Personal assaults on Obama

[DavidJames]

I bet Obama would be smart enough to know how to properly quote and reply to others.

 

[elbe]

His speech is, uh, no evidence, uh, of intellect. I agree it does not have to imply inferior intellect, either.

Can we go back to how, in any way, speech says anything about intellect either positive or negative?

It sounds a bit like you want to have a reason to believe he's not intelligent (I couldn't say one way or another) and have locked onto an irrelevant signifier.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Can we go back to how, in any way, speech says anything about intellect either positive or negative? It sounds a bit like you want to have a reason to believe he's not intelligent (I couldn't say one way or another) and have locked onto an irrelevant signifier.

Okay. A high school Shop teacher nominated a friend of mine for his graduating class "most likely to succeed" honor. The guy is now a sheet metal worker with a really thick pidgin accent. He sounds like he never left Kalihi. He welds, glazes, sets tile, fixes cars, subscribes to Architecture Digest, and built his own house out of poured concrete and stainless steel. There's a grand piano on the second floor and an atrium big enough to hold a 20 foot tree. He's a genius.
The composer who created this is a genius. He could be mute and still qualify.
"Intelligence" refers to how quickly one learns and how deeply one thinks, seems to me. Darwin was not a quick study. Dirac was famous for his economy with words.
The result of intellectual effort can appear in many forms. The house and the composition are visible accomplishments. The Voyage of the Beagle is poetry from start to finish. The Royal Swedish Academy of Science awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics to Dirac. If all one offers is words, those words had better impress. Obama does not, uh, impress. What does he have to show for 19 years of schooling devoted to producing words (prep school+ PoliSci undergrad + law school)?

People love their gods. Tell someone that you don't believe in his God and you might as well say his wife is a hooker. Sorry to have offended.

 

[elbe]

Okay. A high school Shop teacher nominated a friend of mine for his graduating class "most likely to succeed" honor. The guy is now a sheet metal worker with a really thick pidgin accent. He sounds like he never left Kalihi. He welds, glazes, sets tile, fixes cars, subscribes to Architecture Digest, and built his own house out of poured concrete and stainless steel. There's a grand piano on the second floor and an atrium big enough to hold a 20 foot tree. He's a genius.
The composer who created this is a genius. He could be mute and still qualify.
"Intelligence" refers to how quickly one learns and how deeply one thinks, seems to me. Darwin was not a quick study. Dirac was famous for his economy with words.
The result of intellectual effort can appear in many forms. The house and the composition are visible accomplishments. The Voyage of the Beagle is poetry from start to finish. The Royal Swedish Academy of Science awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics to Dirac. If all one offers is words, those words had better impress. Obama does not, uh, impress. What does he have to show for 19 years of schooling devoted to producing words (prep school+ PoliSci undergrad + law school)?

People love their gods. Tell someone that you don't believe in his God and you might as well say his wife is a hooker. Sorry to have offended.

But all you're doing is reaching unfounded conclusions. Some people do have a way with words (some people have a better grasp on the written word than the spoken, and vice versa). From what I can tell you're both agreeing that speech isn't a signifier and then turning around and using it as such. It might be nice if there was an obvious correlation, and many people probably instinctual assume there is one, but I've seen no evidence to support it.

While I'm sure you don't care much about what I think, I'd prefer you focus your 'obama isn't intelligent' arguments on actual facts, not perceived associations.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

From what I can tell you're both agreeing that speech isn't a signifier and then turning around and using it as such. It might be nice if there was an obvious correlation, and many people probably instinctual assume there is one, but I've seen no evidence to support it.

One can be mute and intelligent. One could earn some certification of intelligence such as a Physics PhD (or be a really hot auto mechanic, for that matter) and be inarticulate. If you require twenty years of instruction to add fractions, you probably are not very smart. Obama studied words his entire time in school, not Physics or Modern Dance. He's like the student who still has trouble with fractions after fifteen years at Kumon.

 

[elbe]

One can be mute and intelligent. One could earn some certification of intelligence such as a Physics PhD (or be a really hot auto mechanic, for that matter) and be inarticulate. If you require twenty years of instruction to add fractions, you probably are not very smart. Obama studied words his entire time in school, not Physics or Modern Dance. He's like the student who still has trouble with fractions after fifteen years at Kumon.

One can be a terrible public speaker and intelligent. Why can't one just be, by your own complaint, subpar?

I still don't find that as a logical conclusion. He studied law; what makes you think you can't study law and, potentially, become a crack lawyer or legal expert even if you aren't a good speaker? You're still making unsupported connections.

