In a system like that, Americans looking for work would be able to expand their searches into Canada and Mexico, but they would also compete against Canadian and Mexican candidates for jobs in the United States. South Korea and Japan are so stringent with immigration that they make the United States look lenient. This is partly because of a desire to preserve their cultures, a goal echoed by some conservative groups in the United States.
For example, the Japanese government once offered thousands of dollars to immigrants of Japanese descent to leave the country. And very few people become South Korean citizens without family ties; doing so requires years of residence, an in-person language proficiency test and a written test on customs, history and culture. On top of stoking racial tensions, these policies have created demographic problems for South Korea and Japan. The Gulf states allow a huge immigrant influx to meet the demand for cheap, low-skilled labor, but almost all of the immigrants are temporary, and they have few rights or protections.
In Qatar, for example, roughly 80 percent of the population is foreign-born. Without them, the skyscrapers of Doha or the World Cup, for which the government has promised to build more than half a dozen new stadiums, would not be possible. And the Qatari government has been accused of human rights abuses against those workers.
The only way that governments can sustain these heavy immigrant populations is by withholding the generous resources that are granted to ordinary citizens, such as free health care, free college tuition and marriage allowances. Most Americans would not be comfortable with this approach, said Morris Levy, a political scientist at the University of Southern California who studies public opinion on immigration.
Based on the current debate, any solution that Congress agrees on will probably fall somewhere between international models. It could follow some trends that are occurring worldwide. For example, in many countries, including Canada and Australia, there has been a shift away from exclusively merit-based systems to ones that also consider whether someone has a job offer — something currently done in the United States. For purposes of immigration, the United States could narrow its definition of family, which is wider than that of any other country, to exclude siblings or adult children who are married.
Although current American policies around family-based migration are the most generous in the world, the results look much different in practice because of limits on the number of visas that can be granted in each category. Papademetriou, co-founder of the Migration Policy Institute, a research organization. When it comes to immigrant integration, family is very important. You could envision a merit-based system that incorporates characteristics of our current system. It could grant points to people who have family members in the United States, or who come from countries that are not highly represented in the current population.
In that case, it might be desirable to pay attention to the weight each category is given and to adjust based on economic and social outcomes. Papademetriou said. Our system that exists today is just politics. While the sputtering negotiations are frustrating for many people, especially for those caught up in the system, academics agree that, in general, these decisions should not be rushed.
Gest, the George Mason University professor. Please upgrade your browser. See next articles. How many people? Immigrants in as a percentage of the population. For what reason? How many examples would you like, how granular and would you define "good for society" if you don't think my examples are enough. Marjon In a free market, corporations are regulated by their customers and competition. Only in theory. In practice, as you would be aware if you had any concept of American history, not so much. We essentially had a free market economy up until Teddy Roosevelt.
Regulation was necessary because of the actions of private enterprise. Again, education. I'll refute this in a single word: Sweden. I'll send flowers to your argument's funeral. Objectivist Since when did liberalism become socialism? They share certain things in common, but are by no means identical. They are two distinct ideologies, but not opposites at all. Ok, it wasn't one word, but still, give my regards at your argument's funeral.
Skeptic Heretic Liberalism and socialism have no bond. Marxism, liberalism, conservatism and socialism are, otherwise, distinct ideologies.
The E Word, the first installment in the Dirty Word series, explores through $ Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles $ to and straightforward suggestions offered on how to overcome this adversity. struggling with entitlement, but also at those who love and enable, this book. When entitlement becomes a dirty word And how to overcome it. (The Dirty Word Book 1) (English Edition) eBook: Stacey Martin: ufatolyt.ml: Tienda Kindle.
Liberalism- spend the resources of society liberally Conservatism- spend the resources of society conservatively Isolationism- withdraw from society and maintain locally controlled resources" Wrong context. We were talking about political philosophies, not economic dispositions. As political philosophies, their preferred economic systems do not reflect what you said. Only if you ignore the government intervention to A get the ball rolling, B keep it rolling and C give it a push when it stops rolling. Nice try, though. Looks like marjon is putting that GED in copyNpaste technology to good use.
