|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 17 2014 14:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2014 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 17 2014 11:02 BallinWitStalin wrote:On April 17 2014 10:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nearly half of Americans, 49%, believe middle-income people -- a group many Americans consider themselves part of -- pay too much in taxes, up from 42% a year ago and the highest Gallup has found since 1999. At the same time, the 42% who say middle-income Americans pay their "fair share" in taxes is down 11 percentage points from last year. This is also the first time since 2007 that a higher percentage of the public says middle-income Americans are paying too much rather than their fair share. These results are from Gallup's annual Economy and Personal Finance poll, conducted April 3-6. While the April 15 tax deadline may not be the most popular day on the nation's calendar, over the past decade, stable pluralities and sometimes majorities have said that middle-income Americans pay their fair share in taxes, rather than too much or too little. But the perception has grown since 2012 that middle-income Americans pay too much in taxes; this comes as income taxes increase for the first time in 20 years, though mainly for the top earners. President Barack Obama and Congress allowed the Bush tax cuts on the marginal rates for the highest income earners to expire last year, which increased the tax rate for 2013 income from 35.0% to 39.6%. Other taxes, such as capital gains taxes, have also increased, and the bill is now coming due for many taxpayers. Though the bulk of the higher tax rates affect those in the top income bracket -- $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples -- there has not been a noticeable climb in the proportion of Americans who believe upper-income people pay too much. That figure stands at 13% today, essentially unchanged from 11% last year. A robust majority, 61%, believe that upper-income people pay too little, while about a quarter believe they pay their fair share. Source The amount of cognitive dissonance in the American public is astounding. How such a plurality/majority can believe these things, and then vote Republican, never ceases to amaze me. Conservatives have a larger proportion of people who are tortured as children. A majority of Republicans are threatened/brainwashed as children to believe the earth is 10,000 years old along with a lot of other equally insane ideas. If they refuse those or don't refuse other ideas they are promised not only will their life be essentially cursed* but they will spend an eternity after that likely miserable life in the worst condition imaginable for eternity, literally. So you imagine a child surrounded by people who fervently believe and who consistently reinforce that belief, add the fact that in most cases they are discouraged from/punished for interacting with people who don't, until they are allowed to really only interact with them when necessary or attempting to convert/help them, compound onto that many of them are channeled into educational settings where those narratives wont be challenged let alone dismissed, and you start to see how by the time they can vote many of them have been so thoroughly indoctrinated their world view leaves them with a choice between the lesser of two evils and one party is definitely 'going to hell' and at least the republicans have a chance not to. So while the republican party may or may not shit on them (economically) during 'this life' they believe that more people would end up in heaven under republican rule, [so since this life means little compared to eternity they have been trained to choose the option that leads to heaven.] (<--extreme simplification here) There are other aspects that are diminished through these methods. Like listening to others opinions, using reason and logic to parse rhetoric and emotion, reconstructing world views based off of best available information, etc.. All of these things and more lead us down to much of the behavior you see in the Republican party. To be fair there are variations of this within the democratic party just most of them don't entail potentially spending eternity in the worst place imaginable suffering the worst possible torments. + Show Spoiler +*the degree or perception of the curse varies by sect and interpretation but the concept is there in one degree or another. + Show Spoiler +The same person who doesn't understand Jim Demint and his comment about society at the time of the civil war is now telling us why conservatives are conservative- that the reason people are conservative could have nothing to do with values or their own thought process, but must be the result of a tortuous childhood. It could only be because they are ALL creationist, brainwashed children. Obviously when one really thinks logically, the only conclusion is that big government= better. One could not even argue otherwise!
And this is why the right says the left is arrogant. When they have most of the media to push their ideas and values, it's somehow true that liberals know more about conservatism and its causes than actual conservatives do. Somehow in today's culture it is possible for the vast majority of conservatives to be completely isolated from other opinions yet liberals are all the enlightened ones. The time for openmindedness has ended- the result is clear.
I think you may be analyzing yourself. You mention creationists at every possible opportunity and use the words "Republican Party" far more than anyone else. I think you are the partisan in the bubble. No other poster is more obsessed with party- most argue ideas and individual things, but somehow you always come back to the Republican party, as if Conservatives are fans of the party. Shows how little you know.
Your posts reek of arrogance but this one really sums it up so nicely. Between this and sub40 telling me how much I hate Mexicans I am really glad to participate in this thread- I am learning so much about myself.
The same person who doesn't understand Jim Demint and his comment about society at the time of the civil war is now telling us why conservatives are conservative- that the reason people are conservative could have nothing to do with values or their own thought process, but must be the result of a tortuous childhood. It could only be because they are ALL creationist, brainwashed children. Obviously when one really thinks logically, the only conclusion is that big government= better. One could not even argue otherwise! I never said all conservatives are conservative for those reasons. I was merely offering some insight into some of the cognitive dissonance in the country and the republican party more specifically.
I'm sure you're not arguing that many of those values (particularly the ones that conflict with science and or modern thought) aren't taught by parents, in churches, and educational settings of 'Creationist' conservatives (which in one form or another constitute the majority of the republican party) long before they reach adulthood? Or that it doesn't influence their thought process later in life?
Just so you can set yourself at ease I personally don't mind shrinking the government in certain roles and ways to increase efficiency and effectiveness. However, I don't try to put an arbitrary or totally ethereal cap on the size of government or believe in totally moronic rhetorical cliches such as 'smaller government is better government' like conservatives consistently espouse.
I support effective and efficient government that respects the rule and spirit of the law, carries out the will of the people, and urges them where needed (EX. Slavery,segregation,etc...).
And this is why the right says the left is arrogant. When they have most of the media to push their ideas and values, it's somehow true that liberals know more about conservatism and its causes than actual conservatives do. Somehow in today's culture it is possible for the vast majority of conservatives to be completely isolated from other opinions yet liberals are all the enlightened ones. The time for openmindedness has ended- the result is clear.
The 'Leftist media' doesn't have much if any influence until long after the other aspects of indoctrination have long set in.
As for the knowledge part:
(Seriously... More Atheist/Agnostics know that Mother Theresa was Catholic than Catholics.../facepalm)
It's pretty common for agnostics or atheists to be more knowledgeable about religion and almost as knowledgeable about Christianity than any Christian besides Mormons (who if you ask the majority of Christians aren't even Christian). So it's hardly far fetched that liberals could know as much or more than conservatives about their belief structure. However when you look at Christians they consistently do poor when asked about other religions. Hmmm... Wonder why?
So in general I would agree that liberals don't necessarily know more about conservative ideas than conservatives it's reasonably accurate (at least around the religious ones) to say their knowledge is pretty even. So it is totally reasonable to presume a college educated liberal has a reasonable chance to have as good or a better chance to have a fuller understanding of conservative ideas than a non-college educated conservative. Seeing how the more education you have the more likely you are to vote Dem/Liberal and more people are becoming educated it's increasingly more likely for such a situation to arise.
