Intelligently coming to my own conclusions, I reject both premises as pretentious nonsense. The problem is not Intellectualism or anti-intellectualism, but people who are incapable of researching and weighing information on their own, who choose a leader and blindly fallow him or her and who then leads them right over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings. They deserve to get broken at the bottom of the cliff if they can't think on their own. It's called natural selection (watch THAT come back to bite me in the butt. 😁 I do hope the reader recognizes satire.)
When eggs were being berated as bad for you because of cholesterol, I looked up the nutrition contents of eggs and found that they contained lecithin. Guess what lecithin does? It is an emulsifier and assists with lowering LDL (bad cholesterol) and Triglycerides (diabetics will have insanely high trigs) and raising HDL (good cholesterol). So, along with the cholesterol, nature has provided within the same foodstuff, the very item needed to process that item for use in the body while negating any adverse side effects. Trust nature. So I went right on eating eggs and told the Lipid Research M.D. for whom I worked why and that they were crazy for branding eggs as harmful. I still worked for him when they reversed this so I didn't say, "I told you so." (I liked my job.) Maybe I'll send him an e-mail now and say, "I told you so."
Flame » in reply to A defense of "anti-intellectualism"
Intellectualism vs. Anti-intellectualism
The whole thread (26 posts)
- A defense of "anti-intellectualism"
- Intellectualism vs. Anti-intellectualism
- What is "intellectualism"?
- Re: A defense of "anti-intellectualism"
- Yeah, some people like the thought of "fixing" things...
