Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Republican Brain - the science of denial
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Immortalist
Aug 21, 2012, 10:47:15 AM8/21/12
to
Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
by doubling down on their current beliefs.
The answer begins with some measurable personality traits that
strongly correspond with political preferences. For instance,
people more wedded to certainty
tend to become conservatives;
people craving novelty,
liberals.
Surprisingly, openness to new experiences and fastidiousness are
better predictors of political preference than income or education.
If you like to keep your house neat and see
the world in a relatively black and white way,
you're probably going to vote Republican.
If you've recently moved to a big city to see
what else life has to offer, you're probably
going to vote Democrat.
These basic differences in openness and curiosity fuel an "expertise
gap" between left and right that explains much of the battle today
over what is true.
Are liberals really wishy-washy flip-floppers? Well, sometimes. Can't
they be just as dogmatic about issues close to their hearts, like
autism and vaccines, or nuclear power? His research leads to some
surprising conclusions.
While the evolutionary advantages of both liberal and conservative
psychologies seem obvious, clashes between them in modern life have
led to a crisis in our politics. A significant chunk of the
electorate, it seems, will never accept the facts as they are, no
matter how strong the evidence. Understanding the psychology of the
left and the right, should therefore fundamentally alter the way we
approach the he-said-he-said of public debates.
Subsequent research also promises to add to the lengthy list of
persuasive scientific findings that Republicans reject and deny.
The conservative brain seems to be especially predisposed to
"motivated reasoning", using inherently false information to support a
strong ideological belief. Values and political ideologies can
overpower logic and reasoning.
What's the difference between dominant liberalism and dominant
conservatism?
One of the chief values that underpins liberalism is "Openness."
Liberals are more likely to be open to
new experiences, new cultures, and new
ideas. They embrace uncertainty,
ambiguity and messiness.
Conservatives are more likely to exhibit
Conscientiousness: a need for order,
stability, clarity and cleanliness.
People who rate high on conscientiousness are, "highly goal oriented,
competent, and organized--and, on average, politically conservative."
But the other side of the Conscientious coin is a need for "closure"
and definitive answers. Often, science doesn't provide them. And
whenever science appears to conflict with the values of someone with a
strong need for closure, they're more likely to reject the science.
A more nuanced view of the liberal-conservative divide. Many social
scientists rely on four variables, not two, to describe how people
view society:
a predilection toward hierarchical structures vs.
community-based structures
and
an egalitarian view of the world that emphasizes
fairness vs. an individualistic view of the world
that emphasizes personal responsibility.
Ultimately, American political movements have aligned along these four
variables in different combinations over the years, but today extreme
conservatives happen to be hierarchical individualists while extreme
liberals tends to be communitarian egalitarians. While cumbersome,
these terms get to deeper truths about how people think about the
world.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican-Brain-Science-Science/dp/1118094514
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=binBSO5HZ6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6d_NBtxA1o
Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
by doubling down on their current beliefs.
The answer begins with some measurable personality traits that
strongly correspond with political preferences. For instance,
people more wedded to certainty
tend to become conservatives;
people craving novelty,
liberals.
Surprisingly, openness to new experiences and fastidiousness are
better predictors of political preference than income or education.
If you like to keep your house neat and see
the world in a relatively black and white way,
you're probably going to vote Republican.
If you've recently moved to a big city to see
what else life has to offer, you're probably
going to vote Democrat.
These basic differences in openness and curiosity fuel an "expertise
gap" between left and right that explains much of the battle today
over what is true.
Are liberals really wishy-washy flip-floppers? Well, sometimes. Can't
they be just as dogmatic about issues close to their hearts, like
autism and vaccines, or nuclear power? His research leads to some
surprising conclusions.
While the evolutionary advantages of both liberal and conservative
psychologies seem obvious, clashes between them in modern life have
led to a crisis in our politics. A significant chunk of the
electorate, it seems, will never accept the facts as they are, no
matter how strong the evidence. Understanding the psychology of the
left and the right, should therefore fundamentally alter the way we
approach the he-said-he-said of public debates.
