Does your political beliefs make you smarter/more morally just? | |
No, of course it doesn't. All the political parties have good and valid points that are in contrast to the opposition and both sides are generally right...it's just a case of whose plan is most likely to work or have the most beneficial effect. Anyone who thinks they are smarter or more morally just because of their belief in someone elses views are quite frankly insane because all humans are prone to getting things wrong, especially when it's based on religion or politics. The wise man sits on the fence and makes his own mind up...the weak man bleats in unison | |
Though shalt not confuse cause and effect. | |
My political beliefs have no effect on my intellect or morality. My intellect and morality, however, have a profound effect on my political beliefs. If you're just arbitrarily choosing a political philosophy to adhere to and deriving your moral code from that, you're doing it severely wrong. | |
Thank you, you said it better than I could. Both my political beliefs and my religious beliefs derive from my intellect and morality. There's something of a cross-feedback loop once established, but one is clearly the higher-order function. | |
No. My political beliefs don't make me smarter. Being smarter influences my political beliefs, though. :D | |
Not in relation to most other people and parties, but there are a few parties whose proponents I believe myself to be more intelligent than by default, yes. | |
If there's any connection, it works the other way around, with the beliefs being the effect, not the cause. | |
Think that, and you fall in the trap of a thousand tyrants. | |
Not really. A second level to that requirement is simply "Who's going to stop the country fucking itself over with drugs, debt and crime?". I put this as second because, in my years, I've seen it doesn't matter who's in charge - drugs, debt and crime are always issues. I stopped pretending we can "fix" them, and resigned myself to supporting whoever "deals with them" the best. This, if anything, makes me worse than someone who still holds the belief that we can really make a difference. | |
I would not say so, and I thoroughly despise those who think less of others because they are 'left' or 'right'. Nearly everybody votes the way they do because they think that ideology will make their country a better place. We all want the same thing, we just have different ideas on what that thing might be and how we get there. Thus we get political debates, which are always interesting if heated. | |
That depends on your political beliefs. If you believe that there should be an amendment to the constitution that forces all immigrants to have their fingers cut off, you're pretty amoral and stupid. If you believe that government should have a small role as opposed to a large one, then morality and intelligence is not really brought into discussion. | |
In some debates (should X be privatized) both sides have their merits, and there is no 'best' side because 'the unknown' is just too big of a factor. But when religion mixes with politics... Sorry, you are just wrong and you're ignorant and I am more intelligent and more morally just. My personal ideology is more intelligent and more morally just than Egypt's Islamism and Santorum's ideas. | |
Not at all. Sticking to your guns without considering the alternative point of view is actually one of the stupidest things you can do if your decisions have the potential to affect thousands of others. Not that that stops most politicians... | |
No, not at all. Several people I respect the intellect of are of varying religious and political beliefs. Besides, "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." | |
"Smart" and "Morally just" are relative terms that aren't physical, they're like art; they only exist and have high value because we say they do. That's why they're impossible to quantify, thus there is no way to tell. | |
I dunno about that, but I do know the use of the word "does" in the thread title does bad things to the grammar nazi in me :< But yeah, I really dunno. It's extremely subjective. It all depends on your definitions of "smart" and "moral justice." | |
Wow, thanks guys, I liked all of your answers. The reason why I ask this is because I see a lot of left/right arguements on the escapist where the participants strongly adhere themselves to one party while demonizing the other. This never made sense to me since Republican and Democratic beliefs are pretty split down the middle in American politics meaning that if one side consisted of the smart/righteous people then 1/2 of America is automatically stupid... which begs the question, what if YOUR actually on the stupid side? But from what I gather from what you guys said; a person's philosophy on how a country should be run, as long as it's not crazy lunatic fringe, is no better than another persons, it's a personal prefrence, and so it's not tied to some measure of intelligence. This makes sense cause I'll tell you what, I've seen some smart people from both sides of the isle. Plus since I've come to believe more and more that the leaders from both sides are just corrupt ass holes, supporting media made talking heads and nit-picking along party lines just seems fruitless. | |
(I don't know if your joking but,) So in your view, does an intelligent man like yourself have the same belief, or can there be multiple options? | |
There are lots of political beliefs that intelligent, reasonable people can hold. There are huge grey areas in areas like economics, political structure, religion, and and ethics where no one can really say that one point of view is objectively better then another On the other hand, I have to say that I do think that I am smarter (or at least more rational) then people who's "political" beliefs include things that completely deny proven scientific facts about how the world works, or rely on a complete and probably deliberate misunderstanding of historical facts, ect. When people let what they want to be true for political reasons override the actual reality of the world we live in, they really are making themselves less intelligent and less informed. | |
They make me both smarter and more moral, and what's more, people on the opposite end of the spectrum agree! That's why they are at the opposite end... oh, no wait a minute... But seriously? I don't know. I currently think that my beliefs are preferable, but I'm sure that when I'm old and conservative, I'll think that my current ideology was stupid and naive. Or, at least, I'll think that whatever new ideology has come along is stupid and naive! It's pretty much guaranteed, even Plato was the same: Furthermore, if we can be certain of just one thing, it's that future generations will look back and laugh at us, the same as we do with historical societies. So will my ideology will be adhered to in 500 years time? Most definitely not! It'll get the piss taken out of it! (and so will yours) I guess what I'm trying to say is that morality and ideology is subjective, and any ideology's success depends on timing, placement and current cultural opinion. So there's no way we can know if our ideas are better than everyone else's in the long term. Unless you're some kind of prophet, deity, or really good at statistical analysis :D | |
