F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about intelligent people

[Quantum Windbag]

.

As fascinated as I am about the behavior of partisan ideologues, it was interesting to see F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about how an intelligent person can hold two opposing views and still function (at about 1:08 here: MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience).

So, just for giggles, let's assume Fitzgerald was right. Let's assume that any intelligent person can argue either side of an issue. What does that say about partisan ideologues, who can only be seen arguing their side of an issue while ignoring/avoiding/minimizing/distorting any argument from the other "side"? Does it mean that:

1. Their adherence to their ideology has seeped into their subconscious and denied them the ability to clearly see both sides? (my guess has always been that there is some of this at play...)

2. They know what they're doing, being intellectually dishonest, and choosing to win any given argument or issue at the expense of honesty?

3. They're just terribly intellectually lazy and don't want to be bothered to put forth the effort to understand the other "side" of an issue, even at the expense of better solving the problem at hand? (I think some of this might be at play too...)

4. A lack of self-esteem and a strong need to fit in with a group renders them unable to be honest and say something that someone on their "side" doesn't like? (yeah, I can see that)

5. Or, as Fitzgerald infers, are they simply not as intelligent as they think they are?

Personally, I've always assumed to partisan ideologues are intelligent but are intellectually paralyzed by #1 through #4. But the quote is interesting.

Any civil, mature, thoughtful input on this?

.

My sincere input is that you are an idiot. You are confusing ideology and close mindedness, it is entirely possible to believe in something, and still be open to facts.

Ideologues are not stupid just because they disagree with you. After all, it is entirely possible you are wrong about your position, and they are right. Most of the people on this board consider me an ideologue, and I accept that I am. I think individual freedom trumps government every single time.

The part most of the drooling idiots on this board miss is that I can argue either side of the debate, and do it better than the people who actually believe the tripe that government is the best thing ever. I can do that because I read everything, and have no problem with people that disagree with me. I am not the one that is afraid of being wrong, mostly because I know I am right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion. I do it all the time when discussing business issues; I always look at the problem form the perspective of the antagonist, whether I agree with them or not.

It's also important to define the concept of an issue versus a belief or general principle. In cases where an ideologue has turned his position to the opposite, I think what he has discovered is that his idea about this or that is not as simple as he once thought. This does not account for people with no principles to stand on, or who are flat out stupid, or otherwise incapable of taking a firm stand, but instead use "nuance" as a crutch to do nothing.

I think Obama falls squarely into Fitzgerald's inference of someone who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. I mean that sincerely, I'm not playing politics.

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

That's quite unlike either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Really? Can you provide examples to back that up, or are we just supposed to take your word for it? Because I can provide examples of both the people you claim never admit they are wrong actually admitting they made mistakes.

Ronald Reagan?s Biggest Mistake ? According to Reagan Himself | Conservative Heritage Times

Bush admits mistakes, defends record - Washington Times

 

[Mac1958]

Any civil, mature, thoughtful input on this?

My sincere input is that you are an idiot.

Ideologues are not stupid just because they disagree with you. After all, it is entirely possible you are wrong about your position, and they are right. Most of the people on this board consider me an ideologue, and I accept that I am. I think individual freedom trumps government ever single time.

The part most of the drooling idiots on this board miss is that I can argue either side of the debate, and do it better than the people who actually believe the tripe that government is the best thing ever. I can do that because I read everything, and have no problem with people that disagree with me. I am not the one that is afraid of being wrong, mostly because I know I am right.

That reminds me, I should have brought up narcissism.



.

 

[Sallow]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion. I do it all the time when discussing business issues; I always look at the problem form the perspective of the antagonist, whether I agree with them or not.

It's also important to define the concept of an issue versus a belief or general principle. In cases where an ideologue has turned his position to the opposite, I think what he has discovered is that his idea about this or that is not as simple as he once thought. This does not account for people with no principles to stand on, or who are flat out stupid, or otherwise incapable of taking a firm stand, but instead use "nuance" as a crutch to do nothing.

I think Obama falls squarely into Fitzgerald's inference of someone who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. I mean that sincerely, I'm not playing politics.

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

That's quite unlike either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Really? Can you provide examples to back that up, or are we just supposed to take your word for it? Because I can provide examples of both the people you claim never admit they are wrong actually admitting they made mistakes.

Ronald Reagan?s Biggest Mistake ? According to Reagan Himself | Conservative Heritage Times

Bush admits mistakes, defends record - Washington Times

Why I am shocked, shocked I tells you.

Reagan admits privately he shouldn't have helped people and Bush cops to some mistakes after he left office.

Man..I am pwned.



Oh..and provide examples?






Want more?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I watched Obama in Minnesota whining about the republicans won't let him help the people. Funny shit and sad. Sad because the useful Idiots who still support him believe it.

