Brains and bias?
Replies
-
Wow! You disagree? I guess I should say you just won the debate because you said, "I disagree." (rolling eyes!)
I love the simplemindedness of those who call everyone who disagrees with them a racist. It certainly simplifies the whole world doesn't it? There are the racists, and those who agree with you. This is the simplemindedness of our times.
Winston Churchill was by no means a racist. He was a man of his times. He was born when Rudyard Kipling was alive, in the era of the white man's burden. Every great invention had been made by white men. All great advances in civilization had been made by white men. All great literature had been written by white men. It may seem racist to you, but it was logical to those who lived then. Other than Europeans and Americans, most of the world lived in pre-agricultural societies, and were ruled by shamans or despots. They seemed quite primative by comparison to European society. Churchill, for example, said the Indians had a primative religion. He was referring to the quaint custom in India of burning a wife on the funeral pyre of the husband when the husband died. (The wife, by the way, was still alive.)
Of course, my having said that, you will now start jumping up and down screaming, "Racist! Racist! Racist!" I was describing the world as it was, not as I would prefer it to be, nor, God forbid, the fantesy politically correct world created by simple minded liberals. World views change with different eras. People who held views central to their civilization during their time can hardly be considered outliers. Churchill was no more racist than Roosevelt, or Wilson, or anyone else who lived in those times. We now live in an era of reverse racism : white males are now considered evil, and nominees to the Supreme Court aren't the best candidates, but are nominated because they are Hispanic women. God forbid we have a WASP on the Supreme Court.
This is the biggotry of liberalism It no longer matters how good you are, but rather what kind of ethnic type you represent.
Okay, so you are a one-note singer. Everyone you disagree with is a racist. This is the level of debate today, and I have encountered it many times. I blame the dumbed down school system.
Now instead of a rant about what a racist I am, why don't you address the statistical claims I made which undermine the study. Oh, yeah, I know why. Analyzing statistical claims is hard. Calling someone a racist is easy.
Man of the times? I don't make excuses for peoples racism throughout history, by saying it was part of the times. He did far worse than make a few off comment remarks about a variety of indigenous peoples and their religious beliefs.
I have a few British friends that love to hate on America, because of many things from our racist past. (You can call it the times, I personally call them as I see them, without the need to sugar coat.) I find it quite humorous that they choose to ignore the great many, simply awful things that were done by their own government, and that included things done under Churchill. Many things glossed over by history, mostly because he was part of the victors. Ahhh If only the Bengal famine was held in the same regard as Holodomor. Anyone who scrapes the surface of Winston Churchill would see that he was a racist, of course apologists will disagree. I have no need for apologies where he is concerned, it doesn't hurt my feelings to call him a racist anymore than it hurts my feelings to call Andrew Jackson a racist.
Either way his quote and your assertions are completely ridiculous and unfounded, so ridiculous they're not even worth debating. So you can roll your eyes all you like, lawd knows I do everyday when I open my email and open the various idiotic forwards that come from the conservatives I know. Americans are being put into internment camps, Czars in the white house (lol), Obama is a Muslim, a Kenyan, the antichrist, you are not allowed to pray in school and the list goes on and on and on. If this is the group I am supposed to admire for their "wisdom of how things really work" we're all in a lot of trouble. Not that I believe all conservatives are this way, I judge people as individuals not by the groups they supposedly belong to. I believe that saying one group is smart and the other is stupid is pretty shallow and stupid in itself.
As far as you guessing what I am going to say to you, I am actually giggling. Thanks for the laugh. I have to say I really got a kick out of you building a strawman in regards to me, "Everyone I disagree with is a racist" What a moronic thing to say. But again, thanks for the laugh.
Of course you aren't going to debate with me. You can't. As I said, a one trick pony. If they disagree with you, call them a racist. Gee, it worked in high school.
Liberals have an extreem lack of knowledge about history. That, I suppose is why they are liberals. If it wasn't for "racists" like Churchill, you'd be goose-stepping to work and probably have a concentration camp in your neighborhood. That is what would have happened if the liberal Chamberlain had his way. (Google him. I really doubt you know who Chamberlain was. He was the "Peace in our times"guy.)
Again, I raise certain statistical criticisms and the liberals scratch their butts and play the racism card. That is all they are capable of. I thought this was a debating board, not home to a bunch of name-calling high school dropouts.
I brought up the fact that Churchill was a racist because YOU said that this study was biased because it was British, and then you quoted a racist Brit to dispute the study. effing brilliant.
If you can show me where I said this study was "biased because it was British," I will send you $50. What I said was it may not be applicable to the US because the US is a different society from the UK. There certainly is a reading comprehension problem here but it is not mine. I cannot help it if you can't understand basic English.
