Netrunner2k2
Member
I wasn't a whiny baby, but I'm a conservative. 
Where does that leave me?
I did eat paint once though.
Where does that leave me?I did eat paint once though.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
For ToxicAdam: Whiny babies grow up to be Conservatives
- Thread starter Incognito
- Start date
- Status
Whatever, search/replace my post with "companies" and the point is the same. Faulting liberals' distrust of companies as proof that they don't believe humanity being innately good-natured and deserving of pity is complete bullshit.Hitokage said:I was not specifically referring to the corporate form in that post.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
yeah, 100 kids is a great sampling of the american population
Don't pat yourself on the back too quickly, champ. I don't think the interpretation of the study's data is sound (for which I mainly blame this article and the way it was posted to GAF as obvious trollbait), but only an idiot would think the study itself was "illegitimate" because they didn't use a control group. You can criticise scientific studies when you learn the meaning of the term "natural experiment."Dr_Cogent said:
Howard Alan Treesong
Member
terrene said:
terrene, you should give it up! It is obvious that this Berkeley professor's findings are just a theory.
Jagwire1141
Banned
^ Hey, don't criticise him!
Crab Shaker
Doesn't pay his sources
*blinks at thread and how it's being taken waaay too seriously*
videogamer
Banned
Theory in the colloquial sense or the scientific sense?Synthesizer Patel said:
Even worse, the only thing that the behavior of corporations gauge is the answer to the question "could you live with doing something selfish and/or short-sighted for a whole fucking lot of money?"Flynn said:
But no, if you think regulating corporations is a good idea, you think mankind is innately evil.
Pretty telling of the Republican mindset, if that's their opinion. Ironically, they're the one group of people who manage to shake my faith.
terrene said:
I'm a half libertarian. I believe that the government should protect the rights of the individual. If two individuals attempt to impose themselves upon a single individual, the government should side on the single person.
So I'm against, for the most part, eminant domain and for heavy regulation of huge businesses. I don't think they have a party for that.
DavidDayton said:
In the purest sense, yes. But no such socio-political vaccum exists. Just as a true, pure communism or democracy can't work.
Also, that theory isn't taking power into consideration in the Machiavellian sense. All things aren't equal when you take the President or a dictator and put him in the same room as Joe Six-Pack. The President's power is bestowed by the populace and is therefore greater than an individuals. A dictators is strengthened by his supporters, his junta and his muscle.
I think the great thing about our government is that it's built to undermine itself, so that not only will we be not saddled with a dictator, but we've also got multiple fail safe branches to prevent other branches from becoming too powerful. I think the founders understood the failings of man and societies and came up with a pretty decent way to absorb or at least soften the damage that we could self-inflict.
(And I like that this thread is being taken seriously)
There isn't; there isn't a party for my beliefs, either, which is to the left of the Democrats but not off the charts like the idiotic Green Party. Voting is an exercise in interpolation; the only thing that keeps me from feeling dirty afterwards is the feeling that at least I tried.Flynn said:
Flynn said:
See, I don't believe that groups of folks are inherently evil -- I will say, though, that I partially agree with you. A tyranny would be the greatest government if you had a truly good tyrant; however, as we simply don't have any, a democracy (or democratic republic, or something like that) is the next best thing, as it prevents anyone from actually taking control. We have to all work together for the common good, for fear of someone trying to put one over on us. I don't think we're that badly off, though.
I will say that I hate the concept of corporations and stock. Companies run by families, individuals, and private parties are good, as the folks running it simply want to run the company; once you introduce outside shareholders, the company shifts from "getting by and taking care of the staff" to "make money at all costs". If you could keep all companies privately owned and operated, I think they'd be much better off.
DavidDayton said:
I think than all man has the capability to good and the capability to do evil. I don't believe in monsters. I believe though, that evil will find an opportunity and take it. The reason I distrust man en mass is that numbers are a way of mitigating guilt. Your problem with publicly held corporations is a perfect example of this. Because ownership has been disassociated from management and the workers, it's easier to abuse employees, destroy the environment and rip off the public because guilt and responsibility can be spread across the thousands involved.
Its the same philosiphy that allowed the fascists to rope in so many seemingly decent folks in the last century. Working as a group (and doing ugly things) for some better good.
Wafflecopter
Banned
Political affiliations are useless.
Political "debates" with others solve nothing.
Niether care about what the other wants to say.
Political "debates" with others solve nothing.
Niether care about what the other wants to say.
I don't think political affiliations in this case are as important as the idea that kids that're more confident grow up to feel less obligated to conform as adults. The connection is that I think conservatives are by nature conformist, while liberals aren't.
At least from my own anecdotal evidence, I would say that this makes sense. My brother and I were completely different as kids. I was willing to do things on my own and be self-reliant, while my little bro would always cling to the other adults. Now, as more or less adults, he tries hard to be a conformer, while...I don't.
