Red Brains vs. Blue Brains?

Wow.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-23 02:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Its rare that I'm reading an article and end up distracted by the sheer trolliness of it that I can't get any of the science out of it.

Who funds this research??

Re:Wow.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-23 03:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

I concur about the part of idiot liberals and conservatives... being staunchly conservative myself it isn't about being selfish... its about helping yourself... and not to the public troff as so many liberals like to put in front of the "have nots" who have no desire to work for themselves but have everything handed to them... and thus... liberals create a permanent underclass that are "bought off" as a voting block. To conservatives it REALLY IS about picking yourself up by your bootstraps, my Dad came to America with $19 in his pocket. Learned a skill and ran a successful business for 35 years til he died... Had a beautiful home and lived in a great neighborhood. You instill more self-esteem in someone and nurture the desire to succeed by them doing for themselves and seeing the fruits of their labor, than you do by handing someone a check every month, and giving them clean needles. Smart liberals play all the compassionate rhetoric to their advantage to gain power and play the system, and the not-so-smart ones believe them and give them what they seek. Hitler did say in Mein Kampf: You tell the people a lie often enough they will believe it to be the truth.

The other thing is that it truly is a shame that Liberals try to shame into silence, those they don't agree with. True "Democracy" in action...
And also for all the liberal "democrats" out there... This country isn't a Democracy... its a representative republic... there IS a difference.

S.
Re:Wow.... by FLEB · 2004-08-23 04:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

> If its the former, then you're racist; fine.

Wow... way to completely lop off one side of the argument.

--
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Re:Wow.... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-08-23 04:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

If its the former, then you're racist; fine. If it's the latter, however, one could argue that, seing as it was this nation's fault for creating the situation, we should do something to fix it.

So maybe we should fund public universities enough that anyone with the will to succeed (grades/test scores) can attend. The alternative is to write a large check, which just won't work - witness the majority of poor lottery winners: BK within 5 years.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:Wow.... by cayenne8 · 2004-08-23 05:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Hey, here's a question for you. Why are blacks, on average, notably poorer than whites?"
Interesting question. Why do blacks tend to have such a single parent percentage as a whole? I think perhaps a possible that there really is a flaw in today's 'black culture' in the US. I've actually heard something that is very sad....very smart, movtivated young black men and women, that are derided by their peers saying that getting an education and trying to work and better themselves, they are accused of acting 'white'. I don't know where this comes from...I know there are a great many bad role types that are put up for today's youth, particularly in the black community, that portray violence, acting like a thug, and having no respect for women is the 'cool' way to be. It doesn't...it leads to a quick death or internment in prison.
The sad thing is...when you hear someone say things like this...even if they ARE black, like Bill Cosby has done recently...they are either crucified publicly...or shushed to the side by the media. This is something that needs to be addressed publicly...to promote getting an education IS the thing to do. This is, IMHO, not a problem that can be solved by throwing money, public or private at it. It needs to be addressed by leaders in the black community itself.
There are many other minorities in this country that dont seem to have these kinds of problems...or at least not ones like these that tend to grind generation after generation into a dead end life that just propogates itself...
As far as some people having a head start...sure, that's a fact of life. Not everyone gets the same starting place...but, this is a free country. I've seen plenty of those starting from nothing, do what it takes and succeed. I've seen plenty of those starting out quite wealthy...and go nowhere and end up with nothing. This is life we're talking about here...it isn't fair...but, you gotta play with what you're dealt.
I don't think we should stand in anyone's way...and all opportunities should be as open as possible to all to make their own success. But, in a society inhabited by biological beings...not all ARE created equal. Some are smarter than others...so, are larger/stronger than others, some are more attractive, some are more naturally gifted in some areas than others. That's irregardless of race or sex...just how nature works. So, strive more for a system and society that allows for us all to gain according to out abilities and aspirations. But, don't create a welfare state where it becomes nothing more than a wealth redistribution system that creates voting blocks of those who are voting to keep 'on the dole'. I believe we need to have basic society safety nets...the elderly, the handicapped and the seriously infirmed...sure. But, anyone that is able bodied...needs to be working and earning a living.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Wow.... by WoodstockJeff · 2004-08-23 05:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Let's refine the question - Why do blacks born in America, on average, find less success than first-generation black immigrants?
Could it be that our education system is programming native-born blacks for failure? That is the opinion of many notable successful black entrepreneurs and authors. Check out the writings of Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams, both brilliant economists, and both happy they got their educations before our system was "improved" for blacks in the 60s and 70s.
For nearly 40 years, we have told blacks and other minorities that, because their ancestors were slaves, and their parents were discriminated against under the law, they not only have an excuse for not succeeding, they are expected to not succeed, and only the aid and comfort of the government (and the white liberals who have controlled the purse strings) can fix things for them. This is an incredibly racist thing to say - but, these same white liberals have also modified the language so that it is now racist to suggest that any color humans are just as good as any other other color humans, because this is the basis for removing all race-based preference systems.
Administering these race-based preference systems is a lucrative business, which feeds upon emotion to keep thousands of guilt-ridden people employed. If we truly moved to Dr. King's vision of a color-blind society, these powerful people would be out of work... Who would listen to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, for example, if they weren't screaming discrimination at every turn?
Many things that are attributed to current discrimination by these people are not really - for example, there are fewer minorities and women in top-level management because they haven't been at it as long. When top management requires 20 years of experience, it takes a while for an increased presence of minorities in the lower eschelons to move their way up the latter, unless they're pushed upward, beyond their current merit, to satisfy the appearance of discrimination. And such fast-tracked individuals may lack skills that time would have given them, so they feel pressured to do what they can't do, and the detractors amongst their peers see it as "proof" of the premise that minorities "aren't good enough".
The solution? Let's put an end to teaching blacks and other minorities that we expect less from them, just because they're not white. Let's stop giving people crap jobs to fill quotas to keep the race merchants from shaking your company down for "donations".
Re:Wow.... by jadavis · 2004-08-23 05:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Any major political entity uses rhetoric, propoganda, and myths to achieve their goals. I don't buy from the small amount of evidence that your gave that Republicans are more prone to it than Democrats.

Also, regarding the "constructed markets": some are more constructed than others, and some are more free than others. The reason why people call a free market a free market is because it requires very few rules to function. The only significant rule required is that one person can't forcibly take something from another. 100% free market is not desirable because sometimes a transaction affects more than the people engaged in the transaction (e.g. pollution). And the U.S. is not a free market, because of laws like you mention, but it's closer than many other markets.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Wow.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-23 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

For nearly 40 years, we have told blacks and other minorities that, because their ancestors were slaves, and their parents were discriminated against under the law, they not only have an excuse for not succeeding, they are expected to not succeed, and only the aid and comfort of the government (and the white liberals who have controlled the purse strings) can fix things for them.
Ronald Reagan called this something like, "The slow racism of low expectations". I think that was it. I always rather liked that description- one that displays that the liberal slant of "we need to make black people's lives good because they can't do it themselves!" as a form of racism.
Re:Wow.... by letxa2000 · 2004-08-23 06:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

I will trust that your quotes are accurate. Even if they are, the question is whether Mr. King would approve of how these programs have been twisted and convoluted in recent decades.
I have a lot of respect for what Bill Cosby has been saying in recent months. It takes a lot of guts to say it and in our political culture only a black person could say it. Any non-black that said exactly what Bill Cosby said would be instantly labeled a racist, and even Cosby has caught some grief. But I think everything he's said is right on the money.
It's sad when someone that speaks the truth can be labeled racist just because the truth does not agree with political correctness. It's the ultimate demonstration of intolerance.
Re:Wow.... by demachina · 2004-08-23 06:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

"There are many other minorities in this country that dont seem to have these kinds of problems...or at least not ones like these that tend to grind generation after generation into a dead end life that just propogates itself..."

Probably shouldn't point this but you are engaging in the very kind of thinking that causes the problem you are lamenting. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth but you seem to be saying Asian's are hard working and industrious so they are successful while blacks are not.

Take this mind set and put it in a prospective employer interviewing Asian and Black candidates. In the employers mind the Asian candidate doesn't have all the social baggage the black candidate does. As the stereotype goes the Asian is much more likely to work hard and be successful, maybe the black guy grew up in a slum, doing drugs and listening to rap music. He's going to hire the Asian candidate unless he is filling a quota.

It is a fact of life in America if you are black you are inherently at a disadvantage in life. You are going to be racially profiled by police and hassle more than any other ethnicity. You are going to be at a disadvantage in nearly every interview.

You may choose to forget it but America, especially the South, was practicing something resembling apartheid barely 40 years ago. The Republican party and many whites are still rascist, either overtly or with a thin veil. Its kind of naive to think blacks are going to jump from deeply oppressed, and in social tatters, to a level playing field in the space of a couple of generations.

If you grow up knowing all this chances are you too would be toting animosity to people whose ethnicity gives them every advantage. I'm guessing your ethnicity has always puts you at a advantage so you really have no clue what the problem is like. Someone black in America can succeed but they are going to have to work at least twice as hard to just reach parity. Someone who is affluent and white can fail too but they have work twice as hard at it too, and they can succeed without really trying or deserving it.

Here is a case study. There is this white guy I know. He was an academic disaster, intellectually challenged, squandered his youth partying, was arrested for Cocaine possession, failed in every business he tried excepting wealthy friends of his family baled him out every time. How did he make out in life. He is President of the United States. How did this happen you ask, he was born in to a white, privledged, wealthy, powerful family. If he'd been poor and black and and made the same life choices he would have ended up packing an M-16 in Vietnam and probably the rest of his life in prison.

Its all nice to bang the drum about how free America is and anyone can succeed but its a lot freer for some than it is for others, and it sure helps being born in the right place at the right time and the right color.

--
@de_machina
Re:Wow.... by ajna · 2004-08-23 08:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Forgive me for putting words in your mouth but you seem to be saying Asian's are hard working and industrious so they are successful while blacks are not.

Take this mind set and put it in a prospective employer interviewing Asian and Black candidates. In the employers mind the Asian candidate doesn't have all the social baggage the black candidate does. As the stereotype goes the Asian is much more likely to work hard and be successful, maybe the black guy grew up in a slum, doing drugs and listening to rap music. He's going to hire the Asian candidate unless he is filling a quota.

It is a fact of life in America if you are black you are inherently at a disadvantage in life. You are going to be racially profiled by police and hassle more than any other ethnicity. You are going to be at a disadvantage in nearly every interview.

I don't feel that you've argued your points well.

First, you have to account for the fact that asians (lower case for convenience) do perform very well. Take the SAT for instance: http://www.collegeboard.com/press/senior99/html/99 0831a.html , which incidentally has a passing mention of the higher instance of graduate degrees among asian parents than even whites. So why are these asians successful? Genetics? No, that's an socially undesireable conclusion, as the reaction to the (flawed, read Steven J Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" if interested) "The Bell Curve" showed. Because genetics is a dirty word when it comes to academic achievement, besides being near-impossible to test for without being circular, we turn to social explanations. Is it that asians work harder? Maybe. And if this is indeed the true cause, then yes, it does imply that blacks don't work as hard, on average. Of course it also is more than somewhat derogatory to asians -- "oh, he's not smart, he just spends all his time studying."

My point in the above is that it is a verifiable fact that asians collectively perform better than average (better than whites in many areas) when comparing academic performance between racial and ethnic groups. You can be outraged all you want at the suggestion that blacks don't work as hard, but if that is the accepted explanation for asians' performance then that indeed is the implication.

I object to your second paragraph for being ridiculous. Applicants are judged on many criteria, not the least of which is their past experience and education. It should be readily apparent from the applicant's resume whether she had exhibited a good work ethic in the past. Any hypothetical hiring manager who disregarded this and hired someone based on racial stereotypes would be an idiot.

Your last paragraph seems like whining. As per the above I don't accept your interview reasoning. Your broad statement declaring disadvantages is unsupported except by your own rhetoric. This leaves unspecified hassling and racial profiling by police, and the profiling by police indeed seems to be valid. Are you going to argue, however, that getting pulled over more often by the highway patrol is the root cause of poor SAT scores?

Finally I'd like to add a note on genetics: Why is it so well accepted that races differ in physical abilities yet not in other realms of achievement? For example see the prevalence of blacks in top level sprinting and basketball competition. Is this a social phenomenon, asians just don't want to grow up to be basketball players? (Hint: no. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000BD23 5-1F76-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21 as reference.) If this is true, and indeed it appears so (which doesn't bode well for me, a 5'7" asian with little hope of making it to the NBA ;-) then why is it so outlandish to suggest that analogous differences appear in cognitive abilities?
Re:Wow.... by multimed · 2004-08-23 09:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Finally I'd like to add a note on genetics: Why is it so well accepted that races differ in physical abilities yet not in other realms of achievement? For example see the prevalence of blacks in top level sprinting and basketball competition. Is this a social phenomenon, asians just don't want to grow up to be basketball players? (Hint: no. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000BD23 5-1F76-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21 as reference.) If this is true, and indeed it appears so (which doesn't bode well for me, a 5'7" asian with little hope of making it to the NBA ;-) then why is it so outlandish to suggest that analogous differences appear in cognitive abilities?
Off and on, I've wondered this as well. I can only assume that almost no one dares bring it up because it's a lightning rod issue. World-class sprinting seems to be a pretty conclusive proof and a purely empirical one a that. I imagine there is exactly zero academic research on the topic because it would never get funding. I would imagine though, that whatever differences there are in cognitive abilities among various races are subtle enough that all the other factors: education, experience, work ethic and whatever else would dominate. Cognitive abilities are a vastly more broad and nebulous thing where the physical ability is relatively specific--running fast or jumping high, so in terms of limiting achievement, I would bet (and hope) it's pretty irrelavent.

--
Vote Quimby.
Re:Wow.... by lcsjk · 2004-08-23 10:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

What I like about US Politics is you don't have to be a Democrat or Republican to be able to say the same thing about the other political party. For instance, there's that "dad started with $19.00" and "pulled himself up by his own bootstraps" that always comes right before the "walked to school 6 miles in the snow -uphill both ways". It's always good for a self image. And then there's that group that's always "waiting for a handout" and "clean needles". Those people are always part of the other party. And finally, there are those who want to send email telling how bad the other party's candidate is, but can never see clearly that their own has a set of problems.
The US political system, no matter which side you are own, has its share of corruption and its share of Hero. If you cannot see that it you are probably as biased as I and most of the others of us who have a favorite politician.

Jesus H Christ by ellem · 2004-08-23 02:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is anything anyone's fault or decision anymore? Damn I remember when people were fat, drunk, gay, disruptive and Communist of their own volition. Now everything is a malady, issue and disease.

--
This .sig is fake but accurate.

