Thomas Jefferson...

[Mr. Pedantic]

Presented a paper to the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, in 1797. The paper was entitled "A memoir on the discovery of certain bones of a quadruped of the clawed kind in the Western parts of Virginia", and it was about the Megalonyx, later appended jeffersonii in tribute to the man.



He was Vice-President of the United States at the time.



When was the last time a President or Vice-President contributed to the scientific literature in their entire life, let alone while they were in Office?

Excuses about hyper-specialization of science today are pathetic and not valid.

 

[lxskllr]

Leaders led back then, and they also had a well rounded education that encouraged exploration and learning. Now we have followers that grovel for consensus, and diploma mills...

 

[Crono]

The great men of that time were Renaissance men.

I know Theodore Roosevelt studied nature and was a big conservationist, and even wrote articles and papers (see this ), but I'm not sure if any presidents after that had scientific interests to the same level.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Thomas Jefferson was a terrible big government hypocrite who spent way too much $$$ on the Louisiana Purchase, almost bankrupting the country, too concerned with smoking marijuana that his slaves picked for him. Today our politicians get degrees in political science, which is where they SHOULD focus their intellectual endeavors. Just look at what happens on the flipside when scientists try getting involved in politics; you get bastards like Mengele who don't understand the implications of their research.

 

[Bignate603]

Thomas Jefferson was a terrible big government hypocrite who spent way too much $$$ on the Louisiana Purchase, almost bankrupting the country.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that investment paid off.

 

[Crono]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that investment paid off.

According to Wikipedia, it's "$233 million in 2011 dollars, less than 42 cents per acre".

Not a bad deal. Not quite as good as William H. Seward's purchase of Alaska, though.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that investment paid off.

But he indebted the country and expanded the powers of the executive branch to do so. Therefore he was a hypocrite for pretending to be a proponent of small government.

 

[IronWing]

But he indebted the country and expanded the powers of the executive branch to do so. Therefore he was a hypocrite for pretending to be a proponent of small government.

Anarchist420, you give HamburgerBoy his account back this instant!

Anyway, Jefferson was an aristocrat who wanted to maintain aristocratic domination of the political system.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Thomas Jefferson was a terrible big government hypocrite who spent way too much $$$ on the Louisiana Purchase, almost bankrupting the country, too concerned with smoking marijuana that his slaves picked for him. Today our politicians get degrees in political science, which is where they SHOULD focus their intellectual endeavors. Just look at what happens on the flipside when scientists try getting involved in politics; you get bastards like Mengele who don't understand the implications of their research.

Nice. Godwin's Law, post 3 in my thread. You don't really think that Thomas Jefferson is comparable to Josef Mengele, do you?

But he indebted the country and expanded the powers of the executive branch to do so. Therefore he was a hypocrite for pretending to be a proponent of small government.

So you're saying it's better to be a blind dogmatist than a pragmatist who does what is best, regardless of prior personal belief?

 

[zzuupp]

Died broke

slept with the help

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Nice. Godwin's Law, post 3 in my thread. You don't really think that Thomas Jefferson is comparable to Josef Mengele, do you?

No, but that wasn't my point. The point is that the quality of our politicians has improved as they've become increasingly directed towards degrees in political science, journalism, etc. Just look at Herman Cain to see what you turn into when you get degrees in math and computer science.

So you're saying it's better to be a blind dogmatist than a pragmatist who does what is best, regardless of prior personal belief?

Ain't nothin worse than a dayum flipflopper.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Died broke

Then he resides with illustrious company such as Oscar Wilde, Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla, and famously, Vincent van Gogh. In other words: it's completely irrelevant.

slept with the help

So did Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Isaac Newton (again), etc. In other words: again, it's completely irrelevant.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

No, but that wasn't my point. The point is that the quality of our politicians has improved as they've become increasingly directed towards degrees in political science, journalism, etc. Just look at Herman Cain to see what you turn into when you get degrees in math and computer science.

I don't follow American politics. What's so bad about Herman Cain?

And by which metric do you judge politicians' quality? The number of wars they engaged in? The closeness which their personal and political beliefs coincide with yours? Popular opinion polls (lol)?

Ain't nothin worse than a dayum flipflopper.

Ain't nothing worse than a dogmatic idiot.

 

[destrekor]

No, but that wasn't my point. The point is that the quality of our politicians has improved as they've become increasingly directed towards degrees in political science, journalism, etc. Just look at Herman Cain to see what you turn into when you get degrees in math and computer science.



