NationStates Jolt Archive

The words, that is. Both words are absurd labels with inconsistent meanings that associate separate opinions on separate subjects with each other on a questionable basis at best. For my 750th post (kinda, though that'd be thrown off by my deleting spree a while back) I've decided to do another rant on ideology labels.

The most common distinction I hear is that "conservatism" is supposed to be traditionalist and conventional, whereas "liberalism" is not. If I was to go by this distinction, I'd find liberalism rather appealing. But there's many views associated with "liberalism" that I don't find quite appealing, nor consider to be particularily progressive or unconventional:

- Dismissal of race-intelligence studies as "racism" instead of calling for further studies and more careful scientific analysis so as to see if they're valid
- Dismissal of more scientifically valid gender differences as "sexism" regardless of their basis in biology and evolutionary psychology
- Labelling anti-abortionists "woman hating neanderthals" even if in response to anti-abortion women, including those who themselves express views that could be arguably considered reverse sexist
- Supporting reverse-discrimination policies like Affirmative Action while claiming it's anti-discrimination
- Being against experiments on animals even though they create treatments that save human lives, because animals are supposedly "innocent" (epsecially the cute ones) even though those not raised by humans happen to have a bit of a lawless survival-of-the-fittest structure in the wild, which wouldn't seem much more humane than the lab...
- Blaming "big oil" for high gas prices instead of the public for not cutting back on fossil fuel use enough to decrease demand
- Being against genetically engineered crops, which could save hundreds of millions of third world lives, (and arguably already have) because they're "not natural"; as if they've never used anything artificial, as if artificial things being an indirect result of the natural world doesn't make the distinction questionable, and as if real-life circumstances of "nature" (ie. survival of the fittest) are somehow something ideal

I doubt these are inherently tied to rejecting tradition, convention, etc. To me, tradition is a word without a meaning, until you specify WHOSE traditions you're referring to (sometimes what was considered traditional in the past wouldn't have been considered traditional in the past before then) and why you should adhere to them. In that sense, I guess I'd be a "liberal" despite holding some "conservative" beliefs. But why should non-tradition be associated with a particular set of beliefs? Wouldn't that be, ironically, similar to tradition?

If one means to distinguish between what avoids tradition and convention, and what clings to it, the real distinction should be between science and non-science, since science works by progressively improving explanations, using unconventional ideas like special relativity if they are more compatible with the facts than conventional ones, and analyzing things objectively. And at least some of the opinions I've listed above seem to have more to do with the influence of parasitic non-science, which tends to affect "liberals" and "conservatives" alike.

- Dismissal of race-intelligence studies as "racism" instead of calling for further studies and more careful scientific analysis so as to see if they're valid

I understand your qualms, but this is done as a pragmatic measure - some just think it's not worth giving fuel to the nationalists, in order to gain some trivial information about IQ differences and other stuff between races.


- Supporting reverse-discrimination policies like Affirmative Action while claiming it's anti-discrimination

I don't think they say that, in fact they regularly use the term positive discrimination.


- Being against experiments on animals even though they create treatments that save human lives, because animals are supposedly "innocent" (epsecially the cute ones) even though those not raised by humans happen to have a bit of a lawless survival-of-the-fittest structure in the wild, which wouldn't seem much more humane than the lab...

I don't think being against animal testing is inherent in liberalism.


-snip-

The rest is a little tl;dr :)

*Great Wall of Text*

yeah, I aint tackelin that shit, lol...

and liberals eat babies! The real difference between the parties is their pro baby eating/anti baby eating platforms!

Or, in other words, wtf is this shit?

- Dismissal of race-intelligence studies as "racism" instead of calling for further studies and more careful scientific analysis so as to see if they're valid

Proof of this?

The main reason for the rejection of this stems from wanting to treat people as equals and allowing them to rise and fall on their own merits instead of judging them based on the findings of a study, which could likely wind up being taken with a grain of salt.