Re:Jesus H Christ by lukewarmfusion · 2004-08-23 02:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

In America, we also like to sue others as a result of these things. It's always someone else's fault.

I find it interesting that you put gay into that list... you're sure to get modded flamebait to some extent by claiming that people are gay by their own volition.

Oh, Princess Amygdala...
Re:Jesus H Christ by Timesprout · 2004-08-23 02:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Interesting point. We seem to be living in a culture where it is becoming increasingly popular to explain away all personal responsibility for our actions. No one does anything anymore because they were drunk, stupid, angry, jealous, foolish, greedy or just not able to cope properly. Now its genetic predisposition and psychological forces at work. If these scientists/doctors/quacks are to believed its amazing we dont all just crumble completely into a blubbering mass under the pressure of all these external forces and influences we are subject to.

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Re:Jesus H Christ by XorNand · 2004-08-23 03:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, some people (such as yourself) see this as sort of an over-the-top, politically-correct perspective. In actuality, it's a long standing philosophical debate: is freewill a myth? It's B.F. Skinner and Co. vs. the existenialists.

While you respond in disgust, what happens if one day science does indeed discover that biology trumphs freewill? What if almost all of out behaviors are predetermined by chemistry?

Not attempting to threadjack here, just adding an additional perspective to a post that was an immediate +5.

--
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Re:Jesus H Christ by LionKimbro · 2004-08-23 03:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

Marshall Brain wrote a blog post where he joked about the way we pick any explanation that feels scientific.

Explaining why smokers have more sex: "Here's a theory. Perhaps, way way back in the evolutionary chain, humans have a long-extinct ancestor that had long, thin, tusk-like incisors jutting out of its mouth. And perhaps, residually, our brains are programmed to recognize that "long incisors" means "good mate". So when a person puts a cigarette up to his or her mouth, it triggers the "long incisors" circuit in our brains, and cigarettes get associated with sex in that way. It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? That's because it is ridiculous -- there must be a better theory."

Right now, people seem to buy up anything that sounds like Evolutionary Psychology. The attitude is: "It is scientific. Therefore, it must be true. Anything else would be religion or emotion."
Re:Jesus H Christ by Zackbass · 2004-08-23 03:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Quote: (Note to non-US residents: the governor of New Jersey has recently resigned after being 'outed' as gay).

No, the governor resigned due to very serious corruption while using his homosexuality as a cover. Please get your facts straight.

--
You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
Re:Jesus H Christ by Rhesus+Piece · 2004-08-23 03:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Don't be so surprised.
Effects have a cause.

We are our genetics, and our environmental influences. I've not been able to find anything else that determines the state of a person.
That being the case, pretty well everything can be attributed to prior events or circumstance.

However, the difference is how this is dealt with.
If somebody murders because they have inbalanced brain chemistry and an absurdly skewed worldview due to childhood abuse, it doesn't make it okay.
However, it would be silly to say, "He chose to, it's his fault." With a knowledge of the causes
of fatness, drunkeness, homosexuality, etc, we can
take steps toward undoing what should be undone and preventing what may be.

(disclaimer: as a believer in some sort of pseudo-determinism, I don't really believe in free will in the "any of a person's choices are possible" sense.)
Re:Jesus H Christ by schvenk · 2004-08-23 03:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

This sort of argument is a dangerous one that's plagued science for a number of years now: "If there are biological underpinnings for our actions, preferences, and personalities, how can we be responsible for anything?"

But the question itself assumes a connection where none has to exist: Science and ethics aren't connected like that. Maybe I'm a liberal because of my genetic makeup; maybe it's my environment; probably it's both. In any of these cases, I have made choices, and it's appropriate for me to accept responsibility for them, regardless of the various biological and environmental factors that went into them.

The notion that explaining our behavior eliminates free will or responsibility is an unfortunate one, and has held back a number of scientific fields. Learning what lies behind our choices doesn't invalidate them, but merely helps us understand ourselves better and perhaps make more informed decisions.

(A much more complete, better-written, and better-supported version of what I'm saying can be found in Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate.)
Re:Jesus H Christ by GOD_ALMIGHTY · 2004-08-23 03:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have a feeling that you and the parent are falling on the Red Brain side. First of all, there's no logical basis for the argument that a doctors diagnosis now alleviates personal responsibility. If you get drunk and kill someone, you may have been incapacitated by alcohol, but you chose to get drunk and therefore are culpable. This awareness that a particular way of thinking is part of your biological makeup doesn't give you a pass, it increases you're responsibility since it is now a defined problem which you have a responsibility to fix.

There is an extreme difference between someone having a genetic predisposition to be an alcoholic and having one for homosexuality. Being gay doesn't cause you to violate someone else's rights, whereas alcoholism seems to ratchet that risk up through the roof. Until the 1930's there was no widespread, successful, way of dealing with alcoholism. Alcoholics were treated as seriously mentally ill. Instead of being rehabilitated into productive, self-reliant citizens, many times they were lobotomized and institutionalized.

After the 30's people started to understand alcoholism and people who wound up alcoholic were expected to act responsibly and use one of the many avenues now available to them to become responsible citizens instead of criminals. Now we know that predisposition for addiction can be passed on genetically, but we don't allow anyone to just get away with lapsing into that behavior.

Self-Knowledge increases responsibility, arguing otherwise is a slippery-slope based on a false dichotomy.

--
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Re:Jesus H Christ by TheGeneration · 2004-08-23 03:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

They are gay. It doesn't matter if gays are gay because of biological influences, environmental influences, or if they made a choice to be. There are probably people who fall into each of those categories. Ultimately, what does it matter? No law has ever stopped gay men from living out life in gay relationships (in whatever form.) No amount of anti-gay violence has ever stopped gay men from being gay. No therapy has ever worked to make a man straight (desire for homosexual contact still continues, even if behavior is modified.)

When the gay civil rights movements began in the 20th century the laws against gay sex were brutal. For example when American soldiers liberated the Nazi death camps they returned the gay survivors of the camps back to the German prison system because, "they were criminals." Until recent times (and still in some places today) the social stigma for being discovered to have been a homosexual would lose you your job, your family, your home, etc... Ultimately, what it comes down to is that no matter what you do, what you say, or what laws you attempt to inact: gays will always be there. They are adults consenting to relationships (whether short term, or long term) that are worthy of the same level of respect we would afford to all human beings who do not harm others.

--

The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
Re:Jesus H Christ by hkb · 2004-08-23 03:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

In actuality, it's a long standing philosophical debate

Great. You keep worrying about "philosophy" and I'll worry about paying my bills, paying attention to my girlfriend, and killing any home intruders who were forced to rob me because of their "predetermined chemistry".

--
/* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
Re:Jesus H Christ by NoMoreNicksLeft · 2004-08-23 03:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Nice logic there. If the guy who discovers his biology determines his behavior, and he's sophisticated enough to change the biology... what does it mean when he chooses to do that?

When the technology becomes available, and it will, and even just a few people overcome it, and change their biology.... what will that mean that they choose to change it?

The only people who want freewill to not exist, are those who lust after the technique to impose theirs over your own.
Re:Jesus H Christ by dR.fuZZo · 2004-08-23 03:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

While you respond in disgust, what happens if one day science does indeed discover that biology trumphs freewill? What if almost all of out behaviors are predetermined by chemistry?

I don't get this biology trumping freewill thing. Look, my brain belongs to me. If it does some sorta electro-chemical mumbo-jumbo to figure out what kind of cereal I decide to eat in the morning, how does that destroy my free will? Oh no, I'm a slave to my physical brain! Oh, the angst! Like it would be so much better if I was a slave to an immaterial, invisible soul instead?

--
-- dR.fuZZo
Re:Jesus H Christ by Planesdragon · 2004-08-23 03:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

Well that has been the issue for a long time with Gays and the primary reason why they have been so discriminated against is because the old belief that being gay was their choice.

It's not an "old belief." It's the commonly accepted understanding. And it's not just gays.

As a legal necessity, any biological or emotional predisposition towards a sexual relationship of any kind is considered "choice." And, similiarly, any similiar predisposition to a political or economic situation is likewise considered "choice."

So being homosexual is a choice--but you won't see any "democrat re-education" camps working, either.
Re:Jesus H Christ by Platinum+Dragon · 2004-08-23 03:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nice logic there. If the guy who discovers his biology determines his behavior, and he's sophisticated enough to change the biology... what does it mean when he chooses to do that?

Perhaps that simply means that person is programmed to be predisposed toward making such choices, whereas another person would be programmed toward reluctance.

This can go in circles for weeks.

--

Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Re:Jesus H Christ by dsanfte · 2004-08-23 04:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have a feeling people in the '50s were pretty pissed off about those "activist" judges catering to the black "lobby", too.

If you're implying that the intolerance of discrimination by the judiciary is a bad thing in regards to homosexual marriage, you'd better be prepared to take that recursively all the way back to the civil rights movement, and nullify that too. They are one and the same. Same shit, different pile.

--
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Re:Jesus H Christ by Kenja · 2004-08-23 04:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

" No law has ever stopped gay men from living out life in gay relationships (in whatever form.) No amount of anti-gay violence has ever stopped gay men from being gay."
And yet many laws in many states make it illegal to be gay. Look up the "anti-sodomy" laws. They are clearly targeted at homosexuals and not hetro's who like anal sex.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Jesus H Christ by stemcell · 2004-08-23 04:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

"If the guy who discovers his biology determines his behavior, and he's sophisticated enough to change the biology... what does it mean when he chooses to do that?"

That he was predetermined to make the choice to change it, and furthermore, that his/her choice of what to change it to was also predetermined.

Stem
Re:Jesus H Christ by Rei · 2004-08-23 04:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

*Once again*, whenever the discussion turns to homosexuality, women are conveniently ignored. Here's a reminder: *there are two genders out there, and the people therein are worth equal consideration*.

"If you are aroused by men, noone really cares. What makes a difference is if you act on it."

Do you have a gf/wife? I'm sure it makes quite the difference if they act on it.

--
No matter how kind you are, German children are kinder.
Re:Jesus H Christ by Mr.+Slippery · 2004-08-23 04:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's the commonly accepted understanding...So being homosexual is a choice

That's ridiculous. If being homosexual is a choice, then so is being hetero. But I never chose to find Sandra Bullock more attractive than Tom Cruise.
I've made many choices in my life, and changed my mind on many things. I've gone from being a hamburger-lover to a vegan; pro-life to pro-choice; Catholic to Zen Pagan Taoist Atheist Discordian; gun banner to gun owner; drug prohibitionist to pro-legalization.
But I've always liked girls.
Had that one figured out around the age of five. Never had any doubt, weighed any arguements, made any choice.
Indeed, if sexual orientation was a conscious choice, rationally we'd all have to choose to be bisexual - thus increasing our chances of a date.
But nope, I don't have a choice. I just like girls.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Jesus H Christ by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-08-23 04:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

All of us are predisposed to certain kinds of wrong behavior

See, this is the problem: you define homosexual acts as wrong (based on your religion), then expect that everyone agree with that. Being gay and screwing other guys is perfectly ok. If you don't like it, you are free to find a nice catholic girl. In the meantime, please realize that legality and morality are two different things.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:Jesus H Christ by LordKazan · 2004-08-23 04:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

[Note: High probability that i'm going to loose karma for this]

You are a shining example of why we have the 1st Ammendment. You have no evidence to support your world view and yet your willing to _FORCE_ people (ie by force, gunpoint if neccesary - which is what passing a law really is) to conform to _YOUR_ worldview. You are an intolerant homophobic fascist by your own demonstration.

We have the Constitution to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority - the entire homosexuality issue is a shining example of why we have the constitution, and every day I see people like you trying to bypass it, or pervert it (FMA).

I respect your right for you to be a intolerant homophobic fascist theistic bigot even if I don't respect you for having that opinion -- you are infavor of not respecting otherpeoples rights, so give me a reason why I should continue to respect yours?

(However, I will continue to do so on the principle of rights)

BTW: attempts to demonize secular humanism are a clear demonstration that you are a limbaugh-republicanist and have been deceived by the massive propraganda of the christian fundamentalist movement in america. I highly recommend that you IMMEDIATELY reconsider your position ---- and everyone should read "The Fundamentals of Extremism"

--
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Re:Jesus H Christ by the_mad_poster · 2004-08-23 04:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

As a legal necessity, any biological or emotional predisposition towards a sexual relationship of any kind is considered "choice."

Hmmm... yes, I could "choose" to have a sexual relationship with another man, but that wouldn't make me gay. I have absolutely no interest in testing those waters, but I could still actively choose to have that sexual relationship.

Similarly, a gay person could be in a committed, abstinent relationship and still be gay. So how does that "choice" apply to people who AREN'T in a sexual relationship?

Also, if you choose to be gay, wouldn't you, out of necessity, also have to choose to be straight? I don't recall ever making that choice, and I've no interest in testing out the other side of things. There are a lot of things I don't like - onions come to mind - but I've had to actually try them out before I actually *knew* I didn't like them. I also had to have the initial drive to try them. I have no drive to try this, and I just *am* straight, unless I made that choice long, long ago and can't remember it.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:Jesus H Christ by GOD_ALMIGHTY · 2004-08-23 04:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

I understand the observation, I think it's more anecdotal than anything and that you can't find any correlation in our legal or social structure. It looks like one might get this impression if they were watching E! or MTV constantly, but serious discussion in politics and law do not support it. This relegates it to the gossip columns of the nation. Until someone comes along and proposes unreasonable criminal or tort immunity because your genes made you do it, I don't think it's a valid argument for serious discussion, unless you are discussing pop-psychology.

The posts I was replying to seem to deride this information as simply another excuse that some large number of people will use to abdicate responsibility for their poor choices. While I'm sure I'll see something of that sort next time I watch Springer or actually pay attention to the latest Hollywood screw-up, I don't think you can extrapolate this into a general tendency. I don't see any evidence that supports that.

Notice the parent I referred to:
Is anything anyone's fault or decision anymore? Damn I remember when people were fat, drunk, gay, disruptive and Communist of their own volition. Now everything is a malady, issue and disease.

And the post I responded to:
Interesting point. We seem to be living in a culture where it is becoming increasingly popular to explain away all personal responsibility for our actions. No one does anything anymore because they were drunk, stupid, angry, jealous, foolish, greedy or just not able to cope properly. Now its genetic predisposition and psychological forces at work. If these scientists/doctors/quacks are to believed its amazing we dont all just crumble completely into a blubbering mass under the pressure of all these external forces and influences we are subject to.

Both deride this news since it will be used to decrease personal responsibility. I argued that the opposite was true, which someone else may have argued as well on this thread, but I missed it. Treatment of any form (medical, therapeutic, spiritual, drugs, etc) is just a tool. I say that the personal responsibility comes when society recognizes that there is a tool to deal with any anti-social problem you might have. Society now expects you to use the tool. It's kind of like how you expect your suburban neighbor to use indoor plumbing. If you can afford to go live without indoor plumbing somewhere where it won't bother your neighbors, no one cares. If you live where your choice to not use a tool will violate the rights of others, society demands you use the tool.

