Conservatives vs Liberals

[Guest]

Nope but it does support that democrats get the uninformed vote. If i agree'd with this study anyways, I do not support any political study I am just Illustrating how easy it is to find one.

The premise of what you said was based on a false assumption that general knowledge equals intelligence, you have demonstrated nothing. Where as the study in the opening post at least uses recognised measures of intelligence and then established the political affiliation of the participants. It is in an entirely different league of academic credibility.

Br Cornelius

[Agent0range]

Political studies are dumb -_-. This is how easy it is to find one that supports your view, just Google it( i just posted the first one that popped up). And you guys conventionality ignored Michelle post. and mine.

http://www.bizpacrev...democrats-54686

Pew makes it official: Republicans are smarter than Democrats

But at the end of the day all political studies are dumb and motivated in a biased way

.

And here is where I show you the difference between us, Spartan. You find some BS, factually wrong right leaning website to present the argument, and I show you scientific measurable data to support mine. They didn't even get the date of the pew survey correct. Here are the actual results. Democrats got 8.6 questions right, and republicans got 8.7 right. Democrats did in fact score higher on numerous questions even though your article said they didn't score higher on any...

http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/05/what-the-public-knows-in-pictures-maps-graphs-and-symbols/1/

[Guest]

I think the defining quality of conservatives is their ability to deny empirically derived evidence in favour of belief, and this thread is shaping up to be more proof of my point.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 17, 2014 by Guest

[Michelle]

I think it's fascinating that such a large group, Democrats, who pride themselves on being so open-minded, all inclusive and accepting are so bigoted towards other political parties...namely Republicans. It makes me wonder if some people ever take a good, honest look at themselves.

[Jeremiah65]

Jeremiah, in addition to IQ tests, there were also SAT like tests given in certain areas. An IQ test measures your ability to learn, and the other tests measure what you already know. Let me give you a statement:

Group A and Group B took a series of tests. Group A had a higher average on their IQ test, mathematics test, spelling test, grammar test, and cognitive ability test than group B. Please write a hypothesis stating which group is the smarter of the two.

Um...no.

It's a trap.

It is my "opinion" that these types of studies are biased toward achieving an end result that is desired by those carrying out the studies.

I admit I often generalize and that is "shame on me". However, saying something like "oh just look at the anti-obamacare threads for spelling and grammar". That is a cloaked and veiled attempt to say anyone that disagrees with Crony Capitalism is stupid.

I disagree with Obamacare for a plethora of reasons and none of them are because I want people to be sick and in need of medical attention. That does not make me "less intelligent" than someone who falls all over themselves for it and refuse to see the bad parts.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Jeremiah65

[spartan max2]

And here is where I show you the difference between us, Spartan. You find some BS, factually wrong right leaning website to present the argument, and I show you scientific measurable data to support mine. They didn't even get the date of the pew survey correct. Here are the actual results. Democrats got 8.6 questions right, and republicans got 8.7 right. Democrats did in fact score higher on numerous questions even though your article said they didn't score higher on any...

http://www.people-pr...-and-symbols/1/

The 2013 one.

My post was the 2010 one . Once again showing how political motivated studies are all dumb but you refuse to see that

But your study is irrefutable... Did you even bother to read my critique of it? The measures only measured people based off their few social views. And even includes a vast portiton of democrats counting them as "conservatives in the study"

From article

Provocative, yes. But two important caveats are needed. First, by “conservatism” Stankov does not necessarily mean people who favor free market economics. He has in mind a kind of traditionalism probably best described as social conservatism:

The second caveat is that social conservatives do not always vote for conservative candidates. Most black Americans, for example, clearly exhibit “the Conservative syndrome” as Stankov defined it—70 percent voted to abolish gay marriage in California—but they routinely give about 90 percent of their votes to the Democratic Party.

Just a preview go actually read my first post please. Or do you want to keep trying to stereotype people and label it as science?

And while you are at it maybe you could look at michelle post

Edited April 17, 2014 by spartan max2

[Agent0range]

Um...no.

It's a trap.

It is my "opinion" that these types of studies are biased toward achieving an end result that is desired by those carrying out the studies.