Subsequent research also promises to add to the lengthy list of
persuasive scientific findings that Republicans reject and deny.
The conservative brain seems to be especially predisposed to
"motivated reasoning", using inherently false information to support a
strong ideological belief. Values and political ideologies can
overpower logic and reasoning.
What's the difference between dominant liberalism and dominant
conservatism?
One of the chief values that underpins liberalism is "Openness."
Liberals are more likely to be open to
new experiences, new cultures, and new
ideas. They embrace uncertainty,
ambiguity and messiness.
Conservatives are more likely to exhibit
Conscientiousness: a need for order,
stability, clarity and cleanliness.
People who rate high on conscientiousness are, "highly goal oriented,
competent, and organized--and, on average, politically conservative."
But the other side of the Conscientious coin is a need for "closure"
and definitive answers. Often, science doesn't provide them. And
whenever science appears to conflict with the values of someone with a
strong need for closure, they're more likely to reject the science.
A more nuanced view of the liberal-conservative divide. Many social
scientists rely on four variables, not two, to describe how people
view society:
a predilection toward hierarchical structures vs.
community-based structures
and
an egalitarian view of the world that emphasizes
fairness vs. an individualistic view of the world
that emphasizes personal responsibility.
Ultimately, American political movements have aligned along these four
variables in different combinations over the years, but today extreme
conservatives happen to be hierarchical individualists while extreme
liberals tends to be communitarian egalitarians. While cumbersome,
these terms get to deeper truths about how people think about the
world.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican-Brain-Science-Science/dp/1118094514
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=binBSO5HZ6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6d_NBtxA1o
Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote.
Aug 21, 2012, 11:15:02 AM8/21/12
to
On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
> Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
> in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
> by doubling down on their current beliefs.
Conservatives believe it is wrong to invest government money (which
> Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
> Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
> in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
> by doubling down on their current beliefs.
they have earned) in solar power companies which later become
bankrupt.
Immortalist
Aug 21, 2012, 11:25:14 AM8/21/12
to
On Aug 21, 8:15 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
earned money in companies the later go bankrupt?
<johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
> > Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
> > in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
> > by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>
> Conservatives believe it is wrong to invest government money (which
> they have earned) in solar power companies which later become
> bankrupt.
>
Do you mean that Conservatives never have or never will invest hard
> On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
> > Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
> > in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
> > by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>
> Conservatives believe it is wrong to invest government money (which
> they have earned) in solar power companies which later become
> bankrupt.
>
earned money in companies the later go bankrupt?
peliku
Aug 21, 2012, 11:30:46 AM8/21/12
to
On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
> Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
> in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
> by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>
> The answer begins with some measurable personality traits that
> strongly correspond with political preferences. For instance,
>
> people more wedded to certainty
> tend to become conservatives;\\
> Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
> in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
> by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>
> The answer begins with some measurable personality traits that
> strongly correspond with political preferences. For instance,
>
> people more wedded to certainty
http://i48.tinypic.com/2ewjmt1.jpg
Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote.
Aug 21, 2012, 12:43:40 PM8/21/12
to
On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote.
Aug 21, 2012, 1:35:14 PM8/21/12
to
On Aug 21, 10:25 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 8:15 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>
> <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
> > > Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
> > > in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
> > > by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>
> > Conservatives believe it is wrong to invest government money (which
> > they have earned) in solar power companies which later become
> > bankrupt.
>
> Do you mean that Conservatives never have or never will invest hard
> earned money in companies the later go bankrupt?
Conservatives don't want the government to invest the money they
> On Aug 21, 8:15 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>
> <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
> > > Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
> > > in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
> > > by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>
> > Conservatives believe it is wrong to invest government money (which
> > they have earned) in solar power companies which later become
> > bankrupt.
