1. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176688 by Crazy_Steve on May 7, 2008 at 9:30 pm

This may be the scariest thing I have read in a long time.

As to why people do this: because they really want someone else to be responsible for their problems and tell them what to do. It's hard making your own decisions and taking the consequences.

2. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175705 by Crazy_Steve on May 5, 2008 at 10:58 pm

Ok, no more trying to be a smartass,lol. I don't like elitism and I don't like placing people into categories that demean and take away their basic human rights. In western society that includes their right to vote. I don't believe that all religious people are dimwits and I don't believe that all atheists are geniuses. Are we seriously going to measure everyones IQ before we allow them to vote? What else should we take away from them? How far are we going to take this and who's going to make that decision? Also what level IQ do they need to have before you're satisfied? Do they have to agree with a particular philosophy and who decides that?

Again, it's not about intelligence level, it's about knowing what you are voting for (and necessarily against). Is it really unreasonable to demand that people make informed votes? Why would anyone accept that a vote made in ignorance of what that vote represents has value? Education is good up to a point, but unless we can be sure that people actually have accumulated some knowledge of what it is that a party or individual represents then what accountability is there?
I also fully agree that IQ tests are horribly unreliable, and tests of any kind are biased toward the culture of the test author. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve the system.
I'm also unsure of where you get the connection between requiring knowledge of what you are voting for to taking away of basic rights. Like in Teratornis' example, I have had to pass a test to drive a car, but no-one considers it an unreasonable infringement on the rights of people who cannot pass this test for a variety or reasons for this test to be required, nor does this necessarily lead to infringements on other rights.
In any case what are "rights" anyway? This is a word thrown around a lot, but I think few people really think about the word itself. Rights don't exist without a legal system so keep in mind there is no such thing as an inherent right.

Teratornis:
Oh the joy of economics. I have been saying for a couple of years now that the price of gasoline is far too low to get meaningful change in habits, even as people complain about the cost of gas. I agree, it's going to be a bumpy ride, and many tenets of our society might have to be rethought. However, I think that the required technology will come before a truly major crash, and we are unlikely to break our mobility addictions. I do worry about the carrying capacity of the planet in terms of number of people at American level affluence though.

3. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175674 by Crazy_Steve on May 5, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Utelme

You're right, I shouldn't have called you Ben Stein, he at least tries to make a point.

4. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175668 by Crazy_Steve on May 5, 2008 at 8:29 pm

Ok, after some thought on the matter, a new post with some clarification:
First, my stance here is not about intelligence nor having a particular level of intelligence to be allowed to vote, it is about a person having to have a reasonable level of knowledge regarding the world and what they are voting for when casting their vote. The response that some people of low intelligence may not be able to vote only applies to those people who would by virtue of their particular intelligence level not be able to master a basic understanding of basic general knowledge of the world, and the political platforms of both that they are voting for and against, not by some arbitrary measure of intelligence or education. There is no need to judge the value of a person by their intelligence, however, I think it is dogmatic to suggest that all people should have the right to vote regardless of any qualifications whatsoever to do so.
The Hitler comment is particularly interesting because though he was a dictator, he did come to power through an essentially democratic process initially and was an immensely popular figure in Germany for some time.
And as this is a sidetracked Sam Harris discussion, I think it worth noting that Sam wouldn't describe himself as anti-religious but rather anti-dogma. The blind acceptance of the current form of democracy without fair examination strikes me as particularly dogmatic. I am open to ideas and discussion, and if you can show how I am wrong, then you have done a service to me, but be prepared to explain and back up your beliefs.

5. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175652 by Crazy_Steve on May 5, 2008 at 7:32 pm

utelme

Hmm, interesting point of view. Not much different from a guy called Adolf.

Nice misdirection Mr. Stein.... equate an argument with Hitler, but don't add anything to the discussion.

Call me when you need a prescription, I have no medical training, but lots of opinions.

Oh the hypocrisy... the opinion of an informed and rational person regarding faith is better than that of the irrational believer, but the same principles don't apply to the right to vote.

6. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175636 by Crazy_Steve on May 5, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Peacebeuponme

I just can't see how. You happen to have had a tough week at work and haven't had the time to mug up on the election. So you get not vote?

So how exactly are you deciding your vote if you didn't look into the issues? It's not like elections are one week affairs either, and if you are out of the loop long enough such that your vote is uninformed, on what basis are you deciding your vote? Why should your vote count?