I admit I often generalize and that is "shame on me". However, saying something like "oh just look at the anti-obamacare threads for spelling and grammar". That is a cloaked and veiled attempt to say anyone that disagrees with Crony Capitalism is stupid.

I disagree with Obamacare for a plethora of reasons and none of them are because I want people to be sick and in need of medical attention. That does not make me "less intelligent" than someone who falls all over themselves for it and refuse to see the bad parts.

See, you are doing it. When I said look at an Obamacare thread, it was because mosts of the posts are either extreme left, or extreme right. When I said to look at it, I also said to completely ignore the substance of the post and instead focus on strictly spelling and grammar.

The scenario I gave you had nothing to do with an Obamacare thread, so would you care to pick out the smarter group? How exactly would there be any bias in an IQ test or knowledge based tests on subjects everyone receives schooling in?

[Agent0range]

The 2013 one.

My post was the 2010 one . Once again showing how political motivated studies are all dumb but you refuse to see that

But your study is irrefutable... Did you even bother to read my critique of it? The measures only measured people based off their few social views. And even includes a vast portiton of democrats counting them as "conservatives in the study"

From article

Provocative, yes. But two important caveats are needed. First, by “conservatism” Stankov does not necessarily mean people who favor free market economics. He has in mind a kind of traditionalism probably best described as social conservatism:

The second caveat is that social conservatives do not always vote for conservative candidates. Most black Americans, for example, clearly exhibit “the Conservative syndrome” as Stankov defined it—70 percent voted to abolish gay marriage in California—but they routinely give about 90 percent of their votes to the Democratic Party.

Just a preview go actually read my first post please. Or do you want to keep trying to stereotype people and label it as science?

And while you are at it maybe you could look at michelle post

Spartan, why do you believe your study is the 2010 one? Because the article says so? They didn't link a study from 2010. Is it not a little strange that the title is "Pew makes it official" and it is referencing a study from three years earlier even though it was published over a month after the 2013 pew survey results were made public? Think about it. Remember that cognitive ability that is referfenced in my articles?

[Jeremiah65]

I think the defining quality of conservatives is their ability to deny empirically derived evidence in favour of belief, and this thread is shaping up to be more proof of my point.

Br Cornelius

let's use an example.

Climate Change.

There are those thoroughly convinced that climate change is purely a result of mankind's pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere...they want to tax and spend to solve it the way they see fit.

There are those that steadfastly deny there is anything going on at all.

THEN there are some that can see with their own eyes and feel with their own senses that something is astray. Some of those people are not convinced it is completely mankind's fault. Some are looking to the sun and the other planets because there is evidence the entire solar system is heating up...would be kind of hard to blame rising temps on Jupiter on manmade CO2.

To deny "something is wrong" is pretty...um...unobservant". But to leap on the most convenient explanation (that blames developed nations) and fight tooth and nail and not even consider other possibilities is also less than prudent in my "opinion". I have no problem saying "the climate is crazy"....I do have a problem saying "it's all man's fault...especially the wealthy and middle class of developed nations...crucify them and their way of life"...not ready to go there yet.

What I see across a ton of threads here and everywhere else...pick a topic..."I believe this and you believe that and you are wrong"...

I do it myself. It is our nature to do that...sadly. The really sad part is there is an element of "science for sale"...for and against just about any topic you want to think up. I'm not saying it's everyone...I am saying it happens just enough to cast doubts in the minds of some people...and that hurts everyone.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Jeremiah65

[spartan max2]

Do you not understand that fact that I posted the first thing that popped up to show how easy it is to find things that agree with you? I skimmed it, the content didn't matter if its right or wrong. But apparently you want to ignore that point and make jabs.

You choose to ignore all critique about your own study and not comment at Michelle study.

Sorry I thought i was having a reasonable discussion with someone from UM but It seems I did not realize I was having a debate with a politician.

I have to go, but please continue to believe whatever makes you feel good and preach tolerance as you stereotype others and claim it as science. I wounder how much times science was used as a argument to discriminate throughout history, you should look in to it.