At least from my own anecdotal evidence, I would say that this makes sense. My brother and I were completely different as kids. I was willing to do things on my own and be self-reliant, while my little bro would always cling to the other adults. Now, as more or less adults, he tries hard to be a conformer, while...I don't.
Wafflecopter said:
The U.S. Constitution was written as the result of long, difficult political debate.
I like to discuss ideas like this for the selfish reason that talking them out helps me discover what I really feel. And, hearing opposing viewpoints almost always redirect my way of thinking. Never 180 degrees, but quite often I can see my way of thinking slightly deflected in a different direction by another's input.
As far as I'm concerned so long as we're free to discuss, we win.
DavidDayton said:
It's true. And their efforts are all the more valliant because they have to overcome the difficulties that humans have in doing good as a group. It's possible to do good as a group, but not as likely as doing bad.
Ever hear of a huge mob inadvertantly doing something good? Not often. But a huge mob inadvertantly doing some evil is a story retold every day.
terrene said:
:lol
This explains a lot.
terrene said:
Natural Experiment?
:lol
Thank you. You have proven my point. Assuming that every other input was held constant for the 100 kids is idiotic to begin with - which further proves my point. The study is useless and is only good as propoganda for idealogs who can't think for themselves. Take a bow.
Spainkiller
the man who sold the world
I say we have more worthwhile posts from Flynn, and less worthless posts from Dr_Cogent. Conservative vs Liberal is always interesting while people debate policies and ideas. When it turns into low-level regurgitating of what you overheard your parents saying at the dinner table when you were twelve... well, we're left with festering crap.
Maybe to a partisan moron who can't get his head out of his ass long enough to see that something that contradicts his narrow view of the world actually exists and has merit.Dr_Cogent said:
Someone looked up a word all by themselves!Dr_Cogent said:
Nothing has further proven your point. Your point was: "lack of controlled tests FTW!" which is hogwash. Now that you've looked the term up and found that natural experiments are indeed a valid way of conducting research, your point is invalid. Your laughter proves naught but your own stubborness and possible retardation. But I'll let you enjoy yourself; it's bad form to mock the handicapped.
I see you think that I have endorsed this article and it's conclusions based solely on the fact that I know what a natural experiment is. That's very interesting!Dr_Cogent said:
...I have some fingerpaint you can play with...?
Dr_Cogent: Bad form doesn't mean incorrect, in this case anyway. Natural experiments are for when controlled experiments are either prohibitive or impossible. If used correctly, they can and have been a great source of information you wouldn't otherwise have obtained. Your tiger rock example is just a case of broken logic.
Besides, your insistence on attacking a person's platform rather than the arguments made from that platform isn't much better than personal insults. Of course, you also haven't considered that the study and the article covering the study are two entirely different things. The study, although certainly not conclusive, may or may not have merit, but it's not easy to tell given this one treatment of it.
Besides, your insistence on attacking a person's platform rather than the arguments made from that platform isn't much better than personal insults. Of course, you also haven't considered that the study and the article covering the study are two entirely different things. The study, although certainly not conclusive, may or may not have merit, but it's not easy to tell given this one treatment of it.
AdmiralViscen
Banned
Mercury Fred said:
Did you need this?
LOL CUZ HES WHINING AMIRITE??
Conservatives: Disagree with me, and you're biased/unAmerican.
Liberals: Disagree with me, and you're a whiner/simpleton.
Democracy FTW!
We're not even debating. You were ignorant of a certain type of scientific approach, and I corrected you. It's done. I agree with you that the study is flawed, you're just refuse to acknowledge this because I admitted that I am liberal. (And because of your possible retardation).Dr_Cogent said:
Oh, and I suppose calling me an "idealog (sic) who can't think for himself" was some kind of logical trickery that has thus far eluded GAF, and not any kind of nasty "insult" that you're so above, am I right?
terrene said:
No, actually - I was not ignorant of what you were suggesting. I still think that the conclusions drawn upon by the article and the test are bogus and irrelevent. You can disagree all you like.
No trickery at all either. I spoke my mind. You went off immediately in this thread making blanket name calling statements about all Republicans -obviously speaking your mind as well. I call em as I see them. I did not, however, just start throwing around the name calling like you have. If you want any respect, maybe you should clean up your act.
Oh, and for the record, I already think the Democrats are much to far to the left as a whole (not on an individual basis like Joe Lieberman for instance), so when someone says they are even farther to the left than them - warning alarms go off in my head.
Oh, and calling me a partisan - that was funny. You have no idea what my personal politcal beliefs are on the whole - so keep the BS to yourself please.
Instigator
Banned
Dr_Cogent said:
Maybe they are by limited American standards, but by traditional standards, Democrats are a center-right party with leanings towards the dead center and sometimes, the actual left, but those are the very fringes of the party.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked