejudice at all?

I'll take that as a rhetorical question. I believe that there exists racial prejudice but that the majority (not all) of it,here in the US,comes from left wing propaganda. I also agree that racial prejudice is intellectually stupid but that it's not indicative of a lower IQ (lots of really intelligent people believe really stupid things)nor does it combine lower IQ with left wing ideology.Neither is it a matter of the human cognitive capability or lack thereof.It is a moral and spiritual understanding that is informed and unlocked by a common Creator who will stand as judge someday on how that creation was treated.

[doug yowell]

My main point is that no matter what side one takes in either politics or religion, one should be willing to consider the other person's viewpoint and that means being willing to discuss ideas with people of a different or even opposite perspective.

Exactly, lost in the discussion is the way conservatives are treated by those in academia and those in the media.Usually shouted down or barred from giving their perspectives by the "unbiased" progressive ideology. Ben Carson's treatment, and Ben Stein's documentry reveal just the tip of the iceberg.so this study is just more of the same.

[Bravus]

Riight... racism in America is predominantly caused by the Left. OK.

Since you're so interested in the anti-homosexuality issue, doug, answer me this. Leave conservativism aside entirely. The research study found a negative correlation between intelligence and anti-homosexual prejudice. The more intelligent someone is, the less likely they are to be prejudiced toward homosexual people.

How do you explain that finding?

[lazarus]

Quote:

But it's common in the USA for blacks-- following the lead of Malcolm X-- to talk about the impossibility of blacks being "racist," because it's been defined in such a way that only whites in the US can possibly be racist.

Interesting and predictable. Where did you get that from? It was white and black sociologists who first offered the definition that you are alluding to (or that is eluding you).

So lets see some quotes from MalcolmX and some leading black commentators who have this perspective.

Malcolm X was a powerful, courageous, prophetic voice who brought much truth and energy to the civil rights struggle.

Quote:

Racism, on this view, is an ecomonic power used against a group of people to oppress them and keep them in the lower classes.

Nope. Prejudice + power = racism. That's the definition that some use.

[olger]

The study as a whole took in two studies about racial prejudice and one about anti-homosexual prejudice, and the results were robust across all three studies.

Discard the homosexuality study entirely, and the conclusions of the research still stand.

Unless you wish to now claim that racial prejudice is totally fine now too, and it's evil left-wing propaganda to call it prejudice at all?

I'm not a racist, but I am definitely a culturalist. I believe some cultures are superior to others in promoting ambition and learning.

`oG

[lazarus]

As I said, you are only colored by prejudice (no pun intended).

In my view, there has been a consistent inability of some white conservative Christians to understand or even to receive the perspective of a black Christians on many issues. The common response is some kind of psychological projection.

[Tom Wetmore]

I'm not a racist, but I am definitely a culturalist. I believe some cultures are superior to others in promoting ambition and learning.

And specifically which cultures are more superior in that regard? And which cultures are not?

[doug yowell]

.

Since you're so interested in the anti-homosexuality issue, doug, answer me this. Leave conservativism aside entirely. The research study found a negative correlation between intelligence and anti-homosexual prejudice. The more intelligent someone is, the less likely they are to be prejudiced toward homosexual people.

How do you explain that finding?

Again, how can I explain something has not yet been clearly defined? How did the study show that: 1)those less intelligent were prejudice? What attitudes or behaviour did they exhibit that clearly demonstrates a NEGATIVE prejudice? 2)How did the study demonstrate that those behaviours were in fact "dark"? Having seen the term "homophobic" mandatorially applied to those who oppose same sex marriage by the liberal academic community over the past decades I automatically question the objectivity of any use of the word prejudice.Many highly intelligent beings (including God)oppose homosexual practices, many of these leaders(on the right)expound views that those with lower IQ's grassp and believe. Many intelligent leaders on the left also follow the same path and their lower IQ listeners also grasp their views. So what is the cause of higher IQ's being leaders if propagating "prejudice?