Much like an ITT education, however, no understanding is needed in performing the actions. What about male libertarians believe that common interests are served by everyone serving their own self-interests who are atheists and who are promiscuous? I fit all categories. Does that make me sort-of-smarter-than-average? I define stupidity is choosing to remain ignorant. If you are going to try to attack someone else's intelligence and then get the basic English incredibly wrong, you really make yourself look bad.
Yes, we all know you're a free-market whackjob with no education except for your ability to use google and copyNpaste. Did you actually have a point with all that nonsense, or were you just going for the new spam angle? And Sweden arose as a socialist republic with no government right? Capitalism doesn't concern itself with the government or the State. Not necessarily that I doubt the stats, per say - considering these are all "normal" people. Simply that I suspect his conclusions are highly invalid and suggestive of his own bias.
At you may be just a bit more dimly aware enough than the average to have some issues, but no where near bright enough to come up with answers beyond the norm. What unbridled atheistic communism does when left unchecked So what's your IQ?! So who cares. As I said above IQ is not an indicator of intellect.
We who would become the victims of a Leftwing Secularist Christophobic witchhunt care Frink "Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. So i wasn't going to post on this thread. Just reading, enjoying riding the flame train, but darn it if Frink's illiteracy didn't kindle my Grammar Nazi Socialist rage. Frink if you can't understand words and the inherit connotations therein, don't spout off like a liberal puppet.
Look up "stigmatize", or what a stigma is for that matter, and then realize how asinine your comment was toward marjon. Honestly I could care less about what your point is, politics is a game for the obsequious and weak. Killing babies is wrong yes I mean fetuses, I was born one , having better more strong and more equally distributed economic policies that favor the middle class and poor rather than the grotesquely opulent rich is right.
Call me a Neo-conservative. Half liberal, half conservative. The best parts of both worlds. Here is what got me so riled up. That's what a modern 'liberal arts' education gets you today, propaganda. That is, assuming there is an actual increase in efficiency from these "advanced" techniques. I've already argued why that understanding would be shoddy. And, again, even if it were scientifically sound, how would it help anyone other than those with the resources to act on such knowledge? User interface design in regards to advanced technology How does that pertain to sociology, or even psychology for that matter?
Like all things aesthetic, it's entirely subjective and prone to trend. Are saying that fashion is a science, too, now? Statistics alone a science doesn't make. Look up the word pareidolia. Dear coffeedude, Take your medication before hitting the "Submit" button. Love, The Internet. Skeptic Heretic. Hello, non sequitur. This doesn't make sense in any context. What were you getting at? His answer is a forgone conclusion.
Regulation was not necessary. It was a way for political entrepreneurs to control their competition.
Now it's conspiracy theories? I've lost interest. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and cannot attempt to continue this discussion without the crutch of Google. Come back when you've gotten a basic grasp of reconstruction to pre-cold war history, thanks. In the experience of this Mensa level IQ, most low IQ people think they are alot smarter than they are, and most higher IQ people realize that there is alot that they don't know. I suspect the author of this article is in the former category, and not the latter. I left the board to do some work and look what the crazy hateful left put on the board.
Anyone here who thinks this article and research was well done, is a hard wing leftist nut job with a very low IQ which no amount of facts can convince them otherwise.
Josh : Yeah, I am. Sam : They just changed them. Looking at a modern electoral map reflects the ongoing divide. They know we're gonna do that! He probably did not fight back hard enough because he feared for his life.
Leftists are like spoiled children, they think they are the center of the world and need to be told they are the center of the world, they have an innate desire to bully, they have to show how smart they are by using foul language. The major problem with the left is that they believe everyone one is like them, they think everyone is corrupt, lazy, and ignorant.
Conservatives want to be liked and they have a tendency to back down to bullies as they want to be liked. Generalization I know, but seeing the reaction on this board and in my life, very true. Stop feeding the troll. AI3, how about we say most smart people realize that there is a lot they dont know, and dumb people dont know how much they dont know.
