INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Scrapheap on September 17, 2007, 10:21:29 PM
-
I think this article just goes to show how much politically driven "Science" there is out there.
Download computer virus here (http://www.slate.com/id/2173965/?GT1=10436) ;) ;) :smarty:
-
Something makes me not trust that link. :-\
-
Something makes me not trust that link. :-\
Hover your pointer over it, you can tell where it goes. It's a safe link..... just more of my dark humor... that's all. ;)
-
Actually, I did that before.
But something seems to
make me remember that
'twas possible to interfere
with what is claimed.
-
You might be right
but that would take
someone with more
computer savy than
me. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It was tricky.
-
They needed to do a study to demonstrate that conservatives tend to be a bit thick? :smarty:
-
They needed to do a study to demonstrate that conservatives tend to be a bit thick? :smarty:
Someone got bored, i reckon. Probably nearly died of it when they carried out the actual study.
-
They needed to do a study to demonstrate that conservatives tend to be a bit thick? :smarty:
Only to hide their own ignorance. It's the standard Liberal ruse, cover up the fact that they substitute indoctrination for education by acting arrogant and condecending.
Those on the left AND right are equaly blinded by their ideology. Liberals just try to hide it more.
-
bullshit. liberals want personal freedoms. what is blind about that? it's only fair to be able to control your own body! the rightwingnuts want to control people and make them do their shit jobs for pennies while they sit on their goldfilled asses. allow me to barf. :puke:
:redneck:
lol what the heck is that? :kevv:
-
Liberals are often against certain personal
freedoms. Such as the right to carry big
ass guns. Or, the right to raise your children
according to your beliefs, without state
interference.
-
if raising them to fuck sheep you mean, no they shouldn't be allowed to do that. :P
-
Damned liberal! :laugh:
Nah, I mean like not forcing
their kids to dealing with things
like evolution, or to have to have
blood transfusions.
But, if my religion insists that
my kids tenderly engage in sex
with sheep, THAT too should
be permitted.
-
religion is the devil's spunk. :P
-
Lap it up then,
whore of Babylon!
-
lol what the heck is that? :kevv:
Kevv wanted this new smiley, so I named it after him.
I don't know what emotion it represents.
-
rollercoaster nausea most likely. :laugh:
-
Lap it up then,
whore of Babylon!
your lap or mine?
-
rollercoaster nausea most likely. :laugh:
That's what it's giving me.
Lap it up then,
whore of Babylon!
your lap or mine?
Mine, of course. And it's all messy,
just thinkin' of you.
-
sweet. :laugh:
-
For anyone still interested in the original article, it might be helpful to read one of the initial reports, rather than just the sarcastic journalist's rebuttal on Slate. Here's a link to the version Agence France-Presse ran:
Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5isgJ0r_9nH41VBhtXvN17pxlA31Q)
As for the topic itself, the matter of differences has been quite well established by now, though both liberal and conservative commentators have been loth to deal with it publically (for differing reasons) or even to admit that it might be the case. This is a particular concern in academia, where the prevailing wisdom post-Foucault is that human nature is mostly or entirely a social construct. Folks like Judith Butler have gone so far as to argue that gender and sexuality are socially, rather than biologically, derived.
The problem, however, is that the science of human nature is progressing despite such theories, and that the majority of data suggests that human nature is (somewhat) more naturally sympathetic to conservatism. Of course, like any part of human nature, political philosophy is primarily adopted through culture and environment, so there is no cause for celebration in the conservative camp over this one. Especially when so much of the recent research shows the conservative tendency to be less well adapted to the modern world... :green:
Anyroad... It lacks the most recent studies, but Steven Pinker summarised much of the relevant research in 2002 in The Blank Slate. Also of interest might be the 2003 article 'Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition', wherein the authors (Jost, Glasser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway) review the existing literature on how differing cognitive styles line up with political philosophy. That article is why Sulloway was interviewed by the press for this latest finding.
-
bullshit. liberals want personal freedoms. what is blind about that?
Liberals don't want you to be free to keep your own money, buy whatever gun you want (and however many), have personal property rights, chose what school you want (vouchers) be a sexist, racist or whatever non-PC belief you want to have, the list goes on and on....
There's plenty of freedoms Liberals are against.
-
For anyone still interested in the original article, it might be helpful to read one of the initial reports, rather than just the sarcastic journalist's rebuttal on Slate. Here's a link to the version Agence France-Presse ran:
Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5isgJ0r_9nH41VBhtXvN17pxlA31Q)
I'd hardly dismiss his criticisms as merely "sarcastic". He made very valid points that the test had nothing to do with real-world mental agility.
As for the topic itself, the matter of differences has been quite well established by now, though both liberal and conservative commentators have been loth to deal with it publically (for differing reasons) or even to admit that it might be the case.
Really?? can you point to any peer reviewed science that says this is the case?? Could it just be that this field of science is just dominated by people with p[olitical axes to grind??