And I gave you a valid statisitcal argument, which of course you did not, and cannot address. You probably never passed algebra I let alone statistics.
And I am sorry but you having comprehension problems in regards to this study and then broad stroke brushing entire groups of people as either genius or mindless is beyond boring.
I am characterizing people based upon the responses I am getting which are juvenile. I had thought this was a debating board, but no one here, except for me, seems to know how to argue.
Its quite obvious that with all your broad strokes and name calling you're just looking to bait people into personal arguments based on nothing more than opinions that have no factual basis.
Duh, I quote people. I give mathematical arguments. Gee, I guess for a certain population that is just opinion.
In your mind you believe all of these things about liberals and if they don't buy into your narrative you will pretend that they do anyway and then TRY TO argue with them based on nothing more than the story you built up in your own head. Seek help. You are dismissed.
I agree with you on one thing. This is becoming a huge waste of time. I have never seen such stupid arguments in my life. Really, if this is the state of the intelligence of American Society, we are really in trouble.0 -
Wow! You disagree? I guess I should say you just won the debate because you said, "I disagree." (rolling eyes!)
I love the simplemindedness of those who call everyone who disagrees with them a racist. It certainly simplifies the whole world doesn't it? There are the racists, and those who agree with you. This is the simplemindedness of our times.
Winston Churchill was by no means a racist. He was a man of his times. He was born when Rudyard Kipling was alive, in the era of the white man's burden. Every great invention had been made by white men. All great advances in civilization had been made by white men. All great literature had been written by white men. It may seem racist to you, but it was logical to those who lived then. Other than Europeans and Americans, most of the world lived in pre-agricultural societies, and were ruled by shamans or despots. They seemed quite primative by comparison to European society. Churchill, for example, said the Indians had a primative religion. He was referring to the quaint custom in India of burning a wife on the funeral pyre of the husband when the husband died. (The wife, by the way, was still alive.)
Of course, my having said that, you will now start jumping up and down screaming, "Racist! Racist! Racist!" I was describing the world as it was, not as I would prefer it to be, nor, God forbid, the fantesy politically correct world created by simple minded liberals. World views change with different eras. People who held views central to their civilization during their time can hardly be considered outliers. Churchill was no more racist than Roosevelt, or Wilson, or anyone else who lived in those times. We now live in an era of reverse racism : white males are now considered evil, and nominees to the Supreme Court aren't the best candidates, but are nominated because they are Hispanic women. God forbid we have a WASP on the Supreme Court.
This is the biggotry of liberalism It no longer matters how good you are, but rather what kind of ethnic type you represent.
Okay, so you are a one-note singer. Everyone you disagree with is a racist. This is the level of debate today, and I have encountered it many times. I blame the dumbed down school system.
Now instead of a rant about what a racist I am, why don't you address the statistical claims I made which undermine the study. Oh, yeah, I know why. Analyzing statistical claims is hard. Calling someone a racist is easy.
Man of the times? I don't make excuses for peoples racism throughout history, by saying it was part of the times. He did far worse than make a few off comment remarks about a variety of indigenous peoples and their religious beliefs.
I have a few British friends that love to hate on America, because of many things from our racist past. (You can call it the times, I personally call them as I see them, without the need to sugar coat.) I find it quite humorous that they choose to ignore the great many, simply awful things that were done by their own government, and that included things done under Churchill. Many things glossed over by history, mostly because he was part of the victors. Ahhh If only the Bengal famine was held in the same regard as Holodomor. Anyone who scrapes the surface of Winston Churchill would see that he was a racist, of course apologists will disagree. I have no need for apologies where he is concerned, it doesn't hurt my feelings to call him a racist anymore than it hurts my feelings to call Andrew Jackson a racist.
Either way his quote and your assertions are completely ridiculous and unfounded, so ridiculous they're not even worth debating. So you can roll your eyes all you like, lawd knows I do everyday when I open my email and open the various idiotic forwards that come from the conservatives I know. Americans are being put into internment camps, Czars in the white house (lol), Obama is a Muslim, a Kenyan, the antichrist, you are not allowed to pray in school and the list goes on and on and on. If this is the group I am supposed to admire for their "wisdom of how things really work" we're all in a lot of trouble. Not that I believe all conservatives are this way, I judge people as individuals not by the groups they supposedly belong to. I believe that saying one group is smart and the other is stupid is pretty shallow and stupid in itself.
As far as you guessing what I am going to say to you, I am actually giggling. Thanks for the laugh. I have to say I really got a kick out of you building a strawman in regards to me, "Everyone I disagree with is a racist" What a moronic thing to say. But again, thanks for the laugh.