I am clapping for everyone who can pass tests and has designed all sorts of smart sounding stuff. I too have taken the magic potion that allows me to pass tests and use large words. That being said a school system may call me smart, however I have done many stupid things. There are tons of things that other people who are "dumb" just know way more about than me.
For instance you can tell by my posts I suck at writing. Everyone is interested in something and that is where most people's knowledge lies. Some people are interested on what celebrity's ex is doing what. They aren't really "stupid". They just spent their time reading about gossip. I think space is awesome.
I read about it a lot. We both did the same thing but because the topic I was interested in is considered "smart" so am I. And people I said it earlier but i'll say it again. They are all what you make of them. You may have a preference but it is just that.
Feb 26, Well lets consider this. On a previous post, it was stated doctors engineers scientists etc. Confucius, Diagoras bc approx , so not new. Most studied very hard for what they know and will never be exceptional as those listed. But there are those that stand out very notably from the crowd and all of them had one thing in common besides their brains. They all went against normal beliefs and gained notoriety in what they did.
What on earth makes you think those people listed were atheist or agnostic? Frink Socialism and liberalism are almost exact opposites anarchy would be the exact opposite. This is not up for discussion, this is the very definition of the two ideologies. While the socialist wants a totalitarian government that governs all organs of society the liberal wants the government to be almost nonexistent and to only cover law enforcement, judicial system and national defenses and according to the liberal everything else should be controlled by market demands in a completely capitalistic system.
You're probably confusing liberalism with libertarianism or social liberalism.
These are compromised forms of liberalism and are absolutely not to be counted as liberalism, because they fatally try to mix planned economy with market economy -- causing private entities to undermine governmental entities and vice versa -- back and forth, until the model breaks and one of the markets is finally dominant. Only leftist can say NO Style of Government is the best. Therefore we cant say Hitlers government was bad, Stalins government was bad, Maos government was bad. Who cares if their government killed hundreds of millions.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect. What a load of crap! This "study" stinks of "research" that is insultingly biased and based on an insecure personal agenda. Take a breather everybody. These statistics show the case for the average person. If you are conservative and religious but are cruising physorg, you are probably smarter than the average person.
This is not an attack on any one individual. Feb 27, Wow, a whole six points difference. What's the margin of error on IQ tests again? More than six points? Well, I'll be damned. They are specific examples of governments that are indeed a specific type of government. Coming up with an example of a government of a certain type which did bad things does not make the type as a whole bad.
Its not like the U. Immoral people can get into positions of power and do immoral things. Even a pure democracy could vote to slaughter some children for fun. So here it is again "They are all what you make of them. But it doesn't really matter what government was in place before it failed. I don't imagine I will want to be in the US when it collapses under its evergrowing debt and trade deficit. Thanks JayK, that vid was great. After reading most of the comments I've come to the conclusion that humans in general have a low IQ with a few outliers that make up an exception to the rule.
Interesting how you say this individual has no statistical references, proof, or foundation, yet you show no statistical references, proof, or foundation to show he is wrong and to make your case stronger. I was raised in a Christian, conservative home, yet throughout middle school and high school I participated in accelerated programs and gained college credits before entering any University. If only I'd known.
PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology. Uh, you're not gonna go into a staff meeting and shoot up a bunch of people are ya, 'cause I'd wanna call somebody then. Uh yeah, thats exactly what I planned on doing. You called it. Where did such a stupid comment come from? And since I am also very freaking smart but also flawed like you , and thus can anticipate your answer, my only comment would be that many people have far more brains than they can handle, that is know how to use effectively, despite their innate terror of the future and their own inevitable decline and conclusion.
Grow up. Just because I believe in God means I need to grow up? I don't insult you for your beliefs or lack thereof. Whether or not God exists is not a question for me to answer-each individual must answer that. To me he does, do you he doesn't. The point of my comment was not to "spread my faith," but rather to show that even "Christian conservatives" can have high IQs and be just as intelligent as liberal atheists. Religion and political beliefs have nothing to do with it.