- Dismissal of more scientifically valid gender differences as "sexism" regardless of their basis in biology and evolutionary psychology

Aside from sexual physical characteristics, the differences aren't that stark. With physical training, both genders can achieve the same things. Yes there are differences, but in favour of equality, the differences should come out through a demonstration of skill and not a blanket study that says that "because of X, Y is therefore true".

No two people are truly the same.

- Labelling anti-abortionists "woman hating neanderthals" even if in response to anti-abortion women, including those who themselves express views that could be arguably considered reverse sexist

I don't ever recall hearing that before. Your source for this?

During any abortion debate, my stance as a socialist has always been that those who oppose abortion are anti-choice, regardless of their gender. I've noticed others who could be considered "liberals" take the same general view. They seek to remove the power of choice from the hands of the woman (and maybe the man too; not all those who seek abortion are single women, there are married women...).

- Supporting reverse-discrimination policies like Affirmative Action while claiming it's anti-discrimination

Once again, another blanket statement. Where's the proof?

It's still discrimination and there are many who would oppose it.

- Being against experiments on animals even though they create treatments that save human lives, because animals are supposedly "innocent" (epsecially the cute ones) even though those not raised by humans happen to have a bit of a lawless survival-of-the-fittest structure in the wild, which wouldn't seem much more humane than the lab...

Once again, another unsubstantiated claim. Back this up, and please don't use PETA; it is not the most reputable of sources.

Some of us support such treatment.

- Blaming "big oil" for high gas prices instead of the public for not cutting back on fossil fuel use enough to decrease demand

Oh, assuming you know the "liberals" well, eh? If you did, you could also include a little note about how we blame SUV drivers, and want to see the eradication of SUVs, since these vehicles require the most fuel and see these vehicles replaced with hybrids (not the best, but a step in the right direction), electric cars (one day, one day...) and maybe smaller more fuel-efficient vehicles.

I know I blame the public. Then again, I don't even have a driver's license and I take public transit...

- Being against genetically engineered crops, which could save hundreds of millions of third world lives, (and arguably already have) because they're "not natural"; as if they've never used anything artificial, as if artificial things being an indirect result of the natural world doesn't make the distinction questionable, and as if real-life circumstances of "nature" (ie. survival of the fittest) are somehow something ideal

Funny, I don't ever remember having a problem with that... Though I do have a problem with it when we can't modify the food to grow in the harshest of climates.

I understand your qualms, but this is done as a pragmatic measure - some just think it's not worth giving fuel to the nationalists
But why should science have to bend over backwards because non-science would abuse its findings? Should we have stopped nuclear physics from progressing because that was used to develop nuclear weapons?

I don't think they say that, in fact they regularly use the term positive discrimination.
Irrelevant. The point is, they're using more discrimination to supposedly counter the effects of past discrimination. Having government prohibit some kinds of discrimination and substitute their own.

I don't think being against animal testing is inherent in liberalism.
True, but from what I've heard it seems to be associated with liberalism.

The rest is a little tl;dr
Well, I'll cut down on the length of the post, then. It isn't too late, is it?

But why should science have to bend over backwards because non-science would abuse its findings? Should we have stopped nuclear physics from progressing because that was used to develop nuclear weapons?


Irrelevant. The point is, they're using more discrimination to supposedly counter the effects of past discrimination. Having government prohibit some kinds of discrimination and substitute their own.


True, but from what I've heard it seems to be associated with liberalism.


The point of this, it doesn't really have much similarity with where social conservatives come from.


Well, I'll cut down on the length of the post, then. It isn't too late, is it?

You can edit your OP whenever I think.

The problem with this post it is a, yet again, long listed winged of "grrr, liberals do stuff!" without any substantiation, evidence, or even a whiff of intellectual honesty. It doesn't even come close to actually understanding the issues, and the sometimes complex nuances of arguments for and against things like animal testing, racial "studies" and oil consumption, but just instead makes broad brush strokes in order to prove the so called point, talking about "what liberals do", and when faced with the inevitable dismissal of "uh, no we don't" falls invariably back on "well, in MY experience"...like your experience means a damn.

There's a better point by point refutation of this, but frankly I have neither the time nor inclination, and will leave for more adventurous souls, like the long haired woman sitting next to me.

