quote:According to researchers, they determined that people "with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults." However, the, subjects were only more likely to have leanings to the left if they were also socially active during adolescence.
Who knew your genes determine your political beliefs? Well, that and how many friends you had in school.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually don't doubt this is a possibility, but I would like to see a breakdown of the actual numbers.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Interestingly, the paper cites a whole bunch of other previously known associations with the 7R allele including novelty-seeking behaviour and increased reproductive success (in order to explain why the 7R allele arises rarely but spread quickly). Links with ADHD as well, quite a busy gene.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Johnathan Haidt had a talk that comes at it from the opposite direction that I think is complimentary to this.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, looks like there's a bit of a wrinkle in their study. They mention at one point that different ethnic groups have different frequencies of the 7R allele.
Looking at their references, they're not kidding. It ranges from a majority (~60%) of native South Americans to a straight 0% for the Chinese and several other East Asian groups and some narrow European groups. http://info.med.yale.edu/genetics/kkidd/330.pdf
So whatever this genetic component this contributes to liberalism in say South Americans and Europeans, it is just plain not a factor for Chinese people (and some other smaller groups).
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
This doesn't surprise me. Not to be too simplistic...dogs are better than rats for genetic study of social behavior. Why would a liberal be offended by the suggestion that liberalism is genetic (natural) when liberals defend homosexuality as being natural (genetic).
Some dogs are independent....conservative, others are dependent pack animals...liberal. Some are aggressive...criminals. If it's a natural genetic for same sex attraction,....liberalism and conservatism is minor. Sexuality is more signifigant than political ideology. How can you argue that sexuality is natural (genetic) but something less significant (political ideology) is not. We are all different. The closeness of elections isn't a coincidence. Evolution has yet to determine whether liberals or conservatives are to succeed. Perhaps the 50/50 balance and close elections are the result of natural selection. Only 50% pay taxes and one tribesman can support another.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How can you argue that sexuality is natural (genetic) but something less significant (political ideology) is not.
My preferred pancake recipe is less significant than either. Am I genetically predisposed to prefer half a teaspoon of baking powder per cup of flour?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm far less concerned with conservative vs liberal than I am with reasonable vs batcrap insane. Do your genes control whether you're capable of choosing a course of action based on real world situations rather than ideology?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Am I genetically predisposed to prefer half a teaspoon of baking powder per cup of flour?
Yes. You're a mutant, and will be collected shortly. Please leave your front door unlocked and keep your mixing bowl where we can see it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Maaaaybe just maybe its worthwhile to call this as being a bs sensationalized flavor pseudoscience story? Hmmmmmm?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I'm far less concerned with conservative vs liberal than I am with reasonable vs batcrap insane.
Bingo.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Liberalism and Conservatism boils down to one thing.... Liberals believe in what is best for the group and Conservatives believe in what is best for the individual. Criminals only care about themselves and victimize others.
Conservatives are the dogs that take care of themselves. Liberals are like dogs that rely on a pack. Criminals are vicious dogs.
Are you a hound, a terrier or a pit bull? We'll step this logic down another step. Do you believe in Asperger's syndrome? What about nymphomania or ADHD? Are these things genetic? Dogs are better than rats for comparison to humans. Fortunately, poodles aren't offended by rottweilers proclaiming their strength or shepherds proclaiming their intelligence.
We aren't the same. We live in a society where it's wrong to say, "Men are stronger than women". Might offend the female body builder (shooting up male hormones).
[ October 30, 2010, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Why would a liberal be offended by the suggestion that liberalism is genetic (natural) when liberals defend homosexuality as being natural (genetic).
Offended? Who's offended? Skeptical, perhaps. I don't see anyone being offended. You're looking for controversy where there is none, Malanthrop. I wonder if there's a gene for that?
Put me in the skeptical camp. I've read about the way these studies get portrayed before. Genes are immensly complex, and political affiliation is even more complex.
Not to mention, the political division between Conservative and Liberal is ill-defined and subject to variation. People who call themselves "liberal" are a broad group and no doubt have diverse reasons why they are liberal.
quote:We aren't the same. We live in a society where it's wrong to say, "Men are stronger than women".
Lawl.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Liberalism and Conservatism boils down to one thing.... Liberals believe in what is best for the group and Conservatives believe in what is best for the individual.