Couldn't disagree more. Voting should be a basic, mundane, immovable right open to all. "Privileges" are things you get based on circumstance or acheivement, none of which should apply to voting. To me its analogous to access to food. I do not feel privileged when I eat my bacon sandwich in the morning, and nor should any hungry person feel that way when they finally get given food. Privilege seems to suggest we should be grateful to the person allowing the vote. Nope. Not at all.

Your opportunity to eat a bacon sandwich in the morning is very much a product of your circumstance. Would you really be doing that if you were a refuge in the Sudan, or perhaps living in a kosher community in Israel? A right is a legal term and an invention of people who have privelege and is in no way "innate." I am grateful every day that I do not have to worry about food, shelter or clean water. I do not assume that I have a "right" to demand that these be given to me. If I were to not have these things I would work to try and gain them, and be grateful to those people who helped me to achieve them.

Cards on the table, we both know that the world would be better for all if it were run by a handful of benevolent dictators.

I disagree. Without accountability to voters and the changing of governments to bring in fresh ideas all governments become stale. One could imagine the perfect dictator, but it is clearly impossible (or at least extremely improbable) for this person (or better, sufficient number of people to enact an efficient government) to exist.

We know that the majority view is idiotic in a lot of cases (which artist cares about the people's choice award and not the academy nomination?). However, what grounds can we have for justifying our opinion being more important than others? By setting a test, any kind of test, you immediately discriminate based on intelligence. That cannot be right.

The grounds for discrimination of opinion are simple: the informed and rational opinion is better than the uniformed or irrational opinion. There is no doubt that some opinions are better than others. In cases like the people's choice award it doesn't matter because there are no larger consquences riding on it, however you wouldn't accept the opinion of a person that hadn't studied medecine on the effectiveness of a particular drug to treat a particular illness would you? (Hmm, that's a nice blue pill, I bet that one is good, you should take it!) Why would you accept the opinion of an uninformed person on the direction your country should take? If that means that some people do not get to vote based on intelligence then that is a consquence of them not being able to understand enough to vote. We already do this in all democratic countries by discriminating against minors. We pick an arbitrary age as a cutoff for the age at which we feel people are not mature enough to exercise this "right."
Taken to the case of the current world this implies that it is acceptable to have fundamental Islamic Law, after all, if a majority of people vote for it, it must be Ok right?

7. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175594 by Crazy_Steve on May 5, 2008 at 4:53 pm

bah, can't make quotes work...
@Peacebeuponme
Nope not joking. Of course, it isn't a perfect idea, (or even well formed idea) but certainly worth considering as a starting point. Voting carries great responsibility, selecting the path for a country for the next period of time. This shouldn't be done easily or without due consideration. I really think that it should be considered a privilege to vote. There is no need to discriminate based on race, intelligence, religion etc, just to be knowledgable about what it is that you are voting for, and the context in which you place that vote.

8. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175574 by Crazy_Steve on May 5, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Great article Sam.

I believe this is an example of why western liberalism is doomed. Our political correctness ignores the central paradox that you can't have tolerance of people who are not tolerant themselves. (Closely related to Sam's description of pacifists in his book) When things get bad enough, our political leaders will be forced to either convert, or take on the major religions. Here in Canada there has been some mention of allowing Sharia law in some civil cases... if that does come to pass, that may be the beginning of the end.

The failure of democracy commented on here is also a worthwhile topic... just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true, so why should majority rule? I think we should have voter quizzes which you have to score at least 80% on to be allowed to vote. It should contain questions about current events, general knowledge and the platforms of the candidates (candidates running on emotional appeal without a platform would automatically be disqualified, since you couldn't have questions about their platform)

9. People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #169365 by Crazy_Steve on April 25, 2008 at 9:57 pm

How many people here have seen a skilled magician? They can do magic, so magic is real right?

The basic functioning of the brain and an overview of how concious percepion is different than reality should be required in all education programs around the world.

10. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #169339 by Crazy_Steve on April 25, 2008 at 7:32 pm

I think all of this discussion (in which I happen to mostly agree with Steve Zara) ignores the fact that most people are hopelessly ignorant of scientific process to the point that they don't realize that they are ignorant.
I am a school teacher and I see that most students see science as either a collection of essentially random (and unconnected) facts or a black box out of which comes great statements of varying degrees of believability. If the public school system can't do better, what hope is there for the 85-90% of people who never have any further science education after leaving secondary school?
In light of this is it really a surprise that they feel free to comment on things they know nothing about? They are easily duped by religious types who suggest that science is a kind of faith because they really don't know any better, and as such they feel their comments are equally as valid as those of anyone else. There is no solution other than an education system that encourages students to think and question, which is certainly not the one we have now.