- Dismissal of race-intelligence studies as "racism" instead of calling for further studies and more careful scientific analysis so as to see if they're valid

Proof that "liberals" are against careful scientific analysis, please? Personally, I have no problem with scientifically valid studies. Sadly for you, I fear all of those have pretty much come up with results like "race is not a remotely accurate predictor of intelligence."

- Dismissal of more scientifically valid gender differences as "sexism" regardless of their basis in biology and evolutionary psychology

Yup, I regularly hear liberals disputing the fact that women have vaginae instead of penises. Those BASTARDS.

....or were you talking about something else? Because, if so, as a female former math prodigy, I'd just love to hear it.


- Labelling anti-abortionists "woman hating neanderthals" even if in response to anti-abortion women, including those who themselves express views that could be arguably considered reverse sexist

Evidence that liberals as a whole - or, hell, even one or two liberals - use that particular phrase?

I also rather love your idea that liberals should not criticize women who want to take away other women's rights, because...um...they're women. Makes perfect sense, except for the part where it doesn't at all.

- Supporting reverse-discrimination policies like Affirmative Action while claiming it's anti-discrimination

Yeah, we're TERRIBLE like that. We say things like, "Please stop hiring the white guys just because they're white guys." How discriminatory of us!

(Countdown until someone starts whining about quotas: 10...9...8...)

- Being against experiments on animals even though they create treatments that save human lives, because animals are supposedly "innocent" (epsecially the cute ones) even though those not raised by humans happen to have a bit of a lawless survival-of-the-fittest structure in the wild, which wouldn't seem much more humane than the lab...

Evidence that this is in any way a "liberal" position? If we're pulling things out of our asses and pretending that makes for a valid argument, I can point out that the most hardcore animal-rights activist I've ever personally encountered was a conservative Christian. Clearly, all conservatives agree with her!

By the way, I love your helpful point that animals are typically not terribly humane to each other. Go figure! It's almost like that would be right there in the definition of the word or something!

- Blaming "big oil" for high gas prices instead of the public for not cutting back on fossil fuel use enough to decrease demand

......I don't even know where to begin with this, so I think I'll just sit here and laugh.

- Being against genetically engineered crops, which could save hundreds of millions of third world lives, (and arguably already have) because they're "not natural"; as if they've never used anything artificial, as if artificial things being an indirect result of the natural world doesn't make the distinction questionable, and as if real-life circumstances of "nature" (ie. survival of the fittest) are somehow something ideal

Again, evidence that this position is remotely representative of "liberal" thought?

Evidence, further, that "survival of the fittest" doesn't tend to lead to things that are, y'know, more fit for their environment? Crazy, I know...

A bit rant-tacular, especially where a lot of things are concerned, ideas that "liberals" possess these ideas when the majority of people who could possibly come under that vague and misleading label don't in fact have them.

All you've really done here is list a few things that some liberals might support and some might not, you havn't really proved any similarities between conservatism and liberalism.

Also your definitions of liberalism and conservatism are very vague and not entirely accurate.

The words, that is. Both words are absurd labels with inconsistent meanings that associate separate opinions on separate subjects with each other on a questionable basis at best. For my 750th post (kinda, though that'd be thrown off by my deleting spree a while back) I've decided to do another rant on ideology labels.

The most common distinction I hear is that "conservatism" is supposed to be traditionalist and conventional, whereas "liberalism" is not. If I was to go by this distinction, I'd find liberalism rather appealing. But there's many views associated with "liberalism" that I don't find quite appealing, nor consider to be particularily progressive or unconventional:

