Slashdot Mirror
Reactions To Disgusting Images Predict a Persons Political Ideology
LuxuryYacht writes A new study shows that the way your brain responds to photos of of maggots, mutilated carcasses, and gunk in the kitchen sink gives a pretty good indication of whether you're liberal or conservative. "Remarkably, we found that the brain's response to a single disgusting image was enough to predict an individual's political ideology," Read Montague, a Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute psychology professor who led the study, said in a written statement. 83 men and women viewed a series of images while having their brains scanned in a functional MRI (fMRI) machine. The images included the disgusting photos described above, along with photos of babies and pleasant landscapes. Afterward, the participants were asked to rate how grossed out they were by each photo. They also completed a survey about their political beliefs, which included questions about their attitudes toward school prayer, gun control, immigration, and gay marriage. There was no significant difference in how liberals and conservatives rated the photos. But the researchers noted differences between the two groups in the activity of brain regions associated with disgust recognition, emotion regulation, attention and even memory. The differences were so pronounced that the researchers could analyze a scan and predict the person's political leaning with 95 percent accuracy.
First:
Second:
So what would the results be if the recruits were from a more "Liberal" country?
That is the problem with these "studies". DO NOT look in your backyard for cases that support your bias. Look for cases that contradict your bias. Even if you have to look at the people in other countries. Particularly countries where there is less focus on the items that are controversial in the USofA.
I wonder how long before your thoughts will be ruled physical evidence ?
"Welcome to the testing room of the Parallax Corporation's Division of Human Engineering. You will now please go up to the chair, and you will sit down, make yourself comfortable, be sure to place each one of your hands on the box on either side of the chair, making sure that each one of your fingers is on one of the white rectangles. Just sit back, nothing is required of you, except to observed the visual materials that are presented to you. Be sure to keep your fingers on the box at all times. All right, I hope you find the test a pleasant experience."
Take the test: Montage from the film, The Parallax View [1974]
More info about the 'test'
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
I'm a little curious what precisely they were showing to these people.
I mean... the images could have had political connotations that are not evident in the abstract's description.
In any case, politics are largely taught cultural traits rather then innate biological traits. So... not entirely sure where this is going.
Someone that watches more horror movies for example is going to have a higher threshold for disgust and shock probably then someone that doesn't.
I know that most men for example don't get grossed out, threatened, or shocked by things will tend to cause many women to gag, become uncomfortable, or otherwise become startled.
Then you have age and generational issues in that given ages and generations have different cultural perspectives that influence the way they respond to things.
My grandfather for example fought in WW2 but I'm pretty sure I could shock or gross him out with stuff that wouldn't really bother most of my peers.
It is a very murky issue and from what I am reading here they don't appear to have controlled for all the variables properly.
I'd want to grab college students for example because they're all pretty close to the same age. That would limit the study to some extent and control for some of the age issues. And then the images you show them really do need to be examined for subtle political connotations which really are very hard to eliminate. ... this is a stickier issue then I think the study properly appreciates. That said, glad they're having fun with the MRI machine... looks neato.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
A picture of a middle class worker with job security and a pension? A corporation paying its fair share of taxes?
It's strange how the bogeymen groups known as "liberals" and "conservatives" are apparently some sort of ill-defined hivemind.
Probably because they didn't see the pictures.
The "issues" appear to be from the American political arena, which is about as much about political ideology as World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is about sports. They're also highly polarised, in that they all come in red and blue versions with no alternative views possible, that are then conveniently grouped such that anyone leaning toward either colour in any one issue is then expected to be leaning toward matching colours in the other issues.
So what does this study tell us? I think we're seeing two cases of pervading and mutually opposed groupthink, where the patterns have become distinctive enough to be discernible -- recall that limited "thought readers" already exist. In other words, I don't see a necessity for biological predisposition here. It could be, but do note that to people used to multi-party systems (n>>2), "American politics" looks like an one-party system consisting of two factions that are only interested in duking it out with the other group, to the point of (either faction) being willing to shut down the government over some petty squabble or other. In other words, the discerning this thing does is really quite limited because the source spectrum is so poorly populated with just two possible inputs that are strongly polarised against each other to boot.
I've never considered my political ideology to be something that exists on a linear scale. How I feel about a particular political issue is often different from the feelings of either of the large political groups, and where my feelings align with those of political groups, I have some that align with people of groups considered to be at either end of this scale. I could be mistaken in thinking that other people are similar to me this way, but when I read about a study that first confines political ideology to a linear scale, and then uses [insert method] to predict where one lands on that scale, I have to give some thought to the possibility of inherent confirmation bias in the design of the system.
No. The fact that within the disgust category it's only the mutilated carcass image that was highly correlated with political attitude discredits your "rural area" hypothesis (maggot image was not correlated with political attitude, for example).
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Obvious differences indeed - I'm guessing the conservatives' brains lit up in the areas associated with planning the work to clean up the mess, and liberals' brains in the areas with hope that the government would fix it?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
People vote the way they do because of brain damage. *LOL*
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Because the "right" people got killed.
Liberals: Ohh my god how can people do this to other people can't they change their perspective?
Conservative: Isn't the purpose of the Red Cross to make aiming easier on the battlefield?
I don't know man. Its gotta take courage from somewhere to vote for most filth riddled cretins in politics. I couldn't.
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
"Is this testing whether I'm a republican or a lesbian, Mr Deckard?"
Just don't ask the subjects about their mother...
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Ahh, now I understand the 6 years of political gridlock by the Republicants... they're planning to clean up the mess! That explains it all. So what decade are they going to get around to cleaning it up?
You should probably say that these are aborted babies. Some people might have a high gore threshold but still might see these as triggers.
This is irrelevant. The paper is pretty clear in that they're only examining this particular dimension of the political space. I don't see anywhere that they're trying to sweep that under the carpet. Moreover, there is no problem with the fact that various political issues used in the questionnaire may have a larger component along other dimensions compared to the "left-right" one. There is no way that ignoring the other dimensions can introduce bias, because that process obviously doesn't affect the coordinates that the different stances on these issues have along the specific axis chosen by the study. In other words, your post is orthogonal to the discussion in the paper--it's off-topic and should be moderated accordingly. All it accomplishes is to demonstrate your willingness to showcase political sophistication (left-right? pfft, I'm above and beyond that, etc.).
