This has been really funny!

We've got one poster stating that a real intellectual doesn't have to read books, but can just pull great thoughts (about what, I might ask?) out of thin air!

We've got another post- hard to read because it's ungrammatical, weirdly punctuated - explaining to the literate poster just what's wrong with research and why "all that reading" doesn't help form a better opinion.

We've got another explaining that Sarah Palin's shortcomings are the fault of the media and nasty editing...apparently including every single media outlet around the globe. Great conspiracy.

So exactly how do the non-elite form their opinions, since reading, peer-reviewed research with all those yucky numbers and a college-education aren't good enough for non-intellectuals? Rather than try to defend intellectualism, I'd be interested in hearing you folks explain why you consider yourselves superior. We're all living life, having families, going to work, watching TV (gasp! - yes, even smart people watch TV), go on vacations and generally have lots of life experience. Are non-intelllectuals more competent than doctors? Are people who don't read books better teachers? Are folks who don't know history or world geography or current events better reporters? Tell me how it works in your world of non-reading, no way to evaluate the quality of research and not attending college.

LeRoy_Was_Here:

Simply not true. The story of Darwin's supposed 'deathbed conversion' have been so thoroughly refuted and repudiated, that the only possible conclusion left is that you have been....well, propagandized.

Ummm . . . Except I did not say he had a deathbed conversion. Darwin is undoubtedly in hell right now. I said he died a theist. Darwin apparently believed that God created the first (or possibly the first couple) living things and evolution took over from there.

Freedom Lady, there is a great deal of value in being an intellectual. A doctor's knowledge is indispensible to curing sick patients. An accountant is absolutely necessary to sound financial planning. A man would be a fool to ignore either.

The problem with intellectuals is when they try to use their presumed superior knowledge to browbeat the citizenry into submission. "How dare you question the ethics of my experiments? Don't you know I'm a doctor?!" "You can't be expected to understand how derivitives work. You're not an accountant."

Well bullshit. Being an expert in biology does not make you more qualified than me to decide if research is ethical in its treatment of animals or people. If I need a phd in finance to understand your financial derivitive, it's probably fraudulant.

The specialized knowledge an intellectual brings to his task is indisputably valuable. But it does not make your opinions an every and any imaginable topic unquestionable.

I pledge allegiance to Rush Limbaugh, and to the bloviation for which he stands, one nation, empty-headed, with guns for the rich and babies for the poor.

Personally, I think reading is a good thing, and from a variety of sources.

Sigh. People who don't understand the difference between a 'deist' and a 'theist' are the perfect example of what the top poster is talking about here.

The True Conservative: Darwin is undoubtedly in hell right now.

LeRoy: You have that direct from God Hisself, do you? At least you have revealed to the other posters here what kind of 'thinker' you are.

I call him Saint Darwin.

I would certainly not care to consult with any doctor who believed that germs were the product of some 'intelligent design'.

I know that much time has passed since you wrote this, but being a narcacist you of course only consider that your point of view is correct. The definition of intellectual is as follows:

relating to thought process: relating to or involving the mental processes of abstract thinking and reasoning

• - for intelligent people: intended for, appealing to, or done by intelligent people

Even people of limited compacity are considered intellectuals so get over the labels unless you are willing to use them correctly.

Ok backwoods, do any women think in your opinion. I do, you are a caveman in your thinking. I would like to see you answer some tough questions. I hope I did not us words that were too big for you.

Sigh. People who don't understand the difference between a 'deist' and a 'theist' are the perfect example of what the top poster is talking about here.

People who think they know more than they actually do should refrain from calling other people stupid. Maybe you should research those terms a bit.

You have that direct from God Hisself, do you? At least you have revealed to the other posters here what kind of 'thinker' you are.

And what kind of thinker is that, exactly? I've never hidden the fact that I am a Christian.

LeRoy_Was_Here:

I would certainly not care to consult with any doctor who believed that germs were the product of some 'intelligent design'.

And why would that be? (besides your self-righteous pomposity)

I did notice you conveniently ignored all the actual points I made though.

Why on earth are you even participating here? By definition - in one of the big dictionaries - an intellectual is a person who exercises their superior intelligence in study and synthesis. And yes, that does make the judgement of an intellectual better than others- in their area of interest. It's that simple. Just as a doctor who has studied for 20 years is better qualified to perform surgery, someone who has studied world politics for 20 years is better qualified to comment on world politics than the average citizen.

This country is full of lazy people who would rather criticize people who actually do the WORK of understanding complex issues than work at it themselves. The nation does not benefit from a voting public that prefers to be spoon-fed predigested information via their television. We've become a country that elects a president because he's not too smart and lionizes a candidate for VP because she's a woman and not too smart. When we have to dumb down our leadership to appeal to a voting public that is threatened by a smart president, we'll get exactly what we deserve - crap.

"Good common sense" is of no value if the person doesn't have a grasp of the basic facts and history. So sorry if you believe that the label of "intellectual" includes folks of limited capacity. You're simply wrong. Think about what we might achieve as a nation if we return to the times when we respected and even revered men and women of great learning, rather than being led by the nose by thugs like Limbaugh.

Katyrose: Ok backwoods, do any women think in your opinion. I do, you are a caveman in your thinking. I would like to see you answer some tough questions. I hope I did not us words that were too big for you.

LeRoy: My comments were about Sarah Palin in particular, and not about women in general. I would have thought that was abundantly clear from my post. I think it is your reading comprehension that needs some work here. And, in your last sentence, I presume you meant to use the word 'use', and not 'us'. In that case, your word was not big enough.

After I wrote: Sigh. People who don't understand the difference between a 'deist' and a 'theist' are the perfect example of what the top poster is talking about here.

The True Conservative responded with this: People who think they know more than they actually do should refrain from calling other people stupid. Maybe you should research those terms a bit.

LeRoy: Having taught comparative religion at the university level, I am well aware of the distinction between a 'theist' and a 'deist'. Evidently, you are not. Nor have you provided an iota of evidence that Darwin was a theist. Darwin is known to have described himself as an 'agnostic', but the final sentence of his book On The Origin of Species reveals a more deistic view of the origin of life. For all we know, Darwin may have written the last sentence in that manner in an attempt to minimize the religious outrage that he knew his theory and his book would arouse.

After I quoted The True Conservative in his earlier post to the effect that 'Darwin is undoubtedly in hell right now', I made the following comment:

LeRoy: You have that direct from God Hisself, do you? At least you have revealed to the other posters here what kind of 'thinker' you are.

And the True Conservative responds with: And what kind of thinker is that, exactly? I've never hidden the fact that I am a Christian.

LeRoy: Astonishing. Evidently you are arrogant enough and presumptuous enough to think that anyone who is a Christian would agree with your claim that 'Darwin is undoubtedly in hell right now'. What of the many millions of Christians who have no trouble accepting the factuality of evolution? Would they think that Darwin would be condemned to an eternity in hell for the mortal 'sin' of originating a major advance in science? Is God opposed to science, in your view? And besides all that, there is a major logical contradiction between your two statements that 'Darwin died a theist' and 'Darwin is undoubtedly in hell right now'. If he died a theist, would not his sins be forgiven? You seem now to be saying that God does not forgive. Theologically suspect, to say the very least. And presuming to know who God would (or would not) condemn to eternal damnation is something that, I daresay, not even the Pope would claim to know. Are not you in danger (mortal danger, perhaps) of committing blasphemy?