Of course you aren't going to debate with me. You can't. As I said, a one trick pony. If they disagree with you, call them a racist. Gee, it worked in high school.
Liberals have an extreme lack of knowledge about history. That, I suppose is why they are liberals. If it wasn't for "racists" like Churchill, you'd be goose-stepping to work and probably have a concentration camp in your neighborhood. That is what would have happened if the liberal Chamberlain had his way. (Google him. I really doubt you know who Chamberlain was. He was the "Peace in our times"guy.)
Again, I raise certain statistical criticisms and the liberals scratch their butts and play the racism card. That is all they are capable of. I thought this was a debating board, not home to a bunch of name-calling high school dropouts.
This is getting great. First one of the reasons you dismiss the study is because it is british and has no bearing on modern american society.....and back up your claim with a quote form a Brit from more than half a century ago.....awesome.
Then, in a debate about how people of lesser intelligence make sweeping generalizations about whole groups of people, you proceed to make this a political debate and make huge sweeping generalizations about immature, naieve liberals who "don't know history".
Hardcore liberals and conservatives don't know history, they rewrite it. Then you said that it was conservatives like Churchill that we aren't goosestepping in America. Discounting the fact that it would be a stretch to assume that if Hitler conqueored the British and then the Russians, he would be able to occupy both nations and build a fleet and army large enough to invade and conqueor continental USA, it pains me that you seemed to forget that the President of the US who handed Hitler his *kitten* was Dwight, the guy modern conservatives hate because all of his "liberal" programs. If I had to choose who was more responsible for keeping americans safe from Nazis....I'll take Dwight over Winston any day of the week.
Then you go on some weird rant about how at the time of Churchill all great advances had been made by white men. Once again, like the British Empire and Churchill, you show a fundamental lack of knowledge about history and once again twist things to meet your own world view. No one can claim that in the area of science, the last few centuries have been largely advanced by white western powers. But in in the grand scheme of human history and a look at the ancient cultures we have been built on....once again, you are wrong. As a matter of fact, Western Civilization is just a made up phrase that comes from racists. See, Brits who were busy dominating and colonizing placed like India were also performing archeology. They were having a hell of a time understanding how the Indians had Sanskrit and the Brits needed the Romans to teach them how to read. So then they made up grand stories about the "aryans:, white people who came to ancient India, taught them everything....and left. The Nazis did the same thing with their hootenanny stories about Altanits.
Then as the British Empire and America grew, suddenly they realized if you look at the ancient world...Africa had The pyramids and Timbuktu, the Middle East had the Summerian Pyramids and the cradle of Agriculture. South America had their ancient grand cities and pyramids. The greeks had the Parthenon and a litany of awesome temples. But when we look at ancient Northern Europe..............Stone Henge. Congrats. Way to build a circle with rocks, guys. Hell, 100 years ago White people didn;t even consider Greeks white. But then the whites created "Western Culture" and all of a sudden we have philosophy, math and writing in our history. Neet trick. It's fun to rewrite history, racists! So if you want to run around bragging about white scienctific advancements, awesome, it's true. But don't forget that for thousands of years whitey was sleeping in straw huts with their dirty kids next to pigs while other cultures were mapping the stars, debating philosophy and exploring the ancient world.
I'm starting to think you aren't even a conservative, but a liberal troll making the cons look bad. If you truly are a conservative, as a friendly Independent, please for the sake of your own kind, quit talking.0 -
But those were some great mathematical arguments? No? Okay, probably dealing with a troll.0
-
But those were some great mathematical arguments? No? Okay, probably dealing with a troll.
Over at Red State, I'm sure he's considered an intellectual. Probably because he's the only one whose Glenn Beck History Cards aren't all stuck together.0 -
No doubt.But those were some great mathematical arguments? No? Okay, probably dealing with a troll.
Over at Red State, I'm sure he's considered an intellectual. Probably because he's the only one whose Glenn Beck History Cards aren't all stuck together.0 -
Okay, I have had it with banging my head against concrete blockheads. There are other very nice boards in this discussion group where you can actually enjoy a good debate. Where
people know something about history
people have enough knowledge to know a properly done study from one that has been done improperly
people do not call others "racists" when they disagree with them
people are actually intelligent
Bytheway, you can all be happy knowing that I am mentioning this board to other discussion groups as an example of several things:
how not to argue
what an ad hominem argument is (Google it.)
why our public school system has failed the country
Why people with low IQs tend to be liberals.
So please don't change anything. Please keep calling me a racist, and continue presenting your deconstructionist (Google it) versions of history. You are serving a greater good. You are fine examples of exactly what is wrong in this country.