[dialoguewithus]

Hello, I'd like to make a few observations, although I haven't read the entire thread.

If any of you get a chance to see the PBS program, Slavery by Another Name, I recommend it, although I did miss the first part. The point is well made there that slavery didn't "technically" end in the U.S. until during WWII. And it is difficult to argue that institutionalized racism doesn't continue to this very day, in the forms of racial profiling and the drug war. So when people ask why black Americans have advanced relatively little since the abolition of slavery, it's due in large part to the fact that the culture of oppression didn't simply disappear overnight. Public schools were still racially segregated in Texas into the 1970's, for example.

As for the "superiority" of some cultures, that could be true, but it's interesting how these matters ebb and flow. For example, during the Dark Ages, the Islamic culture was the one which was more open, tolerant, and progressive; now we see that probably more in evidence in the Western cultures.

As for the gay marriage issue, it seems to me inevitable that it will be ruled unconstitutional eventually to discriminate against anyone in regards to marriage based on gender, which is what it boils down to. I feel that separation of church and state requires, not only that the government allow religious leaders to refuse to perform such ceremonies, if their faith so dictate, but also that the gov't, if granting certain privileges and recognition to married couples, not restrict that to couples of opposite sex. (I just thought of the hypothetical of where one spouse in a heterosexual marriage had a sex change operation- would the "defense of marriage" people then consider their marriage "null and void"?) I can't see how denying someone to marry defends anyone's marriage. Nor do I see that one can say that "nature is against it" with complete honesty, when so many species demonstrate homosexual behaviors. Nor does the argument that gay people can't reproduce hold any weight for me, because, (a) No one requires heterosexual couples to prove any intention to reproduce before being allowed to marry, nor do we prohibit elderly women from marrying, ( How does prohibiting gay people from marrying increase the population?, © Who really believes that underpopulation is a danger facing humanity anyway?

[doug yowell]

Hello, I'd like to make a few observations, although I haven't read the entire thread.

If any of you get a chance to see the PBS program, Slavery by Another Name, I recommend it, although I did miss the first part. The point is well made there that slavery didn't "technically" end in the U.S. until during WWII. And it is difficult to argue that institutionalized racism doesn't continue to this very day, in the forms of racial profiling and the drug war. So when people ask why black Americans have advanced relatively little since the abolition of slavery, it's due in large part to the fact that the culture of oppression didn't simply disappear overnight. Public schools were still racially segregated in Texas into the 1970's, for example.

Here you have introduced a mixture of fact and fiction which needs to be more clearly explored. It is indisputable that the culture of slavery did not die in 1865. And it's curse and consequences remain to this day. Yet,huge strides have been made in the opportunities and advances of black Americans in today's world.I think John previously addressed the PBS conclusions regarding the "institutionalized racism" that the left regularly parades as "proof" of their charges. Examples of that charge needs to be examined objectively before the fact is established.MLK noted that human value was to be judged based upon character not skin color. The left has openly rejected that as a workable standard and has focused on both skin color and moral degeneration as the preferred source of all that is fair and equitable.

[Inga]

Some of you might be interested in Andrew Baker's article, " Celebrating Freedom - Black History Month" at Sabbath School Net.

He particularly focuses on Ellen White's statements in The Southern Work, partly because a black commenter submitted a comment expressing outrage that Ellen White was so prejudiced.

I learned a few things, and you just might too. :)

[phkrause]

Thanks for the link Inga. It was very informative, and pretty much what I expected from EGW, a real child of God and his Prophet for us, helping us get ready for the end times.

[doug yowell]

Some of you might be interested in Andrew Baker's article, " Celebrating Freedom - Black History Month" at Sabbath School Net.

He particularly focuses on Ellen White's statements in The Southern Work, partly because a black commenter submitted a comment expressing outrage that Ellen White was so prejudiced.

I learned a few things, and you just might too.

You might also check out Dr. Eric Walsh's sermon on audioioverse.org entitled (I think) "The Forgotten Book"