-->
@FLRW
I will gracefully accept the accolades but there are some things I disagree with you on as well.
Namely the obsession with IQ. It's creepy.
What do people think of Biden’s Supreme court reforms?
Posts
Total:
159
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Namely the obsession with IQ. It's creepy.
Thank you! This obsession with measuring your self worth by IQ is getting ridiculous.
-->
@FLRW
Researcher Helmuth Nyborg and Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, compared belief in God and IQs. Using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that the average IQ of atheists was 6 points higher than the average IQ of non-atheists.
That may be true, but first of all, IQ doesn’t directly correlate with ability to be a good judge. It probably has a decent effect, but there are much better metrics to use seeing as IQ is such a broad measure. Also, six points is a margin of error, and this whole idea is a generalization. It doesn’t include the fact that someone could be a theist and be a very good judge. You shouldn’t be measured on these things, only on your ability to judge.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Right wingers don't want things to be fair. Unfairness and hierarchy are the foundations of their entire ideology. It's not incidental, the ideology is built on that from the ground up.
I don’t know about all right wingers, it you just described Trump in a nutshell. The only reason he got elected is because he’s better at convincing stupid voter who make up most of the electorate.
-->
@Moozer325
Thank you! This obsession with measuring your self worth by IQ is getting ridiculous.
Yeah. It's the same kind of pathway to essentialist thinking that the people he criticizes spiral down all the time but the idea of IQ is so wrapped up in the veneer of scientific credibility that he is unable to see that.
-->
@WyIted
You do know that liberals are a hive mind and always vote together but conservatives are not and disagree on positions.
See, I would say the same about conservatives. You have to get out of your black and white mindset, that’s the reason congress can get shit done right now, they always view the other side as evil.
Preventing a super majority g does exclusively hurt conservatives and given that this is the final election conservatives are eligible to win, the liberals will have a majority in perpetuity should this pass
Oh no, we took away your basketball trampolines. This is so unfair!
-->
@Moozer325
If religious people had higher IQ, they would brag about it all over the place.
But God for some reason made atheists smarter.
Lol
-->
@Moozer325
Right wingers don't want things to be fair. Unfairness and hierarchy are the foundations of their entire ideology. It's not incidental, the ideology is built on that from the ground up.I don’t know about all right wingers,
Ask Wylted if we should have a democracy.
-->
@Best.Korea
If religious people had higher IQ, they would brag about it all over the place.But God for some reason made atheists smarter.Lol
Dude, it’s by 6 points in one study. That’s a margin of error. Don’t take it too seriously.
-->
@Moozer325
That’s a margin of error.
So you are saying that in IQ tests, margin of error consistently applies only to religious?
Maybe its just Satan interfering with results like that time he planted those fake fossils so people think evolution is real.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Ask Wylted if we should have a democracy.
Well WyIted isn’t all right-wingers
-->
@Moozer325
Who has a higher IQ, Pastor Jim Bakker or Albert Einstein? Remember that Einstein in 1954 said:
'The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses,' Einstein wrote to Gutkind, 'the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. '
-->
@Best.Korea
So you are saying that in IQ tests, margin of error consistently applies only to religious?
No, I’m saying that the sample size they took might have been off from the actually statistically reality of IQ distribution over theists vs. atheists.
-->
@FLRW
Who has a higher IQ, Pastor Jim Bakker or Albert Einstein?
This is a logical fallacy. You need to stop using anecdotal evidence to back up claims as opposed to actual statistics.
-->
@Moozer325
I’m saying that the sample size they took might have been off from the actually statistically reality of IQ distribution over theists vs. atheists
Every time IQ is meassured in any larger sample, atheists come up as smarter.
I mean, we dont even need IQ tests.
The mere "I believe, talk to and blindly obey someone I cant see, hear or prove existence of" should be enough for a general conclusion.
-->
@Moozer325
I would in general say my comments are probably true because one of the indicators of intelligence is the ability to formulate thoughtful questions and religion is full of glaring contradictions and inconsistencies and a defiant attitude towards reconciling those questions.
-->
@FLRW
Who has a higher IQ, Pastor Jim Bakker or Albert Einstein?
I will bet on Albert Einstein.
Well, its a simple bet.
Einstein draws conclusion from premises.
Jim draws premises from conclusion.
-->
@FLRW
I would in general say my comments are probably true because one of the indicators of intelligence is the ability to formulate thoughtful questions and religion is full of glaring contradictions and inconsistencies and a defiant attitude towards reconciling those questions.
Well yeah, I’m an atheist and I believe that I am probably correct, but my point was that there are still smart theists, and theists who can be good Supreme Court judges.
-->
@Moozer325
Didn't the Supreme Court Justices that overturned Roe v. Wade do so because their religion said it was the thing to do?
-->
@FLRW
Didn't the Supreme Court Justices that overturned Roe vs Wade do so because their religion said it was the thing to do?