Ciao (Google it.)0 -
Okay, I have had it with banging my head against concrete blockheads. There are other very nice boards in this discussion group where you can actually enjoy a good debate. Where
people know something about history
people have enough knowledge to know a properly done study from one that has been done improperly
people do not call others "racists" when they disagree with them
people are actually intelligent
Bytheway, you can all be happy knowing that I am mentioning this board to other discussion groups as an example of several things:
how not to argue
what an ad hominem argument is (Google it.)
why our public school system has failed the country
Why people with low IQs tend to be liberals.
So please don't change anything. Please keep calling me a racist, and continue presenting your deconstructionist (Google it) versions of history. You are serving a greater good. You are fine examples of exactly what is wrong in this country.
Ciao (Google it.)
Please don't be gone. I want to further bask in the awesomeness of your intellectual radiance. It is obvious that you are the mental superior of all who debated here. I mean, you keep saying it, so I guess I should believe it. I also enjoy how everyone who disagrees with you is a public school liberal. It must be painful to possess that much psychic power to know those facts based on the fact that. we just happen to think dumb people are more racist/biased.
And like I said, I'm sure a mental giant like you can see the hilarious irony of being in a debate thread about IQ and bias.............and you're awesome assertion that liberals have lower IQs. Show me a real study that hasn't been done by a far right think tank or a Pat Robertson college that proves liberals have lower IQs. Oh that's right, if it's a study you like, I'm betting the research was done fine in your book.
Adios Amigos (Yahoo it)0 -
Liberals have an extreme lack of knowledge about history. That, I suppose is why they are liberals.
Is this person being serious? Did I miss something?0 -
Bytheway, you can all be happy knowing that I am mentioning this board to other discussion groups as an example of several things:
how not to argue
what an ad hominem argument is (Google it.)
why our public school system has failed the country
Why people with low IQs tend to be liberals.
So please don't change anything. Please keep calling me a racist, and continue presenting your deconstructionist (Google it) versions of history. You are serving a greater good. You are fine examples of exactly what is wrong in this country.
Ciao (Google it.)
For the most part this group has been trouble free. Until now. We've had raging debates about religion and politics and everything else and for the most part we've all been respectful or at least close. But I've never seen posts as rude, dismissive or ill-informed as yours.
If you're leaving I highly doubt you'll be missed.0 -
Liberals have an extreme lack of knowledge about history. That, I suppose is why they are liberals.
Is this person being serious? Did I miss something?
I wondered if I missed something too, I had to go back and look to see who was calling him a racist. No one that I saw. At this point, I don't think he is serious.0 -
My thoughts on the original topic are this: It's easier to lead a person with lower intellect and IQ to do or believe anything - not just racist views. I don't need a scientific study to tell me this either. Just observe the world around you.0
-
Hey if anyone needs a laugh go ahead and click on the profile of the person calling all of us stupid. I'm cracking up over here!0
-
Pretty cool that there's actually a study that supports my theory...
Don't get too excited. You can pick any subject and find a survey/poll/report/study to support it.
Then you can find another site that opposes it.
Very true. But a girl can dream, right? :laugh: This is why ongoing research and proper statistical analysis is so important.0 -
Liberals have an extreme lack of knowledge about history. That, I suppose is why they are liberals.
Is this person being serious? Did I miss something?
I wondered if I missed something too, I had to go back and look to see who was calling him a racist. No one that I saw. At this point, I don't think he is serious.
Amusingly, I just saw an almost identical post from the same chap over on another thread, in which he said there were other threads where intelligent debate was possible - I assumed he meant here, but apparently not... I wonder where he meant? Much flouncing going on!0 -
Liberals have an extreme lack of knowledge about history. That, I suppose is why they are liberals.
Is this person being serious? Did I miss something?
I wondered if I missed something too, I had to go back and look to see who was calling him a racist. No one that I saw. At this point, I don't think he is serious.
Amusingly, I just saw an almost identical post from the same chap over on another thread, in which he said there were other threads where intelligent debate was possible - I assumed he meant here, but apparently not... I wonder where he meant? Much flouncing going on!
Orpheus,
The board you saw me say that on was one of the good boards. Read the quote again, I think you misunderstood.0 -
I must have googled "Ciao" wrong... But what would I know? Dumb liberal that I am...0
-
Liberals have an extreme lack of knowledge about history. That, I suppose is why they are liberals.
Is this person being serious? Did I miss something?
I wondered if I missed something too, I had to go back and look to see who was calling him a racist. No one that I saw. At this point, I don't think he is serious.
Amusingly, I just saw an almost identical post from the same chap over on another thread, in which he said there were other threads where intelligent debate was possible - I assumed he meant here, but apparently not... I wonder where he meant? Much flouncing going on!