While this might be a useful definition for a philosophical conversation, in practice this definition does not describe reality.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:...while these kinds of studies have remarkable rhetorical force because their purported subject is biology, if you look under the skin at the bones of the analysis, the core method is traditional social science. The article under consideration is an almost perfect illustration of this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Maaaaybe just maybe its worthwhile to call this as being a bs sensationalized flavor pseudoscience story? Hmmmmmm?
Oh hey look.
quote:Over the past two decades, gene-whizzers have discovered "genes for" high IQ, male homosexuality, religious belief, gambling, attention-deficit disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, autism, dyslexia, alcoholism, heroin addiction, sadness, extroversion, introversion, anxiety, anorexia nervosa, seasonal affective disorder, violent aggression—you get the picture. So far, not one of these claims has been consistently confirmed by follow-up studies.
These failures should not be surprising, because all these complex traits and disorders are almost certainly caused by many different genes interacting with many different environmental factors. Moreover, the methodology of behavioral geneticists is highly susceptible to false positives. Researchers select a group of people who share a trait and then start searching for a gene that occurs not universally and exclusively but simply more often in this group than in a control group. If you look at enough genes, you will almost inevitably find one that meets these criteria simply through chance.
The most prominent of all gene-whizzers is the geneticist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute. He first attained fame and fortune in 1993 by "discovering" a gene linked to male homosexuality. After his initial report in Science, Hamer and a journalist quickly co-wrote a book, The Science of Desire The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior (Simon and Schuster, 1994), which The New York Times named a "notable book." Meanwhile follow-up studies found no evidence for the gay gene.
In his 2004 book, The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes (Doubleday), Hamer claimed to have found a gene linked to religious belief or spirituality. TIME devoted a cover story to Hamer's claim, but in a review for Scientific American, journalist Carl Zimmer quipped that Hamer should have titled his book "A Gene That Accounts for Less Than One Percent of the Variance Found in Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor called Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study."
Hamer also led the group that in 1996 first linked the DRD4 gene to "novelty-seeking". Lots of other groups have sought to replicate Hamer's finding, but according to a 2008 review "the strength of evidence for this association remains uncertain." Meanwhile, DRD4 has also been tied to schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, bipolar disorder, sex addiction, anorexia nervosa, binge eating and, now, liberalism, according to Wikipedia.
I hope the liberal-gene finding—unlike all previous gene-whiz claims—holds up, because then we can create a utopia by genetically engineering liberal designer babies. We could even pay for it with Obama's health care plan! But alas, this vision—like the liberal gene itself—is just a fantasy.
Yes, exactly.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Liberalism and Conservatism boils down to one thing.... Liberals believe in what is best for the group and Conservatives believe in what is best for the individual.
While this might be a useful definition for a philosophical conversation, in practice this definition does not describe reality.
Of course it doesn't. Reality shows that free market societies have provided the highest standard of living. Individualism produces a better society than socialism. Socialism might be "fair" but capitalism elevates everyone more than socialism. Why did the Soviet Union Collapse? How's Cuba doing today? North Korea? China? What's the average standard of living in China? Yes, socialist societies are fair in their misery. If I'm going to send a package, I'll use UPS or Fedex that make an evil profit and guarantee service. The post office relies on government subsidies to survive.
It's sad that the results of cold war didn't end this debate forever. The atheist socialist denies historical evidence. The atheist socialist has "faith" in a government provided utopia, despite an abundance of evidence that government dominated societies are failures. At least theists aren't faced with proof that god does not exist....there's plenty of proof that socialism fails. God's existence cannot be proved or disproved but people maintain a "faith" in government despite the evidence that government fails. Socialism fails. The greedy societies that care about the individual, produce the greater good.
"Don't Feed The Animals" signs at a park..... good advice. The animals are better off when they don't depend on the rich tourist's french fries. Liberals ignore the sign in the park...it make them feel good to feed the animals. Afterall, the animal is hungry and begging for a crumb.
[ October 31, 2010, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mal, what part of your post do you think is a logical or relevant reply to mine?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Mal, what part of your post do you think is a logical or relevant reply to mine?
Reality is different. Reality proves that conservatism is more successful. The cold war should've ended this debate. You made a good point about reality.