I think you may be analyzing yourself. You mention creationists at every possible opportunity and use the words "Republican Party" far more than anyone else. I think you are the partisan in the bubble. No other poster is more obsessed with party- most argue ideas and individual things, but somehow you always come back to the Republican party, as if Conservatives are fans of the party. Shows how little you know.
I mention Creationists because they and their beliefs are at the root of much of why reasonable and logical debate has completely broken down. Their influence on people and politicians is corrosive and counterproductive to substantive debate. More specifically their ideological stranglehold on the Republican party helps prevent reasonable conservatives from having a party to be a 'fan' of.
If the debate in Washington was between Conservatives and Democrats I would reference it that way but it's not. It's Republicans vs Democrats. I mention 'Creationists' because they are the majority of the Republican party. And the Republican party is a primary reason we cant have reasonable discussions in Washington.
Non-Creationist conservatives are a minority of the Republican party. While they are generally more reasonable they have virtually no power in the House. So much of the consternation of the Republican party can be traced to 'Creationist beliefs' and that is why I suggest people adhering to such a belief rarely have anything substantive to offer to debates that hinge on such beliefs. And that policies or positions rooted in such beliefs should be dismissed just like any other equally ridiculous position.
+ Show Spoiler +If you have an issue with my identification of forcing 'Creationism' on children as 'torture' I would say you didn't know what the words mean. You didn't mention it so I guess you agree with it? Either way it's probably best to be said in PM if you want to go there on that.
|
I wonder, what is the average abstention in US ?
edit : just checked - 43.8 % in 2008 ! So basically, what the americans are expressing first and foremost in elections is a lack of interest and a disbelief in politics. You cannot really draw any conclusion on what is and what is not, or who are and who are not, when the population voting is a little more than half of the active population. I agree with the social determinism that explain a big part of the vote for conservatives, but there are also a social determinism that push people to vote democrat.
Man the conference yesterday was such a let down. Giving 5 minutes to people like Krugman and Stiglitz, so useless.
|
On April 17 2014 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2014 14:39 Introvert wrote:On April 17 2014 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 17 2014 11:02 BallinWitStalin wrote:On April 17 2014 10:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nearly half of Americans, 49%, believe middle-income people -- a group many Americans consider themselves part of -- pay too much in taxes, up from 42% a year ago and the highest Gallup has found since 1999. At the same time, the 42% who say middle-income Americans pay their "fair share" in taxes is down 11 percentage points from last year. This is also the first time since 2007 that a higher percentage of the public says middle-income Americans are paying too much rather than their fair share. These results are from Gallup's annual Economy and Personal Finance poll, conducted April 3-6. While the April 15 tax deadline may not be the most popular day on the nation's calendar, over the past decade, stable pluralities and sometimes majorities have said that middle-income Americans pay their fair share in taxes, rather than too much or too little. But the perception has grown since 2012 that middle-income Americans pay too much in taxes; this comes as income taxes increase for the first time in 20 years, though mainly for the top earners. President Barack Obama and Congress allowed the Bush tax cuts on the marginal rates for the highest income earners to expire last year, which increased the tax rate for 2013 income from 35.0% to 39.6%. Other taxes, such as capital gains taxes, have also increased, and the bill is now coming due for many taxpayers. Though the bulk of the higher tax rates affect those in the top income bracket -- $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples -- there has not been a noticeable climb in the proportion of Americans who believe upper-income people pay too much. That figure stands at 13% today, essentially unchanged from 11% last year. A robust majority, 61%, believe that upper-income people pay too little, while about a quarter believe they pay their fair share. Source The amount of cognitive dissonance in the American public is astounding. How such a plurality/majority can believe these things, and then vote Republican, never ceases to amaze me. Conservatives have a larger proportion of people who are tortured as children. A majority of Republicans are threatened/brainwashed as children to believe the earth is 10,000 years old along with a lot of other equally insane ideas. If they refuse those or don't refuse other ideas they are promised not only will their life be essentially cursed* but they will spend an eternity after that likely miserable life in the worst condition imaginable for eternity, literally. So you imagine a child surrounded by people who fervently believe and who consistently reinforce that belief, add the fact that in most cases they are discouraged from/punished for interacting with people who don't, until they are allowed to really only interact with them when necessary or attempting to convert/help them, compound onto that many of them are channeled into educational settings where those narratives wont be challenged let alone dismissed, and you start to see how by the time they can vote many of them have been so thoroughly indoctrinated their world view leaves them with a choice between the lesser of two evils and one party is definitely 'going to hell' and at least the republicans have a chance not to. So while the republican party may or may not shit on them (economically) during 'this life' they believe that more people would end up in heaven under republican rule, [so since this life means little compared to eternity they have been trained to choose the option that leads to heaven.] (<--extreme simplification here) There are other aspects that are diminished through these methods. Like listening to others opinions, using reason and logic to parse rhetoric and emotion, reconstructing world views based off of best available information, etc.. All of these things and more lead us down to much of the behavior you see in the Republican party. To be fair there are variations of this within the democratic party just most of them don't entail potentially spending eternity in the worst place imaginable suffering the worst possible torments. + Show Spoiler +*the degree or perception of the curse varies by sect and interpretation but the concept is there in one degree or another. + Show Spoiler +The same person who doesn't understand Jim Demint and his comment about society at the time of the civil war is now telling us why conservatives are conservative- that the reason people are conservative could have nothing to do with values or their own thought process, but must be the result of a tortuous childhood. It could only be because they are ALL creationist, brainwashed children. Obviously when one really thinks logically, the only conclusion is that big government= better. One could not even argue otherwise!
And this is why the right says the left is arrogant. When they have most of the media to push their ideas and values, it's somehow true that liberals know more about conservatism and its causes than actual conservatives do. Somehow in today's culture it is possible for the vast majority of conservatives to be completely isolated from other opinions yet liberals are all the enlightened ones. The time for openmindedness has ended- the result is clear.
I think you may be analyzing yourself. You mention creationists at every possible opportunity and use the words "Republican Party" far more than anyone else. I think you are the partisan in the bubble. No other poster is more obsessed with party- most argue ideas and individual things, but somehow you always come back to the Republican party, as if Conservatives are fans of the party. Shows how little you know.
Your posts reek of arrogance but this one really sums it up so nicely. Between this and sub40 telling me how much I hate Mexicans I am really glad to participate in this thread- I am learning so much about myself.