I place your self-control tools and the medical tools in the same category. I don't care which one people use, quite frankly, it's none of my business. It's only my business when they violate someone else's rights. Back to my point, once these tools and knowledge become available, personal responsibility is automatically increased. If you suffer from a condition that doesn't completely incapacitate you, you have a level of responsibility to use whatever tools are available to keep from offending someone else's rights. Society can still be empathetic about an individual's struggle and still not excuse criminal behavior.

I think this discussion may also be confusing two types of characteristics, which is why I brought up alcoholism and homosexuality. Homosexuality doesn't give anyone more reason to violate someone else's rights than anymore than having a particular eye color. Alcoholism, on the other hand, does tend to increase the chances that you will violate someone's rights. If you do, society demands you mitigate your behavior using the tools society has available. When I refer to society demanding use of these tools, I'm referring to characteristics like alcoholism where someone's rights have been violated. In those cases, I don't care which tools make them self-reliant and responsible. In other cases, like homosexuality, I don't think society has any right to ask someone to do anything about these characteristics. I also think that it's "not a world I want to live in" if society oversteps it's boundaries in an attempt to change characteristics that do no violate rights. To me, that can either come in the form of de facto or government coercion and both are unacceptable.

--
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Re:Jesus H Christ by venicebeach · 2004-08-23 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

I am one of the researchers involved in this fMRI project. I think one thing you've got to do is distinguish between science and science journalism. The news coverage of this project has been quite extensive and it's been really interesting to see what makes the news, how science is interpreted by the public, etc. The goal of this project is not to explain why some people are democrats or republicans, conservative or liberal, etc. It is to understand a little bit about the neural processes that underlie certain kinds of emotional and cognitive processes that happen when people think about politics. If the NYT article gives the impression that we are providing one of these circular explanations for why people think the way they do, it is the failure of the journalist, not of the science.
Re:Jesus H Christ by Gendou · 2004-08-23 09:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

if we someday have the scientific knowledge to trace every cause and effect from your genes through all your experiences to some action you produce, should you really be held responsible for those actions any more than a hurricaine should be held responsible for its distruction?

There are only two possibilities:
If one person has free will, everyone has free will.
If one person has no free will, nobody has free will.

If you claim that a criminal has no control over his actions because he has no free will, then the rest of us have no control over our actions either, and we have no choice as to whether or not to hold him responsible. If we do hold him responsible for his actions, it's because we had no choice.

You can't have it both ways: if the criminal has no free will, then neither do the people who punish him for it. Just as he couldn't have chosen not to be a criminal, they couldn't have chosen not to punish him for it.

Not true by leonmergen · 2004-08-23 02:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think this is true... I think political views can develop, and change. It's not something that you have when you're born...

--
- Leon Mergen
http://www.solatis.com

Re:Not true by LaCosaNostradamus · 2004-08-23 03:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

You may have noted that people trend Liberal when young, and then trend Conservative as they age. The exceptions to these trends merely test them.

--
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Re:Not true by gfxguy · 2004-08-23 03:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Certainly...

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over thirty, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
-Winston Churchill

My views have definately changed in the past ten years or so. It's one of the reason we need to, in this election, which should concern matters of national security, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc., stop all this nonsense about what may or may not have happened in Vietnam 35 years ago. We should be discussing education, social security, national security; we should be looking at voting records and bills that have been signed and/or sponsored by the candidates in the past 10 or 15 years. The worst part of this election is that it's hinging on what may be some exagerations from a boasting veteran of what happened 35 years ago.

Thomas Sowell had an amazing quotable first paragraph in his article today, liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, I think we can all agree on this:

It is a painful reflection on the political atmosphere today that, in an era when nuclear devestation may strike American soil in our lifetime, courtesy of terrorists supplied with nuclear weapons by North Korea or Iran, that we are arguing about what did or didn't happen in Vietnam more than 30 years ago.

Also, I think it's been proven, at least to my satisfaction, that people develop fear over time. I don't know what causes compasion, but I also think it's a myth that conservatives are not, or cannot be, compassionate. Many people agree that democrats and republicans are not that far apart on the issues - nobody wants people to go without food, healthcare, shelter, education... what we differ on is how best to accomplish those goals.

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Re:Not true by segmond · 2004-08-23 03:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Political views is like religion. A lot of people take on what their parents and family are. Only few go far to question it and adopt their own real beliefs about the situation.

--
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
Re:Not true by TykeClone · 2004-08-23 03:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

The worst part of this election is that it's hinging on what may be some exagerations from a boasting veteran of what happened 35 years ago.
And he's the one that keeps bringing it up! That's like Microsoft wanting to sell Windows XP based upon the fact that Windows 95 was secure, but not wanting to debate whether or not Windows 95 (or even XP) is secure.

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Re:Not true by jmorris42 · 2004-08-23 03:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

> Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any
> man who is over thirty, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
> -Winston Churchill

That quote shows that this effect was understood by Mr. Churchill. Liberals FEEL, conservatives THINK. This research seems to imply that too much of the hormones responsible for emotional sensivity leads one to touchy feely politics. Ok, so now that we know what causes Democrats, lets get to work on a cure.

[ducking and putting on the asbestos underroos]

--
Democrat delenda est
Re:Not true by GOD_ALMIGHTY · 2004-08-23 04:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Vietnam is a surrogate issue for Iraq. Since no one can seem to criticize any current policy in a way that doesn't have some crowd screaming for their blood, and Iraq is turning into anther Vietnam, the argument of Vietnam is how people are talking about Iraq without having to risk being ostracised for saying something unpopular.

Look at it. Bush totally screwed up getting us in there. Like during Vietnam, we didn't understand the situation we were going into, same in Iraq. See Robert S. McNamara's book on this. Like Vietnam, we don't have a clear exit strategy or set of goals. Are we willing to accept any sort of Islamic state in Iraq? What about the Kurds? The only real difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that the insugency doesn't have any state backing them with weapons. People are arguing that Kerry can handle Iraq better by pimping his actions in Vietnam and afterward. The opposition is trying to detract from that since their own guy can't really run on his record, but no one can say that because then you're not supporting the troops or something insane like that.

This is just my observation of the subtext happening in the media. I could be completely off and Occam's Razor may apply, so feel free to ignore this.

Anyway, fear is fueled by isolation, compasion is fueled by interaction, which helps with empathy. That's why rural places trend towards conservative and urban areas trend towards liberal. It's also why you see weird paradoxes between the two as well, like people who manage to isolate themselves in urban areas. There are other factors, like availability of opportunity, but that should provide some explanation for your observation.

--
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Re:Not true by Jeremi · 2004-08-23 04:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think what rubs conservatives the wrong way about Kerry is that he has the same slimey quality that Clinton had.

That "slimey quality" is all the mud that the Republicans throw at anyone they run against. They keep throwing it until something sticks, and then call their opponent "slimy".

In this case, everybody who was actually there backs up what Kerry says -- people who weren't there but are backing the Republican party are the ones calling him a liar. But the media has to cover both sides "fairly", and thus a "controversy" is manufactured to keep the American people distracted from the real issues. Fortunately, I don't think the American people are going to fall for it this time.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Not true by GOD_ALMIGHTY · 2004-08-23 06:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

Do you have evidence that Iran or Syria is bankrolling Sadr? I've heard these rumors and speculations, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. Sadr hasn't used anything that would not be available to him without state backing. It seems that unemployment, uncertainty and distrust play a far larger role in Sadr's strength than foreign backing.

I'll agree with you on the Iranian dissidents. I was pissed when W called Iran part of the Axis of Evil, because it gave the hardliners more excuses to crack down on dissidents. I don't think W has handled Iran well at all and I do think we should do what we can to support Iranian dissidents. Unfortunately, our credibility in Iran has been dead since we supported the Shah. I don't think there is much direct action we can take at all to help the dissidents in Iran. We might be able to funnel support through some allies like the UK, but I think direct action will help the hardliners more than the dissidents.

Another thing, I don't think this was the kind of invasion that the Iraqi dissidents had in mind when they thought it was a good idea. They may have been thinking more along the lines of the Peter Sellers movie "The Mouse that Roared", than what Rumsfeld and Co. had in mind.

--
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me

What a shocker by Moridineas · 2004-08-23 02:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Perhaps we form political affiliations by semiconsciously detecting commonalities with other people, commonalities that ultimately reflect a shared pattern of brain function."

This just in! People relate with people who are similar to themselves! What shocking news, I never would have guessed that similar ideas and ways of thought would pull people together...

I'll pull another shocker out of the air too, while we're going for blatantly obvious descriptions of human behavior--people tend to congregate with other people of similar intelligence levels.

Re:What a shocker by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-23 03:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

You either completely missed the point of that statement or you succeeded in defeating a straw man. The question is not whether similar ideas and ways of thought pull people together, but whether people already together because of similar ideas also have similar brains (i.e. genetic makeup). The answer is not as 'blatantly obvious' as you seem to believe.

No $hit $herlock... by TopShelf · 2004-08-23 02:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Perhaps we form political affiliations by semiconsciously detecting commonalities with other people, commonalities that ultimately reflect a shared pattern of brain function."

So people align themselves politically with others who think in a similar way.

Wow, that's groundbreaking stuff. Guess that locks up the Nobel prize for this year!

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more

The bravery of liberals by revscat · 2004-08-23 02:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

So is this scientific "proof" that liberals tend to be more compassionate but also more cowardly?

No. It is, however, flamebait and fodder for the conservatives to jump over.

I'm a liberal. I also am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and in fact own multiple firearms. Why? Because I believe there may come a time where I need to defend my ideals with violence. I look at my intellectual forbears like Samuel Adams, George Washington, Mahatma Gandhi (not as peace as you believe!), Malcolm X, and other political agitators. Frequently changes can come about through peaceful means, but when peaceful means fail and tyranny rears its ugly head, then blood must be spilled.

In no religious or political tradition is the forceful opposition of tyranny considered a sin or a crime. This is very much a liberal train of thought, in the "power to the people" sense, the fundamental democratic sense. The liberals who founded America did so by violently opposing British tyranny, and they were wholly justified in doing so.

..have persuasively shown that the amygdala plays a key role in the creation of emotions like fear or empathy.

The question is: empathy towards who? I am empathetic towards the oppressed, the poor, and those who do not get treated justly by their governments. I, like Christ Jesus, will agitate for a change in this situation until my dying day. If violence is required to make it happen, then so be it. I hope it does not come to that, but if it will, I will not run from it.

Re:The bravery of liberals by thatguywhoiam · 2004-08-23 03:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm a liberal. I also am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and in fact own multiple firearms. Why? Because I believe there may come a time where I need to defend my ideals with violence. I look at my intellectual forbears like Samuel Adams, George Washington, Mahatma Gandhi (not as peace as you believe!), Malcolm X, and other political agitators. Frequently changes can come about through peaceful means, but when peaceful means fail and tyranny rears its ugly head, then blood must be spilled.
How sad it is, that I can read these statements by you and see no contradiction whatsoever, while simultaneously knowing that a vast number of your fellow citizens would see a great disconnect.
I have to ask though... that last sentence...
when peaceful means fail and tyranny rears its ugly head, then blood must be spilled
My question is two-fold:
1. At what point would you say this criteria is met?
2. Do you draw a distinction between what happened at the dawn of the United States, and what is happening in Iraq right now?

--
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Re:The bravery of liberals by revscat · 2004-08-23 03:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

1. At what point would you say this criteria is met?
When it is obvious that the people are no longer effetively in control of their government, and have no say in its workings. I believe we are close to that point now.
2. Do you draw a distinction between what happened at the dawn of the United States, and what is happening in Iraq right now?
Not really, no. Despite the "Cock" Hannity crowd crowing about "anti-Iraqi insurgents", I realize that those men who are fighting against us are doing so because they view us as an invading force, and rightfully so. My hope there is for a peaceful resolution that gives power to the Iraqi people, whether Shiite, Kurd, or other.
Re:The bravery of liberals by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-23 03:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

They were the most crazy forward thinking people you have ever heard of, they were the liberals of their times.

the conservative people of the time were called Torries, they did not want change at all, and wanted to keep with the government as it was.

The liberals of the time, the founding fathers, really made a lot of changes and wanted more freedoms.

Rarely do you see a republican asking for more freedoms, they think we have enough and in some cases think we have too much to protect ourselves.

Your statement is simply erroneous.

now, if you want to move onto individual ideals of the people involved, our two parties sprang forth from the political differences of the founding fathers among each other.

Pretty odd that you would just smacktard them into a single political group. Bravo, you have been hannitized for your protection.
Re:The bravery of liberals by kfg · 2004-08-23 03:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

How sad it is, that I can read these statements by you and see no contradiction whatsoever, while simultaneously knowing that a vast number of your fellow citizens would see a great disconnect.

Somehow, somewhere along the line, people have forgotten that the private ownership of arms is a liberal philosophy.

The Battle of Lexington and Concord which sparked the revolution itself was fought to protect arms from confiscation.

KFG
Re:The bravery of liberals by jmorris42 · 2004-08-23 04:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

> In all seriousness are you so delusional that you can actually believe
> that the founding fathers would support the Liberals?

They were indeed liberals. But all good marxists are taught that control of language is key to controlling populations so they promptly perverted the word 'liberal', taking it for their own and perverting the meaning. Much like they use newspeak versions of words like "liberty", "freedom" and "rights", when a marxist/socialist/Democrat uses these words they aren't meaning what thee and me think, and every time we allow them to go uncorrected it slowly erodes the meaning in the minds of the masses, until eventually the words mean what Democrats have redefined it to. But since we are all still reflexivly in favor of "liberty", "freedom", "rights" and until fairly recently, "liberalism" the unwashed masses support policies 180 degrees out of phase with what those words used to mean.

I hope to see a day when the forces of Enlightenment and Liberty can proudly reclaim "Liberal" from the forces of Darkness and once again carry it proudly as our Founding Fathers did.

--
Democrat delenda est
Re:The bravery of liberals by gfxguy · 2004-08-23 04:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Agreed... I've said it in another post... our founding fathers would be today most likely classified as libertarians - socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and fully for small government and more state's rights...

They had a fantastic vision that we've totally fubar-ed. I'm not saying we should have changed and adapted with the times (universal suffrage and abolishing slavery), but the federal government has simply grown too large. The founding fathers would be calling for a new revolution right about now.