Orpheus,
The board you saw me say that on was one of the good boards. Read the quote again, I think you misunderstood.
I stand corrected. My apologies - reading in a hurry. Nonetheless, I've had some fantastic debates here about all sorts of subjects, and have found the majority to be widely-educated and a pleasure to bat concepts/ideas around with. I'm sorry your experience has not been so positive. I'm off to sing an opera now - Arrivederci.0 -
Liberals have an extreme lack of knowledge about history. That, I suppose is why they are liberals.
Is this person being serious? Did I miss something?
I wondered if I missed something too, I had to go back and look to see who was calling him a racist. No one that I saw. At this point, I don't think he is serious.
Amusingly, I just saw an almost identical post from the same chap over on another thread, in which he said there were other threads where intelligent debate was possible - I assumed he meant here, but apparently not... I wonder where he meant? Much flouncing going on!
Orpheus,
The board you saw me say that on was one of the good boards. Read the quote again, I think you misunderstood.
I stand corrected. My apologies - reading in a hurry. Nonetheless, I've had some fantastic debates here about all sorts of subjects, and have found the majority to be widely-educated and a pleasure to bat concepts/ideas around with. I'm sorry your experience has not been so positive. I'm off to sing an opera now - Arrivederci.
Interesting. Perhaps I judged too quickly. Are you interested in the subject of whether people with low IQ tend to be conservative? Being a conservative I resisted that notion. In fact, I would argue for the opposite. However, the whole discussion seems to have devolved into a rant (not by me, I assure you) about how Winston Churchill was a racist. But then, I won't go into it. If you are interested you can read what was said.
As for the opera, don't tell me - Orpheus in the Underworld? Royal College of Music?0 -
Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.0 -
One of the most entertaining movies!Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.0 -
Preface: I'm only referencing any actual study in very vague ways. It's really my intention to get at the heart of what the problem is from a conceptual standpoint, rather play devil's advocate with methodologies--which is mostly just a sparring match anyway.
Really isn't the gist that people with lower IQs tend to have problems dealing with the ambiguity present in the world, and thus tend toward absolutist philosophies (e.g. racism) designed to catch the eye of the "easier to manipulate" segments of our population? And further, there's a position being put forth, with an attempt at some form of empirical data gathering (again not the focus here, I'm just mentioning for clarification) that there's a correlation between people who identify as social conservatives and also adopting "objectionable" philosophies, correct? No?
I mean, isn't the elephant in the room that there are people who happen to identify as socially conservative who don't like the implication that just because they happen be socially conservative, they must by necessity also have a lower IQ and also be racist? I get that. I'm not particularly fond of people who assume I don't know what I'm talking about just because I'm liberal, and they don't actually provide evidence for that.
But is that really the take away? Isn't it really just about drawing lines together without making causal conclusions.
Do I still hold the view that most of the people who I happen to have encountered (IRL), who are the most vocal about being socially conservative, are also prejudiced and ignorant. Yeah, I kinda do. But if it makes anyone feel better, I did come to those individual conclusions after much thought about what they've said, and I try not to generalize it to a large population.0 -
Preface: I'm only referencing any actual study in very vague ways. It's really my intention to get at the heart of what the problem is from a conceptual standpoint, rather play devil's advocate with methodologies--which is mostly just a sparring match anyway.
Really isn't the gist that people with lower IQs tend to have problems dealing with the ambiguity present in the world, and thus tend toward absolutist philosophies (e.g. racism) designed to catch the eye of the "easier to manipulate" segments of our population? And further, there's a position being put forth, with an attempt at some form of empirical data gathering (again not the focus here, I'm just mentioning for clarification) that there's a correlation between people who identify as social conservatives and also adopting "objectionable" philosophies, correct? No?
************************************
There also seems to be a correlation between between prejudice and lack of contact with out groups. The reason I would look more carefully at the data would be to see if the causal factor here is actually lack of contact with out groups, not low IQ. And also, as seemingly the only Conservative on this board, I should mention that I am a strong FISCAL conservative and a social conservative only in so far as I believe the government sould have as little to do with things as possible. Many of my beliefs would be classified as radically liberal, e.g., I am a vegan animal rights proponent, and I am anti-hunting. I would legalize drugs, and certainly would not have bailed out Wall Street. Anyway, I agree that absolutist philosophies with little nuance would appeal to people with low IQs. Such philosophies, as you have indicated, are found on both ends of the political spectrum.
************************************
I mean, isn't the elephant in the room that there are people who happen to identify as socially conservative who don't like the implication that just because they happen be socially conservative, they must by necessity also have a lower IQ and also be racist? I get that. I'm not particularly fond of people who assume I don't know what I'm talking about just because I'm liberal, and they don't actually provide evidence for that.