>
> Do you mean that Conservatives never have or never will invest hard
> earned money in companies the later go bankrupt?
earned in companies like Solyndra, Fisker Auto, Trsla Auto, Beacon
Power, GE, GM, Chryster, etc.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gunner
Aug 21, 2012, 3:52:51 PM8/21/12
to
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 07:47:15 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
>Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
>in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
>by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>
>The answer begins with some measurable personality traits that
The Pelosi Syndrome: Psychiatrist says leftists are mentally ill
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
>Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
>in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
>by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>
>The answer begins with some measurable personality traits that
'Strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions' cited by clinical
psychotherapist
With Nancy Pelosi repeatedly telling audiences about hearing voices of
deceased women, and Barack Obama regarded by many as dangerously
narcissistic, here comes a veteran psychiatrist making the case that
the mental-emotional world of leftists is actually tantamount to a
mental disorder.
For more than 40 years, Rossiter has diagnosed and treated over 1,500
patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more
than 2,700 civil and criminal cases, both state and federal, as a
forensic psychiatrist retained by numerous public offices, courts and
private attorneys. He received his medical and psychiatric training at
the University of Chicago.
Rossiter explains with great clarity why the kind of liberalism
displayed by Barack Obama during his presidency can only be understood
as a psychological disorder.
�Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals
relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our
freedoms were founded,� says Rossiter. �Like spoiled, angry children,
they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand
that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.�
�A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the
vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity
� as liberals do,� he says. �A political leader who understands human
nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive,
personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and
social equality on the population � as liberals do. And a legislator
who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules
which over-regulates and overtaxes the nation�s citizens, corrupts
their character and reduces them to wards of the state � as liberals
do.�
Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of
inferiority in the population by:
creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and
compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to
the will of the government.
�The roots of liberalism � and its associated madness � can be clearly
identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to
adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational
beliefs of the liberal mind,� he says. �When the modern liberal mind
whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and
seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run
their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully
obvious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkiHU9x-3ZM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuRKbvpWPUI&feature=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGwtG8nVpUU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZrqdZFFb5c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wc-I_j68Ws&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxTl1Ykbuww&feature=related
One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not
agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my
earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
- and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his
fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.
- Jeff Cooper
Gunner
Aug 21, 2012, 3:53:54 PM8/21/12
to
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:25:14 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 21, 8:15 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
><johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
>> > Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
>> > in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
>> > by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>>
>> Conservatives believe it is wrong to invest government money (which
>> they have earned) in solar power companies which later become
>> bankrupt.
>>
>
>Do you mean that Conservatives never have or never will invest hard
>earned money in companies the later go bankrupt?
Not someone elses money..taken from others at the point of a gun.
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 21, 8:15 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
><johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
>> > Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
>> > in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
>> > by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>>
>> Conservatives believe it is wrong to invest government money (which
>> they have earned) in solar power companies which later become
>> bankrupt.
>>
>
>Do you mean that Conservatives never have or never will invest hard
>earned money in companies the later go bankrupt?
Thats a Leftist party plank.
Gunner
Aug 21, 2012, 3:56:18 PM8/21/12
to
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:43:40 -0700 (PDT), "Read what Frederic Bastiat
wrote." <johnnai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ultimately, American political movements have aligned along these four
>> variables in different combinations over the years, but today extreme
>> conservatives happen to be hierarchical individualists while extreme
>> liberals tends to be communitarian egalitarians. While cumbersome,
>> these terms get to deeper truths about how people think about the
>> world.
>>
>
>http://i49.tinypic.com/9bg10w.jpg
Oh very very well presented!!
wrote." <johnnai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ultimately, American political movements have aligned along these four
>> variables in different combinations over the years, but today extreme
>> conservatives happen to be hierarchical individualists while extreme
>> liberals tends to be communitarian egalitarians. While cumbersome,
>> these terms get to deeper truths about how people think about the
>> world.
>>
>
>http://i49.tinypic.com/9bg10w.jpg
Bravo!!