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Re:The bravery of liberals by geekee · 2004-08-23 06:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

The "liberals" who founded this country did not believe in social security, welfare, monopoly regulation, tax brackets, etc. In short they weren't liberal by any modern definition. They were libertarians.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:The bravery of liberals by Merk · 2004-08-23 07:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

First of all, let me say I'm not at all religious. In fact, I think most religions and religious people are silly, but I think you're going a bit far here:

I am empathetic towards the oppressed, the poor, and those who do not get treated justly by their governments. I, like Christ Jesus, will agitate for a change in this situation until my dying day.

Great -- very Christian (as I understand things)

[B]ut when peaceful means fail and tyranny rears its ugly head, then blood must be spilled

That, on the other hand, is pretty much the opposite of Jesus' message. The hard part of his message wasn't the "love your brother" part, it was the "turn the other cheek" part. The commandment isn't "Thou shalt not kill -- unless there's injustice thou mustest rectify", it's just "Thou shalt not kill".

I don't know if this philosophy is effective. It's not how I live either. On the other hand, it's pretty hypocritical to talk about the necessity of spilling blood in one breath, and about Jesus in the next.

Fear is Brains in my book by Hawkeye477 · 2004-08-23 03:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

So mabey it may be considered fear to run from a guy who is looking to kill you, and mabey it may be braver to just stand up, but I prefer to be a coward, live another day, and come up with a strategy, than be dead and buried just cause I had to stand up to be brave and look tough ...

Vote Kerry! :)

--
My Web Site - www.ocean-liners.com

Pinko Commies by turgid · 2004-08-23 03:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

So how long before the Conservatives discover that lefties have "defective brains" and start genetically-engineering them out of the population? :-)

--
Stick Men

Im sorry, I dont know what came over me! by Aceto3for5 · 2004-08-23 03:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

I would just like to say i for one am against this article being posted. We need to be more united, especially in this tense election season. Stories like this serve to divide, and not unite. Let us think of those who came before us, to unite us. Lincoln would say, a forum divided against itself cannot parse, Martin Luther King would ask that we judge not on the appearance of our grammar but the content of our thread. This article says we are wired to be in opposition to each other, and that is patently not true. We can come together and unite as a nation again if we agree to stay clear of that which would divide us. Even a dope brained, bleeding heart, wishy-washy, tree-hugging, godless, long haired hippified liberal pansy could understand that.

Thesis Proved by Comment Moderation? by mykepredko · 2004-08-23 03:04 · Score: 1, Insightful

In the five minutes that this thread has been active, I've seen a number of partisan posts rated "Funny"/"Insightful" to "Troll"/"Offtopic" and back again. It looks like the red/blue brains are fighting to support points of view that they agree with.

I'm waiting to see if the purported ultimate rating of "+5 Troll" will be achieved (if any topic could do it, this is it).

myke

--
Mimetics Inc. Twitter

Re:Or, if you're a conservative... by nes11 · 2004-08-23 03:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

lol, that's just politics man. if you honestly believe that conservatives are politically worse than liberals, or vice versa, you're just silly. politics are politics. doesn't matter which side you're on.

Re:Why are Universities predominantly liberal? by steelerguy · 2004-08-23 03:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because they are fake little worlds, seperated from reality, filled with a bunch of people who have no experience of living life outside of a university. Then to top it off they get a lot of government funding.

Bullshit! by PatHMV · 2004-08-23 03:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

The article did NOT say anything close to what the poster says. Yes, it finds that emotional responses stem from the amygdala. Wow, nobody knew that before... Wikipedia on the amygdala

In fact, the article said:

Consider this possibility: the scientists do an exhaustive survey and it turns out that liberal brains have, on average, more active amygdalas than conservative ones.

In other words, the writers at the NYTimes have guessed that some study that might be conducted in the future might find a difference between the amygdala of Republicans and Democrats.

Yes, the article says that the UCLA study found that the best predictor, in brain scans of volunteers, of the volunteer's political party was amygdala activity levels. But the NYTimes article says nothing about how strong a correlation there was, how many subjects were tested, whether a host of variables (such as socio-economic class, age, etc.) were accounted for. It could have a correlation of .51 and be the best predictor, but that wouldn't be a very strong correlation at all.

This is how pseudo-science and junk statistics start. A year from now, liberals will be referring to this past study as having "proved" that conservatives are heartless, and conservatives will cite it for proving that liberals are cowards. Why is this worthy of discussion?

liberal != compassionate by jdavidb · 2004-08-23 03:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Look, being compassionate doesn't have to mean helping people through government programs. I think the defining difference is whether you believe you should run towards government as the first solution to a problem. Conservatives don't generally argue that the poor shouldn't be helped (okay, some wacko conservative commentators aside); they argue that government programs are hurting instead of helping and that private efforts might be more effective. That only makes them uncompassionate if you believe that government is the only way to help them.

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.

Re:liberal != compassionate by blancolioni · 2004-08-23 03:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

[Conservatives] argue that government programs are hurting instead of helping and that private efforts might be more effective.

They argue this not because they believe it, but because saying "Fuck the poor" won't get them elected.
Re:liberal != compassionate by deacent · 2004-08-23 04:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

>> micromoog wrote:
>> To paraphrase: conservatives believe the poor should be
>> helped, just that they shouldn't have to be the ones
>> doing it.

> jdavidb wrote:
> Actually, you've got it backwards. When you tax people to
> help the poor, you're taking other people's money. Private
> efforts means doing it yourself.

This is one of the more misunderstood positions on the left that I've encountered. Many conservatives genuinely believe in the self-improvement route. Not to say that the poor shouldn't be helped, but those who are receiving help should be making measurable contributions towards their own betterment. Coupled with a suspicion toward bueracracy in government, this makes it attractive to keep socialism to a minimum.

The misconception that I find among many conservatives who take this position is that they don't recognize that the poor do not live under the same constraints that they do. Think Maslow's hierarchy of needs. They often live in an environment that does not allow them to make the sorts of contributions that those conservatives require.

The truth is that ending poverty requires a holistic solution that may not exist. The effort needs to come from all quarters, both public and private. I don't know if human nature will let it happen since it likely means to lower the standard of living of those who are most in the position to make a difference.

As for the privatization, I find just as much bueracracy, waste, averice, politics and corruption in private corporations as I do in government. I've worked within both. The difference is the government has a harder time hiding it.

Re:Not insulting anyone by Duhavid · 2004-08-23 03:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Funny, not wanting to insult anyone either, but I have always thought of the "liberal" / "conservative" split as the conservatives tend to oversimplify, where the liberals tend to try to think things thru. That, of course, is just my observation.

I divide the conservatives into "thoughtful conservatives", and "knee-jerk conservatives". The latter being those that say things like "this regulation did X that is bad, get rid of all regulation". The liberals into "thoughtful liberals" and "fearfull/protectionist liberals".

But that is just me.

--
emt 377 emt 4

I used to be like you by revscat · 2004-08-23 03:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Thinking that both sides are equally reprehensible. Then I realized I was just parroting what I had been taught, letting cynicism and previously held (but never questioned) beliefs lead me in my thought. So I started doing research, asking questions like "Which party has had more criminals in the past 30 years?" and similar questions. I encourage you to make up your own questions and do your own research. Don't let cynicism get in your way.

Re:I used to be like you by OrangeTide · 2004-08-23 03:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

categorizing political idealology into two groups is really the mistake you've made.

When two opposed groups with supposedly opposite idealogies end up doing the same thing it makes you wonder that there is something going on. It's not cynical to notice this, it's being realistic. Both parties have something to sell, and when it comes to voting if you're not for a canidate then you're against them.

It's always some sort of near-scandal if a republican is pro-choice or a democrate is pro-gun. Somehow picking in choosing your issues isn't acceptable, you have to be all the way to the left or all the way to the right.

What if, as a voter I'm for things that both parties are selling, then who do I vote for? Now you see why so many people seem cynical about the whole thing. We want to vote for a good politican who will represent us well, but we are rarely given that choice.

I'm for throwing dictators (especially ones we set up in the past) out of power, and I'm for gun rights. Does that make me a conservative? But I'm for preserving the environment because it is a resource the belongs to everyone, and should not be damaged for profit. And I'm pro-choice. So does that make me a liberal? No I'm what some people like Rush sometimes call indecisive, I apparently can't make up my mind if I want to be left wing or right wing. Why should I change my basic beliefs just to fit in better with one group or another? (the real question here is why would I want to be associated with either of those groups?)

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Re:I used to be like you by gid-goo · 2004-08-23 04:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

That makes you a normal human being. Most people are like that. There are people who are ticket people who just say yes to either Repubs or Dems. But it seems like most people have issues that either side claims as their own. I'm a gun person but I would say on the majority of issues I'm a liberal (not a Democrat). The Democrats are more moderate versions of the Republicans. The DLC or people like Lieberman and Zell Miller are more toward the Republican end of the spectrum and people like the late Paul Wellstone, more toward my end. The point is you vote for the person not the party. Anything else is dogmaticism (is that a word?).
Re:I used to be like you by Platinum+Dragon · 2004-08-23 04:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

categorizing political idealology into two groups is really the mistake you've made.

Agreed. This seems to be the mistake made by the submitter as well. The scientists involved seem to be saying that certain brain structures predispose certain people toward reluctance or caution. It's a pretty big leap to say that this makes some people wimpy liberals or patriotic conservatives, especially considering how little such labels mean in reality. A liberal in the US could be considered a right-wing conservative in Canada or Europe, for one example. Even trying to shoehorn all political philosophies into a simple single-axis spectrum is pointless--where do militant anarchists fit in? How about pacifist individualists, or authoritarian capitalists?

I like learning how these things operate, but the idea that people might try modifying these things to "better the species" scares the shit out of me. The thought that we may try to engineer a political and social monoculture forces me to consider what would be required to maintain the integrity of that artificial consciousness. It would certainly require a greater amount of resources than that already used to ensure the survival of plant and animal monocultures we've engineered for the food supply in some parts of the world!

Better we simply watch these things and allow natural processes to operate as they have for a few hundred million years, observing and learning so we can deal with the less desirable effects (such as my near-blindness, for one tiny example) in a humane, sustainable fashion.

--

Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Re:I used to be like you by dajak · 2004-08-23 04:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

you have to be all the way to the left or all the way to the right
As a foreigner I don't even understand what that means. The two political parties in the US both represent a mix of completely unrelated issues and schools of thought, and accomodate politicians in the same party who wouldn't want to be seen together dead in many other countries.
We have 9 parties in parliament right now, and people complain about lack of choice.
Re:I used to be like you by revscat · 2004-08-23 04:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

When two opposed groups with supposedly opposite idealogies end up doing the same thing it makes you wonder that there is something going on. It's not cynical to notice this, it's being realistic. Both parties have something to sell, and when it comes to voting if you're not for a canidate then you're against them.

While this is true, it *is* cynical to say something like "both sides are equally corrupt" or "they all do it.", and that the belief that those who believe differently are naive.
What if, as a voter I'm for things that both parties are selling, then who do I vote for? Now you see why so many people seem cynical about the whole thing.
I dunno, I don't think that is the cause of the cynicism. I think it is beacuse our minds find it easier to categorize broad groups -- "politicians" in this case -- into predefined labels ("corrupt") and that challenges to that label are met with resistance merely because of the structure of the mind. Once that neural path is established ("politicians --> corrupt") our mind is resistant to change and will in fact eschew challenges to that path.
This is definately something in the underlying architecture we should look at refactoring. I'll get a TPS report about this to you in the morning.

Perspective by blinder · 2004-08-23 03:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

from my perspective, I'm going to have to call bullshit on this.

i, started out a radical liberal. But then, as I got older, smarter and grew up, I discovered the simple undeniable fact... that liberalism (in the form of its formalized political ideology of Socialism) does not work, and removes freedom... and those other nasty things like being completely opposed to human nature (the nature to progress, to have incentives to do better)... Socialism removes these incentives.

So, this concept is total bullshit.

Oh yeah, I'm conservative, but I am more compassionate than most liberals. The DIFFERENCE IS I DON'T NEED FUCKING GOVERNMENT TO TELL ME TO BE COMPASSIONATE!

That's the difference -- liberals want to be absolved of their own responsibility to be compassionate and put that responsibility in the hands of a large powerful central government so they don't have to worry about it.

--
sad robot making broken music

Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-23 03:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

Seriously dude. Liberalism and Socialism are two opposing forces. Liberalism as in libér, or FREE. Socialism is about society, community and morals. Sounds like a version of conservatives, dunnit?

You Americans got it all backwards.
Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-23 04:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

Oh yeah, I'm conservative, but I am more compassionate than most liberals. The DIFFERENCE IS I DON'T NEED FUCKING GOVERNMENT TO TELL ME TO BE COMPASSIONATE!

You have it backwards. Socialism is when you tell the government to be compassionate on your behalf. Government is just a society's admin.
Re:Perspective by demachina · 2004-08-23 04:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

I hate to break it to you but you are falling in to the black and white trap everyone falls in to when they try to divide politics in to liberal and conservative. You seem to have lumped liberalism in with socialism and they are two different things. Most of the big governmentism that sprung out of the depression and FDR, which you rightly have problems with is much more socialism than liberalism. If you weren't politically naive you would realize politics is like the spokes in a wheel and not a turn signal.

I'm kind of curious, when you claim the moniker "compassionate conservative" does that mean you are a fervent supporter of the other self proclaimed "compassionate conservative" George W. Bush? If so I have news for you, you should probably start calling yourself a libertarian than the travesty "conservate" is in the U.S. today.

The "compassionate conservatives" who have a stranglehold on power at the moment are instituting "large powerful central government" faster than the "liberals" you hate ever did, though the Dem's are helping. They are doing the same injustice to "conservatism" that the Dems have done to "liberalism" over the years.

Here is the short list of the most obvious examples of Republican backed "large powerful central government":

- Patriot Act
- Medicare "Reform" bill
- Department of Homeland Security
- Skyrocketing Federal budget and deficit
- Skyrocketing defense spending
- Preemptive warfare and nation building
- Free speech zones which in fact prevent free speech
- The rush to a National Intelligence Director is going to result in spying and law enforcement whose power to intrude in to your life is going to be unchecked and unstoppable. It is going result in an out of control spying agency like the CIA was in the 50's and 60's but with unfettered domestic spying powers. The Republican's are feigning reluctance but they are drooling at the prospect of creating it and of suckering the Dems in to being eager to do it too.
- Detention of people without due process at the whim of the executive branch

I hate to break it to you but what the Dems and Republicans are both practicing are different flavors of "socialism". The Republicans talk big talk about free markets but they are in fact intervening in the economy and civil liberties in truly massive ways.

The medicare "reform" bill being the most obvious example of massive economic intervention. It has all the earmarks of classic Democratic socialism except they are instead using it as a thinly veiled disguise to pump large quantities of tax payer dollars in to the pockets of their friends in the pharmaceutical, healthcare and insurance industry. The Dems woudl have just pumped it in to a huge bureaucracy and the pockets of the poor and elderly.

