Conservatives vs Liberals

[Bama13]

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...

The was supposed to indicate sarcasm. Guess I used the wrong one.

Now that we are past that, do you disagree with the rest of my post? Do you not see that the entire poll is flawed by their re-defining the generally accepted meaning of "conservative"?

Edited April 17, 2014 by Bama13

[Michelle]

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...

So it's fine to denigrate an entire group of people as long as they are the same color as yourself?

[Agent0range]

The was supposed to indicate sarcasm. Guess I used the wrong one.

Now that we are past that, do you disagree with the rest of my post? Do you not see that the entire poll is flawed by their re-defining the generally accepted meaning of "conservative"?

No, I don't agree with the rest of your post. Conservative vs Liberal is more of a way of thinking than a political party, which is why they grouped it that way. If someone calls themselves a democrat but votes against gay marriage and for gun rights, they clearly have a conservative mindset. I can say I am whatever I want..but my actions define what I actually am.

[Gromdor]

What I found interesting was the fact that there was physical differences in the brains of liberals and conservatives. Perhaps being a liberal or conservative is not a choice at all.

[F3SS]

This thread really is Conservatives vs. Liberals. Everybody's going off the deep end.

The studies are using measurable tools to determine this. IQ tests, SAT like tests to measure grammar, vocabulary, pelling and mathematical skills, and one of the studies from the second link measures the size of areas of the brain. When looking at the raw data, almost anyone should come up with the same conclusion.

Go into an Obamacare thread and analyze strictly the grammar and spelling of a post. I will almost guarantee that you will be able to pick out the liberals and conservatives without paying attention to the substance.

That's a load. There are plenty of good and bad spellers with every possible interest on this site. Really, how could you possible say that? Let's take a look at yours, shall we?

You have a double space before IQ. "Pelling". A possible run-on sentence after "mathematical skills". Another double space.

"Analyze strictly" should be "strictly analyze". Another double space. "Almost guarantee" could just be an oxymoron.

I know we are not allowed to point out others typing abilities but you kind of asked for it.

Late humble edit: In my part, "possible" should be "possibly". However, if we are comparing...

Edited April 18, 2014 by F3SS

[SHaYap]

The worst kind of voters are the scared and the greedy ~ and the worst of all is the greedy AND scared ~ somewhat of a lesser of the worst is the scared but greedy ~

[DarkHunter]

I am a bit surprised that no one has yet brought up the fact that using IQ and SAT scores are problematic in and of themselves.

First the problem with using IQ as a measure of intelligence is that it measures one particular and rather narrow field of intelligence. Also depending on what IQ test was used, there can be a cultural bias that discriminates against certain groups. Any basic search can bring up multitude of criticisms on using IQ as a measure of intelligence.

As for the SAT scores the main problem with that is that SAT scores tend not to measure how smart a person is but how wealthy of a background they came from. Roughly 32% of people from a wealthy background score over 1100 while only 9% of people from a poorer background score over 1100. This is not surprising since wealthy families can and do afford the highly expensive SAT test prep courses. There was such strong correlation between wealth and high SAT scores that colleges have started to stop requiring it for admissions, it was so bad that the 2016 SAT test is being redesigned in an attempt to remove wealth bias from it.

I would of liked to of gone into more detail but it is late, I am tired, and haven't slept much for the past week. Just wanted to mention a few other problems with this study that have not been mentioned yet.

[Almagest]

Interesting. But I have to wonder about the black/white nature of the analysis - you're either conservative or liberal, except that most of us aren't that way at all. What about Libertarians?

Studies also show that atheists are smarter than theists.

So where does that leave me - a Fiscally conservative, socially Libertarian, atheist?

I don't know how the language got twisted so badly over in the United States, Libertarians are Liberals. In every other country in the world the liberals are the ones pushing for freer markets. The Australian Liberal Party is centre-right, and in about 7 months has done little but slash spending and loosen regulations on business. When the communists and fascists marched in the early 20th century the only piece of common ground they found was a hatred of Liberalism. And by that I mean the institutions created by liberalism - parliamentary democracy and free market capitalism. And in a lot of the Commonwealth countries there are *gasp* Liberal-Conservative parties.

