????
You are making less sense than usual. Someone may have to interpret this one for me.
Ben Carson is boring
- Thread starter lucas80
- Start date
You are making less sense than usual. Someone may have to interpret this one for me.
As a Christian, I believe that homosexual behavior IS a choice. You are not born that way.
And as an intelligent human being, I believe that is the dumbest thing that I have ever read.
But you are certainly entitled to wallow in your own ignorance. This is America, afterall.
Last edited:
cru remembers the pivotal moment in his life when he had to choose whether he liked boobs or dick more.. it was a tough choice.
You believe that as a Christian or as a person who wants a better reason to oppose same-sex marriage? I don't remember the cause of homosexual behavior being an issue in Christianity. But I got out early. Obviously Christians consider homosexuality a sin and there are references to that effect in the Bible. If I had to bet $, I'd guess the "choice" issue came into play after Christians were challenged to consider the idea that people wouldn't choose to be homosexuals in the many times/places where you'd be treated like shit (and they "chose" that anyway). You think it's needless sexual martyrdom?
I think he picked the wrong one. He probably secretly thinks it, too.
The Bible also says that you're not supposed to eat shrimp or other shellfish, that it's OK to have multiple wives, and that slavery is just fine. But something tells me that ol' cru doesn't support those things like he does the anti-homo stuff.
Carson's the most intelligent of ALL the candidates, regardless of party affiliation.
However, his views on homosexuality are completely baffling given his medical/scientific expertise.
I fixed it for you. You probably just didn't know how to spell imbecile.
Based on what?
Remember, he's admitted to cheating on his chemistry exam. If you believe that cockamamie story.
No one who has been exposed to as much science as Ben has and still believes the earth was created 6000 years ago should be called intelligent IMO. He's crazy before you ever get to the gays.
He can talk the same language as me. He is without a doubt an extremely intelligent man. I suppose I don't have any empirical data to prove he's the most intelligent. The story of God giving him the answers is a funny one and I've never been quite sure what to make of it. But, rest assured you don't become head of a medical department at Johns Hopkins at such a young age without some major IQ points.
But, that being said, I don't think extremely gifted intelligence is a necessary prerequisite to being president of the USA. Certainly one has to have intelligence well above average, but a lot of it depends on which "intelligence" is being measured. Fluid vs. crystallized vs. emotional vs. social, etc.
For example, I don't think Reagan was much above average in what would be termed "g" as originally proposed by Spearman. But, he had other skills that made him very good at other aspects of political behavior that made him an effective president. I would venture to guess Herbert Hoover's general intelligence was close to being in the superior range, but he had certain personality traits that made him very ineffective as president (beyond the economic circumstances at the time). When given opportunities to determine the best ways of assisting others in times of crisis (e.g., post WWI and WWII humanitarian efforts) was when he showed his best abilities.
Crazy people are often highly intelligent. One can be extremely intelligent yet maintain some extremely odd views. You have to separate basic intelligence (e.g., the IQ one possesses) from opinions and beliefs that are based on matters outside of measurable science (e.g., religious views).
Ted Bundy possessed an intelligence that was extremely high, yet he was a serial killer.
Marilyn vos Savant possesses what's been called the highest IQ, but does that mean she'd be a good president? Furthermore, having read some of her articles I don't think she's necessarily playing with a 52 card deck.
I'll say that people like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee are also highly intelligent, even though they maintain views and opinions that don't seem to be born out of logical reasoning. Newt Gingrich was one of the smartest men in Congress, but I wouldn't trust him delivering newspapers. There are people I know who I'm certain have IQs in the superior range, but have ideas and views that just make you scratch your head. Some of whom honestly believe in the "young earth" view. That doesn't take away, however, from their basic 'intelligence' (or their ability to perform at a superior level on standardized measures of 'intelligence').
I agree with most of that.
So . . . if you want to distinguish intelligence in general from the intelligence appropriate to be president, do you think Carson is intelligent in that latter sense? I haven't seen it. He seems likable enough, but that isn't the same thing.
Which candidates are most intelligent, in your view, when talking about the flavor of intelligence needed to be a decent president?
Personally, I would say that anyone who downplays or doubts climate change has absolutely "failed" his PIQ test (presidential IQ test). There are other positions that also suggest unfitness or unintelligence. But I'd put that on top. Your thoughts?
BTW, I think an argument could be made that a president doesn't have to know about evolution or geology to be a good president. But if he doesn't believe those things, what does he believe? And if he has the godawful misjudgment to believe creationism, how can you trust his judgment on other important issues? Even though those issues can be compartmentalized from decisions about Iran or the economy and so on, they suggest flawed reasoning powers.