The defence industrial complex is in fact one of the largest planned economies on the face of the earth, the Republicans love every bit of it and can't pump money in to it fast enough.

I hate to burst the bubble but the two offerings available in the U.S. today aren't true conservatism or liberalism. They are both Socialism, the democrats leaning towards classic socialism and the Republican's leaning more towards Fascism(substituting Muslims for Jews) every day.

--
@de_machina
Re:Perspective by SofaMan · 2004-08-23 16:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh yeah, I'm conservative, but I am more compassionate than most liberals. The DIFFERENCE IS I DON'T NEED FUCKING GOVERNMENT TO TELL ME TO BE COMPASSIONATE!

I think it was Gandhi who said something like "Enacting laws cannot give people a heart, but they can restrain the heartless".

--
SofaMan -- Occasionally Battling Evil With His Mighty Powers Of Indolence.

False dichotomy, WTF? by pedestrian+crossing · 2004-08-23 03:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Red/Blue, Conservative/Liberal, Democrat/Republican, I call bullshit.

It's all a Punch 'n Judy show to keep the masses hypnotized.

Think about it. The U.S. is only one party away from a dictatorship...

--
A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Re:Why are Universities predominantly liberal? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-23 03:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

Because their major source of funding comes out of the taxpayer's pockets and they only care about more money for research. Therefore, they give up their individual thoughts on political issues and group vote for the party that promisies them them most of the taxpayers money. They usually take this dispicable act a step further and try to indoctinate their students into a liberal mindset, many times arguing against the very (scientific) principles they are trying to teach in the process. Poor, emotional, group-think, bandwagon jumping, money hungry liberals!

Political Beliefs: Nature vs. Nurture by plasticmillion · 2004-08-23 03:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's little doubt among scientists these days that human beliefs (including political beliefs) are to a large degree the result of genetic factors. If you don't believe that, read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate (and read his other books for good measure, they're all great).

At the same time, the NYT article is a disturbing mix of scientific fact and incoherent pop psychobabble. I was particularly nonplussed by the author's hypothesis as to how we form our party affiliations and then our political beliefs. The reality is surely far more complex. Consider, for example, the poll on the U.S. election in this week's Economist. Unfortunately you have to pay to see the article, so I'll repeat the results here:

If the election were held today, who would you vote for..?

18-24: Bush: 24, Kerry: 65
25-44: Bush: 40, Kerry: 48
45-64: Bush: 47, Kerry: 45
65+: Bush: 46, Kerry: 43

Now perhaps there is an overall trend towards increasing liberalism in the country (good news, if so), but the conclusion that younger people tend to be more liberal is irresistable. This seems to belie the suggestion that people have innate affinities to Democrats or Republicans that cause them to bond with such people in their youth, forming their political beliefs as a result.

I can't shake the notion that we become cynical and thus more conservative as we get older, with the extent of our right or left-wing bent influenced by genetics, among other things. I can't believe that there are other factors that make us hang out with the blue or red crowd before attaching a specific ideology to our choice, since young people are so overwhelmingly liberal merely by virtue of their youth.

--
Peer Pressure

You don't really *have* a left in America by ebcdic · 2004-08-23 03:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

To a Socialist in Europe, the main US parties are both conservative. (US right wingers will deny this, since they like to denounce the Democrats as socialist, but it's clear that the Democrats would never consider many policies supported by socialist parties in other countries.)

So what happens when you do the same tests in countries with a real left? Are the results more extreme, or do they just map to a different range of political views?

Courage? I think not... by danro · 2004-08-23 03:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

So is this scientific "proof" that liberals tend to be more compassionate but also more cowardly?

Disclaimer: Ok, this is going to be a rant, so if you're not in the mood for one, please skip to the next comment.

Still with me?
Ok, here goes...

Why is it seen as courageous to support war (any war, as US republicans often do) when all you risk is, at most, a slight tax increase. You don't even have to get your fat ass out of your comfy chair! Just order some flags and stickers over the internet (got to "Support The Troops") and watch the fireworks on FOX!
Pay someone to fight and die somewhere far away, destroying someone elses country in the process.

This is not bravery, it's lack of moral and responsibility.

The US should reinstituted the draft ASAP.
If the common voter had a real possibility of having to directly bear the burden of the decisions of the leaders (like the entire population of $INVADED_COUNTRY will) in the event of war, maybe we wouldn't see any cases of going to war on faulty intelligence?

Ask yourselves: How many "brave" conservatives would support a war if it was going to be fought in their hometown?

--

"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."

Re:Courage? I think not... by cheezedawg · 2004-08-23 05:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

If you had read the 9/11 Commission report, you would know that there were numerous connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They were both driven by their mutual hatred of us and they reached out to each other on different occasions to form a relationship. There is no evidence that they actually collaborated on an attack against the US, but that is irrelevant. We are fighting a war against terrorism, not just a war against Al Qaeda.

--
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Re:Courage? I think not... by Darth+Daver · 2004-08-23 06:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

1. It is not someone else's liberal/communist/socialist, drafted kid who is getting sent off to war. The military is mostly composed of conservatives for many reasons which should be painfully obvious from even your own posting. These conservatives are putting their neck on the line, even if some conservatives stay at home to be doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc. I spent six years in the US Marine Corps, and I consider myself a conservative, even though I am strongly pro-environment and moderately pro-choice. I am also very empathetic, but like a good parent, I don't think it is best for my kids to sit around whining, making excuses and blaming someone else for everything that happens. I teach my kids to walk, not to be carried their entire life. I also teach my kids to obey the law and be strong for those who are not (i.e. Iraq).

2. It is courageous and selfless to serve and to risk one's neck to protect the US and make Iraq and the rest of the world a better, safer place. The people serving in our military get a modest paycheck and little gratitude for risking their lives to eliminate brutal, genocidal lunatics who threaten world peace. I know liberals would prefer to let Saddam Hussein put Iraqi's through wood chippers, run terrorist training camps, pay for suicide bombers, and pursue WMD programs at his leisure because it is not their personal problem. What do these liberals most vocally complain about? They complain about the money it costs for the US to do this. That money could be spent on their favorite social program. My, how empathetic of them.

By the way, Democrats got the US into World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Both Gulf Wars were handled much better than either the Korean or Vietnam wars. Clinton got us into Bosnia, where we saved Muslims. Quite a few Democrats in Congress voted for both Gulf Wars. Portraying war as a Republican thing demonstrates great ignorance, lack of independent thought or dishonesty, as US Democrats often do.

The draft is a bad idea. We want a volunteer force. It is not the job of the US military to straighten out screw-ups.
Re:Courage? I think not... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-23 08:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

A war on terrorism is not winnable. At least with a war on Al Qaeda there is a somewhat well defined enemy.
Taking out Al Quaeda is appropriate as they attacked us. Let's go after the others that have "hatred of us" when we have evidence that they are conspiring to do something.
Re:Courage? I think not... by drooling-dog · 2004-08-23 09:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

People enter the military for many reasons, as you say, but I suspect that the ideologically-driven ones are in the minority. For example, the military recruits very heavily in inner cities and other "depressed" environments simply because military service is a more attractive career option in areas where there are few others. On the other hand, the military lifestyle is likely to have a greater appeal to those who seek conformity and regimentation, something that is arguably more a "conservative" than a "liberal" trait. Still others may be motivated out of a sense of altruism, secure in the belief that their service will at least benefit their country and perhaps the world at large. We trust our government to employ the service and the lives so offered in a manner that respects the spirit in which it is given.
But regardless of the reasons that one signs up, it's pretty much a given that you're going to adjust your attitudes once you're there. It's a principle of psychology that we seek to minimize "cognitive dissonance", or the internal conflict between what we believe and what we do. More often than not, when we've chosen a course of action to which we feel committed, "what we do" inevitably triumphs and "what we believe" adjusts accordingly. That's a big reason why the military really doesn't want a draft; conscripts do not make a conscious choice to be there and thus are less likely to make the necessary adjustments in beliefs and attitudes, which are important for military discipline. Their conflict is between "what I believe" and "what I'm forced to do", which is a different animal entirely.

Could be other way round by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-23 03:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe the way we think alters the physical structures of our brains. Just like if we exercise certain muscles they get bigger.

How does that deny free will?

Fear != Courage by Nick+Arnett · 2004-08-23 03:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Feeling more fear doesn't mean that you're cowardly. In fact, if you feel no fear, it's impossible to be courageous, since courage is the overcoming of fear.

The person who is afraid and acts anyway is the courageous one. What's the old saying?

Nick

"Liberal" talk in USA is Silly by Linus+Sixpack · 2004-08-23 03:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Every time I hear Americans choose between the far right wing and the even further right wing I shudder.

Illegal detainments in Iraq and Cuba.

Vast expansion of secret police powers via "Patriot Act".

World's biggest Military budget (thats a guess) and a military commander chosen in hail of controversy.

If any of the above scares you, and you are American, break the two party system that makes it too easy to buy your government.

Think twice when you are sold something by a fear mongering right winger (of either party).

LS

Re:"Liberal" talk in USA is Silly by TilJ · 2004-08-23 04:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

The US definitely has the largest military budget, by a massive stretch. See the first link from google I found as an example.

What other military, or coalition of militaries, represents a threat to a military that size? Who are the Americans thinking they need to defend themselves from?

When folks from other countries say that both parties in the US are right-wing, this is what they mean. A portion of those dollars are what could have been their education and health systems, still leaving them with a military equal to any possible coalition of forces.

--
"The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth." -- Bene Gesserit Precept

swinging right by kippy · 2004-08-23 03:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

So wait, this implies that getting a job, saving some money and buying a home cause the amygdala to become less active? That would explain the drastic ideological swing to the right that people undergo once they do those things.

--
Blaze a trail to the New World

Re:All the studies show by Xabraxas · 2004-08-23 03:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

No one is stopping stem cell research. Just no federal funds can be used for it.

If it's the fucking miracle you folks think it is, then there should be plenty of private research by those who seek to profit from it.

Of course there are not many private companies willing to fund development for something that could possibley cure so many different ailments. After all, the money is in the medicine, not the cure. Instead we have researchers at universities forced to recreate their labs off campus, wasting so much money and allowing the US to fall years behind the rest of the world when we were once pioneers in the field.

--
Time makes more converts than reason

Re:Why are Universities predominantly liberal? by Rhesus+Piece · 2004-08-23 03:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Heh. While you raise some valid points,
I'd also like to point out that:
1) Universities (well, mine, at least) are places of extreme education and knowledge. There is more free thinking and intellectual curiosity about here than any of the crazy "real world" places I visit. In fact, my professors and most of my peers are more educated on the status of the nation and world than pretty well anybody else I come across (admittedly, I spend most of my time with academics).

2) Most professors I know aren't quite so "seperated from reality" as you would like to think. Most own homes and live just like normal people. Most have worked in private industry if that is possible in their field, and if not, have
made an extensive and immersive study into their chosen field. The only exception is my classics professors, and they are still more intelligent and informed than your average citizen by leaps and bounds, and are certainly no less qualified to have opinions just because they happen to work at a school during the day.

3) I think Universities are also slighly liberally biased because I've noticed that a lot my liberal friends believe that one way to change the world is to ensure good education, and one good way to do that is to be a teacher. (Compassionate people also tend to be pulled to teaching, all jokes aside) So, liberals are drawn to education, making it not unreasonable for schools to be liberal. .. and as a side note, do you think that
Universities get too much funding from the government? That they shouldn't get any?
I'm curious. I think government funding of
education is a positive thing.

Re:I was conservative, and am now a radical libera by RTMFD · 2004-08-23 03:27 · Score: 1, Insightful

Hopefully, you stay rooted to your terminal on election day. This will help you to avoid contamination by reality (i.e. "meatspace").

Nature vs. Nurture relate to Free Will by MarkPNeyer · 2004-08-23 03:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

In my mind, the main difference between liberals and conservatives is a preference for nature or nurture. This ties in to your idea abou the loss of free will. Disclaimer: I consider myself a conservative, athough I think I have a good understanding of how liberals think because a lot of my friends are liberals and I like to talk about politics. I'd love to hear feedback on this idea to see how valid it is.

Conservatives tend to believe that people behave in the way they do as a result of something about them in particular - their nature. Some people are just good and some people are just bad. Nothing can be done to change or fix the situation- it's just how they are. Good people tend to obey the law, pay taxes, go to church and be good citizens. Bad people don't. When a bad person does something bad, it's because he's a bad person and therefore likely to do bad things.

Liberals, on the other hand, see everyone as more or less products of our environment - the way we are nurtured. We're affected by what goes on around us and the things we see and experience. Bad people are bad not because of some intrinsic difference between them and good people; they're bad because of their childhood or the atmosphere they live in. A bad person does something bad because there was some sort of external influence upon him, causing him to be bad.

To illustrate my point, consider gun control. Conservatives are generally against it - and this makes perfect sense considering their ideas on how people behave. Good people should be allowed to own guns becuase they're good. They'll only use them for self defense and as a result society will be safer. Bad people on the other had, don't have any respect for the law. They'll get their hands on guns regardless of the law, and use the guns to do bad things because they're bad. To a conservative, gun control simply punishes good people and prevents them from defending themselves from the bad people.

Now look at Gun control from the liberal perspective - people are influenced by the environment and the situation they're. Since no one is inherently good or bad, gun control simply decreases the probablity that a given individual will be in possesion of a firearm. This is good because if you have a firearm, you're probably more likely to shoot someone with it. Perhaps if you're angry you wouldn't normally hurt someone, but having a gun in your hand changes your mindset and makes you more likely to do something bad. Gun control legislation is an attempt to remove the external stimulus that can cause people to be bad - so most liberals support it.

Poverty is another example of the difference. There is obviously some sort of connection between poverty and crime. Most of the nations involved in terrorism are not particularly wealthy, and crime is ramapant in poorer urban areas. Why?

Ask a conservative, and most likely she'll tell you that crime causes poverty. No one wants to start a buisness in a crime-ridden city. Because crime prevents economic activity, it causes poverty. To fix the poverty situation, just crack down on the crime. Once you've made the neighborhood safer, jobs will show up and poverty will go away. Note that no attempt is made to explain crime. The Conservative uses crime to explain poverty.

Ask a liberal, and most likely he'll tell you that the poverty causes the crime. If you grow up in a situation devoid of any opportunity for a job and a good life for yourself, you've got a good chance of turning to crime because of the hopelessness and despair of your situation. To fix the situation, you need to get rid of poverty. Try to lure companies in to provide jobs, and the crime will go away once the people have an opportunity for economic advancement. Unlike the conservative, the liberal uses poverty to explain why there's crime.