 

[Juniversal]

1. I could look it up, but I doubt that Barak Obama was a National Merit finalist. His transcripts are sealed. The only "evidence" of Barak Obama's intellect are attendance at selective schools, his speech, and the policies his administration has pursued. If we leave the policies aside, that leaves school and speech. Affirmative action is a fact. It explains Obama's attendance at selective schools as well as does intellect. His speech is, uh, no evidence, uh, of intellect. I agree it does not have to imply inferior intellect, either.

Unless you have evidence that Obama was a mediocre student prior to his college career, this is pure baseless speculation. As I said below, graduating from Columbia University, Harvard Law with magna cum laude honors, become a civil rights attorney, a teacher at Chicago law AND the President of the United States is a far better measure of his intelligence then simply his tendency to use pauses and "uh's and um's" in his regular speech.

3. Affirmative action places into selective schools students who would not otherwise qualify for admission. It applies to more black students than white students. It's hardly certain that Barak Obama gained admission to Columbia and Harvard through affirmative action, but hardly impossible, either. It's an explanation that works as well as "intellect".

I posted this before but you seem to have missed it so i'll post it here because it's an appropriate response.

"Affirmative action doesn't imbue someone with success but opportunities. Implying his success was a result of affirmative action and not hard work is not only wrong but is certainly an attempt to undermine his intelligence and hard work as a black man (this wouldn't be a discussion if it was a white woman but white woman benefit greatest from affirmative action).

You don't graduate from Columbia University, Harvard Law with magna cum laude honors, become a civil rights atorney, become a teacher at Chicago law AND the President of the United States without a fairly high degree of intellect and hard work."

 

[Olowkow]

I'm still waiting for examples of Romney's excellence in public speaking. Till then, I'll stick with this one:



"If there is anyone out there who doubts...."

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You don't graduate from Columbia University, Harvard Law with magna cum laude honors...

"Cum" is Latin for "with". "Laude" is "honors. You just said "You don't graduate from Columbia University, Harvard Law with great with honors honors..."

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I'm still waiting for examples of Romney's excellence in public speaking.

Why? Romney's a successful businessman. All over this country, intelligent people fix cars, wait tables, hunt deer, reload ammunition, and do all sorts of ordinary stuff. There's a difference in comon usage between "intelligent" and "intellectual". EE dropouts who become philosophy professors qualify as "intellectuals".

 

[Olowkow]

No Romney excellence? I can wait.

 

[Juniversal]

"Cum" is Latin for "with". "Laude" is "honors. You just said "You don't graduate from Columbia University, Harvard Law with great with honors honors..."

So in other words you can't critically address anything I said so you dissect the syntax of a phrase. Nice...

 

[Travis]

Maybe things have changed but do law schools focus on public speaking and oration? I certainly don't remember much in political science classes. Lots of writing papers and reading books but zero public speaking.

 

[elbe]

Maybe things have changed but do law schools focus on public speaking and oration? I certainly don't remember much in political science classes. Lots of writing papers and reading books but zero public speaking.

I could imagine some public speaking classes could be useful for trial lawyers, but I imagine most of the focus is on learning the law.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

1. I could look it up, but I doubt that Barak Obama was a National Merit finalist. His transcripts are sealed. The only "evidence" of Barak Obama's intellect are attendance at selective schools, his speech, and the policies his administration has pursued. If we leave the policies aside, that leaves school and speech. Affirmative action is a fact. It explains Obama's attendance at selective schools as well as does intellect. His speech is, uh, no evidence, uh, of intellect. I agree it does not have to imply inferior intellect, either.

You claim his speech isn't an indicator of intelligence, yet you insist on bringing it up and mocking him at every opportunity. And yet you wonder why I think you're being disingenuous.

Baseless speculation has no explanatory power, it's here because you want a reason to assume Barrack Obama is unintelligent. Frankly, it doesn't really matter if he attended school because of affirmative action policies or not. I'll state again; affirmative action has no explanatory power with regards to the success of Barack Obama as affirmative action is not in place to guarantee success.

2. It's hardly a strawman. It's an observation, that fans of the interventionist State toss "racist" around pretty loosely.

In other words a strawman on your part. This has nothing to do with me or anyone else being "fans of the interventionist State" it has to do with you referring to Barack Obama as an "affirmative action baby", arguing the rights of minorities in terms of biology, and generally being tactless and immature with regards to race. If you need a more concise explanation: you act like a privileged white male annoyed that women and "colored-folk" actually have rights.

3. Affirmative action places into selective schools students who would not otherwise qualify for admission. It applies to more black students than white students. It's hardly certain that Barak Obama gained admission to Columbia and Harvard through affirmative action, but hardly impossible, either. It's an explanation that works as well as "intellect".

Again, baseless speculation has no explanatory power. It explains as much as me saying you were beaten up by a crowd of black youths as a kid explains your views on race.

4. "Those" is a plural.