I assert that Conservatives care about what is best for the individual and Liberals care about what is best for the group. Reality is that conservative societies prove to be better for the group. Although the goal of a conservative is individual freedom and the goal of a liberal is the "greater good"...history proves that the greater good is best served by a society of free individuals. Don't feed the animals. Good advice.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. Okay. So nothing, then, beyond the usual dim awareness of your surroundings.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Give me historical evidence that socialist societies are "overall" better for their people. At least I admit that Capitalism's motivation is less admirable than a socialist. It feels good to feed the animals but your "generosity" hurts the animal. They fail to fly south for the winter or attack your family.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... Of course it doesn't. Reality shows that free market societies have provided the highest standard of living.
Which societies aside from the US do you consider to be free market anyways?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The US isn't really free market anymore....hence the Tea Party. Shades of gray were many nations. Black and White was the cold war. Dark gray and light gray don't matter. Of course there's no more black and white.
Brazil is quite free market and exploding. The US is emulating Europe just as Europe is tightening it's belt. Greece's collapse was forewarned by the USSR and France is rapidly trying to raise their retirement age. The US isn't capitalistic anymore. The US is no longer a nation ruled by it's constitution and law. The US is no longer a cold hearted land of law and the constitution is an antiquated document. Our senators vote on bills and say things like, "We need to pass it to see what's in it"... http://www.breitbart.tv/nancy-pelosi-we-need-to-pass-health-care-bill-to-find-out-whats-in-it/
How can they say such a thing when they took an oath to "support and defend the constitution".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
So Brazil is the only free market society in your estimation?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: So Brazil is the only free market society in your estimation?
The US is less and less a free market. Shades of gray... Every tax and regulation reduces free markets. Some countries have completely free markets and total anarchy...this isn't good either. Countries need laws. The US is ignoring it's laws....border laws, voting laws and constitutional laws. Our courts ruled that requiring ID to vote is unconstitutional and states fighting an invasion of illegal immigrants are racist. The US is a nation of political correctness, not law.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Some countries have completely free markets and total anarchy...this isn't good either.
Which countries are these?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Countries with limited government control. Countries like Afghanistan....even today. Afghanistan is controlled by drug lords and religious zealots. I've spent 3 of the last 4 months there....anarchy.
We need government control to enforce religious freedom and individual rights. Beyond that, centralized government should be limited.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
So Brazil, Afghanistan, anything else?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
When I hear about people unable to afford an ambulance ride in America, I wonder why the heck you haven't had another revolution.
Especially when those who don't consider free ambulance rides necessary are those who use the metaphor "animals" to refer to those who can't pay the bills. Charming.
Mal, dear, your examples of "socialism" are classic example of "communism". How's Canada doing today? How's much of Europe? Oh, not so bad? How's that banking system going for you in the US, with its non-regulation? Oh, it took down vast swathes of the world with it? That's too bad. It's only animals, right?
Socialism and a welfare state can be problematic: welfare fraud in the UK is rife and pulling money out from education and police. The system is too generous and the supports for returning to work too few.
But in many countries, supporting those who, either employed or unemployed, cannot afford to feed their families, has served the country and those who live in it quite well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Give me historical evidence that socialist societies are "overall" better for their people.
Since we're discussing whether self-described "liberals" care about groups and self-described "conservatives" care about individuals, I don't see why I should facilitate that digression.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:Why would a liberal be offended by the suggestion that liberalism is genetic (natural) when liberals defend homosexuality as being natural (genetic).
Offended? Who's offended? Skeptical, perhaps. I don't see anyone being offended. You're looking for controversy where there is none, Malanthrop. I wonder if there's a gene for that?
Put me in the skeptical camp. I've read about the way these studies get portrayed before. Genes are immensly complex, and political affiliation is even more complex.
Not to mention, the political division between Conservative and Liberal is ill-defined and subject to variation. People who call themselves "liberal" are a broad group and no doubt have diverse reasons why they are liberal.
quote:We aren't the same. We live in a society where it's wrong to say, "Men are stronger than women".
Lawl.