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Go to a mosque and talk to a muslim. You might learn something.
I rather wouldn't. It might be disturbing.
I'm sorry, but the more we learn, the more we have to accept that being religious in most forms is simply being delusional in the truest sense of the word.
Ezekiel 23:20
Or perhaps some of us simply value mind over matter. The precursor to a human being is a lump of molecules, then a lump of cells, then a very juvenile vertebrate individual with zero consciousness. At some point, it becomes a human being as we know it where virtually everyone thinks it's wrong. Some people would apparently like me to think that disposing of a zygote is murder. In that case, well, you'd have to put Mother Nature on trial. It's she who sacrifices about one zygote for each two live newborns. The problem is that there's no fixed boundary. And since you're applying a binary classifier on this problem, and people are different, almost by definition, there will always be regions when someone thinks it's right and someone else will think it's wrong. Ever for the zygote, there will be people who will always think it's wrong. I'm sorry, but this whole issue seems like a manufactured problem. There's no solution to this in the same sense that there's a solution to "do alien civilizations exist?" or "does P=NP?". It's simply an issue of a completely different class. To be honest, I find it puzzling that people even argue about it as if trying to convince anyone about one's own opinion - which is what you seem to be doing - made somehow sense. I don't think it does.
Ezekiel 23:20
The Republicans will have control of Congress on January 3rd and get to work cleaning things up. Some of what they clean up may be mess you'd prefer to sweep under the rug, or stuff you'd rather leave alone.
Conservatives on the other hand, work hard to prevent any suffering from happening
Yeah, according to their own handy definitions. "We have to lynch you or send you a camp where they will make you straight, because otherwise you'd burn in the eternal hell fire, so we're really being very kind to you." It's amazing what some people can rationalize when they really put their minds to it.
Ezekiel 23:20
I don't need Fox, Sun or UKIP to tell me what I see happening in the streets.
If the differences are a level of shock, and history of exposure to similar stimuli is a predictor of level of shock, then perhaps political leanings correlate with what stimuli people choose to expose themselves to throughout their lives. For instance, liberals watching guts in medical dramas and conservatives watching love stories in family dramas.
You used the word "feel" twice to describe your positions. You didn't say "what I think" about the issues. Many people may do more thinking about the issues as opposed to feeling and thereby end up with a consistent set of thoughts. As an example, if you think that "we" should fix things and that federal government is the appropriate instrument of "we", that'll be consistent and you'll think that the federal government should do all sorts of things - you'll be a Democrat. If you think that the federal government should stick to what the Constitution authorizes them to do, or that they tend to screw up, you will conclude that they shouldn't do many of the things Democrats want them to do - you'll be a Republican.
The first amendment is one notable thing where this doesn't hold true, however. On that, the parties are inconsistent with their systems of thought.
Republicans lean towards more of a Goatse preference, while democrats really prefer Tubgirl.
Go to a mosque and talk to a muslim. You might learn something.
I try to avoid crazy people who believe in imaginary bullcrap.
The first step is to try and find an effect, even in your own backyard. Once you did, the second step as a further study, is to try to falsify it by using different source to try to reproduce the effect when you do not expect it, or to try to NOT reproduce the effect when you DO expect it. You are putting the cart before the horse. Now I expect further study of the two kinds I mentionned above, rightfully putting the cart behind the horse's ass.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
You should read the paper. Conservative brains light up in areas associated with blaming immigrants, unions and Obama for the mess.
Play Command HQ online
Some of the "wide stance" conservatives might like it...
Why did conservatives only come out in favor of over- the-counter contraceptives after ACA mandated that health care plans pay for prescriptions?
"We proposed that conservatives, compared to liberals, have greater negativity bias, which includes both disgusting and threatening conditions in our study."
So, the more disgusted you react to disgusting photos indicates greater political conservatism.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Would that also include subpoenas of all sermons in Houston, Tx that mentioned either gay marriage or a certain city official?
I suppose you have a point.
Just a symptom of humans in the early stages of evolution. Illegal immigration leads to a form of slavery. Legal immigration eventually ends racism. If MTV promoted sheep raping to the normally sexually confused youth the way they promoted gay life, things would be much different. Most of the issues we face can be solved by understanding that humans are not yet an intelligent species. If population size is relative to intelligence we need another 7 billion.
Soon there'll be DNA tests for political leaning, politics-selective abortion, and companies offering to select eggs / sperm that lean in the "correct" direction.
// DevsVult: The Machines Will It
Obvious differences indeed - I'm guessing the REPUBLICANS's brains lit up in the areas associated with MAKING the mess, and DEMOCRATS' brains in the areas with hope that they might be able to clean it up?
FTFY. The republicans in this country aren't any more "conservative" than the democrats are "liberal". Also, an F-MRI of the current crop of republicans would show zero activity. Or at least that's the impression I get whenever I see a scientists go before a panel of congressmen. The fact that the congressmen on the SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITEE don't even understand basic concepts that most 4th graders understand tells you all you need to know.
~X~
this is a great first step for having your political opponents declared mentally unstable/unfit.
imagine, being able to simply declare 'science says if you disagree, there is something wrong with you'...
every politicians dream...
Liberals wants others to suffer
Screw brain images! *I* can predict a person's political leanings with >95% accuracy just by observing their grammar!
It seems very reasonable to blame those with the greatest share for wealth and power for the current state of society, rather than the impoverished and marginalized.
Though the latter position has a long heritage, stating back to the days when isolated, quirky old women were burned for being witches, somehow causing famine and pestilence despite their poverty and lack of influence.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Changing regulations to make oral contraceptives over the counter is not the same as forcing others to pay for them.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
It's ironic that you accuse Conservatives of wanting to send people to camps when it's the Liberals that actually do it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Conservative believe people suffer because they have freely made bad life choices. People who suffer therefore do not deserve our assistance or our sympathy, as they are wholly to blame for their condition. Public policy should discourage bad choices by allowing these people to suffer the consequences of their freely chosen action. Welfare, unemployment insurance, and public healthcare are wrong, as they go against the natural order by isolating people from the consequences of their actions.
Conversely, the wealthy and powerful have made good life choices and deserve our admiration. Public policy should encourage these high ranking individuals through lower taxes and less regulation of their activities.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
>Go to a mosque and talk to a muslim. You might learn something.