This is a particular concern in academia, where the prevailing wisdom post-Foucault is that human nature is mostly or entirely a social construct. Folks like Judith Butler have gone so far as to argue that gender and sexuality are socially, rather than biologically, derived.
I thought that theories like this were rejected, once they came down of their acid trips. ::)
The problem, however, is that the science of human nature is progressing despite such theories, and that the majority of data suggests that human nature is (somewhat) more naturally sympathetic to conservatism. Of course, like any part of human nature, political philosophy is primarily adopted through culture and environment, so there is no cause for celebration in the conservative camp over this one. Especially when so much of the recent research shows the conservative tendency to be less well adapted to the modern world... :green:
This of course is only based on the notion that nuture trumps nature. I've always seen that the opposite is true.
Anyroad... It lacks the most recent studies, but Steven Pinker summarised much of the relevant research in 2002 in The Blank Slate. Also of interest might be the 2003 article 'Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition', wherein the authors (Jost, Glasser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway) review the existing literature on how differing cognitive styles line up with political philosophy. That article is why Sulloway was interviewed by the press for this latest finding.
Once again, you seem to be favoring those scientists who favor the nurture side of psycology. My experience is that nature plays a slightly larger role.
-
bullshit. liberals want personal freedoms. what is blind about that?
Liberals don't want you to be free to keep your own money, buy whatever gun you want (and however many), have personal property rights, chose what school you want (vouchers) be a sexist, racist or whatever non-PC belief you want to have, the list goes on and on....
There's plenty of freedoms Liberals are against.
gun owners are cowardly.
-
bullshit. liberals want personal freedoms. what is blind about that?
Liberals don't want you to be free to keep your own money, buy whatever gun you want (and however many), have personal property rights, chose what school you want (vouchers) be a sexist, racist or whatever non-PC belief you want to have, the list goes on and on....
There's plenty of freedoms Liberals are against.
gun owners are cowardly.
The bullet from the gun of a 15 year old punk on meth, doesn't give a damn how brave you are. :soapbox:
-
your blood pressure. be careful.
-
Liberals don't want you to be free to keep your own money
The old tax canard. Heaven forbid we fund things like roads, schools, emergency personnel (firemen, police, paramedics), and even the military.
buy whatever gun you want (and however many)
But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds? Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?
have personal property rights
On this one, you're going to have to elaborate please.
chose what school you want (vouchers)
We tried the whole "separate, but equal" thing. Didn't work out too well.
be a sexist, racist or whatever non-PC belief you want to have
You can have whatever beliefs you want. You just can't force them on the rest of us. And we have as much right to the belief that you're an idiot for having them.
the list goes on and on....
There's plenty of freedoms Liberals are against.
Then, by all means, continue.
-
Once again, you seem to be favoring those scientists who favor the nurture side of psycology. My experience is that nature plays a slightly larger role.
Never underestimate the power of nurture in human psychology.
-
gun owners are cowardly.
Compared to bow or sword owners only.
-
For anyone still interested in the original article, it might be helpful to read one of the initial reports, rather than just the sarcastic journalist's rebuttal on Slate. Here's a link to the version Agence France-Presse ran:
Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5isgJ0r_9nH41VBhtXvN17pxlA31Q)
I'd hardly dismiss his criticisms as merely "sarcastic". He made very valid points that the test had nothing to do with real-world mental agility.
I do not agree. Mental agility has much more to do with those decisions you make without even being conscious of there being an option in the first place. If you test the "real world" stuff the author was after, you are not testing neurology at all, but merely psychology.
I thought the Slate article was, if not sarcastic, then perhaps a bit ignorant of the disciple. It is the sort of article which strikes a "common-sense" chord with people, whilst evading the more technical, scientific questions actually raised.
As for the topic itself, the matter of differences has been quite well established by now, though both liberal and conservative commentators have been loth to deal with it publically (for differing reasons) or even to admit that it might be the case.
Really?? can you point to any peer reviewed science that says this is the case?? Could it just be that this field of science is just dominated by people with p[olitical axes to grind??
Could it be? Sure. But I'll also agree that the moon could be made of swiss cheese; it's just not terribly likely. ;)
Edward O. Wilson, On Human Nature
Matt Ridley, The Agile Gene
Robert Wright, The Moral Animal
Larry Arnhart, Darwinian Natural Right
Ullica Segerstrale, Defenders of the Truth
John Alcock, The Triumph of Sociobiology
Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate
Peter Richerson & Robert Boyd, Not By Genes Alone
The problem, however, is that the science of human nature is progressing despite such theories, and that the majority of data suggests that human nature is (somewhat) more naturally sympathetic to conservatism. Of course, like any part of human nature, political philosophy is primarily adopted through culture and environment, so there is no cause for celebration in the conservative camp over this one. Especially when so much of the recent research shows the conservative tendency to be less well adapted to the modern world... :green:
This of course is only based on the notion that nuture trumps nature. I've always seen that the opposite is true.