But is that really the take away? Isn't it really just about drawing lines together without making causal conclusions.
************************************
Causation or correlation the eternal question. Yes, I agree with you completely. This study looks like it was put together to be sensational, and seemingly, it worked.
*************************************
Do I still hold the view that most of the people who I happen to have encountered (IRL), who are the most vocal about being socially conservative, are also prejudiced and ignorant. Yeah, I kinda do. But if it makes anyone feel better, I did come to those individual conclusions after much thought about what they've said, and I try not to generalize it to a large population.
*************************************
I hold the point of view that liberals tend to stereotype more than those with anyother point of view, and as a rule abhor nuance. For example, if I were to tell someone only that I am a card carrying PETA member (which is true) a liberal would never guess that I was a Republican, while a Conservative might.
*************************************0 -
If X says they went to an Occupy rally a conservative would not only assume they were liberal but also dirty and unemployed while a liberal would know that they may well be a member of the clergy, an Iraq war vet, or a teacher from any point on the liberal/conservative spectrum.*************************************
I hold the point of view that liberals tend to stereotype more than those with anyother point of view, and as a rule abhor nuance. For example, if I were to tell someone only that I am a card carrying PETA member (which is true) a liberal would never guess that I was a Republican, while a Conservative might.
*************************************
If X says they are gay a conservative may assume they flaunt their sexuality and are a masculine female or a feminine male while a liberal would be more likely to know that they are probably indistinguishable from anyone else.
If X goes to a Southern Baptist church a conservative would never guess that they were a Democrat while a liberal might.
We can go all day with scenarios that back up either side. It proves nothing.0 -
*************************************
I hold the point of view that liberals tend to stereotype more than those with anyother point of view, and as a rule abhor nuance. For example, if I were to tell someone only that I am a card carrying PETA member (which is true) a liberal would never guess that I was a Republican, while a Conservative might.
*************************************
So the difference is that I'm judging the social conservatives I've met. You're stating that liberals tend to....etc. Unless you've published a study on it, it appears that you have even less reason to make a generalization than anyone reading the study would. Perhaps I'm taking you out of context. If so, please correct me. And really, you seem a little overly sensitive to being accused of being [whatever quality] as if you had been bitten as a child by rabid person who happened to be hiding, inappropriately under the guise of Liberalism. Actually you don't seem much like a Republican at all. I'd peg you as a Libertarian without hesitation based on what you've said. Interesting, I guess.
Interestingly enough, I'm liberal and hold many values that would apparently indicate otherwise (I was unaware of this). I think PETA, as it's incarnated-not conceptualized) is ridiculous. I'm pro hunting with certain specific requirements. The only reason I can see to being vegan is one of morality (i.e. treatment of animals). Then again, I think the the NRA is a joke, so maybe I am a Liberal after all.0 -
If X says they went to an Occupy rally a conservative would not only assume they were liberal but also dirty and unemployed while a liberal would know that they may well be a member of the clergy, an Iraq war vet, or a teacher from any point on the liberal/conservative spectrum.*************************************
I hold the point of view that liberals tend to stereotype more than those with anyother point of view, and as a rule abhor nuance. For example, if I were to tell someone only that I am a card carrying PETA member (which is true) a liberal would never guess that I was a Republican, while a Conservative might.
*************************************
*****************************
Or a supporter of Ron Paul.
*****************************
If X says they are gay a conservative may assume they flaunt their sexuality and are a masculine female or a feminine male while a liberal would be more likely to know that they are probably indistinguishable from anyone else.
****************************
Considering there are gay conservatives, what do you think?
****************************
If X goes to a Southern Baptist church a conservative would never guess that they were a Democrat while a liberal might.
***************************
Why would a liberal assume that a Southern Baptist was a Democrat, knowing nothing else about them?
***************************
We can go all day with scenarios that back up either side. It proves nothing.
*****************************
I guess the proof ot the pudding is which group uses generalizations the most.
*****************************0 -
*************************************
I hold the point of view that liberals tend to stereotype more than those with anyother point of view, and as a rule abhor nuance. For example, if I were to tell someone only that I am a card carrying PETA member (which is true) a liberal would never guess that I was a Republican, while a Conservative might.
*************************************
So the difference is that I'm judging the social conservatives I've met. You're stating that liberals tend to....etc. Unless you've published a study on it, it appears that you have even less reason to make a generalization than anyone reading the study would. Perhaps I'm taking you out of context. If so, please correct me. And really, you seem a little overly sensitive to being accused of being [whatever quality] as if you had been bitten as a child by rabid person who happened to be hiding, inappropriately under the guise of Liberalism. Actually you don't seem much like a Republican at all. I'd peg you as a Libertarian without hesitation based on what you've said. Interesting, I guess.