How does this tie into free will? Conservatives make no effort or attempt to explain why bad people are bad. They just are.

--

My blog

Re:Nature vs. Nurture relate to Free Will by TheGeneration · 2004-08-23 05:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

First off, regarding the first paragrah starting with "Fuck you..." I wasn't attacking you, simply saying that I don't agree with your position on why Liberals think they way they do. Your response is a bit... angry.

Second paragraph: I do not agree with how you summed up the argument made by liberals. The argument is more like this, "If we were invaded by another country wouldn't Americans be in the streets fighting the invader?" It isn't a matter of what we made them do, it's is a matter of what is a reasonable response to an invasion by a foreign power.

Third paragraph you said:
Why do I think people are attacking our soldiers over there? I can tell you it's not ordinary Iraqi citizens who have feel invaded and opressed. If that were the case, they wouldn't be attacking iraqi citizens who cooperated with Americans - they'd only be attacking the Americans. I think it's two bit punks like Muqtada al-Sadr who simply want to be in power for themselves, aided by jihadists who are crossing over the iraqi border to participate in what they see as a holy war. Notice that I have not explained their behavior in terms of anything we've done or anything about their situation - I've explained it in terms of who they are and what they tend to do.

Unfortunately I don't know if I can agree with you here. I don't think we get the full story from our news media here. I went over to Europe for a few weeks, while there I noticed CNN International tells the stories completely different from how CNN (America) tells the stories. On CNN International they show you images of Iraqi insurgents where they look like actual well trained, not chaotic, fighting units against US Soldiers. They also show things like angry Iraqi's (angry at both sides), and American soldiers actually firing their weaponry (not just slinging it over their shoulder in a non-threatening way that we most often see on our media here.)

As for whether or not is ordinary Iraqi's fighting us? Al-Sadr's men are ordinary iraqi's, but in our media, because they are against us, they are lumped into a special category that makes them something other than angry Iraqis.

In addition, I agree, Muqtada al-Sadr's power grab seems unsavory to my American sense of democratic values. It reminds me in a way of the scottish leaders in the movie Braveheart who were willing to sell out their countrymen for noble titles, and land. At the same time though, I recognize that the tribal form of government is what Iraqi's are used to and want to live under. To me it seems bad, to them it seems good. Does that make me a conservative, and them a liberal? Or does that make me a liberal, and them a conservative? Or does it just mean that relative to their position, my position is different?

--

The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
Re:Nature vs. Nurture relate to Free Will by leereyno · 2004-08-23 07:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

In other words liberals are pretty much full of shit. They are an example of the perverse trimph of intelligence over wisdom and common sense, which is inevitable when one's ideology is disconnected from reality.

By your description I qualify as a conservative. I understand that there are good and bad people in the world. But unlike your hypothetical conservative I also understand that good and evil are choices. Bad people are bad because they choose to be. What causes them to make the choice to be bad depends upon the individual. There is no single root cause for that choice. Likewise good people are good because they choose to be and what causes them to make that choice is something that is specific to them as an individual.

I personally think that the relationship between poverty and crime is not one of cause and effect in either direction. Rather poverty and crime are both effects of the same cause, or at least they are in the setting you seem to imply, which is contemporary America in areas where both are high.

Just as there are people who are good and people who are bad, there are also what you could call winners and losers. The USA is the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. Short of mental and physical disability, there is no reason why someone should be poor here. Great wealth may not be obtainable by absolutely everyone, but a comfortable middle-class existence certainly is. If someone isn't able to achieve that standard of living, and they are not disabled in some way, then it is usually because they have made bad choices in life There is always some sob story about how someone got done in by circumstances beyond their control, but that is the exception, not the rule, and even then the person in question still has the power to change their circumstances over tiem. There are so many opportunities available in this country that it's staggering. Even someone who is in prison has the opportunity to change their life and make something of themself. Our lives are the products of the choices we make, not what happens to us or the circumstances into which we are born.

The reason why poverty and crime tend to co-exist is because both phenomena are the product of people making bad choices. The socio-economic meritocracy that we have in this country works to segregate those who make good choices from those who make bad ones. Slums exist because that is where society puts those who make bad choices. Therefore both poverty and crime are going to rampant in these places.

As far as what do to about it, all I can say is that you can't fix broken people. The most we can do is work to maintain the opportunities available to those who were unfortunate enough to be born into such an environment, and work to incarcerate those who choose to be criminals. The schools in our slums are really bad, in part because they are filled with people whose parents made bad choices. Whatever genetic component predisposed their parents to making their bad choices tends to get passed down to the children, which means that you've got a school full fututre thugs and losers. Then there is the fact that some people are poor just because they're dumb as bricks. They don't make evil choices or even foolish ones as judged by their mental capacity, but they're still at a disadvantage. This creates a synergy of problems that even Socrates couldn't handle.

Imagine you're in a class of 30 student. Now imagine that eight of the people in your class are violent thugs who work to intimidate and attack other students as well as the teacher. They interrupt the class at every opportunity. They eventually wind up in "juvie," and prison soon after that, but not soon enough. 12 of your classmates are not violent and their not stupid, they just don't want to learn. They blame the consequences of their bad choices on external villans collectively known as "The Man." As a result they haven't learned and have suceeded in dragging the average standard of education in your school down

--
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Re:Nature vs. Nurture relate to Free Will by ptbarnett · 2004-08-23 10:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

The parent posting makes a lot of interesting points, but I wanted to respond to this particular one:
Now look at Gun control from the liberal perspective - people are influenced by the environment and the situation they're. Since no one is inherently good or bad, gun control simply decreases the probablity that a given individual will be in possesion of a firearm. This is good because if you have a firearm, you're probably more likely to shoot someone with it. Perhaps if you're angry you wouldn't normally hurt someone, but having a gun in your hand changes your mindset and makes you more likely to do something bad. Gun control legislation is an attempt to remove the external stimulus that can cause people to be bad - so most liberals support it.
This is a good description of the attitude exhibited by most anti-gun zealots. I'm not using "liberal" as a descriptor, because "liberal" should be associated with anti-authoritarian views, and "gun control" is definitely authoritarian.
I've pressed quite a few of them on this particular point, trying to understand why they believe this. Research has repeatedly shown that a perpetrator considering or planning to commit a violent crime has no problem obtaining a firearm. What's left is commonly known as a "crime of passion" -- i.e. someone shooting their spouse after finding him/her in bed with another person. But, these events are extraordinarily rare, despite high rates of gun ownership in the US.
After pressing an anti-gun zealot about why he/she believes this to be a real problem, it invariably comes down to a single issue -- usually blurted out or revealed after I've pushed some sort of "hot button": they don't trust themselves to be responsible with a firearm. They are afraid that when encountered with a situation where they must exercise some self-restraint to avoid committing a violent act, they won't be able to do so.
At this point, I usually recommend that they need to seek treatment from a mental health professional, rather than projecting their self-doubt onto everyone else around them.

Re:sort of ironic actually by wwest4 · 2004-08-23 03:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

While I don't think it makes sense to lump people under over-broad monikers like "conservatives" or "liberals," it is a good point to make that there are fear-based politics in all areas of the political gamut. Some people exploit these fears as the basis for evangelism for their politics. Examples by issue:

gay rights - fear of God, fear of ostracision and oppression, fear of unfamiliar
civil liberties - fear of police state, fear of terrorism
foreign policy - fear of other races, nations, ideologies, responsibility, terrorism
free/fair trade - fear of slavery, marginalization, money, corruption
gun control - fear of tyranny, fear of gun violence
abortion - fear of God, fear of loss of paternal control, responsibility
welfare - fear of abandonment, helplessness, government, unjust loss, responsibility
environmentalism - fear of apocalypse/wasteland dystopia/social darwinism

There are many other faces to these issues, but fear is often evoked to gain support for the less sensational bits.

no-brainers by Doc+Ruby · 2004-08-23 03:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Republican brains are more of a liability than any help at all. Here's a list of things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

- Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

- Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

- The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.

- A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

- Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

- The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

- If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

- A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

- Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

- HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

- Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

- A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.

- A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

- Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

- The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

- Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

- You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

- What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:This explains why liberals play emotions like f by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-23 03:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

Good point, I didn't know his history. I only asked about a young Steven Hawking because his potential would not have been realised yet.

So lets imagine a wheelchair bound (and all the rest) young child that needs tons of care. Would he get it? Knowing that he would end up being a very valuable member of society later in life can't play into it because it isn't known yet.

Re:None of this applies to Bush by Ignorant+Aardvark · 2004-08-23 03:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Summary: Bush scored a 1206 on his SAT, which scores to a modern era equivalent of 1280, which puts him in the 88 percentile, or about 10 times as smart as the average Slashdot smartass.

Guess what? The SAT isn't a true measure of intelligence. Also, there's a high correlation between wealth and high SAT scores, because rich people are simply better able to pay for the classes and training necessary to score better on the SAT. It doesn't measure intelligence - if it did, it wouldn't be possible to study for it.

And by the way, I got a 1580, so I still feel qualified to judge Bush as stupid. Anyway, why should we have someone who leads the U.S. be only in the 88th percentile (assuming that it measures intelligence anyway)? That means that there are roughly .12*290 million Americans more qualified for the job! (Okay, so that's an over-simplification). I think the President should be at least in the 99th percentile when it comes to intelligence. The job is too important to leave up to someone who is only moderately intelligent.

--
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable

Nothing shocking about it. by Exmet+Paff+Daxx · 2004-08-23 03:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Terrorism works. Terrorism causes fear, and the people whom terrorism works best on are those who fear the most and are most able to emphatize with victims. This has been aided by modern media, which is able to deliver maximum shock images instantly via a worldwide television network.

I will be moderated down for saying this, but it's on-topic, it's factual, and it's my well reasoned opinion. Not good material for Slashdot, but my conscience dictates my actions.

If we lived in a world of people who were reasonable, no actions would have been taken as a result of the Columbuine killings. Eleven dead teenagers in a nation of hundred of millions equals an inconsequential cause of death. Thirty teenagers had died the previous day in car crashes, but no one stopped driving. The reason Columbine made an impact is because of people who are capable of becoming afraid, and empathizing with victims. They are able to irrationally magnify their fear outside the actual scope of the threat - again with the help of mass media. Hence we got a million people marching on Washington to ban guns, when lightning strikes and airbags both killed more children that year than school shootings.

Irrational fear leads to irrational behaviour. Terrorism works.

So now we have these same people, genetically gifted with empathy and able to feel irrational, choking amounts of fear, banding together to form a political movement. You can call them "liberals" if you want but I'm not really into name-calling. This isn't surprising. The article is full of hokum when it speculates that "people who think alike form political movements". DUH.

The question we need to ask ourselves is: should people who are irrationally ruled by fear decide the fate of our nation? Is this wise?

Perhaps gene therapy will provide a cure for this in the future; for now we have a choice to make on Nov. 2.

--
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.

Re:Nothing shocking about it. by nysus · 2004-08-23 05:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Strange you should use liberal causes in your examples. Because isn't the exploitation of fear precisely what conservative George Bush is doing? After all, only about 4,000 people died in the last 20 years from terroist attacks. Hell, that's a drop in the bucket compared to traffic accidents where probably about almost 1.5 million have been killed. Here we are turning the country upside down because of a handful of religious nuts when we've got killer machines right in our driveways. Why aren't we pulling out the stops to make roads and cars safer?

Fear is used by both sides, left and right. George Bush marched us off into a needless war based on those fears. This has resulted in many more dead people throughout the world. You are right, we have important decision to make on Nov. 2nd. Will we follow our fears, as George Bush hopes we will?

--
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Re:Nothing shocking about it. by nysus · 2004-08-23 07:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

No one mentioned anything about whether people who did things intentionally should be punished more harshly than those who inflict harm unintentionally. It makes no sense for you to bring it up.

Bush is a fear mongerer. It's a central point in his campaign. He essentially says: "Vote for me if you want to stay safe." He is clearly using fear as a motivation for people to vote for him. You insinuate that only liberals use fear to motivate people. My point is that that is absurd.

By the way, contrast Bush to FDR who said in the face of a global war: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." FDR was a liberal and Bush is a conservative. Go figure.

--
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

Re:All the studies show by TheGeneration · 2004-08-23 03:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Of course you haven't heard a politician claim he'd "strip them of any benefits" that would be political suicide. You can instead see it in the initiatives that are put forward (privitization of social security), and the bills that are voted for by Republicans (the medicare bill being a prime example.)

You mean the way of saving for your retirement by investing the stock market? The way that so many of the readers of this site saw their 401k go up in smoke after the dot-com bubble burst? Private investment of Social Security funds is risky. I was listening to an investment show on the radio the other day and one of their analysts said something I had never heard anyone admit to, "well street is very good at figuring out who the smart investors are, and who the stupid investors are, and then treats them accordingly."

You cannot tell me that with that sort of ideology the majority of Americans would be better off with their money privately invested with so many sharks in that investment pool?

--

The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.

Part of the naturalistic/scientific worldview by blahplusplus · 2004-08-23 03:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think you're ignoring the natural laws/causes and their effects. Take an idiot savant and compare him to someone who's struggled years to acquire the level of master a savant has at the same chosen instrument of choice. Both can be true: Ability can be inherited or acquired. I think both have their place but the current bent is towards 'fixed' causes and also so these people can make money off them. But you have to respect the limitations of the tools and ability to measure the causes in the age which you live.

Abilities, propensities, inclinations to behaviours are biological, dietary and enviornmental. To say otherwise is pure ignorance. Many peoples behaviour, abilities can be categorized, predicted, etc. Our ability to determine peoples potential acdemically, skillwise, weaknesses and propensity to make certain choices is only going to increase with time.

This is a philosophical argument and you seem to be implying that we have 'free will'. Take for example: Why is it so difficult to be celibate for a lot of people? Simple answer: Biology.

Do you believe in God? by Jason_says · 2004-08-23 04:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think being a christian is the most important factor in whether or not your are a conservative or liberal. As an atheist I find it nearly imposible to accept the ideology of the conservative movement. Take abortion, gay marriage, sex education, social programs for the poor, women's rights(although pretty much resolved), even some wars(damn satanist Muslims are trying to destroy our christian values), "family" values, and the evironment. A lot of these issues comes down to whether you belive in god or not to which ideology you choose(conservative or libral).

Oh well thats just what I think

P.S. when did "family" values start to mean "christian" values?

Re:Do you believe in God? by danheskett · 2004-08-23 06:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

There are many, many, many conservatives for whom religion plays no part.

One problem is that the american conservative party has been ransacked by a fairly strong but very minority stake of fundamentalist evangelical Christians. That's okay, they can join whatever party they like. And it's okay for their voice to be heard.

But there are many, many, many conservatives who agree with the large part of the platform without subscribing to the religious reasons fellow party-members tout.