Nature VS nurture is an old argument. How does nature vs nurture apply to politics? You LAWL to my "men are stronger than women" comment.... That example came from an experience I had, stating that very same thing. I made that statement and offended a lady. She "proved me wrong" by finding an example of a woman that was stronger than me. Of course, at the time, I was stronger than 99.9% of the women in the world. I suppose it isn't any different than saying all blacks are Obama supporters. Actually, 4% of blacks didn't vote for him.
Obama's legacy,...blacks joining the republican party. Obama's legacy will be the destruction of the Democratic party. African Americans are waking up to the "dream" of MLK. 24 hours from now, there will be African American Republicans in congress. The nation is returning to it's founding principles. African Americans will follow the same path. Republicans gave them freedom, democrats offered them welfare.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Nature VS nurture is an old argument.
One which I'm sure you understand as a hazy mix of generalized assumptions about the theory, mixed with a healthy quantity of readily accepted misinterpretations.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
How does a geneticist assign a given gene to a particular behavior? Statistics. They've identified a "thrill seeking gene". Of course this isn't controversial. But...they also say this same gene is common to muggers and sky divers. One is good and one is bad. The nurture part, with a good parent, gets you a sky diver with a good day job. Without nurture...you get a very successful burglar.
My wife is conservative but she must have that liberal gene....she gives away a lot of our money to the church and charity.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:They've identified a "thrill seeking gene". Of course this isn't controversial.
Literally right here in this thread I posted the relevant quote from a SciAm article discussing in detail why this is not only controversial, but outright stupid. Thank you for ignoring it, I guess.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Why would a liberal be offended by the suggestion that liberalism is genetic (natural) when liberals defend homosexuality as being natural (genetic).
I didn't see any liberals being offended. (keep in mind, however that if liberalism is genetic, then by definition the lack of liberalism is also)
This whole thing is stupid however: "Liberalism" is merely an abstract label that groups together a set of different ideas that are currently allied in the United States.
quote:Liberals believe in what is best for the group and Conservatives believe in what is best for the individual.
In most of the world, it's the other way around, malanthrop. "Conservatives" are considered the ones that want the most obedience to tradition and to the establishment, for the sake of the nation, or the culture, or the faith of the ancestors -- while "liberals" are considered the ones that say "bollocks to the culture and the faith of our ancestors, we want to maximize personal liberty instead".
That's why I call this whole thing stupid. You ask some people to self-identify with some particular *labels*; and yet you can't even agree what those labels mean. And then you try to connect specific genes to fuzzily-defined groupings.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
If this study was worth its money, it'd ask SPECIFIC political questions, to examine correlations between SPECIFIC ideas and genes -- it wouldn't ask about the identification with such parochial, limited, and fuzzy American groupings as "conservative" and "liberal".
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:Liberals believe in what is best for the group and Conservatives believe in what is best for the individual. Criminals only care about themselves and victimize others.
Ahh, here's the rub. If you look at this along a spectrum--where the Most Liberal cares about everyone (Jesus?) equally, and go more and more individual importance, doesn't that put the Conservative and the Criminal next to each other.
There is a thin line between "Caring for only the individual" and "Caring for only themselves". The difference is the victimization of others. The more you remove regulation the more you allow the victimization of others to be considered OK under the umbrella of "Individual Rights."
Is it an individual's right to lie about the safety of their products,(Free speech) then their right to disallow anyone from examining their products, manufacturing plants, and procedures for faults that could be dangerous,(property rights) and their individual rights to offer money to judges (money=free speech after all) so that rulings would be allowed to go their way? This is what the egg producer who's eggs were contaminated argues.
There are sharks in the water.
Regulations are the net to keep the sharks away from the fishermen.
We get complaints that the nets are keeping some of the fish away as well.
We get complaints that the cost of maintaining the nets is unfair.
I am unsure if those complaints originated with the fishermen or the sharks.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
quote:Liberals believe in what is best for the group and Conservatives believe in what is best for the individual. Criminals only care about themselves and victimize others.
Ahh, here's the rub. If you look at this along a spectrum--where the Most Liberal cares about everyone (Jesus?) equally, and go more and more individual importance, doesn't that put the Conservative and the Criminal next to each other.
There is a thin line between "Caring for only the individual" and "Caring for only themselves". The difference is the victimization of others. The more you remove regulation the more you allow the victimization of others to be considered OK under the umbrella of "Individual Rights."