Anyroad... It lacks the most recent studies, but Steven Pinker summarised much of the relevant research in 2002 in The Blank Slate. Also of interest might be the 2003 article 'Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition', wherein the authors (Jost, Glasser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway) review the existing literature on how differing cognitive styles line up with political philosophy. That article is why Sulloway was interviewed by the press for this latest finding.
Once again, you seem to be favoring those scientists who favor the nurture side of psycology. My experience is that nature plays a slightly larger role.
You mistake my position entirely. I think that the question itself is faulty; neither nature nor nurture are sufficient explanations for any part of what makes us tick.
For myself, I actually grant a very high degree of relevance to biology, which puts me in an awkward position given my career and personal politics! It is not a popular thing to trumpet, that we are not really 'free'. And I do challenge things like free will, routinely, as well as the supposed social construction of many facets of our psyches.
But by the same token, I do not think that nature gives us more than a good, solid start, and that culture plays the decisive role in shaping that initial material into the individuals we become. The Richerson book is a good one for staking out that territory, but Wilson got there before practically anyone else and his insights are still beautiful.
be a sexist, racist or whatever non-PC belief you want to have
You can have whatever beliefs you want. You just can't force them on the rest of us. And we have as much right to the belief that you're an idiot for having them.
Brilliant! :plus:
-
It's nice using Mac/Linux, if you do click on a web-page that tries to load a virus the computer just says, "WTF? I don't understand this!" and off it goes to the bit bucket.
-
The old tax canard. Heaven forbid we fund things like roads, schools, emergency personnel (firemen, police, paramedics), and even the military.
Entitlement spending is the lion's share of the federal budget. You know... vital things like the Endowment for the Arts and studies on the sex habits of bananna slugs.
But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds? Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?
Ahhhh!!! the old "Armor piercing ammo" lie. NEWS FLASH FOR THE GUN IGNORANT!!! Almost ALL rifle ammo is capable of piercing body armor, which is designed to stop PISTOL bullets. ::) (The body armor that CAN stop rifle bullets is VERY heavy and expensive)
have personal property rights
On this one, you're going to have to elaborate please.
Environmental laws an zoning laws mostly. They are often corrupted and abused to prevent property owners from doing anything on thier own property (building or improving it) by using the excuse that they're damaging the environment by doing so. (The red-legged frog fiasco in California comes to mind)
We tried the whole "separate, but equal" thing. Didn't work out too well.
That's ancient history. I'm talking about school voucher programs that would allow poor kids to go to private schools. Teacher's unions hate them because they would introduce (GASP) accountability.
You can have whatever beliefs you want. You just can't force them on the rest of us. And we have as much right to the belief that you're an idiot for having them.
You're not allowed to have those beliefs when you go to Universites and other schools. Haven't you head of "Campus speech codes"?? Here come the thought police.
the list goes on and on....
There's plenty of freedoms Liberals are against.
Then, by all means, continue.
I've done an OK job for now.
-
:-[ Err, can I but in here with a comment, a complaint, and a question? :angel:
The old tax canard. Heaven forbid we fund things like roads, schools, emergency personnel (firemen, police, paramedics), and even the military.
Entitlement spending is the lion's share of the federal budget. You know... vital things like the Endowment for the Arts and studies on the sex habits of bananna slugs.
Did you ever bother to check the figures for that, or are you just quoting another ditto-head?!
Look here to see where the real "lion's share" of the money goes, and how little feeds anything remotely like your assumptions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/summarytables.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/summarytables.html)
Besides... if we got to choose between banana slug research and nukes in space, I think the former is far more worthwhile... :laugh:
have personal property rights
On this one, you're going to have to elaborate please.
Environmental laws an zoning laws mostly. They are often corrupted and abused to prevent property owners from doing anything on thier own property (building or improving it) by using the excuse that they're damaging the environment by doing so. (The red-legged frog fiasco in California comes to mind)
Oh, heavens forbid we might actually want to leave a sustainable ecosystem for our children! I swear, arguments about how people should be able to do as they please with 'their property' just remind me of how thoroughly fucked up our species is. And of why I became an anarchist in the first place...
I'm talking about school voucher programs that would allow poor kids to go to private schools. Teacher's unions hate them because they would introduce (GASP) accountability.
I've always wondered about this one. The vouchers make good sense if you're one of those people who think that education should be entirely privatised and offered for profit. But this doesn't seem to describe most proponents of the topic! Maybe you can help make sense of this for me? Here's how I understand the issue:
1. Public schools are short on proper resources and sensible budgetary accountability, so they start to suck.
2. Vouchers could allow parents to opt out of the system, but at a cost of less funding for those public schools.
3. This seems like it would lead to further school-suckiness, and eventually to utter collapse...
Given that our elementary education in this country is already abysmal, why would cutting resources make things any better for our kids? Sure, maybe things would be better for your kids, but the nation as a whole would decline. And since our entire economy is coming to depend upon high-tech services and knowledge industries, we need more comprehensive education, not a total collapse of the system.