For example. There is a large libertarian contingent who believes that abortion (especially late term/near term) is a violation of the unborn persons right to life. The reasoning is that the government has a duty to protect the innocent and weak: if you call the cops because two big armed intruders are bearing down on you it is the responsibility of the government to rescue you (or try). Likewise for the unborn.

Another example. There is a large libertarian contingent who belives that marriage is a civil institution that does not deserve legal recognition, let alone expansion to include non-traditional relationships.

Another example. There exisits a large libertarian contingent that believes that for the most part the government is incompetent. The same red-tape strangled pencil pushers who have caused my paperwork to be lost a dozen times has no business moralizing to my children regarding sexual practices and mores. Yes, they have a responsibility to explain the biology (the plubming, so to speak), but not the associated social values.

P.S. when did "family" values start to mean "christian" values?
Family values has almost always meant "judeo-christian" values. The notions that you should respect your wedding vows, not lie, not covet your neighbors possesions, not curse people, not treat others poorly, that children should respect their parents, and so on go back to the founding of this country. The ideas behind the "ten commandments" are really a big part of the social foundation of the country. The "family values" kick is a recognition that if everyone were to follow the non-religious ten-commandments things would be a lot more civil in this country.
Re:Do you believe in God? by antifoidulus · 2004-08-23 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

simple biological fact aborted human life == dead human
Shows you do not understand what science is, it's not a simple, "biological fact" as you say, biology, as is all science, is simply a set of observations and predictions. That is all it is, and you are trying to make it be some sort of ultimate law.
All science says is that if a person is inseminated, then a human being will come through their birth canal in about 9 months or so. Science says nothing of whether or not a fetus is a child, it's up to society to say that. Scientists have shown that unhealthy women who do not get enough folic acid are more likely to have miscarriages than healthy women. Does this imply that a woman who doesn't exercise and doesn't drink her OJ should be arrested for manslaughter if she has a miscarriage? By your logic, she should, because as you say, it's a "simple biological fact"
If you are against abortion, that is fine, it's your choice. However, please don't claim that the authority known as, "biology" said that is the only choice. And maybe you need to expand your horizons a bit by reading up on both philosophy and science. Might learn something

--
Monstar L
Re:Do you believe in God? by Christ-on-a-bike · 2004-08-23 06:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Abortion is murder (simple biological fact, aborted human life == dead human)
Simple fact, you say? Wow, I think you'll be putting a lot of bio-ethicists out of their jobs. While Christianity may be benign as a belief system, it is not benign as a political football. eg. I don't see many world leaders "turning the other cheek".
Re:Do you believe in God? by Sinterklaas · 2004-08-23 09:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Abortion is murder (simple biological fact, aborted human life == dead human)

Please define human. Is sperm human? Is an egg cell human? Is an egg cell that just merged with sperm human? If so, at what point does it become human? At the point where the sperm penetrates the egg cell, even though nothing has really changed yet? Later? How much later? Seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months? Before a nervous system has formed?

gay marriage is just a continuation of our unelected judges writing law in clear violation of their Constitutional restraints

I think the point is that the constitution is not clear about this and Republicans seem to want to change that. Even though this should normally be a right granted to the individual states, that is, unless you are an...evil socialist.

sex ed shouldn't be entrusted to the government education monopoly

In other words, you don't want to have your children taught to use condoms, even though 'teaching' abstinence is causing a enormous number of teen pregnancies in the US.

social programs should be funded by voluntary contributions and not tax money confiscated by force (try not paying your taxes sometime)

Ignoring the problem that voluntary contributions in practice tends to lead to very unfair contributions, where people give their aid based on effective marketing campaigns and not on effective aid. Or do you think you can assess who needs help and whether your money is used effectively? At least the government has an overview and can manage all the necessary money to take care of the sick and elderly.

And then we haven't even discussed the problem that people are probably going to spend far less on their programs if it is voluntary, by pointing at other stingy people or because they are just plain greedy (perhaps you won't do that, but how many people will?).

a rather large subset of Muslims have declared war on all Americans who don't think and act as they do (that includes you)

Ignoring the fact that no terrorist or militant has used that as a reason. They want you out of their country and to stop supporting non-Islamitic regimes in the middle east. But you keep believing in that lie if it makes you happy, even though it requires you to ignore what they are actually saying.

we shouldn't make environmentalism a substitute for traditional religion.

In other words, you don't care about pollution, toxics and hormones in your food, the enormous use of oil, global warming, etc. You probably just want to drive that big SUV for no good reason, eat that big cheap burger and dismiss all criticism by calling environmentalism a religion. I just hope that you still feel that way if your kids or grandkids get asthma, cross-gender issues, have to beg the oil producing countries for oil, see great changes in the weather patterns, etc, etc.
Re:Do you believe in God? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-23 09:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

In terms of numbers of practicing Christians and their influence, they're a lot more malignant than many of the alternatives. Go Buddhism!

Re:Geographic Distribution by TamMan2000 · 2004-08-23 04:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

And maybe liberals are caused by inhaling too much pollution. :-)

Or maybe they are caused by not wanting to inhale more pollution.

--
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...

Remind me never to trust slashdot again by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-23 04:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Researchers from UCLA have seem to have found that liberals have, on average, a more active amygdala than conservatives"

Read the article!!!!Absolutely not true!

The researchers discovered "amygdala activity responding to certain images of violence" as they watched political ads. The NY Times author (not a researcher), wishing to score a quick one, speculated "Consider this possibility: the scientists do an exhaustive survey and it turns out that liberal brains have, on average, more active amygdalas than conservative ones." But that was just his speculation!

Moral: never trust /.

Re:All the studies show by cluckshot · 2004-08-23 04:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sorry but I have been active in Republican Party Politics for a long time. The party may deny that it is trying to dismantle or otherwise get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid etc. The bottom line is that the party hard core leadership is dedicated to this proposition. Trying to get them to bring in a position of rational management is harder than finding teeth on hens. Their solutions are always aimed at a hegemony towards dismantling the programs.

Simply stated: We live in a society where persons often move thousands of miles to change jobs. In doing so it is all too easy to abandon social obligations. To remedy this situation we have developed Social Security etc. All Republican Leadership proposals are aimed at erosion of this social and moral obligation to the elderly etc. To be fair the Democratic leaders have their dirty hands in the money looting it for social manipulation and power development.

Any proposal such as "Privatization" or even the most basic argument that had one "Invested" the money .... are at root efforts to pry large blocks of cash from the system and to deny any responsiblity of one citizen to the others. It is a "Culture of Greed" and a creed of selfishness. So long as the leadership of the Republican Party continues this kind behavior they will always have the distrust of a majority of the US Population.

Thomas Paine in "Common Sense" in 1776 talked about the need for maintaining these responsiblities for the aged, and infirm as the root cause and demand for Government! He pointed out that Society was a Lover and Government a punisher who punished those who forgot their social responsibilities. In denying the reality here Republican Party faithfuls are pledging alliegence to leaders who do not honor the most basic of reasons for the existence of our Government.

You may be tempted to deny this, but it shows up in their trade policy. You see a "Republican" is one who supports the Constitutional Federal Republic of the USA. In their mad rush to absolutely dissolve the USA these "Leaders" such as President Bush have subjugated US Soverignty even for making local laws to the WTO! (This is as Anti-Republican as can be) They have denied the clear constitutional process for the ratification of treaties. They have broken every USA Law they can find to accomplish their mission.

Prior to 9/11/2001 they openly were talking about the end of the "Nation State of the USA." These Neo-Conservatives thought the USA was Obsolete and should fade away. This is a quote from some of their Ideological leaders. The Trade value here is that by conducting a formal Trade War against US Citizens using the US Congress and the WTO so that US Citizens pay high taxes against untaxed foreign competition you can force them into a position where they must chose between their job and a pittance of a paycheck and losing it if they demand any benefits such as Healthcare or Social Security. Make no mistake this is the target of these Benedict Arnold Congressmen and the President. Their discussions have been frank open and plain. They tell Americans that if they are to have a job they must give up on the luxury of having a family, or taking care of the elderly.

Do not mistake this for any endorcement of Mr. Kerry. He too is a Globalist. He is the same thing! But until people start reading the Wall Street Journal and other mouth pieces of this movement and actually paying attention they are bound to keep spouting this crap about the Republican Party not being opposed to Social Security. I actually wish we could get persons such as the parent of this post to take a good look. Because if they did, and had an open mind maybe we could can the employement of the current crop of Phoney Republicans running the show and get some real ones who supported the USA and its continuation. As it sits Social Security is just a lessor target on the screen of the Globalists. Their prime target is NOTHING LESS THAN THE END OF THE USA. Social Security

--
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.

Your post begs the real moral question. by yet+another+coward · 2004-08-23 04:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

In many instances, morons waste all their time arguing about whether some outcome is a choice or whether some behavior is right. Your post is a call to the real issue.

Wake up, dumbasses all around! What made men who like to play with their peepees together turn out that way is not very important. The real issue is what we ought to do about it. As with most issues, the answer is obvious to the non-retarded minority.

Treat them as justly and humanely as we can.

Re:What about temperment? by wayward_son · 2004-08-23 04:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

I completely agree. President bush for example is quite the thinker. And if you have been lucky to hear his speaches -- well they are nothing but irrefutable logic.

Try reading the content of his speeches instead of listening to them. He is not stupid, but he is a terrible public speaker and he comes across as such.

And you are right that conservatives use more logical arguments. To prove this I will sum up every single argument conservatives have used in the past four years: "how dare you question the president, you must hate America"

As opposed to the classic liberal arguments of "Bush lied, people died!" and "No blood for oil!".

As for that, I haven't heard that argument from any conservatives. You must not know that many conservatives or you are just following the stereotype. That's not to say that there aren't feeling conservatives or thinking liberals. And of course, there are stupid people on all parts of the political spectrum.

Re:I was conservative, and am now a radical libera by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-23 04:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

So basically, you traded one set of unquestioningly dogmatic beliefs for another?

Congratulations.

More division? by Teahouse · 2004-08-23 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can never lump people into just two groups. Although the experiment may be legitimate, the conclusion is completely psuedo-science. Black/White, NAZI/Jew, Fit/Weak, Christian/Muslim; all these are false divisions meant to keep the people occupied on topics other than what is really important. This "scientist's" conslusions are just as divisive, and based on equally poor logic.

--
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright

Re:All the studies show by avandesande · 2004-08-23 04:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe if people had to depend on their children to take care of them when they get old, they would try a little harder at being half decent parents...
and people without children will have plenty of extra money to put away for retirement.

--
love is just extroverted narcissism

Then why are all of the bush supporters scared by Raunch · 2004-08-23 04:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

If liberals have a heightened sense of fear, then why do all of the censervatives seem to think that America needs to attack any country that has muslims in it before the muslims start a Jihad/Holy war/WW3?

There is this right wing guy at work that never stops saying 'Life is like a dark alley'.

Everything that the government is doing points to a (wolfovitz doctrine themed) neo-conservative doctrine of 'hit them before they have the chance to think about pondering whether they might like to begin to have the capability to hit us'. And the liberals are the scared ones?

--
George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.

Re:Geographic Distribution by general_re · 2004-08-23 04:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hmmm.... that's not partisan moderating at all, now is it?

You'd get the same thing from the other end if you posted from a conservative standpoint. Making a political post that's even remotely partisan is the easiest way I know to take a ride on the moderation rollercoaster. Come back in an hour or three, and those scores will be reversed, I guaran-damn-tee it :)

--
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.

Personality differences by The+One+and+Only · 2004-08-23 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

This might explain the fact that I've seen a definite personality difference between liberals and conservatives. In fact, the personality difference is usually more profound than their actual policy disagreements, at least from my perspective. Now, the great thing about being a libertarian is that there are libertarians of both liberal and conservative personality types, who nonetheless share the same views. (To name a prominent libertarian of each personality type: Mary Ruwart seems to be a liberal personality type while Walter Williams is a conservative personality type.)

--
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199

Re:All the studies show by NotQuiteReal · 2004-08-23 05:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Now the large portion of homeless here in California are the mentally ill.

It wasn't a right wing consiracy to be mean to the mentally ill, but rather, another mis-guided liberal program to "free" them.

Look up "deinstitutionalization", "main streaming", and "community integration". All happy-happy emotional terms for "dumping the crazies on the streets."

Everyone knows that right-wing nuts would be more than happy to keep undesireables locked up.

Liberals will pave the road to hell with good intentions, and Conservative contractors will be right there, looking for the constuction contract.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.

You misinterpret "fear" as equal to "cowardly" by praedor · 2004-08-23 05:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Feeling fear is a prerequisite for cowardice but it is also a prequisite for bravery. Without fear, one cannot be brave, just insane or stupidly reckless. Bravery is feeling fear and yet doing what must be done IN SPITE of fear.

Thus, I would have to conclude that those with a heightened sense of empathy and fear are more disposed towards true bravery while those without these attributes are more in line with recklessness and coldness. Interestingly, this seems to describe the difference pretty completely between conservatives and liberals/progressives. The latter feels empathy for those around them, both human and nonhuman and seeks to minimize their pain and fear. They also experience fear but nonetheless are often able to dig up true bravery and stand against the cold and unfeeling robotons (conservatives) regardless of personal consequences.

--
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.

Re:All the studies show by cluckshot · 2004-08-23 05:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

The seriousness of parenting and for that matter the issues of education are brought home in the realization that No society can long exist if the means of developing good citizens falters. The observation that welfare and Social Security problems have unintended consequences including the losening of the bonds and conditions that develop society is quite correct. We need to attend to altering these programs to minimize such.

This problem is getting worse in the society in general as we progress further and further away from "Productive Work" in industry. We are rapidly approaching a world in which nobody should have any "Real Work" to do in order to provide the means of their survival. This trend is progressing with productivity rising at about 14.5% per year with the work force declining at nearly 6% per annum. If we allow the "Capitalist" arguments about rights of ownership to apply, we get a few very rich and everyone else looking in. If we allow the "Socialist" view to apply we demolish the progress and productivity along with our families. If we allow the ignorant to run the show, as we are now doing the whole system will go unstable and disintergrate. I am not proposing that I know the answer but we had best look where we are going before we arrive.

The current reality is that we should be looking at shorter work weeks and much higher wages for our people but what we are looking at is longer work weeks and lower wages. We should be looking at easily funding all the care of the elderly. We are looking at the collapse of the support. We should be looking at very high rates of Corporate Divident Payements. They essentially don't exist. Does anybody get the pattern here?

--
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.