*********************************
Good generalization. This time you happen to be right. I am a registered Republican but will probably vote for Ron Paul. Why do you think Ron Paul is in the Republican, and not the Democratic Party?
**********************************
Interestingly enough, I'm liberal and hold many values that would apparently indicate otherwise (I was unaware of this). I think PETA, as it's incarnated-not conceptualized) is ridiculous. I'm pro hunting with certain specific requirements. The only reason I can see to being vegan is one of morality (i.e. treatment of animals). Then again, I think the the NRA is a joke, so maybe I am a Liberal after all.
******************************
No you are absolutely a typical liberal. I see them all the time. They pat you on the back when you tell them you are for animal rights, but they rarely do a damn thing themselves to promote animal rights. Of course, there are exceptions but not many. On the other hand, you'd be shocked at how many Conservatives agree with me.
******************************0 -
******************************
No you are absolutely a typical liberal. I see them all the time. They pat you on the back when you tell them you are for animal rights, but they rarely do a damn thing themselves to promote animal rights. Of course, there are exceptions but not many. On the other hand, you'd be shocked at how many Conservatives agree with me.
******************************
Are you assuming I do nothing for animal rights? It's a bit of a complex topic, as I'm sure you know. Really, your conclusions are very poorly supported.
For instance, I could assume, based on your age stated in your profile, that you're simply antiquated and irrelevant, but that would be wrong, perhaps even rude, of me. After all, this jaded, arrogant, and uniformed (at least when it comes me) tone, could simply be a symptom of a much larger problem.0 -
******************************
No you are absolutely a typical liberal. I see them all the time. They pat you on the back when you tell them you are for animal rights, but they rarely do a damn thing themselves to promote animal rights. Of course, there are exceptions but not many. On the other hand, you'd be shocked at how many Conservatives agree with me.
******************************
Are you assuming I do nothing for animal rights? It's a bit of a complex topic, as I'm sure you know. Really, your conclusions are very poorly supported.
**************************
Excuse me, but I would really like to know how you can hunt and support animal rights. That is like saying I believe in human rights after I say I am willing to machine gun people who disagree with me. There is such a thing as cognative dissonance, but that would go way beyond that.
***************************
For instance, I could assume, based on your age stated in your profile, that you're simply antiquated and irrelevant, but that would be wrong, perhaps even rude, of me.
**************************
I have my own business which I run. I play the stock market and have been very successful over the years (although this year I am getting killed.) I work out two hours per day in a gym. I have a black belt in Shaolin Kempo Karate. I just successfully completed one major real estate deal and am embarking on another. If you thought I was antiquated and irreelevant, you would simply be mistaken.
***************************
After all, this jaded, arrogant, and uniformed (at least when it comes me) tone, could simply be a symptom of a much larger problem.
*****************************
Are you referring to my tone or yours. If you are referring to your own tone then let me comfort you. Anyone who doesn't believe enough in what he says to be a little arrogant, should keep his mouth shut.
*****************************0 -
Excuse me, but I would really like to know how you can hunt and support animal rights. That is like saying I believe in human rights after I say I am willing to machine gun people who disagree with me. There is such a thing as cognative dissonance, but that would go way beyond that.
You seem to be suggesting that one cannot respect animal rights and still hunt, yes? I simply disagree. I believe one can kill an animal cleanly, use its meat and, and respect it all at the same time. Your analogy is simply inaccurate. Animals can't disagree or agree with me; the entire exchange supposes a level of discourse that predatator species don't have with their prey, at least not traditionally.
Most recently we see examples of this kind of philosophy in movies like Avatar, but the underlying ideas are far older than movies or Western civilization for that matter. Avatar just happens to be trendy. Kill when you need to for resources, etc. Now, I'll admit, I don't *need* to hunt. It's a sport. But you're not going to convince me that cleaning killing an animal that has nerve endings and is capable of forming their own social structures is somehow wrong by default simply because you feel an apparent need for exaggerated anthropomorphism.
There are certain techniques employed by hunters that I'm not fond of. I don't approve of baiting, for example. I think if you're going to hunt, you should actually hunt.
I also don't approve of mass killings of whitetail with machine guns. I would guess we agree on that. Personally, I have used a bow, but I don't have problems with hunting rifles.
If you don't agree with me that a rabbit or a chicken doesn't have the same innate rights as I do, you're obviously allowed, but it's nothing more than a disagreement. I'm glad to know that neither one of us feels the need to gun down the other in a hail of machine gun fire.I have my own business which I run. I play the stock market and have been very successful over the years (although this year I am getting killed.) I work out two hours per day in a gym. I have a black belt in Shaolin Kempo Karate. I just successfully completed one major real estate deal and am embarking on another. If you thought I was antiquated and irreelevant, you would simply be mistaken.