Is it an individual's right to lie about the safety of their products,(Free speech) then their right to disallow anyone from examining their products, manufacturing plants, and procedures for faults that could be dangerous,(property rights) and their individual rights to offer money to judges (money=free speech after all) so that rulings would be allowed to go their way? This is what the egg producer who's eggs were contaminated argues.
There are sharks in the water.
Regulations are the net to keep the sharks away from the fishermen.
We get complaints that the nets are keeping some of the fish away as well.
We get complaints that the cost of maintaining the nets is unfair.
I am unsure if those complaints originated with the fishermen or the sharks.
The problem with your comparison is that Jesus also taught personal responsibility. He didn't teach for people to be dependant on the government. The choice to help others was taught by him, but he NEVER advocated that people be forced by a government to help those in need.
I feel better giving to a charity by choice than giving to a government entitlement program.
As far as regulation is concerned, I do agree with you to a certain extent. If Freddie and Fanny were more heavily regulated, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. There are certain markets where regulation is sorely lacking, and some that I believe is not needed. You also get on the slippery slope of regulation leading to government control over everything you purchase, eat, or drink. We are already seeing some of that in certain cities trying to ban all soda pop because they deem it is not healthy for you.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"Give unto Caesar that belongs to Caesar" in this context I think specifically means to pay your taxes to the gov't because the gov't provides a service, like roads, security, peace, the aqueduct...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I feel better giving to a charity by choice than giving to a government entitlement program.
I do too. I don't imagine that there are many people out there who don't. However, the obvious fact is that private charity in our country is not and never has been sufficient to see to the needs of the people who need it. Cuts in government programs are almost never covered by a corresponding increase in private charity. Also, during downturns, when assistance is most needed, private charity severely decreases.
It's nice to say that private charity should take care of this, but that's pretty much just wishful thinking or a dishonest talking point. The choice isn't between government programs or private charity, but between government programs or people who desperately need help not getting it. I think there are important conversations to be had about government assistance and entitlement programs, but I find this fantasy of private charity being sufficient to meet the needs to be detrimental to being productive in this area. We might as well talk about feeding the poor with unicorn meat.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: We are already seeing some of that in certain cities trying to ban all soda pop because they deem it is not healthy for you.
I've seen NY move to prevent people purchasing soda pop with food stamps, and SF ban the sale of soda pop from vending machines on government property. Are these the examples you're thinking about?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Personally, I would trade getting rid of weird food restrictions like those two if we could also get rid of agricultural subsidies. It seems bizarre to encourage production on one end and then half-heartedly discourage it on the other end.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm actually in favor of the soda tax. During high school and early college I bought a lot of soda because it was the cheaper than anything else (including water). Nowadays I try to avoid it, but the fact that I always to feel like I'm getting a worse deal is annoying.
I understand the flipside of the issue (it's not like putting the tax on soda decreases prices of anything else, and people don't like being told by the government they have to pay more for something because some people don't have the willpower to not buy it). But it's something that makes me personally happy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I've been following the alternative energy developments and it's pretty upsetting that they're offering subsidies for bio-fuel feedstocks like switchgrass while not funding the development and construction of bio-fuel processing facilities that would use this switchgrass. We're basically funding a giveaway to huge agricultural companies to grow crops that we lack the processing facilities for, while - well, it's not fair to say there is no assistance to companies trying to get production facilities going, but it's dwarfed by the agriculture subsidy.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'm actually in favor of the soda tax. During high school and early college I bought a lot of soda because it was the cheaper than anything else (including water). Nowadays I try to avoid it, but the fact that I always to feel like I'm getting a worse deal is annoying.
I understand the flipside of the issue (it's not like putting the tax on soda decreases prices of anything else, and people don't like being told by the government they have to pay more for something because some people don't have the willpower to not buy it). But it's something that makes me personally happy.
I'm also in favor. While I think the government should err on the side of caution when it comes to intervening in the market to alter consumer behavior, there are some cases where such intervention is warranted. Cigarettes are one. Given the wealth of data linking soda with obesity and obesity related health problems, I think this is another.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I'm also in favor. While I think the government should err on the side of caution when it comes to intervening in the market to alter consumer behavior, there are some cases where such intervention is warranted. Cigarettes are one. Given the wealth of data linking soda with obesity and obesity related health problems, I think this is another.
