Bigotry: Yes or No? Dawkins and Voting for a Mormon

[Revoltingest]

Anyhow, we aren't playing the "is Romney worse than Obama?" game.....

Spluh!

 

[Katzpur]

In the case of Romney, you're talking about the guy who drove cross-country with his dog on the roof of his car, so it may be justified to say that he doesn't exercise good judgement consistently... though for reasons unrelated to his religion.

That's just it. His poor judgment in this instance had absolutely nothing to do with his religion. So why should it be used as an example of how Mormons are lacking in intelligence and good judgment? Why not say that people with brown hair and brown eyes are lacking in intelligence and good judgment. Romney would qualify under those characteristics, too. (By the way, I didn't vote for him.)

 

[Revoltingest]

That's just it. His poor judgment in this instance had absolutely nothing to do with his religion. So why should it be used as an example of how Mormons are lacking in intelligence and good judgment? Why not say that people with brown hair and brown eyes are lacking in intelligence and good judgment. Romney would qualify under those characteristics, too. (By the way, I didn't vote for him.)

For reference, I'll wager that we find many people who dis Romney over the doggie penthouse
will defend Clinton's sexual dalliances (which indicate far far worse judgement).

 

[fantome profane]

For reference, I'll wager that we find many people who dis Romney over the doggie penthouse
will defend Clinton's sexual dalliances (which indicate far far worse judgement).

Fair point. But I can understand why Clinton did what he did. I don't understand why Romney thought it was ok to put the dog on top of the car.

(and of course it goes without saying it had nothing to do with Mormonism)

 

[metis]

For reference, I'll wager that we find many people who dis Romney over the doggie penthouse
will defend Clinton's sexual dalliances (which indicate far far worse judgement).

Betcha not from the dog's point of view.

 

[Revoltingest]

Betcha not from the dog's point of view.

That would depend upon the dog.
I remember back in the 70s that there was a Baja motorcycle racer who regularly
competed with a dog sitting on his gas tank throughout the race. This would
undoubtedly be a nightmare for most dogs, but this bowser loved it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Betcha not from the dog's point of view.

Wait.....it just dawned on me that you might've been making a funny.
Were you referring to Monica rather than Rover?
That's harsh man....she was a little hefty, but hardly a 2 bagger.

 

[metis]

Wait.....it just dawned on me that you might've been making a funny.
Were you referring to Monica rather than Rover?
That's harsh man....she was a little hefty, but hardly a 2 bagger.

Oh, you're evil mind is at work overtime. :slap:

 

[Revoltingest]

Evil is no work...it just happens naturally.

 

[DeepShadow]

I can see where he is coming from. I don't know if I would call it pure bigotry because he has logical reasons behind it.

So..."pure bigotry" doesn't have logic behind it? How does that work? White supremacists point to I.Q. tests where the average for African Americans is below that of white people. Is that logical enough to not make them bigoted? They also point to the racial demographics of prisons and slums as evidence. I would hope you would not consider these "logical reasons."

Dawkins' reasoning have about as much logic as these behind them. In other words, they have a superficial veneer of logic to justify what the believer has already decided. To wit:

1) He has found that Mormon beliefs are so laughably incorrect that it is only possible for idiots or those with poor judgement to believe in them.

Exactly. He selects LDS beliefs that are the least central, insists (falsely) that all LDS believe the most absurd interpretation of them, and then calls them idiots for doing so. For choosing the interpretation that he forces on them.

This sounds a lot like refuting evolution by attacking statements by Charles Darwin, as if all evolutionary scientists were bound by his original statements. "What do you mean, you don't believe this any more!? That's absurd! You can't just go picking and choosing the parts you believe in, willy nilly!"

Goose, meet gander.

2) He wants his elected officials to be intelligent with good judgement.

And yet, despite being a scientist, he spurns any objective measurement of intelligence or leadership ability in favor of spitballing it. Does he cite a negative correlation between Mormonism and I.Q.? No. Does he reference any of the scientific measurements of good judgement? Not a one. Are Mormons demonstrably more prone to the sunk cost fallacy, the anchoring heuristic, cognitive dissonance, or any of the other cognitive errors that make for bad leadership? Not according to him.

Because, in this area of his life, he doesn't need his facts to be objective, verifiable and measurable. As a biologist, such things are his bread and butter, but when it comes to his attack on religious belief, he can just shoot from the hip. :no:

3) Ergo a Mormon wouldn't fit his description of intelligent or having good judgement.

Y'know, this could also have been numbered as zero. Because it's what he started with.

Also just because something is bigotry doesn't mean that the opinion is unfounded or wrong.

You really just said that?

 

[Mycroft]

Being an Engineer and a Mormon makes that person no less qualified to be an Engineer. The same is true of politicians.

 

[Watchmen]

Being an Engineer and a Mormon makes that person no less qualified to be an Engineer. The same is true of politicians.

Not necessarily. If a person's religious views clearly influence their political action then that person's religious views may or may not affect their qualifications to be president, governor, mayor and so on.

In Romney's case, I'm not aware of anything regarding his membership in the church that greatly influenced his politics (in other words, I don't think he had a red phone to the prophet's office or anything like that).