Something I for one learned, after talking to more than one Muslim, is that: it's worse than you think.
To the point where you wish those guys, whose views were in eerie correlation despite of their vastly different backgrounds, just weren't representative. Because if they are, we have some nasty shit ahead.
Every problem bears within it the seeds of its solution. Tell everyone that we can now find out how, from the way their brains react, whether they're in the closet or not, and that there will soon be an app for that which works by monitoring the iris, and watch how many people start singing about how we need more brotherly love instead of condemnation. The iPhone version could be even simpler, just one screen with a message saying "come on, you own an iPhone. Do you really have to ask?" All kidding aside, I've noticed that the iPhone demographic has changed. Users tend to be less liberal, tolerant, whatever. That's the price to pay when you're no longer seen as cool so much as the safe choice for soccer moms and grandparents.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"Political Gridlock" is a fabricated phrase coined by petulant children who are actually saying "Do it my way, damnit!"
It is not the job of Congress to ensure that laws get passed. It is not the intent of our government's structure to ensure that compromises are met and new rules are enacted. It is structured so that unless there is a majority in agreement, not one god damn thing is forced upon the people.
Somehow we've lost sight of that fact, and now we measure the effectiveness of Congress on an abundant tally of their bloated, incongruous and often self-contradicting and self-serving laws, rather than on how intelligently and efficiently they structure the few laws that should be actually enacted.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
But not birth control. The birth control pill itself costs about $8 per month without insurance paying for it. It would almost definitely come down from there if it doesn't require a prescription.
The biggest part of the cost for birth control pills is the doctor's visit required to get it (and the opportunity cost, i.e. taking off work to see a doctor). You'll note that a charitable reading of Obamacare shows that it does NOTHING to affect this cost. (An uncharitable, or "accurate", reading of the law shows that Obamacare makes this cost worse.) This is the part that some Republicans are trying to eliminate in order to bring costs down.
I'm sick of this thread, and I'm sick of all of you. You're all petulant children throwing tantrums. These comments aren't even worth reading. They're all just more of the same bashing without any substance or actual discussion.
This is INTERESTING and you're all too busy throwing out tropes that any honest actor would dismiss as ad hominem attacks to actually discuss this. Conservatives react slightly stronger to disgusting images. We know this of course. This has been theorized and shown before. Of course, a more liberal person will have different areas light up too.
This means there's a very real perception filter difference happening here, and perhaps we need to extend a little empathy across the quite imaginary isle and try to TALK to one another.
No. Liberals do not want to laze around and let the government do everything for them. No. Conservatives do not want perpetual war. No. Liberals do not want other people to pay for their stuff. No. Conservatives do not blame unions and immigrants for everything. You people should KNOW these simplistic tropes are full of it, and here they are flung around as if true.
I'm liberal. My best friend is conservative. When we listen to each other, really listen instead of hearing what the TV wants us to hear from each other, we can have very nice discussions about economics and the world. We both want bankers punished for what they did. We both want the economic system to be regulated. We both want clean air and water. We both want to get the !@#$ out of the middle east. We both want to live in a country that's fair and just. Our differences are far less than our similarities.
Bah. I'm ranting.... this is interesting science and all of you completely missed it in an attempt to sling shit all over. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Ok, you posted some really gross pictures with zero context.
Was this even in the US? If so, was this done in an actual public clinic, or someone's basement?
How about some facts, instead of pure emotional outrage.
I tried to find some info on the Sodahead.com site, but it's a complete mess and couldn't find any actual text to go with those pictures.
One thing I did find interesting on the front page was that 69% of the site's viewers voted Republican, while a whopping 57% believe that demonic possession is a real thing.
"And today, AC learned about Goatse, the Blue Waffle, and questions that one should never ask on the Internet"
You should probably examine URLs on sites like this before clicking them. The first two should have set off some red flags.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Your sig references a bible verse, so I assume you identify yourself as Christian.
Let me ask, should we use the Westboro Baptist Church as the exemplar of Christianity? No? Then why should we use that same logic for other religions?
Disclaimer: the closest thing I identify with is a deist on a good day, and an agnostic on a bad one. So please don't think that I have an interest in defending Islam, here.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I think the point was that Republicans were suddenly in favor of it because the rules were forcing them to pay for it. Unless explicitly prescribed to treat a medical condition, insurance companies don't pay for OTC medication.
As a rule, U.S. conservatives have been against birth control. The recent turn appears to be motivated by preventing them from having to pay for it, and decreasing access (by making it more expensive for the consumer), rather than wanting to increase access as you seem to assume.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Your sig references a bible verse, so I assume you identify yourself as Christian.
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. -Ezekiel 23:20
That's indeed a bad idea; around here, they'd be given a hefty fine, and if the situation repeated, the fine would simply progressively increase. Also, I'm still not sure those people would get abused the way that people in American straightening camps do. That's a very disingenuous comparison to mere telling people that they shouldn't be abusing minorities because it's not nice.
Ezekiel 23:20
Comment removed based on user account deletion
According to Pew Research, Americans are 0.6% Muslim.
http://religions.pewforum.org/...
Where did you find 20%?
-Dave
Buddhism teaches the myopic view of non attachment and to deny the ego. The fallacy of Buddhism is that you are NOT a divine nothing. There is nothing wrong in loving your spouse; in fact the exact opposite should be honored, respected, and cherished. Buddhism focuses on the false ego and ignores the true self -- which loves everything unconditionally.
Other then that, it is a wonderful system as it provides Atheists a way to understand the beginnings of God: Know Thyself
"... those people who disagree with me are not just wrong, they are crazy!"
Nothing new. See "The Authoritarian Personality" (1950), a ringing 'scientific' denunciation of authoritarianism by the party that now wants to force you to bake wedding cakes for human-lobster weddings, even if you don't want to ...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How is it a "bad life choice", say, to be born with cerebral palsy or to develop type 1 diabetes mellitus?
Also, an F-MRI of the current crop of republicans would show zero activity.