Lets get back to the science-could genetics play an important role? I don't know. Crazy thought, huh? Data suggests Amy Bishop, PhD, who murdered three professors and killed her brother, was a socialist. What intelligence! My apologies for the ignorance. All I can say is, good thing I'm not a socialist, whew! I think the matter involves more of thinking of what Economists call "externalities," the HIDDEN cost of something "lurking variables" by a Statistician's verbiage. Also, IQ cannot measure all types of intelligences it is based on culture, religion, sex, creed, etc.
IQ tries to quantify the unquantifiable; there will be lurking variables. First let me say that its almost impossible for one group of people to be exactly equal to another group of people in anything. One is going to be larger than the other. In this article, we aren't given much information on what the samples were or how they were taken, if there was I didn't see it. Given that, an IQ test doesn't do a very good job of measuring all forms of intelligence, the can be easily seen in most of our greatest minds in history.
Very few were without significant quirks. Each person has a fairly limited amount of neurons in their brain and limited time to reinforce their connections. Just because they don't devote their intelligence to something that would show up on an IQ test does not make them less intelligent. I score just below average on IQ tests, but score tremendously high on "visual IQ". So a person watching me do a 3d puzzle may think I have a high IQ simply because I have a high ability to visualize 3d space.
My views on God: On an infinite timeline I can only see two probably outcomes for humanity. We become extinct by a large astroid, our sun going super nova, or the collapse of the universe, it doesn't matter at which point if there is no god all our beliefs and decisions and morals will have had little if any influence on the universe and will eventually be completely forgotten. We somehow manage to escape all catastrophes and continue to evolve over billions of billions of years to into beings that have near absolute knowledge and control of ourselves and our surroundings and thereby becoming god-like.
Were this to happen it would indicate a fairly high probability of another being doing the same thing. Summery: Morals are pointless or the existence of a "god" is probable. Regardless I hope for the latter. Embriette, The point of my comment was not to "spread my faith," but rather to show that even "Christian conservatives" can have high IQs and be just as intelligent as liberal atheists.
So you're studying for a PhD? I hope somewhere along the line your department forces you to take basic statistics, whereupon you will learn the distinction between individual sample vs. The study under discussion talked about average scores. Nowhere in the article did they claim that all samples within either population religious or atheist had identical values.
According to that study, in statistical parlance, you're an outlier. Whooptie doo. Some flaws in your analysis: 1 Regardless of your two scenarios, your individual life is finite and will soon be over. To you as an individual, and even to your offspring, it doesn't matter what happens on an infinite timeline. To your actual life in the here and now, morals are very much important, because they help keep you alive and well amid a society of other humans.
Any infinite-timeline projections from such ignorance would be premature and pointless. Shadfurman: Just pointing out, as well; a highly-developed, ridiculously intelligent, near-omnipotent being could end up being benign, but it could also end up being, basically, Cthulhu. I don't argue that that would happen, mind, I'm just pointing out that your thought experiment has alternate, and far less pleasant, interpretations. Putting IQ in terms of a computer, what does it measure? Processing speed? Mostly algorithms, and to some extent processing speed.
IQ measures pattern recognition, logical thinking, cognitive inertia, and creativity. It can be argued that the things IQ does measure, play important roles in virtually any facet of human activity. But IQ is not by any means a complete assessment of a person's cognitive repertoire. I am a nonreligious liberal, But I would be the last person to gloat over an ultrareligious congress about the Logistics of Noahs Ark, while interrupting their keynote speaker with an annoying "told you so".
Who would have thought that?? Pink Elephant As a matter of fact, my program is "forcing" me to take a statistics course, and I have taken a statistic course in my undergrad. First of all, I never said I was anything other than an outlier. I never said I wasn't-but I also never said that Christians, in general, were more intelligent than non-Christians. I was just using myself as an example of the "other side"-simply because many people reading this article seem to take it out of context and use it as an absolute to justify their religious or political beliefs.
