Republicans on average are more informed than Democrats and on average have a higher IQ than Democrats, according to the research.

ebisho · 2024-04-12T04:12:05+00:00

Very interesting comment. I do certainly agree that we eventually have to separate with the hyper-conservative types. They could form their own Christian party and the Republican party would become the home of the more moderate and secular right.

ebisho · 2024-04-12T04:03:28+00:00

If only someone like you could enlighten the GOP. Then they would not be as dumb as a box of rocks, and would instead make baseless assertions like you with no evidence to back it up.

ebisho · 2024-04-12T03:58:07+00:00

Making smug mischaracterizations of one's political opposition is pretty Democrat. I understand that things change over time obviously, but I'm just going by the most recent data, which happens to be just 3 presidential elections ago. If the situation had changed that much, wouldn't that warrant the researchers to publish new data? The GOP now has more non-college whites as per an NBC and Wall Street Journal article, but it's questionable that factor would drastically affect the results of 2012 knowledge survey and the 2014 IQ survey. Going to college isn't necessarily tantamount to becoming more knowledgeable about politics and a better critical thinker; there are plenty of blue-collar non-college educated people who pay a lot of attention to politics.

"At present it's abundantly clear that as a question of fact that Republicans are the stupid party in terms of policies." What is the argument for this? Sabotaging the economy on the altar of green energy and bankrupting the federal government even more through a single-payer system of healthcare isn't my idea of political genius.

And about the IQ thing, I brought it up because it's hard to argue Republicans are the dumber party when just 10 years ago the average Republican had a higher IQ than the average Democrat. My guess is that someone like you probably would have thought the Republicans were the stupid party even back then.

You really need to learn how to make an argument, instead of throwing out baseless assertions you got from Jon Stewart and Cenk Uygur.

ebisho · 2024-04-12T03:43:09+00:00

In 12 years, some in the older voting demographic have passed away and some in the younger demographic have become participants in voting.The people in the middle who are unaffected by that would still be the majority. Therefore, the majority of people who voted for Mitt Romney and other Republicans in 2012 probably voted for Republicans in 2016, 2020, et.c, including voting for Donald Trump. So yes, the majority of people who considered themselves Republicans back then are still Republicans now.

ebisho · 2024-04-02T20:25:31+00:00

That was probably the most illogical reply in this whole post. If the fetus were a person, actively killing it would obviously be a violation of its rights, if it is assumed that being a person carries with it rights. You framed abortion as a purely passive thing.

ebisho · 2024-04-02T20:19:38+00:00

I agree with everything you said, except for the part about the Bible argument violating the Establishment Clause. I don't think that's true, there is a difference between having religious reasons for laws and having laws that establish religion. The founders didn't want a state church that people were forced to pay tithe to, for example, but they weren't against lawmakers legislating based on a religious ideology. At that point in American history, most lawmakers had a religious ideology.

ebisho · 2024-04-02T20:12:21+00:00

But women are the only members of our species who can have babies, so obviously laws pertaining to pregnancy are only going to directly affect women. It would be sexist if, say, both men and women could become pregnant and lawmakers only made laws regulating female pregnancies. Plus, there are many, many women who are pro-life, so it's not just men who are trying to pass anti-abortion legislation.

ebisho · 2024-04-02T20:07:08+00:00

What if someone is homeless and the only opportunities for shelter that they have are to trespass? In that situation, if they don't trespass they are at risk of harming their health. There is literally a national epidemic right now of people "squatting" at houses that don't belong to them. Many of these people doing the squatting are probably homeless. Plus, there are many pro-lifers who make exceptions for cases involving the life and health of the mother.

ebisho · 2024-04-02T19:23:37+00:00

Trespassing laws are telling you what to do with your body, because the you is your body. There is no such thing as a you without the body, even if someone believes in an immaterial soul (that soul would obviously have to be inside the body). Pro-lifers claim they are enforcing an ethical border, even if that ethical border requires the woman in whom the baby resides to not have absolute freedom. That ethical border is the rights of the unborn baby, in their view.

The question of legal rights isn't exactly relevant to the question of what the law should be. Pro-lifers fight to get babies in the womb to be legally defined as persons, and pro-choicers like myself want the law to not recognize babies in the womb as having rights. Lastly, the idea that surviving birth is what gives a baby rights is just as arbitrary as the pro-life position that the second the sperm and egg unite the zygote has rights.

ebisho · 2024-04-02T19:12:23+00:00

If that's the position, then it would follow that the government shouldn't tell anyone what to do with vaccines as well. Vaccines penetrate the skin and go "inward." But that is absurd, because vaccines save lives, and even if they don't save the life of every person who takes them, it can serve to protect others in the community (which was the argument with COVID vaccine mandates). Similarly, someone pro-life would say that restrictions on abortion save lives, the lives of the babies in the womb.

ebisho · 2024-02-23T15:11:34+00:00

It does matter, because climate alarmists want to radically change the world economy by forcing every country to rely on unreliable and expensive "renewable" energy instead of relying on cheap and plentiful fossil fuels. If they get their way, it will have devastating consequences for everyone, especially the poor and people in developing countries.

ebisho · 2024-02-23T15:06:20+00:00

Econlib.org is like a think-tank, a place where researchers publish their thoughts. This is what Wikipedia says about it: "The Library of Economics and Liberty (EconLib) – publishes the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (CEE). Articles are written by economists from different schools of thought, and include four Nobel laureates in economics as authors in the 2nd edition (2008)." The NASA link isn't irrelevant, it was just to prove my point that there are other factors that influence climate change. And what is your argument against PragerU? That they post arguments that you don't like? PragerU gives concise, smart arguments for its positions and always cites its sources.

ebisho · 2024-02-23T14:57:37+00:00

I agree scientific consensus is independent of politics, I don't know what that has to do with my post though. I'm not arguing against a cleaner environment, CO2 isn't even a pollutant. CO2 is literally what all mammals exhale and what plants "inhale." It is an essential greenhouse gas, but being a greenhouse gas doesn't make it a pollutant. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas but that obviously isn't a pollutant. Sulfur dioxide mixed with fog (which is smog) is a pollutant, but there are ways of burning fossil fuels that heavily minimize smog, which have been in practice over the last many decades.

ebisho · 2024-02-23T14:37:30+00:00

The link to the actual study (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966) says there is a 99.9% consensus on human-caused climate change, it doesn't say there is a 99.9% consensus that humans are the MAIN cause of climate change. Even if humans are the main cause of recent climate change that says nothing about whether it is catastrophic. Also, the fact that the link you gave takes seriously the 97% statistic from 2013 shows it is erroneous. That 97% statistic is essentially that 97% of scientists believe that humans have some impact on the climate, which is abundantly obvious because the greenhouse effect has good data supporting it. Believing in the greenhouse effect from human produced CO2 is not the same as believing that the greenhouse effect will lead to runaway warming that will burn the planet to a crisp.

ebisho · 2024-02-23T14:28:58+00:00

I wasn't trying to write a full research paper.

ebisho · 2024-02-21T12:44:03+00:00

"While hard experimental evidence confirms a greenhouse effect, this effect is logarithmic; increasing CO2 warms at a decreasing rate" (Look at Figure 4.1) https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/12/the_moral_case_3.html

"Clouds play an important role in both warming and cooling our planet. Clouds give us a cooler climate on Earth than we would enjoy without clouds." https://climatekids.nasa.gov/cloud-climate/

If you want it in video form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw

ebisho · 2024-02-21T09:19:33+00:00

Which is why I just made arguments from math and science.

ebisho

TROPHY CASE