Show nested quote +The same person who doesn't understand Jim Demint and his comment about society at the time of the civil war is now telling us why conservatives are conservative- that the reason people are conservative could have nothing to do with values or their own thought process, but must be the result of a tortuous childhood. It could only be because they are ALL creationist, brainwashed children. Obviously when one really thinks logically, the only conclusion is that big government= better. One could not even argue otherwise! I never said all conservatives are conservative for those reasons. I was merely offering some insight into some of the cognitive dissonance in the country and the republican party more specifically. I'm sure you're not arguing that many of those values (particularly the ones that conflict with science and or modern thought) aren't taught by parents, in churches, and educational settings of 'Creationist' conservatives (which in one form or another constitute the majority of the republican party) long before they reach adulthood? Or that it doesn't influence their thought process later in life? Just so you can set yourself at ease I personally don't mind shrinking the government in certain roles and ways to increase efficiency and effectiveness. However, I don't try to put an arbitrary or totally ethereal cap on the size of government or believe in totally moronic rhetorical cliches such as 'smaller government is better government' like conservatives consistently espouse. I support effective and efficient government that respects the rule and spirit of the law, carries out the will of the people, and urges them where needed (EX. Slavery,segregation,etc...). Show nested quote +And this is why the right says the left is arrogant. When they have most of the media to push their ideas and values, it's somehow true that liberals know more about conservatism and its causes than actual conservatives do. Somehow in today's culture it is possible for the vast majority of conservatives to be completely isolated from other opinions yet liberals are all the enlightened ones. The time for openmindedness has ended- the result is clear. The 'Leftist media' doesn't have much if any influence until long after the other aspects of indoctrination have long set in. As for the knowledge part: (Seriously... More Atheist/Agnostics know that Mother Theresa was Catholic than Catholics.../facepalm) It's pretty common for agnostics or atheists to be more knowledgeable about religion and almost as knowledgeable about Christianity than any Christian besides Mormons (who if you ask the majority of Christians aren't even Christian). So it's hardly far fetched that liberals could know as much or more than conservatives about their belief structure. However when you look at Christians they consistently do poor when asked about other religions. Hmmm... Wonder why? So in general I would agree that liberals don't necessarily know more about conservative ideas than conservatives it's reasonably accurate (at least around the religious ones) to say their knowledge is pretty even. So it is totally reasonable to presume a college educated liberal has a reasonable chance to have as good or a better chance to have a fuller understanding of conservative ideas than a non-college educated conservative. Seeing how the more education you have the more likely you are to vote Dem/Liberal and more people are becoming educated it's increasingly more likely for such a situation to arise. Show nested quote +I think you may be analyzing yourself. You mention creationists at every possible opportunity and use the words "Republican Party" far more than anyone else. I think you are the partisan in the bubble. No other poster is more obsessed with party- most argue ideas and individual things, but somehow you always come back to the Republican party, as if Conservatives are fans of the party. Shows how little you know. I mention Creationists because they and their beliefs are at the root of much of why reasonable and logical debate has completely broken down. Their influence on people and politicians is corrosive and counterproductive to substantive debate. More specifically their ideological stranglehold on the Republican party helps prevent reasonable conservatives from having a party to be a 'fan' of. If the debate in Washington was between Conservatives and Democrats I would reference it that way but it's not. It's Republicans vs Democrats. I mention 'Creationists' because they are the majority of the Republican party. And the Republican party is a primary reason we cant have reasonable discussions in Washington. Non-Creationist conservatives are a minority of the Republican party. While they are generally more reasonable they have virtually no power in the House. So much of the consternation of the Republican party can be traced to 'Creationist beliefs' and that is why I suggest people adhering to such a belief rarely have anything substantive to offer to debates that hinge on such beliefs. And that policies or positions rooted in such beliefs should be dismissed just like any other equally ridiculous position. + Show Spoiler +If you have an issue with my identification of forcing 'Creationism' on children as 'torture' I would say you didn't know what the words mean. You didn't mention it so I guess you agree with it? Either way it's probably best to be said in PM if you want to go there on that.
Perhaps then you should start with moderate statements, not the extreme arrogance of your first post. Even this one is full of non sequitur.
What you are saying does not follow: the South (where most of these people are) used to be a Democrat stronghold- creationism, etc is really of little (if any) direct effect on people's political orientation. Religion can be a factor, but it's is not everything nor is creationism a requirement to be part of it.
My other point was that you can't talk about conservative thought when you regularly get what conservatives think or why they think it so wrong.
Don't be so presumptuous as to claim knowledge of why someone believes what they do- engage with the actual ideas. Why they believe something is irrelevant anyway to it's truth content anyway.
You always bring the party as an attack line-but as far as I can tell, no one here gives two figs about a particular party, it's more about ideas. So the squeeze them in at every opportunity is more partisanship than debate.
Perhaps if you started from somewhere else besides the assumption that you are correct, you could begin to understand conservatives.
Edit: on the particular point about agnostics atheists knowing more, I've found that to be false, in thread in particular. They know general statements, but their actual understanding of the beliefs or their justification in religious doctrine is sorely lacking. So non-believers can be knowledgeable about a religion on a basic level (e.g., was MT a catholic?) but they lack any doctrinal knowledge. It's like if I were to explains concept by reading from a book verbatim, but didn't know what it was saying.
Moreover I think your point about isolation is absurd considering that conservatives are surrounded by things and people that are at odds with them.
|
April 16 (Reuters) - The Vermont Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would make the state the first in the United States to enact mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.
"We are really excited that Vermont is going to be leading on this," said Falko Schilling, a spokesman for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which backed the bill.
The bill, approved 28-2 by the Senate, has already passed the Vermont House of Representatives. It now goes back to the House to see if members will approve changes made by the Senate.
The law is set to take effect July 1, 2016.
The move in Vermont comes as the developers of genetically modified crops and U.S. grocery manufacturers push for passage of an opposing bill, introduced in Congress last week, that would nullify any state law that requires labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.
The Vermont law passed by the Senate would do just that - processed foods that contain genetically modified corn, soybeans or other GMO ingredients and sold at retail outlets would have to be labeled as having been produced or partially produced with "genetic engineering."