Gunner
Message has been deleted
Immortalist
Aug 21, 2012, 7:19:34 PM8/21/12
to
On Aug 21, 10:35 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
to invest in them? And then why would anyone want to invest in them if
conservatives do not want to invest in them?
<johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 10:25 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 21, 8:15 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>
> > <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
> > > > Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
> > > > in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
> > > > by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>
> > > Conservatives believe it is wrong to invest government money (which
> > > they have earned) in solar power companies which later become
> > > bankrupt.
>
> > Do you mean that Conservatives never have or never will invest hard
> > earned money in companies the later go bankrupt?
>
> Conservatives don't want the government to invest the money they
> earned in companies like Solyndra, Fisker Auto, Trsla Auto, Beacon
> Power, GE, GM, Chryster, etc.
>
What is it about these corporations that make conservatives unwilling
> On Aug 21, 10:25 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 21, 8:15 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>
> > <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
> > > > Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
> > > > in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
> > > > by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>
> > > Conservatives believe it is wrong to invest government money (which
> > > they have earned) in solar power companies which later become
> > > bankrupt.
>
> > Do you mean that Conservatives never have or never will invest hard
> > earned money in companies the later go bankrupt?
>
> Conservatives don't want the government to invest the money they
> earned in companies like Solyndra, Fisker Auto, Trsla Auto, Beacon
> Power, GE, GM, Chryster, etc.
>
to invest in them? And then why would anyone want to invest in them if
conservatives do not want to invest in them?
Frank
Aug 21, 2012, 7:31:46 PM8/21/12
to
On 8/21/2012 7:19 PM, Immortalist wrote:
> On Aug 21, 10:35 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
> <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 10:25 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 21, 8:15 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>>
>>> <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
>>>>> Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
>>>>> in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
>>>>> by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>>
>>>> Conservatives believe it is wrong to invest government money (which
>>>> they have earned) in solar power companies which later become
>>>> bankrupt.
>>
>>> Do you mean that Conservatives never have or never will invest hard
>>> earned money in companies the later go bankrupt?
>>
>> Conservatives don't want the government to invest the money they
>> earned in companies like Solyndra, Fisker Auto, Trsla Auto, Beacon
>> Power, GE, GM, Chryster, etc.
>>
>
> What is it about these corporations that make conservatives unwilling
> to invest in them? And then why would anyone want to invest in them if
> conservatives do not want to invest in them?
>
Your whole thesis is moronic, but that's besides the point.
> On Aug 21, 10:35 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
> <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 10:25 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 21, 8:15 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>>
>>> <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
>>>>> Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
>>>>> in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
>>>>> by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>>
>>>> Conservatives believe it is wrong to invest government money (which
>>>> they have earned) in solar power companies which later become
>>>> bankrupt.
>>
>>> Do you mean that Conservatives never have or never will invest hard
>>> earned money in companies the later go bankrupt?
>>
>> Conservatives don't want the government to invest the money they
>> earned in companies like Solyndra, Fisker Auto, Trsla Auto, Beacon
>> Power, GE, GM, Chryster, etc.
>>
>
> What is it about these corporations that make conservatives unwilling
> to invest in them? And then why would anyone want to invest in them if
> conservatives do not want to invest in them?
>
Nothing wrong in investing in new ventures that may or may not work but
that is a job for venture capitalists not government.
Fisker, which has bilked the US and my state of Delaware out of funds
wants to build $40 thousand plus hybrids. It does not take an
investment genius to see that cars like the Chevy Volt are not selling.
Immortalist
Aug 21, 2012, 7:26:46 PM8/21/12
to
On Aug 21, 12:53 pm, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:25:14 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:25:14 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 21, 8:15 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
> ><johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
> >> > Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
> >> > in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
> >> > by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>
> >> Conservatives believe it is wrong to invest government money (which
> >> they have earned) in solar power companies which later become
> >> bankrupt.