That's not true. When exposed to goatse, activity in the cortical anterior fap gyrus increase by over 9000%.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I don't think it's disputable that the US Congress is configured (by a combination of design and historical precedent) to limit legislative action. I also don't think it's disputable that this limitation is a source of stability and a mitigation for some extreme action. I even think that some extremely successful Congressional actions are evidence that this limitation is necessary (at least in context) and should be applied more thoroughly.
But it's facile to then say that a dysfunctional Congress is right or desirable. Whether a law should be enacted depends upon the gravity of circumstance, the character of the law itself, the education of the Congress members themselves, the education of the public, and any number of incentives. It simply isn't apparent that the government which governs least governs best.
I don't think anyone really means to say that Congress should be a well oiled legislation factory. Quite plainly, people are just as displeased with the quality of legislation that does escape as they are with what doesn't. People are upset because they expect Congress to take certain actions that are not being taken.
Besides specific legislative needs—some of which, like declaration of war, are quite grave and Congress has completely shirked—there is also an expectation that members act in what they believe to be the best interest of their constituents. It is obvious that many do not see this expectation being fulfilled, and that is what rankles people about Congress and "gridlock".
Unless a "pro life" person is against all killing of humans—including institutional killing (war, police shootings, death penalty)—I don't take their "pro life" claim seriously at all. Additionally, unless a "pro life" person also promotes policies which improve conditions for humans outside the womb—including promotion of good education, access to quality nutrition and healthcare—I don't take their "pro life" claim seriously at all.
Now, there are a few people who meet those criteria. I don't see eye-to-eye with their position on abortion (and sometimes even birth control), but I respect their conviction, consistency and intentions. You may be one of those people, but I sincerely doubt it: you have identified yourself with conservatives, a group which often (but not always) tends to be at odds with all of the other values I listed. (And yes, I realize that many liberals tend to also be at odds with some or all of those values. This is why broad political affiliation is problematic.)
Until the "pro life" movement becomes anything other than an absolute joke, hypocritically shaming perceived moral ills most of its members broadly support in other contexts, it can expect to become increasingly marginalized as a more empowered generation elects to make decisions about whether or when it parents children by answering questions like:
- Is parenting something I'll ever want?
- Is parenting something I want right now?
- Will I be able to provide a good life for the child?
- Will I be able to be a responsible and loving parent?
All of these can have a profound impact on the life of a child, and ultimately an adult as well. It's astonishing that so many "pro life" people readily dismiss them. Pro "life", but what kind of life?
Actually, I visited 3 religious centers in the same day some years ago:
Mosque - A serious-looking guy said I'd best keep my distance and not go into the main area, but keep at the benches by the main entrance. He stated I could be in danger and should leave soon.
A hindu temple - I went in a very crowded temple while they performed rituals. Sang with them, and went out. Foreign and some strange looks, but no fear or threats.
A church - Could go in and out as I pleased. All kinds of people were welcome and people were smiling.
I highly recommend doing your own research.
It seems very reasonable to blame those with the greatest share for wealth and power for the current state of society, rather than the impoverished and marginalized.
It may seem reasonable, but it largely isn't. It is just another set of scapegoats used to rally people. They don't make the countless individual decisions that people make as to how to act in their day to day live, what values they have, and how they act on them.
The position you reference has a long and bloody heritage too. You only need to look at the Marxist revolutions that have taken place around the world leading to mass murder and the impoverishment of entire nations due to misguided values.
People keep trying to claim that corporations are evil, or that they run the government. Can you show me one vote cast by a corporation in the Senate? Corporation is just a word for things we do together voluntarily.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I disagree. There are some people that think that some laws are necessary, and when they don't see those laws being fast-tracked thru Congress they equate that to dysfunction. What should be evident is that if the law doesn't pass, it really isn't that necessary and not favored heavily enough by enough people.
If a congressman refuses to vote in favor of a thing that his or her electorate feels is critical, he will be removed upon the next election. If his electorate is so intellectually bankrupt (as oh so many Americans are), then they will leave that person in Congress to continue failing to do things that are critical. The former is a check on the system; those failing to represent those who elected him is removed. The latter is not a symptom of dysfunction in Congress. It's a symptom of the dysfunction of the voters.
We were never supposed to have a government that built an ever-growing catalogue of all things we citizens cannot do. They were never intended to prevent us from being offended, or uncomfortable. They were meant to defend our borders, settle disputes between states, and very little else. They (and the plethora of activists) have taken it upon themselves to try to govern how we think, act, drive, read, are entertained, eat, sleep, breath... They have changed the foundation of our system from innocent until proven guilty at which time you'll be punished, to attempting to prevent us from ever becoming guilty by forcing the behavior they desire.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
That sounds like a small sample...but necessary I imagine given the cost of an MRI scan.
What should be evident is that if the law doesn't pass, it really isn't that necessary and not favored heavily enough by enough people.
In fantasy, sure. In reality, there are political forces much greater than what people favor. There are countless polls, not only about particular issues where the public and the Congress are tragically out of step, but where voters say they don't think either party represents them. (Happy to provide links if you care and doubt it... I have done a ton of research on this, but I won't bother unless the conversation remains relatively engaging.) Voters simply don't have much leverage.
If a congressman refuses to vote in favor of a thing that his or her electorate feels is critical, he will be removed upon the next election.
Even in fantasy, this would be unlikely. Voters often compromise on things they consider critical, in order to protect other things they consider critical.
If his electorate is so intellectually bankrupt (as oh so many Americans are), then they will leave that person in Congress to continue failing to do things that are critical. The former is a check on the system; those failing to represent those who elected him is removed. The latter is not a symptom of dysfunction in Congress. It's a symptom of the dysfunction of the voters.
This is cartoonishly simplistic. Suppose, for example, a person finds climate change critical. The vast majority of voters have no credible option available to express this, even if they were willing to compromise other critical issues. Organizing credible options is a task beyond the vast majority of citizens' means; organizing it over time requires far more political acumen than your "if you don't like it vote differently" picture, but rather a world class marketing effort with essentially no misstep. This is beyond the reach of the voting public as a whole. And even if it could be mustered, it would almost certainly come at the cost of other critical issues.
We were never supposed to have a government that built an ever-growing catalogue of all things we citizens cannot do. They were never intended to prevent us from being offended, or uncomfortable. They were meant to defend our borders, settle disputes between states, and very little else. They (and the plethora of activists) have taken it upon themselves to try to govern how we think, act, drive, read, are entertained, eat, sleep, breath... They have changed the foundation of our system from innocent until proven guilty at which time you'll be punished, to attempting to prevent us from ever becoming guilty by forcing the behavior they desire.