You can have whatever beliefs you want. You just can't force them on the rest of us. And we have as much right to the belief that you're an idiot for having them.
You're not allowed to have those beliefs when you go to Universites and other schools. Haven't you head of "Campus speech codes"?? Here come the thought police.
Not that you're talking to me, but I haven't, no. Does this mean that certain positions are not allowed to be shouted out during, like, school protests and rallies and suchlike? Because 'speech codes' there would seem just as 'legitimate' as they would outside, say, the headquarters of a multinational corporation! ;)
From my perspective, any restrictions on free speech that do not impinge on public safety, etc, are intolerable, so don't think I am defending the restrictions on your campus or anything. I'm definitely a free-speech zealot. But I am genuinely curious about what those 'codes' are and how they measure up against the kind of things enforced elsewhere in society.
(Damnit all, now I have Frank Zappa's 'Who Are The Brian Police?' playing in my head!!!)
-
As to entitlement spending - bullshit. The big entitlement is
Social Security, a fucking ponzi scheme.
-
As to entitlement spending - bullshit. The big entitlement is
Social Security, a fucking ponzi scheme.
QFT :agreed: :plus:
-
As to entitlement spending - bullshit. The big entitlement is
Social Security, a fucking ponzi scheme.
QFT :agreed: :plus:
And if we tried to pull it off we'd be in jail :police:
-
The old tax canard. Heaven forbid we fund things like roads, schools, emergency personnel (firemen, police, paramedics), and even the military.
Entitlement spending is the lion's share of the federal budget. You know... vital things like the Endowment for the Arts and studies on the sex habits of bananna slugs.
morthaur covered this quite well. :plus:
But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds? Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?
Ahhhh!!! the old "Armor piercing ammo" lie. NEWS FLASH FOR THE GUN IGNORANT!!! Almost ALL rifle ammo is capable of piercing body armor, which is designed to stop PISTOL bullets. ::) (The body armor that CAN stop rifle bullets is VERY heavy and expensive)
Thank you for the sidebar. Had almost nothing to do with the question posed. Care to try again?
have personal property rights
On this one, you're going to have to elaborate please.
Environmental laws an zoning laws mostly. They are often corrupted and abused to prevent property owners from doing anything on thier own property (building or improving it) by using the excuse that they're damaging the environment by doing so. (The red-legged frog fiasco in California comes to mind)
again, :plus: for morthaur
We tried the whole "separate, but equal" thing. Didn't work out too well.
That's ancient history. I'm talking about school voucher programs that would allow poor kids to go to private schools. Teacher's unions hate them because they would introduce (GASP) accountability.
You misunderstand the teachers' position. They are opposed to the effect (defunding of already underfunded schools), not the cause (poor performance). Eventually, you end up with no public schools and everyone going to not-so-private-anymore schools funded by the government. Wait, we already have that and it didn't involve giving piles of money to private interests to get there.
You can have whatever beliefs you want. You just can't force them on the rest of us. And we have as much right to the belief that you're an idiot for having them.
You're not allowed to have those beliefs when you go to Universites and other schools. Haven't you head of "Campus speech codes"?? Here come the thought police.
Actually, I have not heard of this either. However, again, that does not mean you can't HAVE those beliefs.
the list goes on and on....
There's plenty of freedoms Liberals are against.
Then, by all means, continue.
I've done an OK job for now.
I'd have to disagree here as well. I've seen little in the way of any cogent arguments and a lot of 'talking points'.
-
the majority of data suggests that human nature is (somewhat) more naturally sympathetic to conservatism.
By this do you mean that more people lean towards conservatism than liberalism? That the most functional governments are conservative? That the human race is becoming more conservative as time passes?
-
But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds? Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?
Ahhhh!!! the old "Armor piercing ammo" lie. NEWS FLASH FOR THE GUN IGNORANT!!! Almost ALL rifle ammo is capable of piercing body armor, which is designed to stop PISTOL bullets. ::) (The body armor that CAN stop rifle bullets is VERY heavy and expensive)
Thank you for the sidebar. Had almost nothing to do with the question posed. Care to try again?
Nice attempt at deflection here, but you brought up the issue of armor-piercing rounds, and I answered it. As for owning multiple guns, how many guns I chose to own is none of your fucking buisness
No wonder you have to have morthaur do all your debating for you.
-
But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds? Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?
Ahhhh!!! the old "Armor piercing ammo" lie. NEWS FLASH FOR THE GUN IGNORANT!!! Almost ALL rifle ammo is capable of piercing body armor, which is designed to stop PISTOL bullets. ::) (The body armor that CAN stop rifle bullets is VERY heavy and expensive)
Thank you for the sidebar. Had almost nothing to do with the question posed. Care to try again?