>
> >Do you mean that Conservatives never have or never will invest hard
> >earned money in companies the later go bankrupt?
>
> Not someone elses money..taken from others at the point of a gun.
>
> Thats a Leftist party plank.
>
Are you saying that conservatives never support the use of the peoples
> >On Aug 21, 8:15 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
> ><johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than
> >> > Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs
> >> > in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence
> >> > by doubling down on their current beliefs.
>
> >> Conservatives believe it is wrong to invest government money (which
> >> they have earned) in solar power companies which later become
> >> bankrupt.
>
> >Do you mean that Conservatives never have or never will invest hard
> >earned money in companies the later go bankrupt?
>
> Not someone elses money..taken from others at the point of a gun.
>
> Thats a Leftist party plank.
>
tax dollars for any expenditure however much the people need such
expenditures, which are collected with the threat of imprisonment if
not paid, like say during the Reagan administration?
Immortalist
Aug 21, 2012, 7:36:46 PM8/21/12
to
On Aug 21, 12:56 pm, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:43:40 -0700 (PDT), "Read what Frederic Bastiat
>
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:43:40 -0700 (PDT), "Read what Frederic Bastiat
>
> wrote." <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Ultimately, American political movements have aligned along these four
> >> variables in different combinations over the years, but today extreme
> >> conservatives happen to be hierarchical individualists while extreme
> >> liberals tends to be communitarian egalitarians. While cumbersome,
> >> these terms get to deeper truths about how people think about the
> >> world.
>
> >http://i49.tinypic.com/9bg10w.jpg
>
> Oh very very well presented!!
>
Sounds more like a Straw Man Fallacy wrapped up in an Entheymeme.
>
> >> Ultimately, American political movements have aligned along these four
> >> variables in different combinations over the years, but today extreme
> >> conservatives happen to be hierarchical individualists while extreme
> >> liberals tends to be communitarian egalitarians. While cumbersome,
> >> these terms get to deeper truths about how people think about the
> >> world.
>
> >http://i49.tinypic.com/9bg10w.jpg
>
> Oh very very well presented!!
>
A straw man argument is based on misrepresentation of an opponent's
position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is
to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's
actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to
the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's
position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical
technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it
carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's
actual argument has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat
training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the
enemy with the single intent of attacking it. Such a target is,
naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is not as realistic
to test skill against compared to a live and armed opponent. It is
occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden
dummy argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
en·thy·meme - n. Logic:
A syllogism in which one of the
premises or the conclusion is
not stated explicitly.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enthymeme
http://www.google.com/search?q=enthymeme
"In the enthymeme the major premise has not been stated...
Gunner
Aug 21, 2012, 7:57:04 PM8/21/12
to
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:19:34 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Conservatives don't want the government to invest the money they
>> earned in companies like Solyndra, Fisker Auto, Trsla Auto, Beacon
>> Power, GE, GM, Chryster, etc.
>>
>
>What is it about these corporations that make conservatives unwilling
>to invest in them? And then why would anyone want to invest in them if
>conservatives do not want to invest in them?
Because they were run by idiots who contributed to Obama and as such,
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Conservatives don't want the government to invest the money they
>> earned in companies like Solyndra, Fisker Auto, Trsla Auto, Beacon
>> Power, GE, GM, Chryster, etc.
>>
>
>What is it about these corporations that make conservatives unwilling
>to invest in them? And then why would anyone want to invest in them if
>conservatives do not want to invest in them?
showed clearly that management were idiots?
That reason?
Thats simply commonsense. Never loan money to someone you know is a
crook or stupid.
Gunner
Aug 21, 2012, 7:58:17 PM8/21/12
to
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:26:46 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Do you mean that Conservatives never have or never will invest hard
>> >earned money in companies the later go bankrupt?
>>
>> Not someone elses money..taken from others at the point of a gun.
>>
>> Thats a Leftist party plank.