Second of all, if you want to talk statistics and the statistical basis of this article, can you tell me if the sample size was large enough and varied enough to be applied to the general population in any dependable way? How many people were sampled? Of what race were they? What parts of the world were they from? What types of societies were they from? Unless you sample peoples of every kind, nation, and background, the statistics mean nothing. Sounds more like the title of a blog than a scientific study. If true, you are the first I have heard to admit to this.
I guess I'm speaking more of people who do research. Why would they continue to do research if they know it all? At the same time, I'm reminded of Dr. Phil Jones and computer models you can feed junk data into and get hockey sticks Works for me. So every entity is religious.
Embriette, First of all, I never said I was anything other than an outlier. Your tone, if not your exact words, suggested you were using yourself as an example to dispute the findings -- as if that were a valid argument. Unless you sample peoples of every kind, nation, and background, the statistics mean nothing You forgot every planet, and every galaxy. Feb 28, I don't understand this article, What about me?
I have an IQ of and I recognize the possible existence of God. I wish to add to the article; -the tendency to recognize the extra-phenomenal concept of God depends on cultural influence. This is a study. It computes averages and variances i. You cannot use statistics to firmly predict what should happen in a singular case. One case that does not conform to the averages does not invalidate a study I guess this is what the anti-global warming guys don't understand when they say "but outside my door it was cold this morning - so global warming must be a hoax". Marjon "How do you make a socialist government system moral?
It is systemically immoral. If the government is responsible for healthcare, everyone gets it. So remind me again how it is immoral for everyone to have access to the same service, protection, and status? I just don't see it. And If you bring up another communist dictator that did his job poorly that is not proof that socialism is immoral.
Sweden is a democracy but it has socialized health care. Everyone in that country has it.
Sounds fair to me. Go ahead complpain about how the healthcare would suck. Still everyone is treated equally therefore morally. Get this, I have private health insurance here in the states. I made an appointment with my doctor for Monday. I made this appointment Wednesday. In Sweden you are required to be seen by a primary care physician in 3 days. My appointment would be Saturday. Marjon "Socialist governments have the philosophy that the government grants rights to its victims. The only opportunity they have to 'make of them' is to try and survive. I don't get what you are saying.
Certain hypothesis; such as: cultural environment effect perception of god, is stronger if you focus on small group of people. For example; Galileo's free-fall experiment is not statistical, it use one special case to invalidate all Aristorelian statistical perceptions. If someone lives in cultural environment where religious dogma is used to rationalize irrational behaviour, then no wonder people disbelieve god.
The author must also check places where religious moral is in synchronicity with rational behaviour. I believe in global-warming, you're commiting a logical fallacy by associating me with other fallacious logics. I was just pointing out that you were making the same mistake as the anti-global-warming-crowd, not that you were one of them. Statistics are not ironhard predictions for every case. Outliers are possible and not all distributions are normal ones. All you could do is perform a census and show that your results deviate from the one presented AND that your census has a greater statistical power or show some bias was present in the original study that isn't in yours.
On the other hand, antialias: your claim that IQ does not equate with intelligence undermines this case study, which does indeed equate IQ and intelligence. Though I do agree that the IQ of a person has surprising little to do with their intelligence. My concern with this study is the margin of error. Depending on their sample size, that could be well within the error.
Also, what backgrounds are people coming from? Oh I'm not saying that IQ isn't somehow related to intelligence. It just doesn't mean that high IQ people will always make logical statements or understand what they talk about on any given subject. It all comes down how you do the tests and sometimes even to what cultural background you administer the test. Pink Elephant You said my tone implied that I was using myself as an example. Isn't that exactly what I went on to say I was doing? Thanks for pointing that out for me again. You seem to keep missing the fact that I wasn't using myself as proof that the article is wrong, just as an example of the 'other side.
As for your link to the statistics, remind me again why I was looking at that? All I found was info on adolescent whites and blacks in America. Certainly not a representation of the whole world. And it would be hard to sample beings from other galaxies, when we don't even know if they exist, and even if they did, we haven't figured out how to communicate with them yet. Wasn't this a study of humans anyway? Maybe we should have God take an IQ test, and see how He comes out? Maybe, just maybe, the more intelligent people are liberal because more intelligent people go to college, and colleges are overwhelmingly liberal.