Nice attempt at deflection here, but you brought up the issue of armor-piercing rounds, and I answered it. As for owning multiple guns, how many guns I chose to own is none of your fucking buisness
No wonder you have to have morthaur do all your debating for you.
Well, at least you answered the question, sort of. The insults are just a lovely bonus. Are you capable of being challenged on anything without resorting to personal attacks? Not that it matters really, I'll continue to answer anyway. I'm just curious.
Now to the content, such as it is:
As for owning multiple guns, how many guns I chose to own is none of your fucking buisness
Reductive reasoning. We are not arguing about just you. We are arguing about liberals vs. conservatives and their differing views on various topics. You are right about one thing though -- it is none of my business. But, just like we're not talking about just you, we're also not talking about me. I'm not an entity based on trying to "insure domestic Tranquility" or to "promote the general Welfare".
Either that, or are you saying that either a) no one should be concerned about how many, or at least what kind of guns anyone and everyone has or b) you should be exempt because, of course, you are special?
And what about the rest of the items from your original list? Given up on those?
-
But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds? Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?
Reductive reasoning. We are not arguing about just you.
:finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger:
-
But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds? Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?
Reductive reasoning. We are not arguing about just you.
Technically, it was the generic 'you', not you personally. But it works either way. You are familiar with the concept of using an example, yes? Seems a reasonable assumption that you possess said weaponry.
:finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger:
I quote the Constitution, you flip me off (repeatedly). Classy. Well within your rights under that Constitution, but doesn't really add much to your (increasingly shortening) arguments, though. Remember those? All those freedoms that liberals are against?
-
.............but doesn't really add much to your (increasingly shortening) arguments,
I try not to waste my time on those who don't debate in good faith. :finger: :wanker:
-
.............but doesn't really add much to your (increasingly shortening) arguments,
I try not to waste my time on those who don't debate in good faith. :finger: :wanker:
May I inquire what it is that makes you think I am not debating in good faith?
Also, if that is truly how you feel, is this also why you have yet to answer any counterpoints from anyone else?
-
the majority of data suggests that human nature is (somewhat) more naturally sympathetic to conservatism.
By this do you mean that more people lean towards conservatism than liberalism?
In some respects, yes. There are a lot of fuzzy areas here and it is a big topic so I'll just make a couple of examples. Realistically, though, this would be a huge subject to get into, as the basic breakdown between right and left (as in America) does not neatly match up with our biological divisions, which means that there is a lot of overlap on the issues.
The first place to start is with our natural motivations. That humans are, strictly speaking and by nature, not altruistic, is not often disputed anymore. Instead, we follow a reciprocal system that is inherently self-serving. This does not mean that we cannot be altruistic, but rather than the fundamental psychological motivators are not. You can see this in the bias we all seem to have toward our own families and groups, and in many of us towards our own 'type' of person. That is, folks tend to favour kith & kin over strangers and strange lands. This definitely affects large abstractions, like 'the human race' or 'people in China', which are absurdly difficult for many people to empathise with. It is also reflected on a molecular level by the image of the 'selfish gene', but the analogy is a bit awkward and I think I'll cop out for now.
Either way, it is increasingly apparent that problems of discrimination and the inability to think in terms of future generations or distant countries are more the natural state of affairs in our brains, and it is culture that seems to be most critical in helping us to override such programming and become better humans. But it is also apparent that the differences in political orientation people share, i.e. their facility with abstract reasoning and ability to empathise more broadly, is--at least in part--genetic. Meaning that some people are naturally more disposed towards what we Americans (strangely) call liberalism, and others--perhaps a majority--who lean more towards conservatism. This is, at base, probably less an issue of political philosophy than it is of human reasoning and neurological differences. That is an opinion derived from recent research, anyroad.
That the most functional governments are conservative?
Not exactly, though yes in one specific example. State socialism was a disastrous failure because basic human motivators are not linked to the success of the nation, but rather to the self and family. Governments which operate along more selfish lines, i.e. according to market forces, are more likely to reflect the natural state of affairs. This does not, of course, mean that socialism is 'bad', but rather that we have to develop aspects of it progressively, and not expect people to be--by nature--such perfectly good animals that if we only remove the oppressive systems our goodness will shine through. This is a standard belief of Marxists and most anarchists, and explains the disastrous history of revolutionary socialism---and, by extension, the relative success of things like the Scandinavian social model, which was brought on gradually and in collaboration with basic social freedoms.
That the human race is becoming more conservative as time passes?
Most emphatically no. Culture, the amazing wild card that trumps human nature, is increasingly more open, generous, and committed to ideals like equality and freedom. Just look at the collapse of venerable institutions like slavery. It is still possible, in my opinion, to be a Utopian in some respects, but the creation of a better world will require taking our biological motivations into account, and should as a consequence be a more gradual (read: non-revolutionary) process.
But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds? Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?