It is a false dichotomy which has done nothing to reinforce the Us-versus-Them mentality that both parties seem to have in the United States. It's false because as people have noted in this thread already that nobody is completely liberal or conservative. It also ignores the fact that disunity is common on either wing. When the John Birch society was gaining ground it was William F. Buckley and the National Review who most strongly opposed it, not those on the left. The Republican Party at the time being seems to be a fragile coalition of Christian conservatives and libertarians.

I don't place much stock in these kinds of studies because having intellect on it's own doesn't mean much. I'd say it is more of a matter of critical versus uncritical mindsets. The latter group might tend to be conservatives, but that doesn't mean they all are. Browse a few New Age websites and you'll see how uncritical liberals can be. They have the same obsession with purity and hatred of mainstream sources as the loons on the right do. What's worse is they consider themselves to be critical thinkers, when they aren't. They distrust anything they hear in the public discourse but do not apply the same level of scepticism to the sources that tell them what they want to hear.

To be a critical thinker is to assess the value of things that you read and hear, not dismiss it out of hand. It is a skill that has to be learned, and can be learned by anyone. It really should be the first thing we teach children after they've grasped basic spelling and mathematics. Of course it would ruin the voter bases of entrenched political parties so you can see why it's so toxic to them.

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.

If you have that level of philosophical scepticism then everything is a matter of faith. Even whether these words mean what we agree that they mean. Proof is the domain of hard logic and mathematics. Being able to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt is the best we have ever been able to do. Evolution doesn't need proof when it has overwhelming evidence. When there is evidence there is little room for faith and when there's as much evidence for something as there is for Evolution there is no room whatsoever for faith.

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.

Refute this argument for me please:

1. If human greenhouse gas emissions exceed the amount that can be recaptured, they will accumulate in the atmosphere

2. if greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere more of the suns heat will be trapped on Earth

3. therefore if human greenhouse gas emissions exceed the amount that can be recaptured, more of the suns heat will be trapped on Earth

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.

Funny how you say that while strawmanning progressives yourself.

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.

Nope, it is a learned skill. People might be more naturally inclined towards critical thinking, but that doesn't mean they don't have things to learn about it, just that they'll probably pick it up quicker. I think the problem is that people are too precious about their own thoughts and assumptions, including the assumption that they are a critical thinker and everyone else is a sheeple. You place yourself in the former group, don't you?

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

Why yes, you do.

[preacherman76]

What if you try your best to live socialy conservative, but feel no need to push your life style on others? Does that mean you are still dumb?

BTW voting against one socialy conservative subject like gay marrage, while at the same time having near 50% abortion rates, 90% fatherless families, thinking Bill Clinton is secretly a black man, in no way makes one socialy conservative. But then, that wouldnt help push the agenda of this study now would it?

[Agent0range]

What if you try your best to live socialy conservative, but feel no need to push your life style on others? Does that mean you are still dumb?

BTW voting against one socialy conservative subject like gay marrage, while at the same time having near 50% abortion rates, 90% fatherless families, thinking Bill Clinton is secretly a black man, in no way makes one socialy conservative. But then, that wouldnt help push the agenda of this study now would it?

Wow..talk about coming out of left field to support the study! Thank you very much your input.

[preacherman76]

Wow..talk about coming out of left field to support the study! Thank you very much your input.

Wow.. another liberal making personal attacks cause they have nothing intelligent to say. Thank you to. For nothing.

[RavenHawk]

I’m not sure how much time I will have today to respond to various posts, I am heading out of town tomorrow and I’m not sure what my access to the internet will be like, so I’ll start with this one.

If you have that level of philosophical scepticism then everything is a matter of faith.

For me, that is true. If you want me to believe something, you better have hard empirical proof or a solid philosophical argument and only then I “might” believe it.

Even whether these words mean what we agree that they mean. Proof is the domain of hard logic and mathematics.

Correct.

Being able to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt is the best we have ever been able to do. Evolution doesn't need proof when it has overwhelming evidence.