That is an example of him being self effacing, according to [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION].

 

[edthecynic]

.

As fascinated as I am about the behavior of partisan ideologues, it was interesting to see F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about how an intelligent person can hold two opposing views and still function (at about 1:08 here: MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience).

So, just for giggles, let's assume Fitzgerald was right. Let's assume that any intelligent person can argue either side of an issue. What does that say about partisan ideologues, who can only be seen arguing their side of an issue while ignoring/avoiding/minimizing/distorting any argument from the other "side"?

Do you mean like this/

June 25, 2014
RUSH: "Well, how are you gonna ban the ugly?" because that was the subject.* "How are you gonna do it?* I said, "Well, the easy way first.* We make it voluntary.* The ugly know who they are." The accolades I got and received established me as a great thinker

March 01, 2012
RUSH: This is why banning the ugly, making it voluntary, never worked. The ugly are too dumb to know it, and it's a blessing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Any civil, mature, thoughtful input on this?

My sincere input is that you are an idiot.

Ideologues are not stupid just because they disagree with you. After all, it is entirely possible you are wrong about your position, and they are right. Most of the people on this board consider me an ideologue, and I accept that I am. I think individual freedom trumps government ever single time.

The part most of the drooling idiots on this board miss is that I can argue either side of the debate, and do it better than the people who actually believe the tripe that government is the best thing ever. I can do that because I read everything, and have no problem with people that disagree with me. I am not the one that is afraid of being wrong, mostly because I know I am right.

That reminds me, I should have brought up narcissism.



.

It is actually arrogance.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[Mac1958]

.

As fascinated as I am about the behavior of partisan ideologues, it was interesting to see F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about how an intelligent person can hold two opposing views and still function (at about 1:08 here: MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience).

So, just for giggles, let's assume Fitzgerald was right. Let's assume that any intelligent person can argue either side of an issue. What does that say about partisan ideologues, who can only be seen arguing their side of an issue while ignoring/avoiding/minimizing/distorting any argument from the other "side"?

Do you mean like this/

October 11, 2010
RUSH: It's sort of like when I said ban the ugly from the streets in daytime. People said, "How you gonna do it?" I said, "Make it voluntary, the ugly know who they are."

March 01, 2012
RUSH: This is why banning the ugly, making it voluntary, never worked. The ugly are too dumb to know it, and it's a blessing.

Limbaugh is the King of the Division Pimps.

He really set the tone, and here we are.

Why do you ask?

.

 

[francoHFW]

Good point, history shows that liberalism and socialism have failed every time and every place that they have been tried------------but those on the left refuse to learn the lessons of history and continue to try to ram that failed ideology up the butt of the USA.

Capitalism fails often. All the panics before the federal reserve was formed. The two times since, 1929 and 2008, both under republican administrations, it took massive bailouts with government money to revive the "free market."

True, but communism has, thus far, always resulted in a state that borders on totalitarian. The state never "fades away".

Wrong, they're ALWAYS totally totalitarian, and no one here is in favor of communism, snap back brainwashed dingbat...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

That's quite unlike either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Really? Can you provide examples to back that up, or are we just supposed to take your word for it? Because I can provide examples of both the people you claim never admit they are wrong actually admitting they made mistakes.

Ronald Reagan?s Biggest Mistake ? According to Reagan Himself | Conservative Heritage Times

Bush admits mistakes, defends record - Washington Times

Why I am shocked, shocked I tells you.

Reagan admits privately he shouldn't have helped people and Bush cops to some mistakes after he left office.

Man..I am pwned.



Oh..and provide examples?






Want more?

I see your problem you think delusions, whinging, and blaming other people is self effacing.

 

[francoHFW]

It's not a question of intelligence. RW ideologues are careless and believe a tidal wave of bs from the only people they believe, a bunch of bought off con men...

 

[HelenaHandbag]

.

As fascinated as I am about the behavior of partisan ideologues, it was interesting to see F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about how an intelligent person can hold two opposing views and still function (at about 1:08 here: MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience).

So, just for giggles, let's assume Fitzgerald was right. Let's assume that any intelligent person can argue either side of an issue. What does that say about partisan ideologues, who can only be seen arguing their side of an issue while ignoring/avoiding/minimizing/distorting any argument from the other "side"?

Do you mean like this/

June 25, 2014
RUSH: "Well, how are you gonna ban the ugly?" because that was the subject.* "How are you gonna do it?* I said, "Well, the easy way first.* We make it voluntary.* The ugly know who they are." The accolades I got and received established me as a great thinker

March 01, 2012
RUSH: This is why banning the ugly, making it voluntary, never worked. The ugly are too dumb to know it, and it's a blessing.

Other than being another example of how humorless the left is, how is this politically partisan?