Source
|
On April 17 2014 23:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2014 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 17 2014 14:39 Introvert wrote:On April 17 2014 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 17 2014 11:02 BallinWitStalin wrote:On April 17 2014 10:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nearly half of Americans, 49%, believe middle-income people -- a group many Americans consider themselves part of -- pay too much in taxes, up from 42% a year ago and the highest Gallup has found since 1999. At the same time, the 42% who say middle-income Americans pay their "fair share" in taxes is down 11 percentage points from last year. This is also the first time since 2007 that a higher percentage of the public says middle-income Americans are paying too much rather than their fair share. These results are from Gallup's annual Economy and Personal Finance poll, conducted April 3-6. While the April 15 tax deadline may not be the most popular day on the nation's calendar, over the past decade, stable pluralities and sometimes majorities have said that middle-income Americans pay their fair share in taxes, rather than too much or too little. But the perception has grown since 2012 that middle-income Americans pay too much in taxes; this comes as income taxes increase for the first time in 20 years, though mainly for the top earners. President Barack Obama and Congress allowed the Bush tax cuts on the marginal rates for the highest income earners to expire last year, which increased the tax rate for 2013 income from 35.0% to 39.6%. Other taxes, such as capital gains taxes, have also increased, and the bill is now coming due for many taxpayers. Though the bulk of the higher tax rates affect those in the top income bracket -- $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples -- there has not been a noticeable climb in the proportion of Americans who believe upper-income people pay too much. That figure stands at 13% today, essentially unchanged from 11% last year. A robust majority, 61%, believe that upper-income people pay too little, while about a quarter believe they pay their fair share. Source The amount of cognitive dissonance in the American public is astounding. How such a plurality/majority can believe these things, and then vote Republican, never ceases to amaze me. Conservatives have a larger proportion of people who are tortured as children. A majority of Republicans are threatened/brainwashed as children to believe the earth is 10,000 years old along with a lot of other equally insane ideas. If they refuse those or don't refuse other ideas they are promised not only will their life be essentially cursed* but they will spend an eternity after that likely miserable life in the worst condition imaginable for eternity, literally. So you imagine a child surrounded by people who fervently believe and who consistently reinforce that belief, add the fact that in most cases they are discouraged from/punished for interacting with people who don't, until they are allowed to really only interact with them when necessary or attempting to convert/help them, compound onto that many of them are channeled into educational settings where those narratives wont be challenged let alone dismissed, and you start to see how by the time they can vote many of them have been so thoroughly indoctrinated their world view leaves them with a choice between the lesser of two evils and one party is definitely 'going to hell' and at least the republicans have a chance not to. So while the republican party may or may not shit on them (economically) during 'this life' they believe that more people would end up in heaven under republican rule, [so since this life means little compared to eternity they have been trained to choose the option that leads to heaven.] (<--extreme simplification here) There are other aspects that are diminished through these methods. Like listening to others opinions, using reason and logic to parse rhetoric and emotion, reconstructing world views based off of best available information, etc.. All of these things and more lead us down to much of the behavior you see in the Republican party. To be fair there are variations of this within the democratic party just most of them don't entail potentially spending eternity in the worst place imaginable suffering the worst possible torments. + Show Spoiler +*the degree or perception of the curse varies by sect and interpretation but the concept is there in one degree or another. + Show Spoiler +The same person who doesn't understand Jim Demint and his comment about society at the time of the civil war is now telling us why conservatives are conservative- that the reason people are conservative could have nothing to do with values or their own thought process, but must be the result of a tortuous childhood. It could only be because they are ALL creationist, brainwashed children. Obviously when one really thinks logically, the only conclusion is that big government= better. One could not even argue otherwise!
And this is why the right says the left is arrogant. When they have most of the media to push their ideas and values, it's somehow true that liberals know more about conservatism and its causes than actual conservatives do. Somehow in today's culture it is possible for the vast majority of conservatives to be completely isolated from other opinions yet liberals are all the enlightened ones. The time for openmindedness has ended- the result is clear.
I think you may be analyzing yourself. You mention creationists at every possible opportunity and use the words "Republican Party" far more than anyone else. I think you are the partisan in the bubble. No other poster is more obsessed with party- most argue ideas and individual things, but somehow you always come back to the Republican party, as if Conservatives are fans of the party. Shows how little you know.
Your posts reek of arrogance but this one really sums it up so nicely. Between this and sub40 telling me how much I hate Mexicans I am really glad to participate in this thread- I am learning so much about myself.
The same person who doesn't understand Jim Demint and his comment about society at the time of the civil war is now telling us why conservatives are conservative- that the reason people are conservative could have nothing to do with values or their own thought process, but must be the result of a tortuous childhood. It could only be because they are ALL creationist, brainwashed children. Obviously when one really thinks logically, the only conclusion is that big government= better. One could not even argue otherwise! I never said all conservatives are conservative for those reasons. I was merely offering some insight into some of the cognitive dissonance in the country and the republican party more specifically. I'm sure you're not arguing that many of those values (particularly the ones that conflict with science and or modern thought) aren't taught by parents, in churches, and educational settings of 'Creationist' conservatives (which in one form or another constitute the majority of the republican party) long before they reach adulthood? Or that it doesn't influence their thought process later in life? Just so you can set yourself at ease I personally don't mind shrinking the government in certain roles and ways to increase efficiency and effectiveness. However, I don't try to put an arbitrary or totally ethereal cap on the size of government or believe in totally moronic rhetorical cliches such as 'smaller government is better government' like conservatives consistently espouse. I support effective and efficient government that respects the rule and spirit of the law, carries out the will of the people, and urges them where needed (EX. Slavery,segregation,etc...). And this is why the right says the left is arrogant. When they have most of the media to push their ideas and values, it's somehow true that liberals know more about conservatism and its causes than actual conservatives do. Somehow in today's culture it is possible for the vast majority of conservatives to be completely isolated from other opinions yet liberals are all the enlightened ones. The time for openmindedness has ended- the result is clear. The 'Leftist media' doesn't have much if any influence until long after the other aspects of indoctrination have long set in. As for the knowledge part: (Seriously... More Atheist/Agnostics know that Mother Theresa was Catholic than Catholics.../facepalm) It's pretty common for agnostics or atheists to be more knowledgeable about religion and almost as knowledgeable about Christianity than any Christian besides Mormons (who if you ask the majority of Christians aren't even Christian). So it's hardly far fetched that liberals could know as much or more than conservatives about their belief structure. However when you look at Christians they consistently do poor when asked about other religions. Hmmm... Wonder why? So in general I would agree that liberals don't necessarily know more about conservative ideas than conservatives it's reasonably accurate (at least around the religious ones) to say their knowledge is pretty even. So it is totally reasonable to presume a college educated liberal has a reasonable chance to have as good or a better chance to have a fuller understanding of conservative ideas than a non-college educated conservative. Seeing how the more education you have the more likely you are to vote Dem/Liberal and more people are becoming educated it's increasingly more likely for such a situation to arise. I think you may be analyzing yourself. You mention creationists at every possible opportunity and use the words "Republican Party" far more than anyone else. I think you are the partisan in the bubble. No other poster is more obsessed with party- most argue ideas and individual things, but somehow you always come back to the Republican party, as if Conservatives are fans of the party. Shows how little you know. I mention Creationists because they and their beliefs are at the root of much of why reasonable and logical debate has completely broken down. Their influence on people and politicians is corrosive and counterproductive to substantive debate. More specifically their ideological stranglehold on the Republican party helps prevent reasonable conservatives from having a party to be a 'fan' of. If the debate in Washington was between Conservatives and Democrats I would reference it that way but it's not. It's Republicans vs Democrats. I mention 'Creationists' because they are the majority of the Republican party. And the Republican party is a primary reason we cant have reasonable discussions in Washington. Non-Creationist conservatives are a minority of the Republican party. While they are generally more reasonable they have virtually no power in the House. So much of the consternation of the Republican party can be traced to 'Creationist beliefs' and that is why I suggest people adhering to such a belief rarely have anything substantive to offer to debates that hinge on such beliefs. And that policies or positions rooted in such beliefs should be dismissed just like any other equally ridiculous position. + Show Spoiler +If you have an issue with my identification of forcing 'Creationism' on children as 'torture' I would say you didn't know what the words mean. You didn't mention it so I guess you agree with it? Either way it's probably best to be said in PM if you want to go there on that. Perhaps then you should start with moderate statements, not the extreme arrogance of your first post. Even this one is full of non sequitur. What you are saying does not follow: the South (where most of these people are) used to be a Democrat stronghold- creationism, etc is really of little (if any) direct effect on people's political orientation. Religion can be a factor, but it's is not everything nor is creationism a requirement to be part of it. My other point was that you can't talk about conservative thought when you regularly get what conservatives think or why they think it so wrong. Don't be so presumptuous as to claim knowledge of why someone believes what they do- engage with the actual ideas. Why they believe something is irrelevant anyway to it's truth content anyway. You always bring the party as an attack line-but as far as I can tell, no one here gives two figs about a particular party, it's more about ideas. So the squeeze them in at every opportunity is more partisanship than debate. Perhaps if you started from somewhere else besides the assumption that you are correct, you could begin to understand conservatives.