In some cases it does because the underlying mechanisms are ethical in nature. And as someone pretty knowledgeable with electoral geopgraphy (the spatial patterns of political choices) I can't really but say the opposite is true as well. Around here the educated support liberal parties (both right and left wing) and the uneducated support Christian parties or socialist parties. Especially for the Socialist Party (name of 1 party) that holds true. Their voters are mostly uneducated or primary or secondary school graduates. Unsurprisingly, their agenda consists mostly of disagreeing with everything and thinking everything is bad, and offering simplistic solutions that fit into a single slogan. To name an example: Their idea of fixing up the integration of minorities and the existance of bad and good neighbourhoods for instance consists of a forced resettlement plan for white people, forcing them to live in neighbourhoods populated mostly by minorities, after which everything will magically fix itself. It's only been 20 years since research showed ethnic differences in housing are not due to discrimination, and forced mixing doesn't work, so we can't really expect the populists to know that yet. | |
Nope, but they can indicate how smart and morally just you are. They are a result of those two things and thus can be indicators. For instance if someone thinks the world is flat, they're not that smart. Now it's not that simple for political beliefs, but the same principle is there. Some beliefs a smart person is much less likely to hold. | |
I think there are different types of intelligence, for one, so it's difficult to answer your question other than by saying this - I do think that thoughtful, rational people who tend to have more education will tend towards similar political beliefs. I think several studies (I can dig them up if you like) show that liberals in America at least, for example, tend to be better educated in general than those who lean towards more conservative beliefs. And there can be different opinions, sure - they just can't all be right. I think it pays to be both confidant in your beliefs and open minded enough to always learn more. | |
Problem is, which ones? It is hard to find a study indicating one set of political ideals are held by "stupid people" that wasn't funded and isn't inherently biased to one side or another. | |
Well like I said, it's not that simple. Off the top of my head, idk. Not very much into politics. | |
Citation needed, also of the comparison to other parties. And no, anecdotes aren't an acceptable justification, especially if you clearly don't understand the reasoning. And I don't even support the SP, if you can imagine that. | |
This one for instance found that life choices and family size were the cause of the relatively large presence of two minority groups in bad neighbourhouds: Basically it comes down to that they want children earlier, and often more, and the woman isn't allowed to work, so they end up in cheap large housing, ussually flats in bad neighbourhoods. As for their crazed idea, here you go: 1st and 2nd points are stopping a tax advantage for home owners, something which would instantly collapse the housing market and cause thousands of foreclosures, mostly on young families, and not raising rents anything above inflation, meaning that the financial position of housing providers will become ever-worse by the year, and bring any form of building new social housing to a halt. 3rd and 4th points read that there will be no more demolition of bad housing (yay for creating slums) and ethnic groups will be mixed by force under a new law. What can I say? They'd better have been drunk when coming up with it. | |
I was asking for citations showing that "SP voters are mostly uneducated or primary or secondary school graduates" and that "their agenda consists mostly of disagreeing with everything and thinking everything is bad, and offering simplistic solutions that fit into a single slogan" especially in comparison to other parties. Not that the answers really matter, because arguments must be judged on the merits of their content, not their source; but if you're going to make such claims, you'd better be able to back them up.
One sentence later it says: "It is also argued that the ethnic cultural approach, which stresses the housing preferences of minority ethnic groups, does not adequately explain the housing conditions and housing careers of the Turks and Moroccans in the Netherlands.", meaning you're going to have to do better than that.
The link tells me to buy the entire book for E50 before I can read any of the actual document, the summary doesn't mention any of this, so where are you getting it from? Please quote.
Actually the first point guarantees the continuation of the tax benefit, protecting families. The second means that houses cannot become relatively more expensive with regards to inflation, stopping prices from rising to unaffordable levels. The third point ensures buildings are not unnecessarily demolished, curtailing the power of housing corporations, and pushing down rents. The fourth point is an attempt to promote cultural integration and cohesion by introducing people of different standings to each other, hopefully fostering understanding and solidarity; an imperfect solution to be sure, but hardly one to malign. Oh, and the point you ignored states that the SP supports building new social housing, demolishing your criticism of the second point.
Perhaps you were a bit tipsy yourself when you were leveling those criticisms. Please read more thoroughly. Again, I'm no fan of the SP, but playing this silly mudslinging game is pointless. You're not this amazingly clever guy/girl cutting through the idiosyncrasies of lesser mortals; politicians have reasons for doing what they do, and if something seems to stupid to be true, it usually isn't. | |
Nope, it's the other way round. The fact that I'm relatively intelligent and have decent moral values dictate my political beliefs. | |
No. I'm smarter and more morally just by default. | |
Do you believe that you adhering to your political beliefs automatically makes you smarter or more moral than those of the opposing political belief? As in "I believe (or generally believe) in party A's views because it's only smart/right and those who believe in party B's views has to be ignorant or something...".
This is not a trap or anything, I just want people to speak their mind.
Explaining why you feel one way or the other is appreciated.