Re:This explains why liberals play emotions like f by drooling-dog · 2004-08-23 05:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Liberals play emotions like fear? Are you serious? There are certainly emotions that liberals play to, but conservatives pretty much own the patent on fear. That's what most of the War on Terror is about (particularly the parts that require the surrender of civil liberties) as well as the elevation by the GOP of institutionalized homophobia to a constitutional status. Fear and its political exploitation is the very foundation of GWB's entire administration and campaign.

Re:I don't see it that way. by alSeen · 2004-08-23 06:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm also in favour of a waiting period. I don't want someone buying a gun because he just found out his wife is cheating on him. I'm also in favour of registering guns which includes ballistics. A bullet pulled from a murder victim should be traced back to the gun that fired it and the person who purchased it.

Waiting periods cut both ways though. What about the woman who is being stalked and has gone to the police, but they can't do anything?

Background checks are one thing, but waiting periods don't do a thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

A ballistic database is pointless at the time of purchase for a number of reasons.

1) The ballistic markings change over time through simple usage.
2) The markings are easy to change quickly using a file. If someone is planning on using a gun in a crime and a ballistic database is in place, it only takes a few moments to render the gun unfindable.
3) Prohibitably expensive. And before you say "if it saves one life or catches one criminal" we live in a culture of tradeoffs. We don't have speedlimits of 5 mph, even though that would dramatically cut down on car accident deaths. The costs associated with a speedlimit that low are thought to be unacceptable compared to the benefits achieved with a higher speed limit. I know that's an absurd comparison, but the same thing goes for the 55 mph speed limit.
4) Unnecessary. Over 99% of guns in the US are never used in a crime. A database of ballistics of bullets taken from crime victims is one thing, but to test new guns is futile.

Re:Cosby by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-23 06:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

The parent post is referring to Dr. Cosby's assigning culpability to the black community for perpetuating a culture that derides academic and financial success. Jesse Jackson was there too and heard the message, but sadly many in the audience were miffed because Dr. Cosby wasn't just blaming "the man", but instead told them to take some personal responsibility. This happened a few months ago, IIRC.

Discrimination is discrimination by WoodstockJeff · 2004-08-23 06:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem with trying to rectify yesterday's discriminatory practices with new ones is that, where does it end? For how long do we have to discriminate against whites to "properly" atone for the slavery of 140 years ago, or the economic discrimination of the hundred years that followed? 10 years? 50? 100? Forever? I see nothing in your quotes of Dr. King that suggest perpetual discrimination.

In 1863 the Negro was told that he was free as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation. But he was not given any land to make that freedom meaningful.

In 1976, I was told I was free as a result of reaching 18 years of age. All I was given was instructions that I needed to go out and join the job market... even though I'm white, I was given no property, and no special birthright. While I did not suffer under slavery (some of today's kids might think the tight discipline of my youth was slavery, but it was not), the "meaningfulness" of my freedom was entirely tied to what I was willing to make of it, just as the "meaningfulness" of the 1863 slave's freedom was. Today, it is illegal to discriminate against anyone in hiring, based upon a variety of criteria, unless they're a white male under the age of 50. Most of these people never owned a slave, and were never in a position to have denied someone else a job because of the color of their skin. And the unfairness of that makes it damn hard for them to accept the idea that someone will less education or less skills has priority over them... or that anyone from these "privileged" groups who didn't need the special programs to succeed really did make it on their own.

Walter E. Williams once related that, when faced with a choice of doctors where he only knew the age and race of the doctors, how he would make his choice. If they were both in their late 50s, and one was black, he'd take the black doctor, because he knew that this man had worked hard to get where he was.

But, if they were in their 30s, he'd go with the white doctor, because he would have no way of knowing if the black doctor had gotten through on his skills, or the need for the university to fulfill its quotas.

This is not the desired result of affirmative action, but it is the common one. It only gets worse when people use the argument that removing race-based quotas hurts blacks, purpetuating the myth that blacks aren't smart enough to succeed on their own.

Re:Discrimination is discrimination by swillden · 2004-08-23 11:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Going to college doesn't take money. Going to a big-name school takes money, but any American can go to college without any financial assistance at all if they're willing to work for it. And there's actually plenty of financial assistance available, particularly for low-income students.
Going to college requires really wanting to go to college. Even a poor primary and secondary education can be overcome if the student wants to badly enough (and is reasonably capable of learning, which isn't race-dependent).
IMO, the difference is all about expectations. I find it very enlightening to look around my own family. My father came from a poor area of southern Utah: he shared a bedroom with his four brothers, his dad (who was a very intelligent man, but only had an 8th-grade education) worked two and three jobs just to keep food on the table, hunting was a significant source of food for them, etc. Out of six children, only my Dad and one brother got college degrees. Why? I think largely because it wasn't expected. My grandparents made sure that their kids all graduated from High School, but that was it.
Where it gets really interesting is when you look at my generation. Nearly all of my siblings and I went to college, as have my cousins with a college-educated father. Among my other cousins, college is pretty rare, and very strongly correlated with Mormon religious devotion. By that I mean that the cousins who are religious have all gone to college, and the cousins who are not have mostly not gone to college (the Church encourages education).
Oh, one more thing: None of my cousins or siblings (or I) who went to college had any significant financial assistance from their parents.
What I see from this is that among my -- white -- family, it's expectations from authority figures (parents and Church leaders) that have made the difference between those of us who are college-educated and those who are not. We're all reasonably bright people, IMO, and there's no doubt in my mind that *all* of my cousins (I have almost 40 first cousins on my dad's side) could have earned college degrees if they'd wanted to.
I suspect that much the same applies to many blacks in America. Some percentage probably live in such poverty that they're in the same boat as my grandfather, whose education stopped at the 8th grade because he had to work to help feed his parents and siblings. My relatives all had the advantage that although our parents didn't provide financial assistance, they weren't a financial burden, either. However, the rest of the poor blacks in the country are, I think, mostly held down by their own low expectations. I'm not sure how you fix that, any more than I know how to convince my nieces and nephews that they should spend less time hunting and fishing and more time studying.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

What kind of brains do they have at Los Alamos? by Strange+Attractor · 2004-08-23 07:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Take a look at what http://fundrace.org/ reports for the zip code 87544 (Los Alamos New Mexico). It seems that most of the people and money there support democrats. In addition, the big Bush money in Los Alamos comes from not from scientists who work at the lab but from realtors, etc. I'm not sure what to make of it.

My guess is that people who think and re-think things for a living (folks like myself) oppose Bush's unreflective faith based decision factory approach.

Christianity is a religion; environmentalism isn't by 0x0d0a · 2004-08-23 07:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Abortion is murder (simple biological fact, aborted human life == dead human)

And what does it matter?

We have laws against killing *mature* humans in place specifically because a society where killing mature humans is allowed is much less effective -- if I have to run around with a gun and be suspicious of everyone, I get a lot less done. Most people have no problems with killing cows or pigs, say. Zillions of sperm die each day. The only people that have a problem with killing a fetus are those that have chosen as a fundamental value that killing a fetus is unacceptable. I'm all for letting people decide that killing *their* fetus is unacceptable, just as I am all for letting people pray in the direction of Mecca. What I take issue with is when people try to force their values on other people, values which have no pragmatic backing.

gay marriage is just a continuation of our unelected judges writing law in clear violation of their Constitutional restraints

I'm lost as to what you mean. First, the primary people allowing gay marriage have been *elected* *administrators*, like the mayor of San Francisco. Second, the role of the judge is to interpret law. Neither the law nor the US Consitution forbids gay marriage. In the United States, unless something is specifically made illegal, it is legal. Judges have looked at our legal code and said "nope, nothing banning it". The only way they'd be writing law is if they decided in the *other* direction.

Conservatives have *tried* to push through national law banning gay marriage and it has been shot down by the bulk of America. This is just the majority speaking, nothing more.

sex ed shouldn't be entrusted to the government education monopoly

I'll call bullshit again. You are free to send your child to a private school, to homeschool them, or what-have-you. Sex ed is an *extremely* PC process that makes no value statements. The question is simply whether or not children should remain ignorant of something that has huge social impact and is a significant chunk of our biology.

social programs should be funded by voluntary contributions and not tax money confiscated by force (try not paying your taxes sometime)

We tried that, early on in the United States. The federal government had no power to ensure itself any income. It didn't work, because not surprisingly, nobody wanted to fund it.

a rather large subset of Muslims have declared war on all Americans who don't think and act as they do (that includes you)

"Rather large subset"? There are *millions* of Muslims in the United States *alone* that aren't out "declaring war". And how did you manage to forget about abortion clinic bombings and shootings?

and we have to deal with that, and we shouldn't make environmentalism a substitute for traditional religion.

There are people who irrationally support environmentalism -- "we can't hurt the cute fluffy kitties in the rainforests!" However, there are very clear and accepted economic, game-theoretic reasons for supporting environmentalism -- it's a public-good problem, where it is in the interest of individuals to damage the environment for short-term profit, even if it winds up hurting everyone down the road. Environment-protecting laws were not made by legislators looking at fluffy kitties.

Most atheists are frauds who find substitute deities (environmentalism, Communism, heck just look at all the Castro worshippers).

No. Neither environmentalism nor communism is a religion. They are a set of techniques and analysis for dealing with a public good and government, respectively. There are no fundamental, axiomic values that must be accepted as a part of either, as is necessary to be a Christian.

--
May we never see th

Re:All the studies show by MartinG · 2004-08-23 07:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, he has presented evidence that Bush is a very poor public speaker. He has not proven that he is, and he didn't even suggest, never mind prove, that Bush is highly intelligent.

Personally I would be interested in any compelling evidence of Bush's intelligence. He has never struck me as one of the leading intellectuals of the administration.

--
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu

Running over Lysenko at the crosswalk by hung_himself · 2004-08-23 07:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

The sheer subjectiveness of both the classification and evaluation methods in a non-double blind study put this on the level of a pub debate rather than science. Note that the "research" has not been completed and has not been reviewed and published by a journal. Not that the pseudo-science matters, it is obvious that the reason the story was picked up was to stir up the old right versus left debate (as evidenced in the posts here)

However, I fear that the fact that so many people just assumed the science is true because it was convenient to believe, reflects the recent and scary trend of promoting or supressing "scientific facts" depending on how they fit into one's belief system. The classic example was Lysenko in the Soviet Union who demolished Soviet genetics due to the promotion of "nurture" type Lamarckian inheritance in concordance with communist beliefs. Harmless enough, until millions die from crop failures - at least in some small part due to choosing the wrong strains of wheat. Simularly, while red vs blue brains may be fun to believe - remember that electroshock, lobotomies, split-brain "therapies" still exist largely because of an uncritical public. Or to paraphrase Douglas Adams - it's OK to think that white is black - until a car hits you at a zebra crossing..

Re:Youth is so wasted on the ... by DynamiteNeon · 2004-08-23 08:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

So, considering how many times you referred to the free market, I'm guessing that's what you consider to be the "One True Way." Now who's preaching?

Equal? Screw equal. by dfenstrate · 2004-08-23 10:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

still leaving them with a military equal to any possible coalition of forces

We have no desire to be 'equal' or have a 'fair fight' with any potential enemy or group thereof. We want to be able to thouroughly and utterly crush any potential enemy while losing as few of our guys as possible. We have the resources to set things up this way, so we do.

Our military isn't for the freakin school playground, where you might be concerned about fair contests.

Our military is for War. It exists to kill our enemies and break their things. Why would we want the enemy to have an equal shot at doing the same damage to us?

And don't forget that europe got it's security for free from the US during the entire cold war. We placed troops all over europe because we were sick of having to jump into european problems and clean them up- the world wars, for example. Putting our troops in Europe meant that anyone who wanted a war in Europe would have to kill Americans. And We have been a fearsome force since WW2, so such a thing was never done.

Unfortunately, as often charity goes, it has come back to bite us in the ass. Much of Europe, unaccustomed to putting their own lives and militaries on the line to secure their freedom, have come to think that peace is the natural way of things, and they didn't spend 50 years hiding behind uncle sam while he kept the soviet bear at bay.

Society, at any level, is secured by the credible threat of violence. For that threat of violence to be credible, it must be fear-inspiring, and used on those who step out of line. The United States Military fits the bill. You should be thankful for it.

--
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.

Concerning Affirmative Action by DarthMAD · 2004-08-23 10:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Affirmative Action is such bullsh*t- I don't think that any group should stand to benefit in any employment/admissions process just based on something such as the color of their skin. Before I am accused of being a racist by those of more liberal persuasions, I am Asian (biologically, at least) and would stand to benefit from some affirmative action programs. Black people in America (not all but many) are constantly complaining about the perceived inequality between themselves and the rest of America, but they will never acheive equality if we continue to treat them inequally with affirmative action. Anyway, back to the topic, I have noticed that the more emotional people that I know tend to be more of the liberal persuasion, but this is not necessarily a general rule, while many of the conservatives that I know (including myself, I suppose) do not tend to exhibit as much emotion, so I'm sure that this study has some merit.

Obviously... by ChozSun · 2004-08-23 10:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

... no one is straight up Liberal or Conservative, Democratic or Republican. If you are, then you have allowed your beliefs and thoughts to be shaped by one political group or another.

100% of people should have beliefs and thoughts in either camps and should not agree with one camp or the other 100% of the time. But we all know what makes the masses the masses, don't we. Simply put, people don't want to think for themselves. At least in this country's short history, we have incredible evidence of such.

Ah yes, perhaps we will hit that great political evolutionary stage where the collective lightbulb will ding on top of everyone's head. I pray to God that will happen in my grandchildren's lifetime.

--
ChozSun
ChozSun.com

Re:Wow by Featureless · 2004-08-23 11:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm glad you replied. Slamming both candidates equally is only honest when both candidates are equal. There's a myth going around that this kind of "balance" is a bigger virtue than honesty or accuracy. Just because some conmen like to use "bias" as a knee-jerk weapon-word, doesn't mean you have an excuse to take your critical faculties offline.

For the record, I don't belong to any party, and find plenty to dislike with both "sides of the aisle." It doesn't make the candidates, or my opinion of them, in any way equal.

The fact is, you stand apart dramatically from the crowd by claiming that you were concerned about Kerry's record before SBVFT.

I am interested in how you became concerned with Kerry's war record long before the current smear campaign, and in general, how we could, under the present circumstances, reach any kind of believable new conclusion about Kerry's service.

Given what I've read so far, absenting credible witnesses forming any kind of consensus (which there appears to be none) the people who awarded the medals were in the best position to know what happened. And then on the other side we have the paymasters for the SBVFT, who have means, motive, and a long, well-storied history of staggeringly dishonest and audacious smear campaigns.

To put that side by side with a criticism of Bush's service is a bit unequal, I think - in fact, just being in the comparison hurts the actual veteran considerably.

But nonetheless I am open to your ideas on this. Please, and show me how you reached this conclusion. I am willing to be convinced.

--

Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!

146 of 1,665 comments (clear)