Wow. Your interpretation of the 'Democratic' South and how the 'southern strategy' impacted party politics is fascinating. Totally ridiculous, but fascinating.
If conservatives want to pretend they aren't republican and don't vote republican then fine. But if conservatives cant get republicans to side with them I don't know how they expect to get anyone else?
'Conservatives' are as bad as 'Christians' when it comes to identifying what that means. Calling yourself a 'conservative' is like calling yourself a 'liberal'. Anyone and any idea from Rand Paul to 'Emperor Obama' fits that description.
It's easy to say people are 'wrong' about 'conservative' thought when it's ethereal and can move at a moments notice. Like I will show how there is a strong correlation between religion and conservatism and you will just say that's not ALL of them which was a strawman to start with. (Party platforms are less ethereal)
Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:
their religious faith is very important in their life (54% of liberals vs. 82% of conservatives); a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by doing good deeds or being a good person (23% vs. 37%); their faith is becoming an increasingly important moral guide in their life (38% vs. 70%); the church they currently attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (37% vs. 62%); their primary purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul (43% vs. 76%); Jesus Christ did not commit sins during His time on earth (33% vs. 55%). Source
If you want to say religion has nothing to do with your version of conservatism that's not really something I care to debate. But if you want to say that there is no relation between religion and political thought that's just demonstrably false.
If someone believes we don't need to find alternative energy because they 'believe God placed the perfect amount of oil in the planet 10,000 years ago' It's pretty damn relevant about 'why' they believe it and how one can debate the subject. There are countless issues where believing in a 10,000 year old earth precludes you from having a reasonable debate? And when majority of Republicans/Conservatives identify as young earthers it becomes painfully relevant to our politics
|
United States40774 Posts
On April 18 2014 01:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +April 16 (Reuters) - The Vermont Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would make the state the first in the United States to enact mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.
"We are really excited that Vermont is going to be leading on this," said Falko Schilling, a spokesman for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which backed the bill.
The bill, approved 28-2 by the Senate, has already passed the Vermont House of Representatives. It now goes back to the House to see if members will approve changes made by the Senate.
The law is set to take effect July 1, 2016.
The move in Vermont comes as the developers of genetically modified crops and U.S. grocery manufacturers push for passage of an opposing bill, introduced in Congress last week, that would nullify any state law that requires labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.
The Vermont law passed by the Senate would do just that - processed foods that contain genetically modified corn, soybeans or other GMO ingredients and sold at retail outlets would have to be labeled as having been produced or partially produced with "genetic engineering." Source Are they gonna label all meat that was genetically modified by offspring selection too or is it only when there is a scientific method to selecting desirable traits that it counts? Genetic selection is as old as farming.
|
Vermont is also a major producer of organic foods so it isn't too surprising.
|
On April 18 2014 01:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 01:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:April 16 (Reuters) - The Vermont Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would make the state the first in the United States to enact mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.
"We are really excited that Vermont is going to be leading on this," said Falko Schilling, a spokesman for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which backed the bill.
The bill, approved 28-2 by the Senate, has already passed the Vermont House of Representatives. It now goes back to the House to see if members will approve changes made by the Senate.
The law is set to take effect July 1, 2016.
The move in Vermont comes as the developers of genetically modified crops and U.S. grocery manufacturers push for passage of an opposing bill, introduced in Congress last week, that would nullify any state law that requires labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.
The Vermont law passed by the Senate would do just that - processed foods that contain genetically modified corn, soybeans or other GMO ingredients and sold at retail outlets would have to be labeled as having been produced or partially produced with "genetic engineering." Source Are they gonna label all meat that was genetically modified by offspring selection too or is it only when there is a scientific method to selecting desirable traits that it counts? Genetic selection is as old as farming.
Pretty huge difference between selecting the better of 2 corn plants for breeding and splicing strawberries with fish genetics.
I really don't see the problem with labeling. If GMO's are safe then just explain it to the public. Food manufacturers shouldn't be any more concerned about labeling for GMO's than they are about ingredients lists. I mean for those who advocate capitalism in it's neoclassical form, whether a product is labeled as containing GMO's or not shouldn't effect the utility and should have little or no effect on purchasing patterns? And if it's a price issue they could just put 'may contain GMO's' on every product and it would be like adding 1 ingredient/descriptor to the label.
|
United States40774 Posts
On April 18 2014 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 01:54 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 01:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:April 16 (Reuters) - The Vermont Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would make the state the first in the United States to enact mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.
"We are really excited that Vermont is going to be leading on this," said Falko Schilling, a spokesman for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which backed the bill.
The bill, approved 28-2 by the Senate, has already passed the Vermont House of Representatives. It now goes back to the House to see if members will approve changes made by the Senate.
The law is set to take effect July 1, 2016.
The move in Vermont comes as the developers of genetically modified crops and U.S. grocery manufacturers push for passage of an opposing bill, introduced in Congress last week, that would nullify any state law that requires labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.
The Vermont law passed by the Senate would do just that - processed foods that contain genetically modified corn, soybeans or other GMO ingredients and sold at retail outlets would have to be labeled as having been produced or partially produced with "genetic engineering." Source Are they gonna label all meat that was genetically modified by offspring selection too or is it only when there is a scientific method to selecting desirable traits that it counts? Genetic selection is as old as farming. Pretty huge difference between selecting the better of 2 corn plants for breeding and splicing strawberries with fish genetics. I really don't see the problem with labeling. If GMO's are safe then just explain it to the public. Food manufacturers shouldn't be any more concerned about labeling for GMO's than they are about ingredients lists. I mean for those who advocate capitalism in it's neoclassical form, whether a product is labeled as containing GMO's or not shouldn't effect the utility and should have little or no effect on purchasing patterns? And if it's a price issue they could just put 'may contain GMO's' on every product and it would be like adding 1 ingredient/descriptor to the label. The public are far too dumb to understand the science behind it. You yourself were just pointing out they can't understand something as basic as geology.
|
On April 18 2014 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 01:54 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 01:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:April 16 (Reuters) - The Vermont Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would make the state the first in the United States to enact mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.
"We are really excited that Vermont is going to be leading on this," said Falko Schilling, a spokesman for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which backed the bill.
The bill, approved 28-2 by the Senate, has already passed the Vermont House of Representatives. It now goes back to the House to see if members will approve changes made by the Senate.
The law is set to take effect July 1, 2016.