Ahhhh!!! the old "Armor piercing ammo" lie. NEWS FLASH FOR THE GUN IGNORANT!!! Almost ALL rifle ammo is capable of piercing body armor, which is designed to stop PISTOL bullets. ::) (The body armor that CAN stop rifle bullets is VERY heavy and expensive)
Thank you for the sidebar. Had almost nothing to do with the question posed. Care to try again?
Nice attempt at deflection here, but you brought up the issue of armor-piercing rounds, and I answered it.
Actually, the deflection here is yours, and you did not at first answer the question. Read it again: "Why would you need multiple weapons with". The question is about the guns, not about the ammunition they use. The ammunition type here serves a descriptive purpose, i.e. it defines the type of gun, but the question was about gun ownership.
No wonder you have to have morthaur do all your debating for you.
He doesn't need my help to see through shoddy reasoning. If you want to debate or argue, as opposed merely to polemicising, you need to read the questions more carefully. And this---.............but doesn't really add much to your (increasingly shortening) arguments,
I try not to waste my time on those who don't debate in good faith. :finger: :wanker:
is just sad. You are either being deeply disingenuous or do not understand how to argue. As I would like to see and/or participate in a real debate on the issues, I am hoping that you will get your head on straight and come back in with a real point to make. Devolving into insults when someone calls you on a bullshit strategy is pretty puerile...
-
I do not agree. Mental agility has much more to do with those decisions you make without even being conscious of there being an option in the first place. If you test the "real world" stuff the author was after, you are not testing neurology at all, but merely psychology.
I thought the Slate article was, if not sarcastic, then perhaps a bit ignorant of the disciple. It is the sort of article which strikes a "common-sense" chord with people, whilst evading the more technical, scientific questions actually raised.
Perhaps my use of the term "mental agility" was a bit to vauge. You make a point here that agrees with the criticisms of the study though, namely the study was focused on the neurology of the subjets, and that data was used to infer the psycology of the subjects.
The study was junk science.
Really?? can you point to any peer reviewed science that says this is the case?? Could it just be that this field of science is just dominated by people with political axes to grind??
Could it be? Sure. But I'll also agree that the moon could be made of swiss cheese; it's just not terribly likely. ;)
I wouldn't be so dismissive of the notion that this area of science is colored with the political opinions of the people in the field.
I have yet to encounter information that didn't have some kind of agenda behind it. This would especially be the case for this study, which was an obvious exercise in conservative bashing.
But by the same token, I do not think that nature gives us more than a good, solid start, and that culture plays the decisive role in shaping that initial material into the individuals we become. The Richerson book is a good one for staking out that territory, but Wilson got there before practically anyone else and his insights are still beautiful.
...and yet the research I've seen in this area comes to the opposite conclusion. That initally, culture and environment has a large influence on a person, but as time progresses, the more we fall into genetic paterns of behavior and become like our parents.
-
Did you ever bother to check the figures for that, or are you just quoting another ditto-head?!
Look here to see where the real "lion's share" of the money goes, and how little feeds anything remotely like your assumptions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/summarytables.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/summarytables.html)
Besides... if we got to choose between banana slug research and nukes in space, I think the former is far more worthwhile... :laugh:
I was mixing sarcasm with facts here. Entitlement spending (Including Social Security) IS the largest part of the federal budget.
have personal property rights
On this one, you're going to have to elaborate please.
Environmental laws an zoning laws mostly. They are often corrupted and abused to prevent property owners from doing anything on thier own property (building or improving it) by using the excuse that they're damaging the environment by doing so. (The red-legged frog fiasco in California comes to mind)
Oh, heavens forbid we might actually want to leave a sustainable ecosystem for our children! I swear, arguments about how people should be able to do as they please with 'their property' just remind me of how thoroughly fucked up our species is. And of why I became an anarchist in the first place...
This statement seems a bit contradictory. How are private property rights and Anarchism remotely conflicting??
Did you read my original statement?? I was making the point of how those laws get CORRUPTED as in how the laws actually get enforced. The red-legged frog being a case in point where ranchers on the central coast can't even clean out drainage ditches on their property (proper maintenance) because red-legged frogs were everywhere where ther was water (Funny how an animal is both endangerd and thriving at the same time)
I'm talking about school voucher programs that would allow poor kids to go to private schools. Teacher's unions hate them because they would introduce (GASP) accountability.
I've always wondered about this one. The vouchers make good sense if you're one of those people who think that education should be entirely privatised and offered for profit. But this doesn't seem to describe most proponents of the topic! Maybe you can help make sense of this for me? Here's how I understand the issue:
1. Public schools are short on proper resources and sensible budgetary accountability, so they start to suck.
2. Vouchers could allow parents to opt out of the system, but at a cost of less funding for those public schools.
3. This seems like it would lead to further school-suckiness, and eventually to utter collapse...
Given that our elementary education in this country is already abysmal, why would cutting resources make things any better for our kids? Sure, maybe things would be better for your kids, but the nation as a whole would decline. And since our entire economy is coming to depend upon high-tech services and knowledge industries, we need more comprehensive education, not a total collapse of the system.