I tried to respond to the previous bits in good faith, despite realizing this was coming. I hope you'll agree that I made a reasonable effort there. But this... most of what you're describing is first a caricature of the Constitution and second a caricature of liberalism. Your efforts to describe a constitutional ideal are undermined by this. There is real over-regulation, but it is mostly a product of powerful business interests.
There is an actual need for regulation, though. I need to be sure that my drinking water isn't dangerous. I need to be sure I can make an educated decision about my nutrition and health. I need to be sure that if a neighbor in my apartment building starts a fire, I have an otherwise unobstructed path out of the building. I need to be sure that my employer will actually produce a valid check for the amount I was promised in exchange for my labor. Quoth the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." I considered adding emphasis, but I would have emphasized nearly the entire quote.
How is it a "bad life choice", say, to be born with cerebral palsy or to develop type 1 diabetes mellitus?
Well obviously their parents did something wrong, their parents also being quite poor are to blame for that situation as well.
This is sarcasm, for the sarcastically impaired (as was the GGP).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
That's a strange requirement. What if a pro-life person said they're against killing innocent people? Wouldn't that be good enough for a morally valid judgement?
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Sounds like being atheistic suddenly means being a closed-minded bigot ...
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
That is the point. Using how a person response, aka the subjectiveness associated by the person, they can determine the category. If it was not subjective then there would have been zero effect from the image.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Actually it is a combination of conservationism and liberalism. It is conservative positions with liberal politics. To claim that it is "socialism" is just you showing your bias.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Thou shalt not kill predates the Democrat party by several thousand years.
My grandfather for example fought in WW2 but I'm pretty sure I could shock or gross him out with stuff that wouldn't really bother most of my peers.
And do you know why? Because those images may be triggering actual memories of close friends being mutilated by enemy fire, of picking pieces of a close friend's guts and brains off his face and uniform, of the smells of decaying corpses that one can not avoid. You, your friends and myself have a very different set of thoughts and memories and emotions for these images to trigger. Your grandfather is not being grossed out by what he sees in the picture, but rather what he experienced in real life. Add to this that memories created during high stress like combat are some of the most vivid and persistent, its nature's way of making sure we don't forget the lessons of a close encounter with death.
I knew a WW2 paratrooper. I asked him if parachuting was scary. He said it was terrifying. That at Normandy he was near the end of the line of troopers to go out the door. That their plane was taking enemy fire and they stood there unmoving waiting for the signal to jump. And when the signal was given it seemed like forever for him to get to the door. He said he didn't "relax" until he hit the ground. He said for the Market Garden jump he was scared sh*tless from the moment he put the parachute on until he hit the ground despite the fact that there was no enemy fire this time. Show this guy a picture of someone parachuting and it is not the thought of hanging high above the ground supported by a piece of nylon and some thin cords that it causing him to feel some anxiety, as my original question attempted to query regarding.
That's a fair criticism of the consistency of Republican (and democrat) policy as passed by Congress. The Patriot Act is inconsistent with limited government and I'ved called out my (republican) congressman on that when he was on the radio, and on his Facebook page.
It is perhaps also fair to point out that while congress-critters from both parties voted for it, few average Americans support it. In other words, neither Democrats nor Republicans support it, their politicians do.
Lastly, it may be interesting to note that because the bill was so huge, nobody has read it, leading to massive misinformation about it from every direction.
Are they ill defined?
Yes, absolutely. A person's individual positions matter more than worthless labels like "liberal," "conservative," "left," or "right." Few can even agree that position X is liberal or conservative, and it doesn't really matter.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that republicans are conservatives and democrats are liberals; both are just scumbags who want to ignore the constitution and infringe upon our fundamental liberties.
This is a good question. I want to say that first, because this topic is so often devoid of good questions.
There are a variety of ways the "pro life" movement places itself in this corner: insistence on a "right to life", little regard for the wrongful killing of post-natal innocents, little regard for other ways innocent children are abused or suffer. In a way, I'm repeating myself, but because I think I've mostly already addressed this. There is only one case of killing that most "pro life" people care about: that of a fetus. They typically care about few other harms than killing, even though many can ruin lives just the same.
The alternative position you raise is also one without much distinction. Scarcely anyone will claim that it is morally justified to kill innocent people. That kind of rationalization is either done by altering the definition of innocence and guilt, or by arithmetical sleight of hand. In any case, assignment of guilt and innocence has proved extremely problematic, especially in cases of institutional killing such as I mentioned. In order to really defend those types of killings, one must either place undue trust on the prevailing actors or simply accept that "pro life" is not absolute.
Because your alternative has little distinction, it essentially forces the conversation become the dreaded debate over the definition of "human life", but while accepting that certain classes of humans are incapable of being moral agents in any way—and therefore by definition "innocent". While I agree that a fetus cannot be assigned "guilt" by any reasonable assessment, I think the other debate—over how to define "human life"—is morally pointless. It's an excuse to produce a permanent impasse.
Duh, of course there are differences. The surprising thing is that these two differences are correlated. At least it seems surprising to most of us.
"...put Mother Nature on trial. It's she who sacrifices about one zygote for each two live newborns..." Well, better put her on trial for the fact that everyone (and every multicellular animal) eventually dies. But if your point was to say that aborting a zygote is not evil because Mother Nature does it, then by the same logic killing an adult cannot be evil, because Mother Nature does that too. In other words, this particular argument doesn't go through.
Predict them, you can.
I've never heard *that* definition of liberals before. By that definition I must be a Republican-voting liberal.
Well, I am against people murdering babies who can't defend themselves. I am also against people being murdered who aren't given a chance to defend themselves. I think both sets of murders deserve the punishment they mete out. That's fairness. However, life isn't that black and white so while its fairly obvious who murders the unborn its not always obvious who murders the others. Death penalty is a simple solution. Once all those who want no criminals to die have to support all those living criminals via their own money and no one else, they will reach a point that they either can't afford to support them or they will change their mind.
What should be evident is that if the law doesn't pass, it really isn't that necessary and not favored heavily enough by enough people.