The move in Vermont comes as the developers of genetically modified crops and U.S. grocery manufacturers push for passage of an opposing bill, introduced in Congress last week, that would nullify any state law that requires labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.
The Vermont law passed by the Senate would do just that - processed foods that contain genetically modified corn, soybeans or other GMO ingredients and sold at retail outlets would have to be labeled as having been produced or partially produced with "genetic engineering." Source Are they gonna label all meat that was genetically modified by offspring selection too or is it only when there is a scientific method to selecting desirable traits that it counts? Genetic selection is as old as farming. If GMO's are safe then just explain it to the public. Given the startling lack of scientific literacy when it comes to hot button topics, the process of explaining GMO's to the public is hardly as simple as you make it out to be. This is why labeling things before the explaining takes place is a dumb move and one that organic companies are hoping more states will make. Just follow the money.
|
On April 17 2014 23:39 Introvert wrote: It's pretty common for agnostics or atheists to be more knowledgeable about religion and almost as knowledgeable about Christianity than any Christian besides Mormons (who if you ask the majority of Christians aren't even Christian). So it's hardly far fetched that liberals could know as much or more than conservatives about their belief structure. However when you look at Christians they consistently do poor when asked about other religions. Hmmm... Wonder why?
In a majority Christian country, there are an enormous portion of the population who claim Christianity as their religion, without doing anything to practice it. Most census-registered "Christians" don't go to church. Most that do don't go regularly. For any serious demographic consideration, you have to talk about "practicing" members of religion as a distinct group. Sure, there are a lot of people in the US, particularly in the South, who claim Christian affiliation (often explicitly "evangelical" affiliation) without any real practice.
Furthermore, in the U.S., the groups (and regions) more likely to engage in this kind of identity politics are generally poorer and more disenfranchised: poor urban blacks, rural whites, and hispanic immigrants. The lower educational level is mostly what is reflected by statistics about knowledge of Martin Luther... note that better educated segments of society (particularly Jewish) do significantly better. This isn't because Jews are religiously taught about Protestantism, or that Protestants are generally held back... it's that a poor person in Alabama, whether black or white, is likely to identify as Christian, while half of Yale Law school is Jewish. You can argue all day about educational attainment, and how structural or cultural its causes are, but the chart above mostly reflects this.
Proper use of statistics requires isolation of variables. When you say that "Presbyterian clergy are generally more theologically liberal than Presbyterian churchgoing laypeople, even if adjusted for age and educational level," you are giving information. When you say "FroYo makes people smarter, since average SAT scores are higher for people who eat more FroYo," you are misunderstanding statistics.
|
On April 18 2014 02:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 18 2014 01:54 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 01:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:April 16 (Reuters) - The Vermont Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would make the state the first in the United States to enact mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.
"We are really excited that Vermont is going to be leading on this," said Falko Schilling, a spokesman for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which backed the bill.
The bill, approved 28-2 by the Senate, has already passed the Vermont House of Representatives. It now goes back to the House to see if members will approve changes made by the Senate.
The law is set to take effect July 1, 2016.
The move in Vermont comes as the developers of genetically modified crops and U.S. grocery manufacturers push for passage of an opposing bill, introduced in Congress last week, that would nullify any state law that requires labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.
The Vermont law passed by the Senate would do just that - processed foods that contain genetically modified corn, soybeans or other GMO ingredients and sold at retail outlets would have to be labeled as having been produced or partially produced with "genetic engineering." Source Are they gonna label all meat that was genetically modified by offspring selection too or is it only when there is a scientific method to selecting desirable traits that it counts? Genetic selection is as old as farming. Pretty huge difference between selecting the better of 2 corn plants for breeding and splicing strawberries with fish genetics. I really don't see the problem with labeling. If GMO's are safe then just explain it to the public. Food manufacturers shouldn't be any more concerned about labeling for GMO's than they are about ingredients lists. I mean for those who advocate capitalism in it's neoclassical form, whether a product is labeled as containing GMO's or not shouldn't effect the utility and should have little or no effect on purchasing patterns? And if it's a price issue they could just put 'may contain GMO's' on every product and it would be like adding 1 ingredient/descriptor to the label. The public are far too dumb to understand the science behind it. You yourself were just pointing out they can't understand something as basic as geology.
Yeah I know, it's just people who advocate for a neoclassical perspective seem not to realize the two are incompatible with each other. If you understand people as predictably irrational it makes perfect sense, but if you use the Neoclassical 'rational self-interested... utility' model it doesn't hold water.
|
Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.
Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.
“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.
“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”
Americans for Tax Fairness then took the mid-point of that range ($4,415) and multiplied it by Walmart’s approximately 1.4 million workers to come up with an estimate of the overall taxpayers’ bill for the Bentonville, Ark.-based big box giant’s staffers.
The report provides a state-by-state breakdown of these figures, as well as some context on the other side of the coin: Walmart’s huge share of the nationwide SNAP, or food stamp, market.
“Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market,” it reads. “Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion in food stamp sales in 2013.”
Source
|
I remember doing high school debate in 2006 on the topic of big box retailers and whether or not they benefited the communities in which they did business. Funny how the conclusions remain the same almost a decade later.
|
On April 18 2014 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote: And when majority of Republicans/Conservatives identify as young earthers
I'm loving the hyperbole. Keep it up. Did you train under Al Sharpton?
On April 18 2014 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote: If GMO's are safe then just explain it to the public.
Cause that worked so well with vaccines right? People totally stopped believing they cause autism.
/sarcasm
|
On April 18 2014 02:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.
Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.
“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.
“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”
Americans for Tax Fairness then took the mid-point of that range ($4,415) and multiplied it by Walmart’s approximately 1.4 million workers to come up with an estimate of the overall taxpayers’ bill for the Bentonville, Ark.-based big box giant’s staffers.
The report provides a state-by-state breakdown of these figures, as well as some context on the other side of the coin: Walmart’s huge share of the nationwide SNAP, or food stamp, market.
“Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market,” it reads. “Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion in food stamp sales in 2013.” Source Its an amazing system.
Pay your low grade workers so little that they need to rely on food stamps and then sell them food for said stamps. Collecting workers food budget without having to pay them for it.
Capitalism is so wonderful.
|
On April 18 2014 02:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 02:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.
Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.
“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.
“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”
Americans for Tax Fairness then took the mid-point of that range ($4,415) and multiplied it by Walmart’s approximately 1.4 million workers to come up with an estimate of the overall taxpayers’ bill for the Bentonville, Ark.-based big box giant’s staffers.
The report provides a state-by-state breakdown of these figures, as well as some context on the other side of the coin: Walmart’s huge share of the nationwide SNAP, or food stamp, market.
“Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market,” it reads. “Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion in food stamp sales in 2013.” Source Its an amazing system. Pay your low grade workers so little that they need to rely on food stamps and then sell them food for said stamps. Collecting workers food budget without having to pay them for it. Capitalism is so wonderful.