- Dismissal of race-intelligence studies as "racism" instead of calling for further studies and more careful scientific analysis so as to see if they're valid
- Dismissal of more scientifically valid gender differences as "sexism" regardless of their basis in biology and evolutionary psychology
- Labelling anti-abortionists "woman hating neanderthals" even if in response to anti-abortion women, including those who themselves express views that could be arguably considered reverse sexist
- Supporting reverse-discrimination policies like Affirmative Action while claiming it's anti-discrimination
- Being against experiments on animals even though they create treatments that save human lives, because animals are supposedly "innocent" (epsecially the cute ones) even though those not raised by humans happen to have a bit of a lawless survival-of-the-fittest structure in the wild, which wouldn't seem much more humane than the lab...
- Blaming "big oil" for high gas prices instead of the public for not cutting back on fossil fuel use enough to decrease demand
- Being against genetically engineered crops, which could save hundreds of millions of third world lives, (and arguably already have) because they're "not natural"; as if they've never used anything artificial, as if artificial things being an indirect result of the natural world doesn't make the distinction questionable, and as if real-life circumstances of "nature" (ie. survival of the fittest) are somehow something ideal

I doubt these are inherently tied to rejecting tradition, convention, etc. To me, tradition is a word without a meaning, until you specify WHOSE traditions you're referring to (sometimes what was considered traditional in the past wouldn't have been considered traditional in the past before then) and why you should adhere to them. In that sense, I guess I'd be a "liberal" despite holding some "conservative" beliefs. But why should non-tradition be associated with a particular set of beliefs? Wouldn't that be, ironically, similar to tradition?

If one means to distinguish between what avoids tradition and convention, and what clings to it, the real distinction should be between science and non-science, since science works by progressively improving explanations, using unconventional ideas like special relativity if they are more compatible with the facts than conventional ones, and analyzing things objectively. And at least some of the opinions I've listed above seem to have more to do with the influence of parasitic non-science, which tends to affect "liberals" and "conservatives" alike.

All your post "proves" is that you not only don't really understand the common US meanings of liberal and conservative, you also don't understand a whole list of issues that you allege are liberal beliefs.

Not worth my time to correct your misunderstandings on such a wide range of stuff.

The most common distinction I hear is that "conservatism" is supposed to be traditionalist and conventional, whereas "liberalism" is not.

This is a stupid definition, because it is at odds both with the way the terms are actually used and because "anti-tradition" or "pro-tradition" are just not actual ideologies people have prior to any analysis of what those traditions are.

A conservative would oppose socialist traditions. A liberal would support traditions of tolerance and equality.

If I was to go by this distinction, I'd find liberalism rather appealing.

I doubt it, unless you are a wholly mindless rebel.

But there's many views associated with "liberalism" that I don't find quite appealing,

Probably because you aren't actually a liberal--or not a very strong one.

What does that have to do with the worth of the termss?

(I'm snipping out your series of straw men, confusions, and overgeneralizations, because debating them will get us off-topic.)

I doubt these are inherently tied to rejecting tradition, convention, etc.

You're right. They're not, not even depicted correctly. A "liberal" is not someone who is against "tradition" or "convention" in abstract.

In that sense, I guess I'd be a "liberal" despite holding some "conservative" beliefs.

No, in that case you'd simply be a reasonable person who has thought for a moment about the meaning of "tradition" and the variety of things that have been "traditional."

If one means to distinguish between what avoids tradition and convention, and what clings to it, the real distinction should be between science and non-science, since science works by progressively improving explanations, using unconventional ideas like special relativity if they are more compatible with the facts than conventional ones, and analyzing things objectively.

This is meaningless in the context of political ideology. Two people can both claim to uphold science and reason and still disagree completely about politics.

And at least some of the opinions I've listed above seem to have more to do with the influence of parasitic non-science, which tends to affect "liberals" and "conservatives" alike.

You might think so. Other people do not.

The main reason for the rejection of this stems from wanting to treat people as equals and allowing them to rise and fall on their own merits instead of judging them based on the findings of a study, which could likely wind up being taken with a grain of salt.
Obviously we should judge people as individuals instead of as groups regardless of the collective differences. But you'd need to see more research done on this in order to find out whether or not it will be taken with a grain of salt.

By the way, I'm basing this on second-semester psychology at MUN. My professor pointed out that it's true that, as a whole, whites are less intelligent than asians and more intelligent than blacks or hispanics, but that people would be afraid to point this out in the US because of the racial tensions there.