In fantasy, sure. In reality, there are political forces much greater than what people favor. There are countless polls, not only about particular issues where the public and the Congress are tragically out of step, but where voters say they don't think either party represents them. (Happy to provide links if you care and doubt it... I have done a ton of research on this, but I won't bother unless the conversation remains relatively engaging.) Voters simply don't have much leverage.
If a congressman refuses to vote in favor of a thing that his or her electorate feels is critical, he will be removed upon the next election.
Even in fantasy, this would be unlikely. Voters often compromise on things they consider critical, in order to protect other things they consider critical.
If his electorate is so intellectually bankrupt (as oh so many Americans are), then they will leave that person in Congress to continue failing to do things that are critical. The former is a check on the system; those failing to represent those who elected him is removed. The latter is not a symptom of dysfunction in Congress. It's a symptom of the dysfunction of the voters.
This is cartoonishly simplistic. Suppose, for example, a person finds climate change critical. The vast majority of voters have no credible option available to express this, even if they were willing to compromise other critical issues. Organizing credible options is a task beyond the vast majority of citizens' means; organizing it over time requires far more political acumen than your "if you don't like it vote differently" picture, but rather a world class marketing effort with essentially no misstep. This is beyond the reach of the voting public as a whole. And even if it could be mustered, it would almost certainly come at the cost of other critical issues.
We were never supposed to have a government that built an ever-growing catalogue of all things we citizens cannot do. They were never intended to prevent us from being offended, or uncomfortable. They were meant to defend our borders, settle disputes between states, and very little else. They (and the plethora of activists) have taken it upon themselves to try to govern how we think, act, drive, read, are entertained, eat, sleep, breath... They have changed the foundation of our system from innocent until proven guilty at which time you'll be punished, to attempting to prevent us from ever becoming guilty by forcing the behavior they desire.
I tried to respond to the previous bits in good faith, despite realizing this was coming. I hope you'll agree that I made a reasonable effort there. But this... most of what you're describing is first a caricature of the Constitution and second a caricature of liberalism. Your efforts to describe a constitutional ideal are undermined by this. There is real over-regulation, but it is mostly a product of powerful business interests.
There is an actual need for regulation, though. I need to be sure that my drinking water isn't dangerous. I need to be sure I can make an educated decision about my nutrition and health. I need to be sure that if a neighbor in my apartment building starts a fire, I have an otherwise unobstructed path out of the building. I need to be sure that my employer will actually produce a valid check for the amount I was promised in exchange for my labor. Quoth the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." I considered adding emphasis, but I would have emphasized nearly the entire quote.
This is why we have a representative Oligarchy now and not a republic like the founders designed.
As a rule, U.S. conservatives have been against birth control. The recent turn appears to be motivated by preventing them from having to pay for it, and decreasing access (by making it more expensive for the consumer)
Nice talking point, but it's inaccurate. There's a huge difference between being against people using birth control and being against paying for someone else's birth control.
The Pill costs about $8 for a month's supply without a prescription, and it isn't free with the copay required with insurance. Making it OTC would lower the cost from $8/month. Also, making it OTC removes the cost of a doctor's visit as well as the opportunity cost of missing a day of work. (Liberals are against removing the doctor's visit because a large number of poor women get their prescription through Planned Parenthood, which is one of the larger donors to the Democratic party.) Taking something that costs less than $10 per month and removing an upfront cost is NOT "reducing access" in any meaningful way.
Face it. Any adult in this country who wants to be taking the pill already has access to it. All you're doing is scaremongering, and luckily people have wised up to your ruse. Look at Mark Udall's campaign to see how well this War on Women nonsense is working for your guys,
The liberal-conservative taxonomy in the study is based on a simple premise:
- brain activity detected: liberal
- no brain activity observed: conservative
See? Pretty easy..
licet differant, aequabitur
So here's the real finding " Our finding that only disgusting pictures, especially in the animal-reminder category, differentiate conservatives from liberals..."
So what they actually found out was thmoral-vegetarians are liberal, that is people that are super-disgusted by seeing an animal dead (for example because they think animals are people) are liberals.
We already knew this.
I bet 'disgust' with a mountain being strip-mined is also going to predict people being liberal.
The paper itself uses a throw-away line (so called because it should be thrown away) implying that 'political scientists are hesitant to admit that political views are emotional'. This much more shows the lack of knowledge of the kids playing with their fMIR than the dearth of theory regarding emotions by political science.
It gets worse. I've seen this coming since 2008, but gene sequencing, preferably in combination with fMRI, is getting bigger. Not that it means anything: we don't know how a lump of neurons that consume more oxygen relate to behavior, and we don't know how genes affect lumps of neurons at any subtle level, let alone that we can conclude something from gene sequencing, but since it is very sexy and has new images to enhance psychological studies, there will be more and more of it, until you read one day: Reactions to Disgusting Images Determined by Genes.
You quoted the whole thing, so it's unclear: are you saying that the reason for the oligarchy is because of the numerous points I made about political realities? Or because I closed with a paragraph indicating that the government has a role in providing for basic regulations that allow us to live our lives in safety with confidence?
If you mean the former, that is the system the founders designed. It's in many, many ways a flawed design. If you mean the latter, I'd like to know how the examples of regulations I provided lead to an oligarchy.
In either case, just to clarify, we do live in a republic. All that means is we don't have a monarch.
That's fairness.
Hardly. That's revenge. They're not actually the same thing.
However, life isn't that black and white so while its fairly obvious who murders the unborn its not always obvious who murders the others. Death penalty is a simple solution.
So you are saying, unequivocally, that you accept institutional murder of innocent people. Not very "pro life".
Once all those who want no criminals to die have to support all those living criminals via their own money and no one else, they will reach a point that they either can't afford to support them or they will change their mind.
Wait, now it's about money? Not fairness or justice or morality? By the way. In any justice system with a hint of protection for the wrongly accused, it costs more to kill a prisoner than not to.
Unless a "pro life" person is against all killing of humans—including institutional killing (war, police shootings, death penalty)—I don't take their "pro life" claim seriously at all.
Do you hold the same opinion of "pro choice" people?
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
I'm not sure why I should, we don't claim a "right to life".
I'm not close-minded, but I happen to be aware of meanings of certain words. Of course, you could demonstrate to me where I'm wrong, but I figure you're not even going to try.