Even if you're conservative it's difficult to get out of school without being converted. Even in highschool it becomes obvious that the teachers are almost all liberal and the pressure on a student to identify with the teachers is enormous. Ditto with atheism. I say this as an athiest with liberal values on equality and human rights but who hates the "liberal party" because it's full of loud mouthed individuals that try to shove thier ideals down your throat The bloggers are entirely correct.
AGW has become a religion. Marjon "The US Constitution is designed to provide equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity. It is unconstitutional that they are treated differently, yet the vast majority of states do so. This flaw does not make democracy inherently bad. Will the state force people to become doctors? Sweden is a democracy with socialized medicine. If there were not enough doctors they would HIRE more. Lets just imagine though that Sweden was communist. There are many ways that a communist state could get the amount of doctors that they need some more desirable for people than others.
Many of these systems could be designed fairly though, meaning that everyone goes through the same process. It could possibly be done similar to the US military where aptitude tests are taken and one must qualify for a job. It can be done morally even if you can't imagine it. Marjon This is exactly where I was waiting for you to go. In fact the best system would still encourage it somehow.
This is the part that all of the greedy Americans miss.
It is entirely possible that everyone gets paid the same yet the majority still tries to do their job well. You may be right that in a population the size of a major country it would be tough. However there are income sharing communities inside the US and elsewhere that cooperatively grow their own food, build their own houses, and live together. It works there. You say there is no incentive to work hard. What about making your country or community great and functional.
That is a noble goal. Dollar signs are the most important thing in the US. That doesn't mean they have to be. That is just our culture. Marjon It doesn't really matter how the government decides who can get married. If some people can and others can't thats immoral. Saying that homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is like saying that all men in the untied states have the right to get a pap smear. Heterosexual marriage is useless to homosexuals.
Pointing to this is more of a slap in the face than an expression of equality. We are getting away from the argument that socialism can be moral. I was just pointing out that there are immoral expressions in democracies too. Again this specific case of immorality doesnt mean that democracy is immoral just like it wouldnt mean socialism was. They apparently hired them somewhere, because Sweden does have doctors, and ranks highly in many health categories. Marjon You are absolutley right "The military recruits doctors just like any hospital or clinic.
The military doesn't give aptitude tests and force a new recruit to medical school for 8 years. Believe it or not some people choose to be doctors for reasons other than money. Some people genuinely like to help others. Being a doctor is a great way to do this. Many doctors in ERs could make more money in a private practice yet stay in hospitals. Because money isn't why they became a doctor. People can be motivated by other things than money.
Doctors in a socialist country would be people who wanted to help and also academically qualify. In a well set up system they would get recognition and honor for their effort, while recieving the same pay as everyone else. Recognition and honor are useless in the US culture where money drives most things. Marjon "I prefer rewards based upon merit. So socialism isn't your preference. I do remember saying this, "And people I said it earlier but i'll say it again.
I'll even grant that it is easier to have a moral democracy than a moral socialist country. Still doesn't mean either is impossible. Anyone else shocked when they loaded this article and saw how long the trolling comments go on for? I'm gonna leave my mark too : "All thinking men are atheists. Marjon "What kind of recognition and honor?
Government medals? Special titles? Three letters after their name like PhD? In your mind if it isn't beneficial to only yourself it is worthless. But again thats your preference. I get it, you don't want to live in a socialist country. Some people do. Mar 01, RJB26 "socialism is the preferred form of gov't for leaches who cant or wont fend for themselves and power hungry leftist douchebags who want to control the leaches who cant or wont fend for themselves.
You have added a lot of class legitimacy to our discussion. Marjon Doctors in a socialist country would be people who wanted to help and also academically qualify. Hate to burst your bubble, but a large percentage of physicians in socialized medicine nations leave for places like the US where they can make a buck instead of working for mechanics wages. Also, socialized medicine can't be all that good given how many come to the US from Europe and especially Canada for treatment. Hospitals in Detroit, including Henry Ford Hospital, have so many of them they've opened entire clinics just to treat them.