It's doubtfull that this worse-case scenario would happen. Our schools (at least in California) are some of the most expensive in the Industrialized world, and yet they suck and often lack basic supplies. What black hole is all this money going into?? Ask any California school teacher...... it pays for the 6 digit salaries of fat cat Admininstrators and Superintendents. A whole fucking TON of them. WAY more than is actually necessary to run the system. Teachers unions have seen to it that almost any tenured teacher who spends enough tim in the system, will get a cushy high paying Admin job to retire from. The teachers unions primary concern is the carrers of it's teachers. (suprize, suprize)
You can have whatever beliefs you want. You just can't force them on the rest of us. And we have as much right to the belief that you're an idiot for having them.
You're not allowed to have those beliefs when you go to Universites and other schools. Haven't you head of "Campus speech codes"?? Here come the thought police.
Not that you're talking to me, but I haven't, no. Does this mean that certain positions are not allowed to be shouted out during, like, school protests and rallies and suchlike? Because 'speech codes' there would seem just as 'legitimate' as they would outside, say, the headquarters of a multinational corporation! ;)
From my perspective, any restrictions on free speech that do not impinge on public safety, etc, are intolerable, so don't think I am defending the restrictions on your campus or anything. I'm definitely a free-speech zealot. But I am genuinely curious about what those 'codes' are and how they measure up against the kind of things enforced elsewhere in society.
(Damnit all, now I have Frank Zappa's 'Who Are The Brian Police?' playing in my head!!!)
I was thinking of a particular incident in Massachusetts where a student was thrown out of the school for calling a group of black students "Water Buffalo" The school Admins took this as being a derogatory term meaning "Large animals from Africa" neglecting the fact that water buffalo are from ASIA. As it turned out, this student violated a campus speech code (common in colleges back East). Since so many schools were discovered to have simmilar codes, conservative commentators jumped on the fact that Liberals were the primary censors of free speech on American college campuses.
-
Perhaps my use of the term "mental agility" was a bit to vauge. You make a point here that agrees with the criticisms of the study though, namely the study was focused on the neurology of the subjets, and that data was used to infer the psycology of the subjects.
Well, not exactly; they made an inference about the subjects' neurology and offered an interpretation of that inference that has psychological implications. That was my reading of the paper, anyway.
The study was junk science.
Perhaps, though as is obvious I do not yet agree with you. But then, I am open to all kinds of studies that people call 'junk' science. To give you an example of turned tables, most people dismiss studies into natural intelligence entirely, calling them racist and fascist and suchlike. But the potential implications of a study should not be allowed to block it; otherwise our ideology will keep us trapped and unable really to learn.
Really?? can you point to any peer reviewed science that says this is the case?? Could it just be that this field of science is just dominated by people with political axes to grind??
Could it be? Sure. But I'll also agree that the moon could be made of swiss cheese; it's just not terribly likely. ;)
I wouldn't be so dismissive of the notion that this area of science is colored with the political opinions of the people in the field.
I am no more of less dismissive of that than anything else. I was, on the one hand, noting my own ridiculous capacity for taking anything seriously, even if only as an intellectual exercise.
But yes, I was being flippant with regard to your original argument, which is ironic given that I agree with the main thrust you express here. I will generally side with folks like Michel Foucault and argue that all of our perspectives, which means also all of our scientific studies, are coloured by our subjective positions and by the particular discourse in which we are immersed. Even unconsciously, many scientific projects, then, are 'politically motivated'.
But I might be taking this is an entirely different direction than you imply. If we are to think of the scientist as being actually disingenuous, and out to attack a particular kind of people, I cannot agree at all. The discipline is pretty harsh on people who step outside the lines and make politically-motivated attacks in the guise of science. When they are discovered a career is usually destroyed...
I have yet to encounter information that didn't have some kind of agenda behind it. This would especially be the case for this study, which was an obvious exercise in conservative bashing.
Agreed for the former, not for the latter.
But by the same token, I do not think that nature gives us more than a good, solid start, and that culture plays the decisive role in shaping that initial material into the individuals we become. The Richerson book is a good one for staking out that territory, but Wilson got there before practically anyone else and his insights are still beautiful.
...and yet the research I've seen in this area comes to the opposite conclusion. That initally, culture and environment has a large influence on a person, but as time progresses, the more we fall into genetic paterns of behavior and become like our parents.
Interesting! Please recommend some articles and books. As for becoming like our parents specifically, though, I would not challenge you there. But expressing their character traits and reflecting the culture in which you are raised do not, in most cases, seem to conflict with one another. Don't we all get kinda curmudgeonly as we age anyhow? :laugh:
-
Did you ever bother to check the figures for that, or are you just quoting another ditto-head?!