>>
>
>Are you saying that conservatives never support the use of the peoples
>tax dollars for any expenditure however much the people need such
>expenditures, which are collected with the threat of imprisonment if
>not paid, like say during the Reagan administration?
Are you claiming that Solyindra and the SEIU are needed expenditures?
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Do you mean that Conservatives never have or never will invest hard
>> >earned money in companies the later go bankrupt?
>>
>> Not someone elses money..taken from others at the point of a gun.
>>
>> Thats a Leftist party plank.
>>
>
>Are you saying that conservatives never support the use of the peoples
>tax dollars for any expenditure however much the people need such
>expenditures, which are collected with the threat of imprisonment if
>not paid, like say during the Reagan administration?
Really??????
Gunner
Message has been deleted
Zerkon
Aug 22, 2012, 8:27:41 AM8/22/12
to
In article <5135c8ad-cd37-4202-87cc-b24aaaf526c5
@v9g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>, reanima...@yahoo.com says...
> Conservatives today believe
>
as liberals do. They both believe in war and the graft and greed they
enjoy from war. Both are in denial of genocide. Nothing else matters
here.
This article is political chat under the guise of serious study. It's on
the Oprah side of NPR.
--
"The space ship hung in the air
exactly like
a brick does not"
Thus spaketh The Adams
@v9g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>, reanima...@yahoo.com says...
> Conservatives today believe
>
as liberals do. They both believe in war and the graft and greed they
enjoy from war. Both are in denial of genocide. Nothing else matters
here.
This article is political chat under the guise of serious study. It's on
the Oprah side of NPR.
--
"The space ship hung in the air
exactly like
a brick does not"
Thus spaketh The Adams
Message has been deleted
Imagine
Aug 23, 2012, 2:32:52 PM8/23/12
to
On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Imagine
Aug 24, 2012, 3:39:29 PM8/24/12
to
On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Immortalist
Aug 24, 2012, 8:04:09 PM8/24/12
to
Zerkon wrote:
> In article <5135c8ad-cd37-4202-87cc-b24aaaf526c5
> @v9g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>, reanima...@yahoo.com says...
> > Conservatives today believe
> >
>
> as liberals do. They both believe in war and the graft and greed they
> enjoy from war. Both are in denial of genocide. Nothing else matters
> here.
>
> This article is political chat under the guise of serious study. It's on
> the Oprah side of NPR.
>
human nature. That would be unheard of in the recent past. But you
probably don't get that. So if someone says 2+2=4 on a liberal tv show
it is less true that when uttered somewhere else?
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests
and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim
being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives
to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It
is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political
affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.
This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that
1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html
Imagine
Aug 27, 2012, 12:00:05 PM8/27/12
to
Imagine
Aug 30, 2012, 11:08:00 AM8/30/12
to
On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Immortalist
Aug 30, 2012, 1:07:00 PM8/30/12
to
would have a motive and a performance pattern meant to establish
(oneself) in the favor or good graces of others, especially by
deliberate effort (usually followed by with ): He ingratiated himself
with all the guests; but Obama's quote explains a behavior that drew a
positive or negative response when he was a child before puberty, and
therefore his motive was not a racist response but a typical response
to general peer pressure idot.
Imagine
Aug 31, 2012, 9:24:27 PM8/31/12
to
On Aug 21, 9:47 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Imagine
Sep 5, 2012, 2:47:38 PM9/5/12
to
Imagine
Sep 10, 2012, 8:20:46 AM9/10/12
to
Imagine
Sep 10, 2012, 12:57:46 PM9/10/12
to
Mocker
Sep 10, 2012, 7:56:43 PM9/10/12
to
In article
<60c708a7-fc62-42be...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
this just in;
In article <5041abc5...@news.frontier.com>,
ark...@frontier.com (Raymond Karczewski) wrote:
> BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT The Presidential Election
>
> By: Raymond Ronald Karczewski© -- A Living Christ
>
> BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, is the Non-Violent Way to stop the runaway
> locomotive of government. Withdraw your support, positive or negative,
> that which fuels government and the Machine of Government GRINDS TO A
> HALT. It no longer has the capacity to STEAMROLL over your
> Unalienable Right gifted you by God. It, government PRODUCES NOTHING.