Seems if you're over 50 or have a disease that's expensive to treat esp.
Don't say it doesn't happen I spent 30 years in health care and saw it all too often once Canada instituted their system. First you say that intelligent people like "novel" ideologies and then you say their ideology is "liberal" -- currently the most pervasive in the United States. Which is it? Even a dummy like me can see polemic disguised as science!! Intelligent people can make rare-association better than average people, in other word, they're creative this doesn't mean they're more logical.
This is because; general intelligence is physically related to number of neurons and interconnections , but, generally, higher IQ adolescent loss more neurons than average people [forgot] hence their intelligence could based upon more interconnection. I found this comment box to be too claustrophobic. Very confusing My point was; the dis-agreeable nature of intelligent people is caused by creative mind . Because imo rare association were often made to explain one's experience rather than using the obvious "god did it" reasoning.
Ethinicity wasn't factored so the results are skewed. With that said, I personally suspect strongly the correlations are correct. All they had to do was change one aspect of this study for it to have merit. Remove the politics. If they said smarter people tend to innovate within society and personal activities I think we'd all agree. I think that physorg was just down on its comment flame war traffic lately and decided to write such a poorly constructed article.
DocM "Hate to burst your bubble, but a large percentage of physicians in socialized medicine nations leave for places like the US where they can make a buck instead of working for mechanics wage" You didn't burst my bubble at all. I don't care where anyone wants to practice medicine or what kind of government they want to have. All I'm saying is that Socialism can be moral. Obviously Sweden would not be the ideal money making place for a doctor, you are right.
I kinda like money myself, all I'm talking about is that not everyone is as obsessed with it as US citizens. You guys can keep saying how terrible you think it would be allllllllll day but you are not affecting my argument or my bubble. Then it wouldn't be a study. The results are shown above. How about we repeat the study on someone of voting age and see where the stats stand? You have a very pretentious nick.
Unless that's your real name?
In which case you have a very pretentious name. Haha, nice comment. That is my real name. I guess my parents are pretentious people. They are too pushy and they shove their beliefs down other peoples' throats. That is not what true Christianity is all about, and that is not what I am all about. To me its not someone who sees themselves as a member of "an exclusivist group.
It is not my place, or any other Christian's place to judge those who don't believe. It says it right in the Bible. Christians are only to judge other Christians. So a Christian who judges a non-believer isn't following their own God its in the book of James. The problem with Christianity today is that it follows rules and traditions founded by men, not by God. I guess that once again, I'm an outlier. How do they do that? Infecting the laws of society with abstract morality and social preference instilled in the race through 2 thousand years of indoctrination of the ignorant for one.
Governments have the power to force you to do what they want. No, the people when attacked by their government have physical recourse. Christians can only persuade. If their words make you feel bad, don't listen. If only that would make them stop. If people don't like what I write, ignore it. Apparently I hit a nerve or two with some as they can only respond with insults. If you consider our directions into discovering what actually represents a hypothesis, theory, and construct bothers you, feel free to ignore it.
Seems to be a bunch of secular socialists writing laws in Uganda to slaughter homosexuals. Also a bunch of socialists writing new laws in a certain southern US state to rewrite science and history in order to support a religion and its uneducated lackeys. The study specified that they looked at young adults i.
Young adult is from age by most standards. IQ tests in adolescence do not equate to the results from contemporary IQ tests. So what you're saying is either there's NO correlation or there's absurdly weak correlation. I cant believe such a dumb study is causing such a fuss at physorg. Ive been thinking about this study and come up with a solution that should make everyone happy.
This study facts are right but its conculsions are wrong. Only the smartest liberal progressives who have mental disorders go into Psyscology, the rest either become congressmen, ACORN activists, inmates, or just go on welfare. Only the dumbest christian or religious people, go into psychology as it is well known that Psychology professors are crazy leftwing progressives who hate christians, the USA, freedom and equality and will flunk anyone who disagree with their beliefs.
