Princeton and Affirmative Action..? Chances?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
201

<p>^
the arguments you make on the previous page are good points that partially explain the higher population of liberals at top schools. however, at harvard, for example, i think it would be underestimating to put the proportion of socially liberal students and faculty at 90%. i don't think your points can fully explain such a great number.</p>

<p>i didn't mention religion at all in my original post, but i do want to address it now in a hopefully un-offensive way...the issue with a purely religious argument to support a belief is that it doesn't have the logical/intellectual component. it still might be an acceptable argument, but it is not, in my opinion, intellectual. just look at some of the socially conservative religious philosophers who have attempted to rationally justify marriage as between a man and a woman only (see john finnis). none of their arguments stand up to rigorous logical challenge.</p>

<p>abortion is a much more complicated issue bc the socially conservative position has sound religious and intellectual backing. i personally find the anti-abortion argument very compelling. again, this is all just my opinion, my interpretation of what i have observed.</p>

202

<p>oh, and i should add that definitely the students and faculties at top schools are a pretty small proportion of all intelligent people, but they are a sample (albeit biased in the ways dbate described) that i think can speak to this topic. i do not believe the correlation is very strong, though...probably moderate.</p>

<p>
[quote=]
There are many ways to improve society and different ways to approach them. To conclude that liberal approaches are proposed by smarter people than conservative approaches (or vice versa) reflects a lack of appreciation for multiple solutions to problems and their interactions. We may disagree strongly on different approaches to how society should be structured and/or what policies should be followed, but that doesn't make one approach smarter than the other.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>what problem does banning gay marriage solve, for example? what problem is the war on drugs solving? </p>

<p>i can respect different approaches that can have demonstrable positive effects on society, but there are some socially conservative ideas that i think do not have positive effects and may even have negative effects, aside from upholding the moral beliefs of a portion of the population.</p>

<p>libertarians, by the way, are generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal.</p>

203

<p>
[quote]
^^Statistically there has to be some crazy asians, I mean there are like billions of asian ppl. In fact aren't Asians (as in asia the continent) like the largest group in the entire world? So there has to be at least a few crazy asians.

[/quote]
That certainly is a case of logic fail if I ever did see one.</p>

204

<p>^^No that is perfectly good logic. If Asians constitute like half of the population of the world (china: 2 billion + India: 1 billion= 3 billion not even counting all the other Asians) then at least some of them have to be crazy, assuming that insanity occurs at an equitable geographic distributional rate.</p>

205

<p>
[quote]
assuming that insanity occurs at an equitable geographic distributional rate.

[/quote]
Hence my point.</p>

206

<p>I'm a little late with this resposne, but oh well. Let me preface this by saying (well if anyone read my psots in this thread, you'll know this), I'm very fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I have social views on the extreme left (atheism) and extreme right (affimrative action/diversity programs).</p>

<p>
[quote]
To say that having an opinion on an issue based on faith is dumb or what have you, would be the same as telling a Muslim person that it is dumb for them not to eat pork or that it is dumb for them to pray five times a day.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>OK, fine ill say it. Praying five times a day is dumb. Not eating pork (Jews and Muslims( is dumb. Believing that the devil is making people doubtful about Jesus (you implied this earlier) is dumb.</p>

<p>Also, having viewpoints based primarily on religious ideals, or faith, is dumb. Each idea one has should be supported logically. You can't expect someone to respect your perspective if your main justification boils down to: "Well I believe it because I believe it." That's the gist of "faith". It means believing in something without a sound logical basis, or simply because. I don't respect your viewpoint if it's predicated on a book of stories or what your pastor implores you to support. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Either way you slice it up, insulting people's religion or practice thereof is really ignorant.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The colloquial usage of the word "ignorant" is so fifth grade. I'm not ignorant with regards to religious belief. It's precisely the opposite and that's the basis with which I justify believing religion to be absurd. I won't go out of my to insult your religion (that's just rude), but I won't be afraid of denigrating the logical errors and fantastical thinking associated with it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
for a while harbor negative views of homosexuals, but later after meeting with and working with gay people I changed my views.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And with all this talk about tolerance, you show some right? So let's be honest. You seriously believe that these people are born gay? That it's not a lifestyle choice??? I find that view (that gays are choosing their orinetation) to be far more outrageous and insulting than mocking religion. (I don't swing the other way but I just think it's deluded to believe homosexuality isn't biological in nature.)</p>

<p>Finally, about the issue of intelligence and liberalism. I honestly don't believe the two are correlated. Average IQ scores are almost identical for the two parties. Rather, I believe the main difference is the basic viewpoint. Liberals tend to be idealistic, believing that all societal ills can be remedied with government intervention, that a disparity in outcome is unacceptable (hence why so many liberals became Marxists in the 50's). Conservatives believe in individualism, personal responsibility, acceptance of inequality of outcome, limited government b/c institutions like religion can serve as a proxy (tho a small minority of conservatives are nonreligious), and the notion that since traditional institutions have allowed society to thrive they should be continued.</p>