Ezekiel 23:20
From the article:
[quote]We proposed that conservatives, compared to liberals, have greater negativity bias [13], which includes both disgusting and threatening conditions in our study. Our finding that only disgusting pictures, especially in the animal-reminder category, differentiate conservatives from liberals might be indicative of a primacy for disgust in the pantheon of human aversions, but it is also possible that this result is due to the fact that, compared to threat, disgust is much easier to evoke with visual images on a computer screen.[/quote]
My take on this as a US liberal, is that this might be indicative of a conservative having an aversion to being reminded of how humans are little more than animals. If it disgusts a conservative to think of us as animals then that might be why they have less fear about how dangerous, barbaric and predatory humans can truly be to each other. Giving more freedoms and powers to humans might not seem something to be feared as much as a powerful government. If they accepted that human beings are primal animals when you peel away the layers, and if they witnessed just how private individuals can be more dangerous to one than a powerful government ruled by the people, then they might have a different perspective.
I'm not sure why I should, we don't claim a "right to life".
To be clear...do you claim that one shouldn't take a "pro choice" person seriously unless that person is against all coercion? In particular, a pro choice person should permit a person to hire and fire whomever they will, regardless of race, creed, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation? They should allow people to collude together to restrict prices, markets, entry, engage in price gouging and any other means to increase profits. They should be able to spray whatever weedkiller, fertilizer, or other chemical on their lawns they wish. They should be able to decide how much of their money goes to the poor, unwed mothers, drug addicts, sick, or arts. They should be able to quit the military any time they wish, including on the battle front while engaged with the enemy. A pro choice person should be in favor of allowing a person to make any choice whatsoever. Is that what you claim?
Or do you hold a double standard--interpreting "pro life" quite broadly, but interpreting "pro life" very narrowly?
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Or do you hold a double standard--interpreting "pro life" quite broadly, but interpreting "pro choice" very narrowly?
FTFM
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Among my friends, every one who enjoys horror and zombie movies is liberal except myself. Also funny how anti-conservative every horror movie board I go to is. Every single person I know who listens to death metal is liberal leaning except myself. Strange that nearly everyone I meet who loves intense gore, violence and suffering in the media they choose to enjoy are liberals. Unless, that is, your guess as to why the data played out the way it did is entirely incorrect. Conservatives don't enjoy suffering we're just mostly indifferent to it. Its something that happens in everyone's life at some point and to some degree. Why get bent out of shape over it? Analyze it, figure out how best to avoid it in the future and move on.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying I hold that position at all. I was merely clarifying what I believed to be the previous poster's assertion.
Actually, for those varieties, it would probably would have little effect on the price. That's lower than nearly anyone's copay, so the insurance company doesn't pay a penny of it; it just contributes towards the maximum total out-of-pocket cost, which most people young enough to need birth control are unlikely to ever reach anyway. At best, there's the extra overhead caused by the pharmacist handling it, but that's replaced with the extra cost of retail packaging and small-quantity shipping instead of bulk packaging, so I'd expect folks to roughly break even unless the OTC availability encourages other companies to start making the product in expectation of a surge in sales because young people won't have to ask their doctor, and even then, I doubt more competition will have a huge effect on the price.
Although you can get birth control pills for $8 per month from some locations, that's based on the price from (IIRC) Target, which mostly has a retail presence in medium to large cities. In rural areas, the average price is higher.
But even if we assume that such cheap prices are ubiquitous, that cheapness still only applies to standard birth control pills. For people who aren't able to take those for whatever reason, and have to take the more expensive varieties, that's not necessarily true. It depends on where they decide to draw the line for OTC status. And if the FDA makes the cheap stuff available OTC (which they probably should, to be perfectly honest), there's a good chance that Republicans will use that as an excuse to push for removing mandatory insurance coverage for the other varieties that aren't cheap, many of which have medical uses beyond birth control.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
My take on this as a US liberal, is that this might be indicative of a conservative having an aversion to being reminded of how humans are little more than animals.
I'm not at all surprised that, as a liberal, you would interpret it that way. Even though there's nothing in the study that actually supports that interpretation. A conservative, of course, would almost certainly not interpret it that way. The liberal and the conservative are both being equally emotional and non-rational in their reasoning.
Think carefully about what you just did. You first decided (based primarily on emotion) what conclusion you wanted to reach, then interpreted the data as supporting that conclusion. You did that (as everyone does, many times a day) despite the fact that it required wild extrapolations, and there are tons of other interpretations equally consistent with the data. This is exactly the sort of thing this article is talking about. Humans are not rational. We make decisions based on emotion, then rationalize them to convince ourselves they were actually based on logic. If you are human, then you are not rational. If you believe you are, that's just an example of one of your irrational beliefs.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How about you? What were you going to add?
I was going to add (and did add) the suggestion that you read the paper so you could post informed opinions rather than uninformed ones. (It amazes me how often my signature quote turns out to be exactly relevant.) And that led you to do it, so I totally count it as a positive contribution to the discussion!
I do, however, think you're being overly harsh toward this paper. They crossvalidated their results, and also included negative controls in the study. If their statistics were really as badly done as you claim, they would have found just as strong predictors based on the pleasant and neutral images. But they didn't.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Why do you tease me so blurb.
No beer and no TV make Homer something something
I was talking to a Muslim just the other day , he was advocating that God commands Muslims to kill all gays. I'm sure if he wasn't a liberal Muslim he would have included Christians and Atheists as well, the beheading of women who get raped, and the death penalty for anyone who accidently insults the prophet or his 'god' in any way. Very tolerant.
BTW I'm Liberal and I vote UKIP. - As for racism at least UKIP don't have a whites only immigration policy - unlike the EU. And as for the Sun, I would rather be associated with paedophiles and child molesters than them..
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
From what I can see in the press the conservatives are only interested in God, their guns and speaking shit lie that the earth is 6000 years old. I don't think that they can plan too much. And if I just open Google and see the pure fucking chaos that your Dubya and his dad organised I am perfectly reassured.
Or maybe you are talking about other type of conservatives.