Wow! Talk about an oxymoron. As I said before, overwhelming evidence is not proof. For me, I believe that evolution is the natural process of life on this planet (on any planetary system for that matter), it is my faith. You don’t have to convince me otherwise. However, there is no empirical proof of evolution. Not yet anyway. I don’t understand people’s arrogance in denying that.

Men like Lavoisier and Mendeleev worked on discovering all the elements. In those 100 years, they kept adding to the concept of the Period Table. They knew that certain elements should exist but it hadn’t been empirically discovered yet. I.e., there was no proof until the element was actually discovered. Knowing that an element fitted into that hole just gave them the confidence that one would be found, but it wasn’t proven until it happened.

Some kind of observation is the best kind of empirical proof. We can observe mutation and adaptation but we haven’t yet been able to observe evolution. That is why I mentioned that Genesis 1:1 is a vague, top-level, non-scientific observation of the story of evolution on this planet. We know that GOD showed Adam things in visions and one of them must be assumed to be the 13 billion years of universal history (at least locally). The odds of someone coming up with a story this specific and this close to the actual events that long ago is astronomical. So until we find empirical proof, all we have is Genesis, but at least it confirms that we are on the right track. We are not yet finished in discovering *this* ”Periodic Table”.

This is where the Liberal mind falters. It is based in instant gratification. Nothing can get better than *now*. It assumes that evolution is fact and thinks that the Conservative position that there is no proof as stating the position that evolution does not exist. That is why the Conservative mind is far more superior because it can look ahead and consider other possibilities.

When there is evidence there is little room for faith and when there's as much evidence for something as there is for Evolution there is no room whatsoever for faith.

I don’t believe that. Faith and empirical proof are two sides of the same coin. Knowing something is true and proving something is true are two different things but it doesn’t change the fact that that something exists. I have faith in Man’s abilities to explore both.

Refute this argument for me please:

1. If human greenhouse gas emissions exceed the amount that can be recaptured, they will accumulate in the atmosphere

2. if greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere more of the suns heat will be trapped on Earth

3. therefore if human greenhouse gas emissions exceed the amount that can be recaptured, more of the suns heat will be trapped on Earth

Why should I refute it? I see nothing wrong with it. We’ve all seen the experiment of a bottle full of CO2 and if you heat it the temperature rises faster that a heated bottle with no CO2 in it. But the first thing we pull from this experiment is that CO2 is not a pollutant. Next the bottle experiment is a closed, static experiment. It does not take into consideration an eco-system like the Earth. Cloud cover affects temps and the oceans absorb the CO2. The oceans have been absorbing CO2 and methane for billions of years and to think for one minute that we are at a tipping point now is a self-induced hallucination. It goes back to the need of the Liberal mind for instant gratification.

Getting back to the point, increasing levels of CO2 is not creating climate change. That is a process that has been going on for billions of years, so Man does not cause it. Now Man is probably affecting the climate. That is a whole different premise. We have been in a warming period since about 1850, so of course it is getting warmer. Man had nothing to do with that. With it warming, where it took maybe a century to rise 1 degree, with Man’s activity, it might take only 50 years to go up that 1 degree. It has certainly been warmer in Earth’s history and there have been higher levels of CO2 and these were during periods of when there was also more life on this planet.

This is not Venus, in which volcanos created the atmosphere it has now. And unless the same thing occurs here again as it did in the past, we really don’t know what Planet Earth is going to do. But instead of throwing trillions away at trying to stop something we can’t, namely climate change, we should work on being better custodians and clean up our environment and learn how to adapt to Gaia’s changes. Let’s work the problem with a clear head and not panic that we are going to kill ourselves off from CO2. One needs faith in the system, in Mother Earth. Man is not as powerful as some think we are.

Funny how you say that while strawmanning progressives yourself.

Let’s not get into that. What I’ve stated is fact and not *strawmanning*. And if you are a typical Progressive (if you are), that will be proved by how you respond to what I’ve already stated.

Nope, it is a learned skill. People might be more naturally inclined towards critical thinking, but that doesn't mean they don't have things to learn about it, just that they'll probably pick it up quicker. I think the problem is that people are too precious about their own thoughts and assumptions, including the assumption that they are a critical thinker and everyone else is a sheeple. You place yourself in the former group, don't you?