No two people are truly the same.
And that's why people should be judged as individuals, not as groups. However, people should still realize that there is scientific reasoning that supports some of the generalizations considered taboo in our society.

I don't ever recall hearing that before. You source for this?
Well, the exact phrase "woman hating neanderthal" was from a link that was in my favourites section before my computer crashed, and trying to find it the same way I first came across it hasn't worked. I still have other examples of the "woman haters" part though...

http://www.themuse.ca/view.php?aid=40931

http://www.themuse.ca/view.php?aid=40475

During any abortion debate, my stance as a socialist has always been that those who oppose abortion are anti-choice
That label sounds simplistic to me, though. It focuses on "choice" rather than addressing that these people think of a fetus as a "human being" and want to give them rights under the law, and that's the relevant point that needs to be refuted. Besides, how is that a "socialist" position? My dad considers himself socialist and even he's anti-abortion.

Once again, another blanket statement. Where's the proof?
Note that I said these are views ASSOCIATED WITH liberalism, not that I think "liberals" all hold these views; in fact the very point of this thread is to use such examples AGAINST ideology labels in the first place. So if you actually think I'm actually trying to promote such labelling, then you have it backwards at best.

If you did, you could also include a little note about how we blame SUV drivers
... who still aren't the sole problem. Cars still use fossil fuels, and they still pollute, even if not as much as SUVs. A real solution would involve kicking the automobile addiction altogether, and taking public transit if you live in a city, or riding bicycle if you live in a small town.

In any case, my point was that the idea that high gas prices are the fault of "big oil" (and the apparent unwillingness to blame consumers) seems to be an idea I've often notice being associated with liberalism. See my earlier point about how this thread was arguing AGAINST such labels in the first place.

Obviously we should judge people as individuals instead of as groups regardless of the collective differences. But you'd need to see more research done on this in order to find out whether or not it will be taken with a grain of salt.

By the way, I'm basing this on second-semester psychology at MUN. My professor pointed out that it's true that, as a whole, whites are less intelligent than asians and more intelligent than blacks or hispanics, but that people would be afraid to point this out in the US because of the racial tensions there.

No mention of socio-economic status as an indicator of intelligence? No mention of the type of environment people come from? Natural intelligence only gets so far before there has to be a certain amount of teaching to improve on it. Has your professor for the subject covering this matter addressed the correlation between one's start in life versus their intelligence? Any mention of early education?

And that's why people should be judged as individuals, not as groups. However, people should still realize that there is scientific reasoning that supports some of the generalizations considered taboo in our society.

Even if there is, it should be considered secondary.

"Liberals" make it secondary for reasons of equality, not because it's taboo. By setting limits on what one can do, society is effectively limiting the success of another.

Well, the exact phrase "woman hating neanderthal" was from a link that was in my favourites section before my computer crashed, and trying to find it the same way I first came across it hasn't worked. I still have other examples of the "woman haters" part though...

http://www.themuse.ca/view.php?aid=40931
http://www.themuse.ca/view.php?aid=40475

And editorial piece. Cute. It's just one example. Ok... two, but it's the same source. These aren't exactly the most impartial things I've read in a while. It's passionate and the writer is bias to their topic.

The "woman hates" part is one person's opinion. It's not indicative of people who are pro-choice.

That label sounds simplistic to me, though. It focuses on "choice" rather than addressing that these people think of a fetus as a "human being" and want to give them rights under the law, and that's the relevant point that needs to be refuted. Besides, how is that a "socialist" position? My dad considers himself socialist and even he's anti-abortion.

This is an abortion debate question and I'm going to avoid turning this thread into a debate about abortion. I will just say this: choice is linked to whether or not the woman wants to go through with the pregnancy.

Even if one considers themselves one way, they don't have to support everything in that area.

Note that I said these are views ASSOCIATED WITH liberalism, not that I think "liberals" all hold these views; in fact the very point of this thread is to use such examples AGAINST ideology labels in the first place. So if you actually think I'm actually trying to promote such labelling, then you have it backwards at best.

Your tone implied as much.