Carson and many other GOP candidates aren't merely ignorant about things like evolution and climate change. They have heard the evidence. They have heard the arguments. They have seen the projections. They have chosen wrongly. And they will base major decisions on those wrong choices.
Can we afford to have anyone with such demonstrably flawed reasoning ability serving as America's president and commander in chief?
Carson and many other GOP candidates aren't merely ignorant about things like evolution and climate change. They have heard the evidence. They have heard the arguments. They have seen the projections. They have chosen wrongly. And they will base major decisions on those wrong choices.
Can we afford to have anyone with such demonstrably flawed reasoning ability serving as America's president and commander in chief?
1. No, I do not think Carson possesses the necessary type of intelligence to be president. I think he would likely allow some of his conservative Christian beliefs to cloud much of his rational thinking in terms of domestic policy. I don't think he would be someone who could let go of the basic differences in political and religious philosophies many of us possess. I think he would continue to be more of an "us vs. them" leader.
2. For my money, I think Jim Webb might possess the greatest range of intelligence of all the candidates. There's no doubt he has a high level of general intelligence, but I also think he demonstrates very pragmatic views in terms of domestic and international issues. Would he be a great leader? I think he certainly could be. Someone like Hillary or Trump, while both are very intelligent their basic personality traits make them 'dividers' more than 'uniters.'
I agree, that just makes Ben scary crazy. He is exactly the sort that would nuke Mecca to bring about the Adventist "time of trouble" he believes to be literally true. I don't think that's a very intelligent position so I'll resist the urge to grant him the title. The world if filled with intelligent lunatics, but its not the intelligent part that's important for people to recognize.
This is a good point. If some average 7th Day adventist rejected evolution I might forgive them as just ignorant. But Ben has had access the best scientific evidence and still rejects the bedrock principle of modern biology to maintain his worldview. That shows he will ignore what the advisors tell him and do what feels good to him in the moment. We know what havoc a President like that can do.
I guess I'm using the term intelligence in the pure genetic makeup of ones intellect; what you are born with in terms of IQ. Of course, intelligence as a construct means a whole lot more than that. And, yes, I think President Ben Carson would be a scary proposition. I would say Carson possesses a higher IQ than someone like Jeb Bush (use whatever measure you want -- the Wechsler tests are the most prominent), but I certainly don't have that "please God not him as president" feeling I get from Carson.
I'm using the Forrest Gump definition, intelligence is as intelligence does. If you do and say and support intelligent things, you get the title, if you don't ...
One could argue that Garry Kasparov is more intelligent that Carson. But would he make a better President?
Last edited:
There's also another factor involved that I don't think gets enough attention when discussing seemingly irrational thinking by people with normal to above-normal intelligence: credulity. I firmly believe there are highly intelligent people (again, use whatever measure of basic 'intellect' you want) who lack the capacity to disentangle their personal beliefs and opinions from patently obvious signs that should dissuade them from coming to certain conclusions. This is something I've read about in articles about people describing religious experiences. In the absence of any scientific evidence if one believes they have experienced "God" then for that person "God" does in fact exist. So, despite the absence of empirical data, ones own apparent sensory experience is enough evidence. My guess is that it has something to do with sectors in the frontal lobe important in decision-making (e.g., the ventromedial prefrontal cortex).
Maybe. He ran against Putin. So presumably he isn't a 1-trick pony.
Now that Republicans have stopped caring about where people were born or whether their parents were US citizens, maybe Kasparov should throw his hat in the ring. I wonder if he would consider himself a Dem or a GOP?
Probably not, since he's not eligible.
I must not be making myself clear.
1. I'm clearly stating that I believe Carson is a highly intelligent person based on a body of facts related to his academic and professional accomplishments. What I'm using as far as "intelligent" is the brain wattage if you will of his basic cognitive abilities (verbal abilities, processing speed, attention, memory, visual-spatial problem solving, etc.). One does not get to his levels of accomplishment without having a level of intelligence well above the average individual.
2. I also believe Carson has some views that are highly baffling given his level of intellect. I believe these views are more likely a reflection of his particular Christian beliefs and maybe even core personality traits which make it difficult for him to disentangle the lack of evidence from the strength of belief and NOT due to lack of intelligence per se. I think this might fall under the credulity principle (if I'm using the term correctly -- if not, please correct me).