I think we are agreeing and disagreeing at the same time. It would take its own thread just to discuss this, so I’m not going to comment because it is a tangent and what is pertinent is already being covered.

Why yes, you do.

Ignorant but cute.

[Gromdor]

What if you try your best to live socialy conservative, but feel no need to push your life style on others? Does that mean you are still dumb?

BTW voting against one socialy conservative subject like gay marrage, while at the same time having near 50% abortion rates, 90% fatherless families, thinking Bill Clinton is secretly a black man, in no way makes one socialy conservative. But then, that wouldnt help push the agenda of this study now would it?

I learned a long time ago from my experiences with religion and politics that what people believe in and what they do are often completely different things. Evangelical Christians for example. 15% of all abortions are to evangelicals, they have a higher divorce rate than nonbelievers and thinking Jesus was white.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/blogs/religion-world/os-evangelicals-have-higher-divorce-rate-than-nonbelievers-20140206,0,7995751.post

http://www.antiochian.org/node/16950

[F3SS]

they have a higher divorce rate than nonbelievers

Off the cuff here but that could be do to getting married under some kind of pressure as in they may feel the need to be married more often and sooner despite what their hearts say than agnostics and non-believers who have no problems waiting until they're truly ready.

[Gromdor]

I tend to agree. Real life tends to put a smack down on peoples values and beliefs.

[Yamato]

Can't be a spinster, it's not appropriate. So, be fruitful and multiply! Perhaps children are the mechanism for the eternal life we were promised? Lo, the wealth gospel of the 21st century. It actually is about how much money and prosperity you have right now! And that has full bipartisan support from both conservatives and liberals!

Early last year I went to a conservative Christian play put on by kids who belong to a church club in the area, and in the program it asked each child, under their photo, what they would ask God. And I swear that nearly half of them, probably 20 of the little buggers, would (in one form of wording or other) ask God to make abortion illegal in their country. Then three little boys all belonging to the same mother came up the aisle, with toy rifles in hand, humping their way through the deserts or jungles to the stage where they would dig in and throw hand grenades from. All before saying a lot of patriotic God Bless America stuff. The balance and harmony struck by the little ones between nationalism and faith was very well received by the audience. It began to feel a bit uncomfortable.

But when both God blesses you and your Nation tells you to do it, you're all clear kid. Bombs away.

[preacherman76]

In the heart of nearly every boy is a warrior.

[Yamato]

In the heart of nearly every boy is a warrior.

What a lovely slogan for the recruitment office.

[preacherman76]

What a lovely slogan for the recruitment office.

I guess. I know how you love to put folks like myself in to the christian box.

I have 2 boys. They love pretending they are in a war. This is by nature. I dont fight it. I just try to help them see the truth about it as much as I can. If my job is done right, they wont even consider going into service come that time.

[Wickian]

I guess. I know how you love to put folks like myself in to the christian box.

I have 2 boys. They love pretending they are in a war. This is by nature. I dont fight it. I just try to help them see the truth about it as much as I can. If my job is done right, they wont even consider going into service come that time.

Violence is a fundamental building block of nature. Human's aren't exempt from these instincts. About the best we can do is find acceptable outlets(sports, games, hobbies, etc) of these urges to prevent street fights.

[F3SS]

Reminds me of the scene in Terminator 2 when they went down to where Sarah Connor kept her guns with the Mexican family and the two tiny little boys were pretending to shoot each other and Arnie the Terminator proceeded to explain how it's in our nature to destroy ourselves.

[Agent0range]

This thread really is Conservatives vs. Liberals. Everybody's going off the deep end.

That's a load. There are plenty of good and bad spellers with every possible interest on this site. Really, how could you possible say that? Let's take a look at yours, shall we?

You have a double space before IQ. "Pelling". A possible run-on sentence after "mathematical skills". Another double space.

"Analyze strictly" should be "strictly analyze". Another double space. "Almost guarantee" could just be an oxymoron.

I know we are not allowed to point out others typing abilities but you kind of asked for it.

Late humble edit: In my part, "possible" should be "possibly". However, if we are comparing...