Don't forget 'starting a food bank' where employees can donate to other employees who don't have enough food...
|
On April 18 2014 02:21 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote: And when majority of Republicans/Conservatives identify as young earthers
I'm loving the hyperbole. Keep it up. Did you train under Al Sharpton? Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote: If GMO's are safe then just explain it to the public.
Cause that worked so well with vaccines right? People totally stopped believing they cause autism. /sarcasm
Facts are now hyperbole?
Fine, say people are too dumb to be able to have their food labeled. Just don't turn around and say that Capitalism as described by neoclassical economists is valid.
It just doesn't make sense for people to say that people can't make a rational self interested utility decision about GMO labeled foods but that they then do about the millions of other issues that are equally complex or more so.
|
|
On April 18 2014 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2014 23:39 Introvert wrote:On April 17 2014 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 17 2014 14:39 Introvert wrote:On April 17 2014 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 17 2014 11:02 BallinWitStalin wrote:On April 17 2014 10:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nearly half of Americans, 49%, believe middle-income people -- a group many Americans consider themselves part of -- pay too much in taxes, up from 42% a year ago and the highest Gallup has found since 1999. At the same time, the 42% who say middle-income Americans pay their "fair share" in taxes is down 11 percentage points from last year. This is also the first time since 2007 that a higher percentage of the public says middle-income Americans are paying too much rather than their fair share. These results are from Gallup's annual Economy and Personal Finance poll, conducted April 3-6. While the April 15 tax deadline may not be the most popular day on the nation's calendar, over the past decade, stable pluralities and sometimes majorities have said that middle-income Americans pay their fair share in taxes, rather than too much or too little. But the perception has grown since 2012 that middle-income Americans pay too much in taxes; this comes as income taxes increase for the first time in 20 years, though mainly for the top earners. President Barack Obama and Congress allowed the Bush tax cuts on the marginal rates for the highest income earners to expire last year, which increased the tax rate for 2013 income from 35.0% to 39.6%. Other taxes, such as capital gains taxes, have also increased, and the bill is now coming due for many taxpayers. Though the bulk of the higher tax rates affect those in the top income bracket -- $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples -- there has not been a noticeable climb in the proportion of Americans who believe upper-income people pay too much. That figure stands at 13% today, essentially unchanged from 11% last year. A robust majority, 61%, believe that upper-income people pay too little, while about a quarter believe they pay their fair share. Source The amount of cognitive dissonance in the American public is astounding. How such a plurality/majority can believe these things, and then vote Republican, never ceases to amaze me. Conservatives have a larger proportion of people who are tortured as children. A majority of Republicans are threatened/brainwashed as children to believe the earth is 10,000 years old along with a lot of other equally insane ideas. If they refuse those or don't refuse other ideas they are promised not only will their life be essentially cursed* but they will spend an eternity after that likely miserable life in the worst condition imaginable for eternity, literally. So you imagine a child surrounded by people who fervently believe and who consistently reinforce that belief, add the fact that in most cases they are discouraged from/punished for interacting with people who don't, until they are allowed to really only interact with them when necessary or attempting to convert/help them, compound onto that many of them are channeled into educational settings where those narratives wont be challenged let alone dismissed, and you start to see how by the time they can vote many of them have been so thoroughly indoctrinated their world view leaves them with a choice between the lesser of two evils and one party is definitely 'going to hell' and at least the republicans have a chance not to. So while the republican party may or may not shit on them (economically) during 'this life' they believe that more people would end up in heaven under republican rule, [so since this life means little compared to eternity they have been trained to choose the option that leads to heaven.] (<--extreme simplification here) There are other aspects that are diminished through these methods. Like listening to others opinions, using reason and logic to parse rhetoric and emotion, reconstructing world views based off of best available information, etc.. All of these things and more lead us down to much of the behavior you see in the Republican party. To be fair there are variations of this within the democratic party just most of them don't entail potentially spending eternity in the worst place imaginable suffering the worst possible torments. + Show Spoiler +*the degree or perception of the curse varies by sect and interpretation but the concept is there in one degree or another. + Show Spoiler +The same person who doesn't understand Jim Demint and his comment about society at the time of the civil war is now telling us why conservatives are conservative- that the reason people are conservative could have nothing to do with values or their own thought process, but must be the result of a tortuous childhood. It could only be because they are ALL creationist, brainwashed children. Obviously when one really thinks logically, the only conclusion is that big government= better. One could not even argue otherwise!
And this is why the right says the left is arrogant. When they have most of the media to push their ideas and values, it's somehow true that liberals know more about conservatism and its causes than actual conservatives do. Somehow in today's culture it is possible for the vast majority of conservatives to be completely isolated from other opinions yet liberals are all the enlightened ones. The time for openmindedness has ended- the result is clear.
I think you may be analyzing yourself. You mention creationists at every possible opportunity and use the words "Republican Party" far more than anyone else. I think you are the partisan in the bubble. No other poster is more obsessed with party- most argue ideas and individual things, but somehow you always come back to the Republican party, as if Conservatives are fans of the party. Shows how little you know.
Your posts reek of arrogance but this one really sums it up so nicely. Between this and sub40 telling me how much I hate Mexicans I am really glad to participate in this thread- I am learning so much about myself.