It would make more sense to start by removing the subsidies to corn production (and also removing the import restrictions on cane sugar).
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: It would make more sense to start by removing the subsidies to corn production (and also removing the import restrictions on cane sugar).
Is sweetener derived from cane sugar lower calorie than that derived from corn syrup?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
It is less conducive to diabetes.
To clarify my Jesus statement--the comment was not about Jesus seeking a Socialist State, or preaching about the role of government. What he was preaching was "Am I my brothers keeper?" and the answer was Yes.
So in the spectrum of caring about everyone or just caring about yourself, he cares for everyone.
You can debate which is the best way to care for everyone--is it better to care for them by providing a safety-net through the government or by hoping one is provided by random charities. You can debate the idea "God helps those who help themselves" versus the continued biblical requirements to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless, but you can't use Jesus to say how a government should be run--because he didn't talk about any type of government short of the Kingdom of Heaven.
And in the Kingdom of Heaven they have Universal Health Care--because people don't get ill.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:Why would a liberal be offended by the suggestion that liberalism is genetic (natural) when liberals defend homosexuality as being natural (genetic).
I didn't see any liberals being offended. (keep in mind, however that if liberalism is genetic, then by definition the lack of liberalism is also)
This whole thing is stupid however: "Liberalism" is merely an abstract label that groups together a set of different ideas that are currently allied in the United States.
quote:Liberals believe in what is best for the group and Conservatives believe in what is best for the individual.
In most of the world, it's the other way around, malanthrop. "Conservatives" are considered the ones that want the most obedience to tradition and to the establishment, for the sake of the nation, or the culture, or the faith of the ancestors -- while "liberals" are considered the ones that say "bollocks to the culture and the faith of our ancestors, we want to maximize personal liberty instead".
That's why I call this whole thing stupid. You ask some people to self-identify with some particular *labels*; and yet you can't even agree what those labels mean. And then you try to connect specific genes to fuzzily-defined groupings.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
If this study was worth its money, it'd ask SPECIFIC political questions, to examine correlations between SPECIFIC ideas and genes -- it wouldn't ask about the identification with such parochial, limited, and fuzzy American groupings as "conservative" and "liberal".
The "fuzzy defined groupings" are defined by liberals. Republican's aren't running for election on agendas that benefit a particular race, sex or sexual orientation but Obama appears before hispanics and calls conservatives,..."the enemy". Sharpton is busy looking out for the interest of blacks. Conservatives care about the "American" interest. The groups are stringently enforced by the liberal. Black conservatives are "uncle toms". Liberal and conservative is much broader than race, sex and sexual orientation.
quote:Liberals believe in what is best for the group and Conservatives believe in what is best for the individual. Criminals only care about themselves and victimize others.
Ahh, here's the rub. If you look at this along a spectrum--where the Most Liberal cares about everyone (Jesus?) equally, and go more and more individual importance, doesn't that put the Conservative and the Criminal next to each other.
There is a thin line between "Caring for only the individual" and "Caring for only themselves". The difference is the victimization of others. I care for your rights as an individual and abhor your rights being supressed for the greater good. Adherence to individual rights isn't selfish. The more you remove regulation the more you allow the victimization of others to be considered OK under the umbrella of "Individual Rights."
That's why we are a nation of laws. Laws defend individual rights. One party is confusing "rights" with "guarantees". A nation that protects the individual, produces the greatest good and has the greatest oportunity afforded to all the people. Governments that dictate the greater good are tyrannical and oppressive and their nations are less productive. Are intentions more important than reality? Don't feed the animals.
There is a thin line between individualism and criminalism. We live in a country that no longer can say "illegal immigrant".... Which party is undermining the law and founding principles of this nation? Law separates the individual from the criminal. It isn't illegal to work hard and become wealthy but Pelosi and Obama demonize them as "criminals". It is illegal to enter this nation without approval...they call them, "undocumented" and the courts strike down "laws" requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Our president appears before throngs of illegal aliens and calls conservative americans, "the enemy"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mal, are you conscious of the extent to which you distort the truth in your posts?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Mal, are you conscious of the extent to which you distort the truth in your posts?