> It lives off the production of it legally owned "wards of the State",
> its slaves. RENDER TO CAESAR IS A MYTH. Screw CAESAR. He has not
> power over men and women of the Sovereign People.
>
> Forgive me, but you folks are all, without exception, living under the
> spell of Mind Control. You have voluntarily imprisoned yourselves,
> consented to your own slavery and have given the key away to your
> prison cell of Intellect to politicians, and Priests, Bankers,
> Corporate elitists and the like. How dumb is that?
>
> Aren't these governmental and corporate entities merely the remote
> mind controllers which have formed your limited mind sets, the very
> minds sets which are constantly being arranged and re-arranged to
> provide comfort and sedation while you toil your lives away for such
> illusory Masters? Are they not your mind control handlers? Don't
> they promise you freedom, even whilst they clutch the key to your
> prison cell, tightly in their hands? To release you from your
> bondage, to give you freedom, wouldn't all they have to do is merely
> unlock the locked cell of intellect which binds you? One with
> spiritual eyes can see that such an act would not be in their
> interest.
>
> Can you folks even imagine that you can live in a free state, or does
> the idea of such a thing, raise FEAR and TREPIDATION, in your
> consciousness.
>
> Is you highest state of consciousness to be that of a Trained Slave?
> Have you not individually and collectively willingly sold your souls
> for the promise of Security, for protection. Has such Security and
> protection been delivered to you?
>
> Crime is up. Killing is up and they want to disarm you, They're
> scaring the hell out of you with all of these recent false flag,
> shootings.
>
> They intend to take your guns away even though they cannot protect you
> in your time of need. You, are the Sovereign People who dream you are
> slaves. You are the real lawmakers, not those public servants who are
> hired to carry out the wishes of YOU, the People.
>
> Resist not Evil, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT IT. Do not pickup a ballot
> whose results will be counted in a foreign country. Keep your guns.
> DO NO HARM, and reserve your Right to Self-Defense, including KILLING
> THOSE WHO COME TO TAKE YOUR GUNS OR KILL TO YOU ON THE SPOT.
>
> Isn't BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT more effective, non-violent, and safer
> than a bloody revolution?
>
> BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, is the the Spiritual remedy to a Material
> Problem. It is the Ultimate weapon, one that government cannot repel.
> It is THE WAY. If only this way could be spread far and wide and
> MILLIONS OF AMERICANS BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT the Election, The NWO
> and sellout government is TOAST. All that is left is the Sovereign
> People to bring a return to our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
>
> Watch my You-Tube Videos at:
> http://www.arkenterprises.com/index.html#List
>
> Raymond Ronald Karczewski© http://www.arkenterprises.com
>
> Change The Quality of Your Life Today
> http://www.mygoldplan.com/raykar/
> *********************************************
> Raymond Ronald Karczewski© http://www.arkenterprises.com
>
> Change The Quality of Your Life Today
> http://www.mygoldplan.com/raykar/
And I might add;
If you are held as a political prisoner. Fast! that's right eat nothing.
maybe drink water or juice.
They will be hesitant to force feed you.
That's expensive.
good luck, All!
--
Money ; what a concept!
<60c708a7-fc62-42be...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
In article <5041abc5...@news.frontier.com>,
ark...@frontier.com (Raymond Karczewski) wrote:
> BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT The Presidential Election
>
> By: Raymond Ronald Karczewski© -- A Living Christ
>
> BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, is the Non-Violent Way to stop the runaway
> locomotive of government. Withdraw your support, positive or negative,
> that which fuels government and the Machine of Government GRINDS TO A
> HALT. It no longer has the capacity to STEAMROLL over your
> Unalienable Right gifted you by God. It, government PRODUCES NOTHING.