The same person who doesn't understand Jim Demint and his comment about society at the time of the civil war is now telling us why conservatives are conservative- that the reason people are conservative could have nothing to do with values or their own thought process, but must be the result of a tortuous childhood. It could only be because they are ALL creationist, brainwashed children. Obviously when one really thinks logically, the only conclusion is that big government= better. One could not even argue otherwise! I never said all conservatives are conservative for those reasons. I was merely offering some insight into some of the cognitive dissonance in the country and the republican party more specifically. I'm sure you're not arguing that many of those values (particularly the ones that conflict with science and or modern thought) aren't taught by parents, in churches, and educational settings of 'Creationist' conservatives (which in one form or another constitute the majority of the republican party) long before they reach adulthood? Or that it doesn't influence their thought process later in life? Just so you can set yourself at ease I personally don't mind shrinking the government in certain roles and ways to increase efficiency and effectiveness. However, I don't try to put an arbitrary or totally ethereal cap on the size of government or believe in totally moronic rhetorical cliches such as 'smaller government is better government' like conservatives consistently espouse. I support effective and efficient government that respects the rule and spirit of the law, carries out the will of the people, and urges them where needed (EX. Slavery,segregation,etc...). And this is why the right says the left is arrogant. When they have most of the media to push their ideas and values, it's somehow true that liberals know more about conservatism and its causes than actual conservatives do. Somehow in today's culture it is possible for the vast majority of conservatives to be completely isolated from other opinions yet liberals are all the enlightened ones. The time for openmindedness has ended- the result is clear. The 'Leftist media' doesn't have much if any influence until long after the other aspects of indoctrination have long set in. As for the knowledge part: (Seriously... More Atheist/Agnostics know that Mother Theresa was Catholic than Catholics.../facepalm) It's pretty common for agnostics or atheists to be more knowledgeable about religion and almost as knowledgeable about Christianity than any Christian besides Mormons (who if you ask the majority of Christians aren't even Christian). So it's hardly far fetched that liberals could know as much or more than conservatives about their belief structure. However when you look at Christians they consistently do poor when asked about other religions. Hmmm... Wonder why? So in general I would agree that liberals don't necessarily know more about conservative ideas than conservatives it's reasonably accurate (at least around the religious ones) to say their knowledge is pretty even. So it is totally reasonable to presume a college educated liberal has a reasonable chance to have as good or a better chance to have a fuller understanding of conservative ideas than a non-college educated conservative. Seeing how the more education you have the more likely you are to vote Dem/Liberal and more people are becoming educated it's increasingly more likely for such a situation to arise. I think you may be analyzing yourself. You mention creationists at every possible opportunity and use the words "Republican Party" far more than anyone else. I think you are the partisan in the bubble. No other poster is more obsessed with party- most argue ideas and individual things, but somehow you always come back to the Republican party, as if Conservatives are fans of the party. Shows how little you know. I mention Creationists because they and their beliefs are at the root of much of why reasonable and logical debate has completely broken down. Their influence on people and politicians is corrosive and counterproductive to substantive debate. More specifically their ideological stranglehold on the Republican party helps prevent reasonable conservatives from having a party to be a 'fan' of. If the debate in Washington was between Conservatives and Democrats I would reference it that way but it's not. It's Republicans vs Democrats. I mention 'Creationists' because they are the majority of the Republican party. And the Republican party is a primary reason we cant have reasonable discussions in Washington. Non-Creationist conservatives are a minority of the Republican party. While they are generally more reasonable they have virtually no power in the House. So much of the consternation of the Republican party can be traced to 'Creationist beliefs' and that is why I suggest people adhering to such a belief rarely have anything substantive to offer to debates that hinge on such beliefs. And that policies or positions rooted in such beliefs should be dismissed just like any other equally ridiculous position. + Show Spoiler +If you have an issue with my identification of forcing 'Creationism' on children as 'torture' I would say you didn't know what the words mean. You didn't mention it so I guess you agree with it? Either way it's probably best to be said in PM if you want to go there on that. Perhaps then you should start with moderate statements, not the extreme arrogance of your first post. Even this one is full of non sequitur. What you are saying does not follow: the South (where most of these people are) used to be a Democrat stronghold- creationism, etc is really of little (if any) direct effect on people's political orientation. Religion can be a factor, but it's is not everything nor is creationism a requirement to be part of it. My other point was that you can't talk about conservative thought when you regularly get what conservatives think or why they think it so wrong. Don't be so presumptuous as to claim knowledge of why someone believes what they do- engage with the actual ideas. Why they believe something is irrelevant anyway to it's truth content anyway. You always bring the party as an attack line-but as far as I can tell, no one here gives two figs about a particular party, it's more about ideas. So the squeeze them in at every opportunity is more partisanship than debate. Perhaps if you started from somewhere else besides the assumption that you are correct, you could begin to understand conservatives. Wow. Your interpretation of the 'Democratic' South and how the 'southern strategy' impacted party politics is fascinating. Totally ridiculous, but fascinating. If conservatives want to pretend they aren't republican and don't vote republican then fine. But if conservatives cant get republicans to side with them I don't know how they expect to get anyone else? 'Conservatives' are as bad as 'Christians' when it comes to identifying what that means. Calling yourself a 'conservative' is like calling yourself a 'liberal'. Anyone and any idea from Rand Paul to 'Emperor Obama' fits that description. It's easy to say people are 'wrong' about 'conservative' thought when it's ethereal and can move at a moments notice. Like I will show how there is a strong correlation between religion and conservatism and you will just say that's not ALL of them which was a strawman to start with. (Party platforms are less ethereal) Show nested quote +Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:
their religious faith is very important in their life (54% of liberals vs. 82% of conservatives); a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by doing good deeds or being a good person (23% vs. 37%); their faith is becoming an increasingly important moral guide in their life (38% vs. 70%); the church they currently attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (37% vs. 62%); their primary purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul (43% vs. 76%); Jesus Christ did not commit sins during His time on earth (33% vs. 55%). SourceIf you want to say religion has nothing to do with your version of conservatism that's not really something I care to debate. But if you want to say that there is no relation between religion and political thought that's just demonstrably false. If someone believes we don't need to find alternative energy because they 'believe God placed the perfect amount of oil in the planet 10,000 years ago' It's pretty damn relevant about 'why' they believe it and how one can debate the subject. There are countless issues where believing in a 10,000 year old earth precludes you from having a reasonable debate? And when majority of Republicans/Conservatives identify as young earthers it becomes painfully relevant to our politics
You missed the point.
My point in mentioning the Democratic South was that those were religious people that weren't "far right-wingers." Religion is certainly important, I never denied that- I denied that your obsession with creationism was a useful talking point, as is your repeated use of the GOP to make your point. You already admitted it: you think conservatives are the way they are because they were "tortured." I was calling BS, and pointing out that you should hardly be one talk about the subject. Nevermind that the way that one comes to believe something is not directly related to whether or not it's true. If someone believes there is enough oil, it really doesn't matter of God ordained it or not. You can claim that they are more stubborn as a result, but that's just your own analysis coming in again.
Don't make such absurd posts about causes and their relation to truth when you don't understand the philosophy you are criticizing. Edit: Just to clarify- You can have criticisms, questions, etc, but don't speak in such absolutes. You can discuss ideas, but doing an analysis of WHY someone thinks the way they do is much different than just discussing or criticizing ideas.
In a majority Christian country, there are an enormous portion of the population who claim Christianity as their religion, without doing anything to practice it. Most census-registered "Christians" don't go to church. Most that do don't go regularly. For any serious demographic consideration, you have to talk about "practicing" members of religion as a distinct group. Sure, there are a lot of people in the US, particularly in the South, who claim Christian affiliation (often explicitly "evangelical" affiliation) without any real practice.
Furthermore, in the U.S., the groups (and regions) more likely to engage in this kind of identity politics are generally poorer and more disenfranchised: poor urban blacks, rural whites, and hispanic immigrants. The lower educational level is mostly what is reflected by statistics about knowledge of Martin Luther... note that better educated segments of society (particularly Jewish) do significantly better. This isn't because Jews are religiously taught about Protestantism, or that Protestants are generally held back... it's that a poor person in Alabama, whether black or white, is likely to identify as Christian, while half of Yale Law school is Jewish. You can argue all day about educational attainment, and how structural or cultural its causes are, but the chart above mostly reflects this.
Proper use of statistics requires isolation of variables. When you say that "Presbyterian clergy are generally more theologically liberal than Presbyterian churchgoing laypeople, even if adjusted for age and educational level," you are giving information. When you say "FroYo makes people smarter, since average SAT scores are higher for people who eat more FroYo," you are misunderstanding statistics.
You are right, but I wasn't pointing any of that out because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making We could go on about poor education, and just the "behindness" of some of these states (economically, not culturally), but it's not important to what I was saying, and indulging in it would make me a hypocrite.
|
|
|
|