I made no such statement indicating that you're anitquated and irrelevant. I stated quite the opposite, in fact. My statement was intended, and successfully demonstrates, that making assumptions about people without knowing them is silly. It's superficial. I now have, however, some evidence to suggest that your reading comprehension is lacking. I have no particular reason to attribute it your age, though.
The other facts you mention about yourself might be interesting to someone who has a desire to know you, but they provide nothing to this discussion--other than to show that you clearly didn't understand what I was saying.Are you referring to my tone or yours. If you are referring to your own tone then let me comfort you. Anyone who doesn't believe enough in what he says to be a little arrogant, should keep his mouth shut.
Your tone, of course
0 -
Excuse me, but I would really like to know how you can hunt and support animal rights. That is like saying I believe in human rights after I say I am willing to machine gun people who disagree with me. There is such a thing as cognative dissonance, but that would go way beyond that.
You seem to be suggesting that one cannot respect animal rights and still hunt, yes?
No, I am not suggesting it, I am saying it is a ridiculous contradiction that is logically impossible.
I simply disagree. I believe one can kill an animal cleanly, use its meat and, and respect it all at the same time
I suppose the Boston Strangler could say the same thing about his victims.
Your analogy is simply inaccurate. Animals can't disagree or agree with me; the entire exchange supposes a level of discourse that predatator species don't have with their prey, at least not traditionally.
Human beings are supposed to be higher animals, not lower animals. We are supposed to show compassion, and not kill when not necessary. We are supposed to have a higher morality and be ethically superior. Hunters are people who enjoy killing they are holding our race to the lowest possible standards. Hunting is nothing more than savagery.
Most recently we see examples of this kind of philosophy in movies like Avatar, but the underlying ideas are far older than movies or Western civilization for that matter. Avatar just happens to be trendy.
I have never seen, and have no intention of seeing this movie.
Kill when you need to for resources, etc. Now, I'll admit, I don't *need* to hunt. It's a sport.
You are damn right you don't. If killing is a sport to you, then you ought to check yourself into a mental clinic.
But you're not going to convince me that cleaning killing an animal that has nerve endings and is capable of forming their own social structures is somehow wrong by default simply because you feel an apparent need for exaggerated anthropomorphism.
I feel the need for compassion, a basic element of civilization. Why do you think all serial killers started out as hunters or abusers of animals? They lack empathy with living beings. It is the basic element of sociopathy.
There are certain techniques employed by hunters that I'm not fond of. I don't approve of baiting, for example. I think if you're going to hunt, you should actually hunt.
I also don't approve of mass killings of whitetail with machine guns.
Gee, how civilized you are. You do approve of mortars to kill them, don't you?
I would guess we agree on that. Personally, I have used a bow, but I don't have problems with hunting rifles.
Pure savagery. Charles Manson used a knife. Does that make him more civilized?
If you don't agree with me that a rabbit or a chicken doesn't have the same innate rights as I do, you're obviously allowed, but it's nothing more than a disagreement. I'm glad to know that neither one of us feels the need to gun down the other in a hail of machine gun fire.
An animal or a chicken has a right to live, as you or I do. Murdering a creature "for sport," is not civilized, and frankly should be criminal. Someone on this board referred to Winston Churchill as a "racist." A hundred years from now people like you will be looked at as as savages, dispicable beings who liked to kill.I have my own business which I run. I play the stock market and have been very successful over the years (although this year I am getting killed.) I work out two hours per day in a gym. I have a black belt in Shaolin Kempo Karate. I just successfully completed one major real estate deal and am embarking on another. If you thought I was antiquated and irreelevant, you would simply be mistaken.
I made no such statement indicating that you're anitquated and irrelevant. I stated quite the opposite, in fact. My statement was intended, and successfully demonstrates, that making assumptions about people without knowing them is silly. It's superficial. I now have, however, some evidence to suggest that your reading comprehension is lacking. I have no particular reason to attribute it your age, though.
My reading comprehension is just fine. People pay me good money to read and write for them. My analytical abilities are also extremely good.
The other facts you mention about yourself might be interesting to someone who has a desire to know you, but they provide nothing to this discussion--other than to show that you clearly didn't understand what I was saying.
Oh, but I do. There are the words of what you say, and there are the implications. But don't feel bad about that. I admire honesty.Are you referring to my tone or yours. If you are referring to your own tone then let me comfort you. Anyone who doesn't believe enough in what he says to be a little arrogant, should keep his mouth shut.
Your tone, of course0
This discussion has been closed.