Ain't nothin worse than a dayum flipflopper.

You have got to be trolling.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I don't follow American politics. What's so bad about Herman Cain?

And by which metric do you judge politicians' quality?

Ain't nothing worse than a dogmatic idiot.

He allegedly cheated with an assistant. A good politician would never get caught doing that.

I judge politicians holistically, and there are certain things that can disqualify them from being good. Just look at what all that fancy schmancy science did for Jefferson and Roosevelt, a slave owner and a eugenicist.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Anarchist420, you give HamburgerBoy his account back this instant!

Anyway, Jefferson was an aristocrat who wanted to maintain aristocratic domination of the political system.

Not sure what's so bad about that to be honest. An oligarchy kept the Roman Republic for 500 years. An autocracy kept the Roman Empire for a further 3-400.

 

[IronWing]

Not sure what's so bad about that to be honest. An oligarchy kept the Roman Republic for 500 years. An autocracy kept the Roman Empire for a further 3-400.

It's great, if you're one of the aristocrats. Not so good for anyone else.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

He allegedly cheated with an assistant. A good politician would never get caught doing that.

So he was a bad politician because he got caught doing what everyone else was probably doing too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

I judge politicians holistically, and there are certain things that can disqualify them from being good. Just look at what all that fancy schmancy science did for Jefferson and Roosevelt, a slave owner and a eugenicist.

Such as...?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So he was a bad politician because he got caught doing what everyone else was probably doing too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

Such as...?

Proof of other major candidates having affairs prior to reaching the national stage?

Did you not see the rest of my post? The science of eugenics is incompatible with good politics.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

It's great, if you're one of the aristocrats. Not so good for anyone else.

It depends on what you want.

People in uncertain circumstances demonstrate choice deferral and ambiguity aversion. They would rather have someone make choices for them, if it means they get to live in a bubble with less ambiguity and confusion. And it doesn't hurt if they continue to be full citizens in the most powerful civilization in the ancient world. I know Benjamin Franklin is derisive of people willing to trade freedom for security, but what Benjamin Franklin finds worthy of contempt isn't really relevant to what people actually want.

You are right, in that throughout the Roman Republic, the populus was often clamouring for more governmental representation, or complaining about the lack of such, but the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius around 0 CE show that competent governorship is more important than democracy.

Proof of other major candidates having affairs prior to reaching the national stage?

Did you not see the rest of my post? The science of eugenics is incompatible with good politics.

I never said there was any. But to assume that nobody else had an affair in similar circumstances would be to commit the Toupee fallacy.

I did see that. Does that mean that everyone who does not find eugenics a good idea would be a good politician? Or is there more to add?

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I love the idea of the Renascence man but human knowledge is so much more complex and specialized that it's going to become rarer and rarer. Unfortunately it also tends to be more financially rewarding to be a super specialist than a jack of all trades.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I never said there was any. But to assume that nobody else had an affair in similar circumstances would be to commit the Toupee fallacy.

I did see that. Does that mean that everyone who does not find eugenics a good idea would be a good politician? Or is there more to add?

Show me where I assumed that. You are lying.

LOL, you're talking about logical fallacies and assume that my statement of eugenics being an instant-fail means no eugenics = instant-non-fail. Hilarious.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Show me where I assumed that. You are lying.

I never said you assumed that either. Read through again. And try to understand this time. Especially about the part about how it doesn't matter who was having an affair, but it does matter that there was another affair going on.

LOL, you're talking about logical fallacies and assume that my statement of eugenics being an instant-fail means no eugenics = instant-non-fail. Hilarious.

It's funny, because I was assuming that you'd tell me if you had any other rational criteria. Silly, silly me.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I never said you assumed that either. Read through again. And try to understand this time.

It's funny, because I was assuming that you'd tell me if you had any other rational criteria. Silly, silly me.

So why did you say "to assume that..." then? Just because?

I said that it's a holistic measure. You don't simply generate a giant list of parameters and rank politicians on each individual one on a scale from one to ten. It isn't that hard to understand.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

So why did you say "to assume that..." then? Just because?

I don't know why this is so difficult, "you assume" and "to assume" are different. I know they sound the same, but you know, in English lots of things do.

I said that it's a holistic measure. You don't simply generate a giant list of parameters and rank politicians on each individual one on a scale from one to ten. It isn't that hard to understand.

False continuum. Surely there must be something...? Like, I would have thought you'd be big on consistency and integrity.