> It lives off the production of it legally owned "wards of the State",
> its slaves. RENDER TO CAESAR IS A MYTH. Screw CAESAR. He has not
> power over men and women of the Sovereign People.
>
> Forgive me, but you folks are all, without exception, living under the
> spell of Mind Control. You have voluntarily imprisoned yourselves,
> consented to your own slavery and have given the key away to your
> prison cell of Intellect to politicians, and Priests, Bankers,
> Corporate elitists and the like. How dumb is that?
>
> Aren't these governmental and corporate entities merely the remote
> mind controllers which have formed your limited mind sets, the very
> minds sets which are constantly being arranged and re-arranged to
> provide comfort and sedation while you toil your lives away for such
> illusory Masters? Are they not your mind control handlers? Don't
> they promise you freedom, even whilst they clutch the key to your
> prison cell, tightly in their hands? To release you from your
> bondage, to give you freedom, wouldn't all they have to do is merely
> unlock the locked cell of intellect which binds you? One with
> spiritual eyes can see that such an act would not be in their
> interest.
>
> Can you folks even imagine that you can live in a free state, or does
> the idea of such a thing, raise FEAR and TREPIDATION, in your
> consciousness.
>
> Is you highest state of consciousness to be that of a Trained Slave?
> Have you not individually and collectively willingly sold your souls
> for the promise of Security, for protection. Has such Security and
> protection been delivered to you?
>
> Crime is up. Killing is up and they want to disarm you, They're
> scaring the hell out of you with all of these recent false flag,
> shootings.
>
> They intend to take your guns away even though they cannot protect you
> in your time of need. You, are the Sovereign People who dream you are
> slaves. You are the real lawmakers, not those public servants who are
> hired to carry out the wishes of YOU, the People.
>
> Resist not Evil, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT IT. Do not pickup a ballot
> whose results will be counted in a foreign country. Keep your guns.
> DO NO HARM, and reserve your Right to Self-Defense, including KILLING
> THOSE WHO COME TO TAKE YOUR GUNS OR KILL TO YOU ON THE SPOT.
>
> Isn't BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT more effective, non-violent, and safer
> than a bloody revolution?
>
> BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, is the the Spiritual remedy to a Material
> Problem. It is the Ultimate weapon, one that government cannot repel.
> It is THE WAY. If only this way could be spread far and wide and
> MILLIONS OF AMERICANS BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT the Election, The NWO
> and sellout government is TOAST. All that is left is the Sovereign
> People to bring a return to our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
>
> Watch my You-Tube Videos at:
> http://www.arkenterprises.com/index.html#List
>
> Raymond Ronald Karczewski© http://www.arkenterprises.com
>
> Change The Quality of Your Life Today
> http://www.mygoldplan.com/raykar/
> *********************************************
> Raymond Ronald Karczewski© http://www.arkenterprises.com
>
> Change The Quality of Your Life Today
> http://www.mygoldplan.com/raykar/
And I might add;
If you are held as a political prisoner. Fast! that's right eat nothing.
maybe drink water or juice.
They will be hesitant to force feed you.
That's expensive.
good luck, All!
--
Money ; what a concept!
Anonymous
Sep 10, 2012, 8:52:24 PM9/10/12
to
In article <georgewk-20B311...@news.toast.net>
Sheriff Joe doesn't give a dman if you eat or not. If you don't
and you die, it's your fault. They'll just drag your corpse out
into the desert and let the coyotes finish you off.
and you die, it's your fault. They'll just drag your corpse out
into the desert and let the coyotes finish you off.
Imagine
Sep 11, 2012, 11:49:29 AM9/11/12
to
Imagine
Sep 12, 2012, 12:37:24 PM9/12/12
to
Message has been deleted
Mises
Sep 27, 2012, 3:26:28 PM9/27/12
to
Mises
Sep 28, 2012, 12:20:31 PM9/28/12
to
0 new messages