Edited April 17, 2014 by spartan max2

[RavenHawk]

A study showing the correlation between evolution denial and climate change denial would settle the case for me. Theories so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that to deny them shows a lack of cognitive reasoning ability.

Well, I believe in evolution *AND* climate change. As you say, the evidence is overwhelming. So that would seem to blow your wet dream.

With that said, overwhelming evidence is no substitute for proof. The issue isn’t whether evolution exists or it doesn’t. There is absolutely no proof of it. At this point, it is a matter of faith. The closest thing we have to proof is Genesis 1:1. It is a recorded non-scientific observation. The thing with climate change isn’t whether it is happening or not, is it Anthropomorphic or not? There is absolutely no proof that man is causing climate change. In fact, posing the question shows the fallibility that man causes climate change. A more appropriate question would be, how much is man affecting the climate change that is currently occurring? So you see, there is quite a bit more to it than just black or white.

This is the thing; Conservatives seek the mechanics and the causes to find an answer. Progressives are too busy trying to twist things to setup strawmen to prove that all Conservatives can do is to deny this or deny that. The heart of the scientist is to be skeptical of everything, not trying to massage evidence to mold into their agenda to attack Conservatives.

I actually think that intelligence, or the ability to think about information and draw reasoned conclusions based on the evidence, is a learned skill. The genetic component is only a relatively small part.

It’s not a learned skill as if one didn’t have the talent in the first place as much as it improves with practice. And learning from reasoned conclusions and adding them to your tool bag.

However most people prefer to let other people do their reasoning for them and that is where inherited tradition takes over from intelligence.

And that is a good description of Liberal sheeple. Or the Low Information Voter.

[Guest]

Nice of you Ravenhawk to come along and confirm my point. Always good to have you on hand

Br Cornelius

[Michelle]

The second caveat is that social conservatives do not always vote for conservative candidates. Most black Americans, for example, clearly exhibit “the Conservative syndrome” as Stankov defined it—70 percent voted to abolish gay marriage in California—but they routinely give about 90 percent of their votes to the Democratic Party.

Black people are also some of the most religious people you will ever come across, but it's taboo to talk about. Progressives don't see that when they talk about the religious right.

[Guest]

Black people are also some of the most religious people you will ever come across, but it's taboo to talk about. Progressives don't see that when they talk about the religious right.

The point is - that they are socially conservative by the definition. They vote democrat for their fiscally progressive policies not their socially progressive ones. This is why the study clearly delineates what type's of Liberals and Conservatives it is studying.

Br Cornelius

[RavenHawk]

Nice of you Ravenhawk to come along and confirm my point. Always good to have you on hand

Really? Why do you think I posted what I did? What I did was blow your point out of the water and your reply here just confirms the limited mental capabilities of Progressives. And you are clueless as to why. You can only parrot the political agenda you are told about evolution and climate change, instead of seeing them for the intricate natural processes they are. They are not political weapons. You invoke their names as if they give you power – far from it. You are just another witchdoctor.

[Agent0range]

Really? Why do you think I posted what I did? What I did was blow your point out of the water and your reply here just confirms the limited mental capabilities of Progressives. And you are clueless as to why. You can only parrot the political agenda you are told about evolution and climate change, instead of seeing them for the intricate natural processes they are. They are not political weapons. You invoke their names as if they give you power far from it. You are just another witchdoctor.

I personally stopped reading when you said "there is absolutely no proof" of evolution. That is a completely laughable statement. No, there is not concrete proof that humans evolved from monkey's. There is evidence though. But, there is absolute proof of evolution within other species.

[Guest]

Really? Why do you think I posted what I did? What I did was blow your point out of the water and your reply here just confirms the limited mental capabilities of Progressives. And you are clueless as to why. You can only parrot the political agenda you are told about evolution and climate change, instead of seeing them for the intricate natural processes they are. They are not political weapons. You invoke their names as if they give you power – far from it. You are just another witchdoctor.

You think you did, but really you proved my point in the best way possible.

Your problem is you confuse your own rhetoric with reality.