Look here to see where the real "lion's share" of the money goes, and how little feeds anything remotely like your assumptions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/summarytables.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/summarytables.html)
Besides... if we got to choose between banana slug research and nukes in space, I think the former is far more worthwhile... :laugh:
I was mixing sarcasm with facts here. Entitlement spending (Including Social Security) IS the largest part of the federal budget.
Not quite, as Social Security is not part of the federal budget! Check with the Congressional Budget Office and see for yerself.
But rather than just making an only semi-serious, pedantic point here, I still challenge your basic argument. Social Security could not be called a "lion's share", but it would be--just barely--a larger percentage of total revenues than security. The difference is truly tiny; even the bloody Heritage foundation can give you the right figures on that.
But the programme itself remains the most popular one in the history of this nation, and it is still shamefully stingy by the standards of the rest of the Western world. I think the system should be fundamentally reformed: but to offer more benefits, not less. Providing for basic economic security in old age is terribly important in preventing another runaway economic downturn.
have personal property rights
On this one, you're going to have to elaborate please.
Environmental laws an zoning laws mostly. They are often corrupted and abused to prevent property owners from doing anything on thier own property (building or improving it) by using the excuse that they're damaging the environment by doing so. (The red-legged frog fiasco in California comes to mind)
Oh, heavens forbid we might actually want to leave a sustainable ecosystem for our children! I swear, arguments about how people should be able to do as they please with 'their property' just remind me of how thoroughly fucked up our species is. And of why I became an anarchist in the first place...
This statement seems a bit contradictory. How are private property rights and Anarchism remotely conflicting??
Err, by dint of fundamental principle! Anarchism, as a political philosophy, has always held to the conviction that private property is theft from the collective good. It is an area of anarchist theory that I disagree with, for the most part, but it has been present from the start and still defines the movement to-day. See esp. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
Did you read my original statement?? I was making the point of how those laws get CORRUPTED as in how the laws actually get enforced. The red-legged frog being a case in point where ranchers on the central coast can't even clean out drainage ditches on their property (proper maintenance) because red-legged frogs were everywhere where ther was water (Funny how an animal is both endangerd and thriving at the same time)
Yeah, but I have two problems here. The first is that I do not think environmental laws are strict enough or properly enforced. And examples like the one you give are usually exaggerated bullshit, passed along by the right-wing media in contravention of the facts. I would have to read up on your example to see what it really means, but I will note that frogs--as an entire class of being--are in danger of extinction almost worldwide.
It's doubtfull that this worse-case scenario would happen. Our schools (at least in California) are some of the most expensive in the Industrialized world, and yet they suck and often lack basic supplies. What black hole is all this money going into?? Ask any California school teacher...... it pays for the 6 digit salaries of fat cat Admininstrators and Superintendents. A whole fucking TON of them. WAY more than is actually necessary to run the system. Teachers unions have seen to it that almost any tenured teacher who spends enough tim in the system, will get a cushy high paying Admin job to retire from. The teachers unions primary concern is the carrers of it's teachers. (suprize, suprize)
First of all, the worst-case scenario I outlined is the stated intent of many of the designers of the voucher proposal. It is a 'trojan horse' tactic, freely admitted by some more honest pundits. But to address the issue directly, I would have to say that vouchers are not a cure at all, as they mistake the problem entirely. Proponents of vouchers are suggesting that, since the system is laden with (in this instance) "fat-cat administrators", that the best solution is to pull money out of the system and let it fail. But a more reasonable approach--one that does not rely upon re-inventing the wheel--is to reform the bureaucracy of the school systems.
I would agree to comprehensive, non-political reviews of the way money is spent, and to changes where necessary to enforce good, conservative austerity. However, this is not what the right really wants: It is out to destroy the programme itself, as part of the Reaganite plan to shrink government down to a size where you could "drown it in your bathtub". If mis-spent money on salaries were really a conservative issue, your side of the aisle should look at how money is being spent in Iraq, where people are making more in a month than I make in a year just to sit on their asses and let Iraqis do the work. The right is only after fiscal austerity when the money is going to a social programme, and never seems to give a damn that the military contractors are happily fleecing the American taxpayers, and the Administration is handing out new, multi-billion dollar contracts to companies that have already been convicted of fraud and mis-use of government funds...
I was thinking of a particular incident in Massachusetts where a student was thrown out of the school for calling a group of black students "Water Buffalo" The school Admins took this as being a derogatory term meaning "Large animals from Africa" neglecting the fact that water buffalo are from ASIA. As it turned out, this student violated a campus speech code (common in colleges back East). Since so many schools were discovered to have simmilar codes, conservative commentators jumped on the fact that Liberals were the primary censors of free speech on American college campuses.
How awful. Well, when it comes to "political correctness", I stand with your side: free speech should not be abridged to make anyone feel more "safe". But I still think the issue is more of a canard than a principled objection, at least in the media's hands; the right does quite a lot to restrict free speech, too. No-one is an angel in this area.