That’s definitely a part of it. Maybe Im too optimistic, but I like to think that they also interpreted the law in such a way that made fetuses people.
-->
@Moozer325
Yes, that was from the mid 1800's. THE CORPUS OF SUPREME COURT OPINIONS FROM 1850-1880 CONFIRMS THAT AN UNBORN CHILD IS A PERSON WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
-->
@WyIted
This is referring to increasing the number of judges on the Supreme Court and throwing in a bunch of liberals just prior to radical life extension becoming feasible
You mean it's referring to some lies you just made up, increasing the number of judges is not part of Bidens Supreme Court reforms.
-->
@WyIted
one of the proposals is TERM LIMITSThat is terrible. WOW. So it's even worse than I thought.
20 years seems reasonable
-->
@Sidewalker
No Democrats have expressed interest in doing so https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/democrats-introduce-bill-to-expand-u-s-supreme-court/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C%20D.C.%20%E2%80%94%20On%20Tuesday%2C,Smith%20(D%2DMinn.)
-->
@FLRW
Yes, that was from the mid 1800's. THE CORPUS OF SUPREME COURT OPINIONS FROM 1850-1880 CONFIRMS THAT AN UNBORN CHILD IS A PERSON WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
-->
@Moozer325
I know that there is 0 chance that these pass, but in theory, are you in support of them or not?
I don't think they hurt anything (on average) and I don't think they help anything (on average).
Term limits aren't a solution for corruption, all oversight is just another avenue for corruption, and there is no chance in hell that congress is going to imagine some novel and reliable way to resolve questions of bias.
I like them. I think they will help prevent this super-majority that Trump has made from happening again with either side.
If the courts need to be ideologically balanced they're already broken. I saw nothing that would prevent one president from assigning multiple supreme court justices in a single term and if you evenly spread out the terms then that's two appointments per presidential term. Many presidents serve two terms. That's four per president which is more than Trump appointed and almost certainly enough to seize control of the court.
All this will ensure is an even faster collapse to pure tribal loyalty in appointees.
Didn't the Supreme Court Justices that overturned Roe vs Wade do so because their religion said it was the thing to do?That’s definitely a part of it. Maybe Im too optimistic, but I like to think that they also interpreted the law in such a way that made fetuses people.
No it's not part of it and they did not say anything about who or who is not a person. All they said (and this is objectively correct) is that the last decision (Roe v Wade) was crazy talk.
" secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" != "right to anything labeled as a medical procedure state and federal law notwithstanding"
Nothing more, nothing less.
-->
@WyIted
No Democrats have expressed interest in doing so https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/democrats-introduce-bill-to-expand-u-s-supreme-court/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C%20D.C.%20%E2%80%94%20On%20Tuesday%2C,Smith%20(D%2DMinn.)
That's not what you said, you said it was in Biden's reforms and that is a lie.
Trump's base has expressed interest in making him a dictator, they have expressed interest in overthrowing democracy, they have expressed interest in having a civil war, and they have expressed interest in violence., racism, fascism, and xenophobia
OK, now it's your turn.
-->
@ILikePie5
Term limits for judges are stupid. Y’all need to go read the Federalist Papers. Ethics reform, I’m cool with.
20 years seems reasonable
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
" secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" != "right to anything labeled as a medical procedure state and federal law notwithstanding"
have you ever considered the idea that the primary function of "the law" is "dispute resolution between citizens" ?
-->
@Moozer325
I know I'm unlikely to convince you, but I'd like for you to consider the timing of all this.
From 1973 to 2022, Democrats and left media respected the Supreme Court. After they ruled, Dems were quick to tell us that that ruling was "the law of the land" and that the decision had to be taken as authoritative and correct. There were no accusations flying of the SCOTUS being a body rife with corruption.
This period, "coincidentally", was one where the Supreme Court was handing Democrats everything they wanted on a silver platter. It gave them Roe v. Wade.
Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
Lawrence v. Texas.
Obergefell v. Hodges.
Then, in 2022, after Republicans had managed to flip a net seat or two on the bench, the previously left-leaning Court now pivoted and returned the issue of abortion to the states without outlawing it nationwide. And then, one year later, after the 2022 midterms had given Dems a slim Senate majority, and while a Democrat president was in the White House, Dems changed their 50-year tune overnight.
Now their rallying cry was "Corruption! corRUPTiON!!!11!1! AWMAWGAHD DAH COURT IS CORRUPT FRUM TOP TO BOTTOM! We must have accountability, which per our definition means axing Thomas, Alito, and Roberts (those three specifically and none of the left-leaning justices) and replacing them with people who, just coincidentally, will favor our ideology and rule more akin to how we want them to rule! But listen guys, we definitely have no ulterior motive, you must believe us for the sake of OUR DUHMOCRACY!"