So in this study they took the brightest progressives who are just marginally smarter than average and compared them to the dumbest christians who are just marginally dumber than average. If they would have studied the real sciences and engineering depts. Intelligence although it should be, is not often an indicator of wisdom JayK proves the point that crazy leftwing progressives project their hate and ignorance onto others.
He hates homosexuals so he assumes conservatives hate homosexuals. He is ignorant so he assumes conservatives are ignorant. If I as a conservative would do the same for JayK, I would consider him a nice honest, loving guy, who cared for his fellow man person. Yeah, good thing I'm unable to find your comments from previous threads, huh? If they are forced to live there, that would be immoral. I don't really have time to create my own sovereign nation to validate my argument. Although I do seem to have copious amounts of time, as I have been trying to champion the mere possibility of something for days now.
By doing a job like being an engineer one that you consider "real work" they are performing a necessary niche in that society. The man that collects the trash apparently not working also gets that stuff away from your house that rots.
Otto, James was written most likely around A. If history serves me, Rome was still purcecuting Christians at that time. I agree with you that teaching the origins of Christianity is lacking in the schools. Either it is ignored or taught by professors who hate christianity. My kids have been taught more about the Muslim religion none of the negative stuff , Buhdism, than Christianity. What little they have been taught about Christianity is laughably wrong.
Continued: Just because you associate some jobs with small dollar amounts does not mean that they don't need to be done for society to function correctly and if you wanted to live in a socialist state you would understand this. You say this is a society that is for leaches but it is for a society much more ambitious than ours because if everyone does not work to perform their job the society can collapse. The people must have a sense of community and working towards a common goal.
Much too hard for Americans. If they have to share with someone else, well there is absolutely no reason to try. Jayk, again you inner hate and homophobia is coming out. Just because I dont approve of smoking doesnt mean I hate smokers. Just because I dont hate smokers doesnt mean I will tell people smoking is good for them so not to hurt the feelings of smokers. Smoking like Homosexual behaviour is bad for you, and I disagree with. I have friends who smoke, and who are practicing homosexuals.
They know I dont approve of either behaviour, but we still get along because unlike you, they understand disagreement doesnt equate to hate, unless your a radical progressive such as yourself. Again, you and a lot of progressives take disagreement of opinions as hate. I believe you take disagreement as hate because you have such a low self esteem and confidence in your ideas. Kinda strange to think about huh.
Innovation is probably the one trait that defined human development through the ages. A lack of it gave us the period popularly called the 'Dark Ages', for example. If you are a conservative traditionalist, you would have to admit that originality of thought is not one of your strongest traits. You would most probaly spurn new thinking. You would cling to known ideas. Would the cream of scientists and thinkers be found in your grouping?
Most likely not. It does not make you redundant, just average. As the article stated. Not by the lack of new thinking. Etiennem, if you actually looked into it you would realize that christians have been the leaders in Medicine, education, engineering, music, art, archetecture, exploration etc for the last years. But if all you learned about christianity was in public schools, you can be forgiven for your ignorance. But, since you mentioned it, do you think of Leonardo da Vinci as a Christian? Just because the predominant religion of a certain society was Christianity, does not mean that the leading innovaters were followers of the Christian dogma, at all.
You can use Galileo Galilei as an example, as well. No really, everyone, just ignore that religious persecution and anti-intellectualism is readily apparent and easily verified, just trust freethinking, the great homosexual obsessed trolltastic wonder. The Inquisition? That was just a frat prank that got a little out of hand.
The constant religious persecution of scientists? Well that wasn't really because of religion, it was just the fault of liberals. Ugandan homosexual purge? It only looks bad if you think about it, so those nice xtians would prefer you just not think about it. I may stand corrected. If you think really freely, you would see a correlation between the conversion to Christianity by Rome AD and the collapse of the Roman Empire about AD , resulting in the Dark Ages exclusively Christian. Just a thought. Etiennem, you don't seem to be another JayK so I made a bit of a list for you.
Its not nearly complete Many more Freethinking "Etiennem, if you actually looked into it you would realize that christians have been the leaders in Medicine, education, engineering, music, art, archetecture, exploration etc for the last years.