Well I just saw this post. A double space before IQ? You place two spaces at the end of a sentence, I am pretty sure they teach that by the third grade. Pelling? Clearly a typo, which is very different from not knowing how to spell something. Analyze strictly? That is used correctly there. Almost guarantee is also acceptable.

For the 100th time...I posted a study with actual data. The study was not based off of opinion, but hard numbers. Until you can link a scientific, peer reviewed study disputing my information, my study stands.

[F3SS]

Well I just saw this post. A double space before IQ? You place two spaces at the end of a sentence, I am pretty sure they teach that by the third grade. Pelling? Clearly a typo, which is very different from not knowing how to spell something. Analyze strictly? That is used correctly there. Almost guarantee is also acceptable.

For the 100th time...I posted a study with actual data. The study was not based off of opinion, but hard numbers. Until you can link a scientific, peer reviewed study disputing my information, my study stands.

All I'm saying is before you broadly attack an entire belief system you should make sure you're not guilty of the very things you're lambasting them on. Also, guarantees are absolute. I accept what you said as a figure of speech but technically, no. Further, why is it that when I have a double space in Microsoft Word it highlights it as an error? Doesn't look right to me when it's there. I'm sure it's all about what you're teacher thought. Typing classes weren't a thing when I was in third grade. I'm all about single spacing. It's easier on the eyes and is the most widely accepted form of spacing. So yea what's up?

I don't think I refuted your study. It fits what you want to believe and it's carved in stone for you. You're a liberal. You're smarter just because of that. You're enlightened. You're worlds ahead of half the country. Unfortunately, all of your good hearted enlightened outlooks turn to pure crap once implemented as public policy. For such a learned people you sure have a hard time figuring out how to fix that. I guess realizing it would be the first step.

[Agent0range]

All I'm saying is before you broadly attack an entire belief system you should make sure you're not guilty of the very things you're lambasting them on. Also, guarantees are absolute. I accept what you said as a figure of speech but technically, no. Further, why is it that when I have a double space in Microsoft Word it highlights it as an error? Doesn't look right to me when it's there. I'm sure it's all about what you're teacher thought. Typing classes weren't a thing when I was in third grade. I'm all about single spacing. It's easier on the eyes and is the most widely accepted form of spacing. So yea what's up?

I don't think I refuted your study. It fits what you want to believe and it's carved in stone for you. You're a liberal. You're smarter just because of that. You're enlightened. You're worlds ahead of half the country. Unfortunately, all of your good hearted enlightened outlooks turn to pure crap once implemented as public policy. For such a learned people you sure have a hard time figuring out how to fix that. I guess realizing it would be the first step.

Attacking a belief system? I posted articles highlighting MULTIPLE scientific studies showing hard numbers that conservatives aren't very smart. What is hilarious is the fact that you think I am a liberal. Why? Because of what I posted? I am not a liberal, but I am also not afraid of facts.

[Yamato]

I guess. I know how you love to put folks like myself in to the christian box.

I have 2 boys. They love pretending they are in a war. This is by nature. I dont fight it. I just try to help them see the truth about it as much as I can. If my job is done right, they wont even consider going into service come that time.

Seriously? When and where have I EVER put you in a Christian box, sir? I don't even know what that means.

Is what I witnessed in that church group "doing the job right?" It sounded like it, when you leave a supportive reply to it and fail to reveal what you just said above. Saying that boys are violent by nature, okay, and are they God-fearing nationalists by nature too? Or does pledging allegiance to the flag every morning have something to do with it? Kids are products of their culture, they're infused with the values that their parents instill in them. But when these boys get their first girl pregnant by accident and realize they're on the hook for $250k of their future earnings because that girl also happens to share their views on abortion, their "nature" will get adjusted naturally real quick.

An analogy would be that it's easy to hate Social Security. It's hard not to cash the check when it's your turn to do so. Just claiming we believe something is one thing; being willing to actually sacrifice for our beliefs is quite another.

I don't put anyone in a "Christian box" because there is no such box. If I take everything Jesus said in a volume and look at how Christians act which is anything but, if there is a box then there's a giant hole in the box they're all spilling out of. Nobody listens to turn the other cheek. Nobody, not even you.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Yamato