Fortunately the word "those" doesn't appear anywhere and this is just a pathetic attempt at avoiding criticism again.

5. It would be easier to keep this civil if neither of us made the other the subject of the discussion. As to "not allow": dunno how you can stop it.

Another attempt at avoiding having false and misleading statements you've made corrected. We are not discussing "you", rather we are discussing your beliefs as you have made them clear in this thread.

6. It's an analogy. "Equal" treatment can have unequal results. Obviously.

I've already addressed this and stated that not only is it to be expected that it's by design. Stripping a privileged group of the legal privileges they once enjoyed will always be a net loss for that privileged group. Unless you have some specific claim to bring up, this is a criticism that rings hollow.

7. Note the passive voice.

What I note is the continued irrelevancy.

8. Assume away. I'll stick with my operational definition: a racist is any caucasian who disagrees with a socialist.

Given that I'm not a socialist, frequently disagree with socialists, and have never been mistaken for a racist this rings hollow.

9. Dunno 'bout "should". "Equal" application of the law will have unequal (disparate) results. Consider incarceration rates, school graduation rates, etc. Yes or no?

Again, this is by design.

10. Assume away. It's easier than dealing with the explicit argument.

Irony

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think you all understand. Obama is black, so he can't be intelligent........

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I don't think you all understand. Obama is black, so he can't be intelligent........

Remember, these are Ken's words. The implication that this is my argument (if that's what he won't make explicit) is false. Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Maurice Ashley made it under their own power. Williams and Sowell are to old to have benefitted from affirmative action and there's no affirmative action in tournament chess.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You claim his speech isn't an indicator of intelligence, yet you insist on bringing it up and mocking him at every opportunity.¹ And yet you wonder why I think you're being disingenuous.²Baseless speculation has no explanatory power, it's here because you want a reason to assume Barrack Obama is unintelligent. Frankly, it doesn't really matter if he attended school because of affirmative action policies or not. I'll state again; affirmative action has no explanatory power with regards to the success of Barack Obama as affirmative action is not in place to guarantee success.³...
Fortunately the word "those" doesn't appear anywhere and this is just a pathetic attempt at avoiding criticism again.⁴...

1. Obama's shills offer his purported eloquence as evidence of his intellect.
2. Mindreading, on Fthagan's part.
3. Affirmative action explains Obama's acceptance to selective schools. Like his supposed eloquence, Obama's shills offer his admission to Columbia and Harvard as evidence of his intellect. Affirmative action is an alternative explanation to intellect.
4. Ummm...
Let's retrace this:...
(Kthulhut Fhtagn): "5: In addition to the above, your obvious condescension towards those who have benefited from such programs is telling."

8. There's a telling generalization.

Pointing to the specific behaviors on an individual is by definition not a generalization.

"Those" is a plural.

Fortunately the word "those" doesn't appear anywhere and this is just a pathetic attempt at avoiding criticism again.

 

[elbe]

1. Obama's shills offer his purported eloquence as evidence of his intellect.

And they would be just as wrong. Does that give you excuse to make unfounded arguments?

3. Affirmative action explains Obama's acceptance to selective schools. Like his supposed eloquence, Obama's shills offer his admission to Columbia and Harvard as evidence of his intellect. Affirmative action is an alternative explanation to intellect."

Except you're arguing by assumptions. You've decided he's not intelligent so you've found an excuse for him being in a selective school. You haven't proven up your premises but you've jumped to the conclusions anyways.

This exchange might be more telling about your intelligence than anything you've offered about Obama thus far. Of course this is just a politics forum, so hardly anyone expects anything rational.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And they would be just as wrong. Does that give you excuse to make unfounded arguments?¹Except you're arguing by assumptions. You've decided he's not intelligent so you've found an excuse for him being in a selective school. You haven't proven up your premises but you've jumped to the conclusions anyways.²This exchange might be more telling about your intelligence than anything you've offered about Obama thus far. Of course this is just a politics forum, so hardly anyone expects anything rational.³

1. "Just as wrong" as what? "Unfounded"? No. We attempt to explain the same set of facts (the autobiographical books, the selective schools, the supposed eloquence). Obama shills call this evidence of intellect. I say: "ghost-written", "affirmative action", and "what, uh, eloquence?"
2. Tentatively. Show me a patent granted to Barak Obama, jr. for a faster chip or show me a chamber music composition by Barak Obama, jr. and I'll accept this as strong evidence of intellect. So far, it looks like he can't shake the indoctrination he imbibed as a youth at the feet of Frank Davis and Charles Ogletree. It at least as likely he got into Columbia and Harvard on affirmative action as on SAT scores and GPA (transcripts could prove otherwise). The eloquence is not apparent.
3. We agree, here.