HINT: From the standard political point of view I would be on the Far Right of your conservatives (yeah, Ziklon B and stuff)
-- 29A the number of the Beast
So now all we need to do is correlate how long it takes for each person to click a link after seeing an unpleasant image, and we know who to hit up for cash for the NRA! Life is getting so simple!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No. You just said several things that are simply false. Please let me clarify them.
First, you seem to have the idea that experiments like this are expensive to perform. They aren't. I used to work in an MRI research lab. The cost of doing a scan is close to zero. Buying the machine in the first place is expensive, but since my lab was in a hospital, they already had that. The hospital used it for patients during the day, and then left it idle most of the night. That's when the graduate students ran their experiments. The cost of doing this study is whatever you have to pay some undergraduates to come in the middle of the night and get their brains scanned: not very much.
Second, this study was not a fishing expedition. It's the latest in a growing body of literature on the subject. They included various types of "disgusting" images because previous studies had shown (based on skin response and the like) that conservatives have a stronger response to them than liberals do. They included threat images for the same reason: previous studies have shown that conservatives have a stronger startle reflex than liberals. They were a bit surprised when they didn't find anything for those images, and they include commentary speculating on why they didn't. There is no previous evidence that conservatives and liberals respond differently to pleasant images, so they would have been surprised if anything had shown up there. And it would have been very surprising if they'd found any difference for neutral images, making those a good negative control.
Third, as a neuroscientist you're well aware that we know more about the brain than just the sensory and motor parts. That doesn't mean we have detailed circuits, but we do know, for example, that particular regions are involved in emotion, memory, higher cognitive tasks, etc. Maybe those parts aren't what you are personally interested in, but that doesn't make them invalid subjects to study.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
a bullet to the forehead is more expensive than room and board for years? That kind of math is why the country is so much trouble.
Well no I didn't just preconceive an argument and try to find ways to support it. I did have an emotional reaction though but only because I used to be staunchly conservative and libertarian before I went through a period of transformation. I emotionally react to conservatives now with a disgust but also an understanding of the emotions that I had at the time. I had a particular disgust at that time with people that didn't live up to the standards of what i felt a quality person should be. I realized just how animalistic, primal and backwards the majority of humanity truly is and I lost faith that Libertarian values truly could better the human condition. I sort of became a Liberal in certain aspects, however in others I believe that an authoritarian government keeps our animal and predatory behaviors in line. Something akin to Socialism might work in a country with high amounts of wealth and only with high amounts of relative wealth, otherwise the country might do well if they are lucky enough for a benevolent monarchy. At least that gives a chance at a successful society. I very much believe a successful Libertarian society is never possible until such day that humanity transcends their more primal nature. Even moving in that direction is a bad idea as it allows bad behavior from powerful groups to further hurt people and cause societal unrest. It is in much the same way that in a third world African country without a strong dictator is run by powerful gangs that impoverish and hurt the common people. Strong government prevents abuses more often than causes them.
These are beliefs I built over my life based on my life experiences and triggered by deep emotional reactions. They molded the logic behind my observation just as you said. Pretty much what went through my head was that I had to google animal reminder disgust then it seemed obvious to me that since I view humanity as hopeless animals and since the birth of that belief in me was untenable with my previous Libertarian beliefs, that perhaps the opposite is true, perhaps a conservative or libertarian has a profoundly optimistic view of human nature and defaults to seeing people in the best possible light, that our default state is transcended human and not an ignorant ape. This thought gave me a positive emotional reaction (intuition).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Their brains were scanned with a non-functional MRI.
Yes that is another short coming of Buddhism: It is ignorant of the Soul and how it transcends time with past, concurrent, and potential lives. When you make assumptions naturally you will come to the wrong conclusion. :-( Can't really fault them for that.
Other then that Buddhists certainly is more grounded in reality then other religions by not focusing on dogma as much. Of course there are a lot of shitty religious teachers unable to grasp the 3 levels of "scripture." Fundamentalists in any group, be it theist, or atheist, are pretty intolerant of others with their myopic views.
What I like about Buddhism is that it gets the foundation for enlightenment correct:
Know Thyself.
i.e. "How can you know God if you don't first know yourself?"
Which is a modern paraphrase of this beautiful quote:
A brahmin once asked the Blessed One: "Are you a God?"
"No, brahmin," said the Blessed One.
"Are you a saint?"
"No, brahmin," said the Blessed One.
"Are you a magician?"
"No, brahmin," said the Blessed One.
"What are you then?"
"I am awake."
Yeah, I hear Sensitivity training is like a concentration camp, wait, was that insensitive? Since it's often hard to tell what people mean on the internet, I'll briefly add - you're an idiot.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Unless you are a conservative, please keep your opinions of how "they" think to yourself.
Dearborn, Michigan.
I could cite thousands of examples of religious people who are not delusional and you'd claim they were just because they're religious. That makes you closed-minded and bigotted. Just because some *people* have issues or are morons doesn't mean what they stand for should be painted in that light. What they stand for should be judged on its own merits, and the person on their own.
Painting all religious people with the "delusional" brush as you did is far too broad a statement to be properly rational.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
That final paragraph is precisely the debate every rational pro-life person I know wishes would happen, and yet it gets stiffled continually by so-called "women's rights" which are supposedly being trampled.
Once upon a time, women weren't allowed to vote, and letting them vote would've trampled "men's rights" ... ...
Once upon a time, slaves were forced to labour in fields for no pay, and allowing them fair treatment would have trampled on "owners' rights"
Having a tough conversation about where a woman's rights truly end and where the unborn child's begin isn't happening and it should. We may decide as a culture that children have no rights to live until they're 2 years old; we may instead decide that 5 months after conception is a viable human life that deserves recognition. Unfortunately this discussion is simply being stifled.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I could cite thousands of examples of religious people who are not delusional and you'd claim they were just because they're religious
The OED defines delusion quite concisely and aptly as "a fixed false opinion or belief with regard to objective things". Now I'm clearly not saying that in theory, every person of faith is necessarily delusional (witness the "most forms" in my statement), but in practice, with ~45% of Americans believing that the Earth is younger than 10k years, and a significant portion of the rest believing in things like Noah's flood and similar, one could make the case that the majority of believers includes at least one objectively delusional element in their worldview. With Americans counting hundreds of millions, and theists world-wide counting billions in their ranks, I'm not sure that your thousands would make a dent in it.
Ezekiel 23:20