3. I don't believe Carson would make a good president in large part due to points I made in #2.
4. I believe an above average intellect is necessary to be a good president, but I don't believe that intellect is necessarily positively correlated with success as president (ie. higher IQ equates to higher success).
5. I provided examples (rather, opinions) about two presidents in particular who had different levels of success during their term(s) despite one having a higher level of intellect than the other (in my opinion). In terms of FSIQ I believe Hoover > Reagan. In terms of presidential abilities I believe Hoover < Reagan.
Evolutionary neurobiologists have hypothesized that we are pre-wired to jump to faulty causality conclusions. Apparently jumping to conclusions gives the organism a survival advantage. In simple terms, the harm from taking a long time to analyze possible threats can be deadly; whereas the harm from running away from shadows is usually trivial.
This faulty causality detector is found in "primitive" species - including those with little or no cortex, much less pre-frontal cortex. So the wiring is probably in deeper structures - perhaps the basal ganglia and/or amygdala. Then again, the cortex is often thought to suppress the basal ganglia, so maybe not. Which is not to say that it isn't functions of the pre-frontal cortex being affected by these deeper structures that produces the effect we are talking about.
I guess my point isn't whether Kasporov or Carson would make a good President. My point is that there are many forms of intelligence that don't necessarily translate into anything beyond the specific field that person is in. Brett Favre has world class focus, spacial reasoning, and problem solving skills. But just because he is world class in one field doesn't mean that he can be world class in another.
Honestly, I'm not being very clear in this thread. I guess I was trying to shift the conversation away from Carson, specifically, to talking about how intelligence relates beyond the field that particular person is in.
There's also a school of thought (along these lines) that in order to understand/comprehend something you initially must 'believe' it no matter how fallacious the statement might be. Then your prefrontal cortex (vmPFC especially) weeds out the fallacious details and imparts the 'doubt' principle in rejecting the statement.
To me Ben Carson is a breath of fresh air. You don't usually see an extremist espouse his way of thinking in a polite and reasoned way. He is the kind of man who has acomplished his goals in life without any bullying and bluster. He is sure in what he believes and it not shy about saying so.
He has made it crystal clear where he stands and does not try to have it both ways, as say a Marco Rubio. He will tell you what he thinks and leaves it up to you to think it through. I appreciate a man like that even when I have profound differences with him.
Ben Carson will never be POTUS, but that doesn't mean he can't make a meaningful contribution to public life. I see him as the head of the VA, or Department of Transportation or even Surgeon General in a GOP administration.
He has made it crystal clear where he stands and does not try to have it both ways, as say a Marco Rubio. He will tell you what he thinks and leaves it up to you to think it through. I appreciate a man like that even when I have profound differences with him.
Ben Carson will never be POTUS, but that doesn't mean he can't make a meaningful contribution to public life. I see him as the head of the VA, or Department of Transportation or even Surgeon General in a GOP administration.
Disagreeing with someone's lifestyle does not equate to hatred.
This attitude is one of the biggest lines of bullshit that is sweeping thru our society. That disagreement or disapproval automatically equals hatred.
It's a complete fallacy and a total crock of shit.
Carson wants to deny equal marriage rights. This goes well beyond simple personal disagreements.
Actually, he doesn't. “While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision, their ruling is now the law of the land,” he said.
Read more:
He got put in his place by Jerry Brown!!! Brown is borderline mentally handicapped and even he's smarter than Carson
I don't think he means that he would intend to somehow get the SCOTUS ruling over turned. I think he's talking in terms of individual religious liberties. If I've read what he's said correctly on the issue, he has indicated that he understands it's now the law and same-sex marriage is legal. However, he supports people like Davis who do not want their names associated with marriage licenses of same-sex couples.
I'm not saying I agree with his views, because I certainly don't. But, I think accuracy on what he's said on the topic is warranted.
If he's said something that indicates he wants to make same-sex illegal (since the SCOTUS ruling, that is) I'll be glad to read it.
you need to read his actual statements, over projecting what you want him to say.
Even denial, does not equal hatred.
Talking points and that pay check........Huey can't possibly believe all that partisan bullshit they ask him to post.......some weird/off-the-wall crap.
He would be thrilled if the SC reversed itself. The fact that he accepts the SC ruling doesn't mean he supports it. With Davis he's trying to find an end run around the ruling. He opposes same-sex marriage...that's incontrovertible.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
BREAKING: Brendan Sullivan Listed as QB1 Ahead of Game vs. Wisconsin- Latest: St. Louis Hawk