PS - The common cold is an example of evolution which shows adaptation in real time. Proof enough for me.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 17, 2014 by Guest

[RavenHawk]

I personally stopped reading when you said "there is absolutely no proof" of evolution.

Of course. The hallmarks of a closed mind.

That is a completely laughable statement. No, there is not concrete proof that humans evolved from monkey's.

Or any species into any other.

There is evidence though. But, there is absolute proof of evolution within other species.

And what did I say about “evidence”? Mutation is not evolution. Evolution is the changing of one species into another. By the end of the day a mutated fruit fly is still a fruit fly. That is why Darwin wrote “Origin of *SPECIES*” and not “Origin of *GENUS*” or *Phylum*, etc. Or even “Adaptation of Species” for that matter.

[Agent0range]

Of course. The hallmarks of a closed mind.

Or any species into any other.

And what did I say about "evidence"? Mutation is not evolution. Evolution is the changing of one species into another. By the end of the day a mutated fruit fly is still a fruit fly. That is why Darwin wrote "Origin of *SPECIES*" and not "Origin of *GENUS*" or *Phylum*, etc. Or even "Adaptation of Species" for that matter.

Where's the evolution?

We're not even sure if viruses are alive — can they evolve? Definitely! To evolve by natural selection, all an entity needs is genetic variation, inheritance, selection, and time, all of which viruses have in spades. And this is the concern. The avian flu virus evolves rapidly and could easily evolve into a form that can be passed from human to human.

http://evolution.ber.../051115_birdflu

I really don't know where you come up with your definitions...

And since you brought up Darwin..how about his home turf?

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/40718

Edited April 17, 2014 by Agent0range

[Bama13]

From my reading of the article: Dumb people that vote consistently for democrats are classified as conservatives. Smart people that vote consistently for democrats are liberals. So if you start with the goal of proving that liberals are smarter that conservatives, and then alter the generally accepted meaning of conservative to include all dumb liberals, the result is not surprising, worthless yes, but not surprising.

[Agent0range]

From my reading of the article: Dumb people that vote consistently for democrats are classified as conservatives. Smart people that vote consistently for democrats are liberals. So if you start with the goal of proving that liberals are smarter that conservatives, and then alter the generally accepted meaning of conservative to include all dumb liberals, the result is not surprising, worthless yes, but not surprising.

They didn't say "dumb" people...they mentioned blacks that consider themselves democrats but vote for conservative ideals. Are the "dumb people" you are referring to the black people they are talking about? How very conservative of you.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Agent0range

[Bama13]

They didn't say "dumb" people...they mentioned blacks that consider themselves democrats but vote for conservative ideals. Are the "dumb people" you are referring to the black people they are talking about? How very conservative of you.

How very liberal of you to play the race card.

To your point, if you look at many of your beloved polls they show time and again that blacks get lower scores, in general, than whites or Asians on the SAT/ACT. Since that is one of the measures they are using to determine "intelligence" I think it is germane to this discussion.

PS While I consider myself to be a conservative I am not anti-abortion, I'm pro legalizing drugs, and I am a atheist. Guess I'm really a liberal according to these guys.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Bama13

[Agent0range]

How very liberal of you to play the race card.

How is that the race card? I asked you a straight forward question. The people that they grouped in with the conservatives were blacks that voted conservative on issues. Were they, or weren't they the dumb people you were talking about? If they weren't, then can you point me to the area of the article which contain the people you are talking about?

[Bama13]

How is that the race card? I asked you a straight forward question. The people that they grouped in with the conservatives were blacks that voted conservative on issues. Were they, or weren't they the dumb people you were talking about? If they weren't, then can you point me to the area of the article which contain the people you are talking about?

Sorry, I was editing my post while you replied. I think I answered your question there.

"Dumb" was a, well, dumb word for me to use. I should have said people that tend to score lower on standardized tests.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Bama13

[Agent0range]

Sorry, I was editing my post while you replied. I think I answered your question there.

"Dumb" was a, well, dumb word for me to use. I should have said people that tend to score lower on standardized tests.

So you accuse me of playing the race card when I was in fact 100% correct? Do you not see how that type of thinking is flawed? It is not "playing the race card" when you are actually talking about race...