Is this a rhetorical question or do you expect an answer? I assume if you could provide proof of my "distortions" you would've done so already.
I hope our next president is either the first latino or the second African American. (Actually a real African American...not a half-African American).
Rubio or West for president in 2012.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I assume if you could provide proof of my "distortions" you would've done so already.
Why do you make this assumption? Do you think that having had proof of your distortions provided to you in the past on this site has in any way altered your opinions or behavior here?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
My opinions and behavior are reflected by me. There are people following these threads that do not comment. Just as there are voters that watch political commercials. Individual comments and political commercials lack substance.
If you're going to say I "distort"....you ought to prove it. Of course Allen Grayson said that the Republican healthcare plan was, "die soon" Grayson lost election today. Assertions and statements aren't reality. Liberals don't like to debate conservatives...they resort to slander and fear mongering. I've commented on Hatrack for over two years.....finding a quote of "distortion" ought to be easy.
quote:There are people following these threads that do not comment.
You're playing to a hypothetical audience, then, instead of engaging in actual conversation?
quote:Liberals don't like to debate conservatives...they resort to slander and fear mongering. I've commented on Hatrack for over two years.....finding a quote of "distortion" ought to be easy.
Mal, what's hard is finding a quote from you that isn't distortion. The "problem" is that you always change the subject or otherwise ignore it when you're repeatedly proven wrong, and it can get a little exhausting for the rest of us to expend energy on, for example, pointing out that the quote "assertions and statements aren't reality" would be a perfect ironic rejoinder to your empty "liberals and conservatives are defined the way I say they are" assertion in another thread.
But I suspect you know this, which is why I asked -- because if you don't know this, perhaps you'll appreciate being informed.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Nations with national healthcare do have McDonalds...pay twice as much for a burger though.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There are people following these threads that do not comment.
You're playing to a hypothetical audience, then, instead of engaging in actual conversation?
quote:Liberals don't like to debate conservatives...they resort to slander and fear mongering. I've commented on Hatrack for over two years.....finding a quote of "distortion" ought to be easy.
Mal, what's hard is finding a quote from you that isn't distortion. The "problem" is that you always change the subject or otherwise ignore it when you're repeatedly proven wrong, and it can get a little exhausting for the rest of us to expend energy on, for example, pointing out that the quote "assertions and statements aren't reality" would be a perfect ironic rejoinder to your empty "liberals and conservatives are defined the way I say they are" assertion in another thread.
But I suspect you know this, which is why I asked -- because if you don't know this, perhaps you'll appreciate being informed.
Again, you made well spoken statements but failed to "prove me wrong". If, as you asert,....one simple example of my consistent distortions should be easy.
There are black conservatives and gay republicans. Liberals are the ones to stereotype. Democrats like a coalition of groups. What about the 1% of gays that are conservative republicans? Can you claim to be the party of the minority when you reject the lesbian african american conservative?
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand
Allen West and Marco Rubio are the most extreme of minorities....racial minorities that are Tea Baggers.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Mal, are you conscious of the extent to which you distort the truth in your posts?
No. We can stop wondering about this. He is legitimately clueless as opposed to being a willful distorter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Again, you made well spoken statements but failed to "prove me wrong". If, as you asert,....one simple example of my consistent distortions should be easy.
quote:Nations with national healthcare do have McDonalds...pay twice as much for a burger though.
Sure, things like burgers are slightly more expensive in Canada and the UK. Related to taxes? Perhaps.
But on the upside, free health care. I know what I'd rather have.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:That's why we are a nation of laws. Laws defend individual rights.
So the ban on use of marijuana, which *individual* right does it protect?
quote:There is a thin line between individualism and criminalism. We live in a country that no longer can say "illegal immigrant"....
Which *individual* right is protected by a ban on unrestricted immigration?
quote:It is illegal to enter this nation without approval...
Because of a law that by following *your* own logic is tyrannical and oppressive as it doesn't defend an *individual* right, but instead the collective right of citizens to determine who enters their nation.
Mind you I support such a collective right: I believe the citizens of nation should have the right to determine who else is free to enter their nation. But it comes in contrast to *your* logic, which seems to believe only the defense of individual rights as valid, and everything else "oppressive" and "tyrannical".
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)