... who still aren't the sole problem. Cars still use fossil fuels, and they still pollute, even if not as much as SUVs. A real solution would involve kicking the automobile addiction altogether, and taking public transit if you live in a city, or riding bicycle if you live in a small town.

Which is impractical in Canada for the most part. I've noticed your location says Newfoundland; not exactly a place known for its hot weather is it?

Not all vehicles are a problem. The ones that consume fossil fuels and have high levels of green house emissions are. If we could harness the power of electric vehicles and ones that run on alternative fuel while have zero emissions, we could achieve the same goal without making life difficult for those who lack mobility.

In any case, my point was that the idea that high gas prices are the fault of "big oil" (and the apparent unwillingness to blame consumers) seems to be an idea I've often notice being associated with liberalism. See my earlier point about how this thread was arguing AGAINST such labels in the first place.

It becomes hard to blame people when there is a dependency because of different factors, such as urban planning, which has caused cities in Canada and the US to be rather spread out as opposed to tightly planned.

Though, I have to wonder... have you paid attention to gas prices? I realise the prices may be higher in Newfoundland, as it's partly an island, which makes it harder to transport fuel there. In general though, prices are much lower.

The words, that is. Both words are absurd labels with inconsistent meanings that associate separate opinions on separate subjects with each other on a questionable basis at best.


This is handy. You've included the rebuttal to your rant about 'liberalism' at the top of the post. More people should be so considerate.

Proof that "liberals" are against careful scientific analysis, please? Personally, I have no problem with scientifically valid studies. Sadly for you, I fear all of those have pretty much come up with results like "race is not a remotely accurate predictor of intelligence."

Not to mention that "race" itself is an unscientific catagory. Those "scientific" studies are predicated on subject self-selecting into cultural constructs or the observer superficially dividing the subjects into said catagories, not the observer's classing the subjects into actual scientific ones based on real, significant biological differences.

Proof that "liberals" are against careful scientific analysis, please?
I wasn't saying they were specifically against that; I was saying that the notion of fighting these studies instead of giving those who conduct them time to elaborate seems to be associated with "liberalism"

....or were you talking about something else? Because, if so, as a female former math prodigy, I'd just love to hear it.
Well, I'm not sure how scientifically relevant the one about math is, though I'm a guy who failed integral calculus twice. I feel more odd about some of the other gender differences myself, but truth is stranger than fiction. Since your point was about intellectual skills, if I recall correctly from second-semester psychology, females tend to be better at things like communication skills (ie. verbally) whereas males tend to be better at things like judging spatial distances (something valuable for males' hunting role during our evolutionary history, though granted, I'm not sure how valuable it is to understanding math); there will always be exceptions to a rule, so if it's appropriate to say that if someone is very mature for their age, why is it not appropriate to say that someone is very mathematical for their gender? And that's not even getting into personality differences caused by our hormones, but that's another story.

Evidence that liberals as a whole - or, hell, even one or two liberals - use that particular phrase?
See my response to Kryozerkia.

I also rather love your idea that liberals should not criticize women who want to take away other women's rights, because...um...they're women.
That's not what I meant. I meant that the notion that you'd have to be a "woman hater" or "anti-choice" to oppose abortion is questionable enough, but it's more obvious how questionable it is when women who are hardly ashamed of being women express anti-abortion beliefs. Rather than playing the gender card, people should focus on the more relevant aspects of the issue.

Yeah, we're TERRIBLE like that. We say things like, "Please stop hiring the white guys just because they're white guys." How discriminatory of us!
There's a difference between trying to stop businesspeople from using racial discrimination in their hiring policies and pushing for preferential treatment of racial minorities... which is also discrimination.

Evidence that this is in any way a "liberal" position? If we're pulling things out of our asses and pretending that makes for a valid argument
Before you jump the gun and make overblown accusations, consider that I was saying that these were views ASSOCIATED WITH liberalism, and that I was using them as examples AGAINST ideology labels. As I said to Kryozerkia, if you think I'm arguing FOR ideology labels, you have it backwards at best.

I think you're the one talking out of your ass here.

And no, it isn't an exclusively liberal position, but when one notices people who respond to some argument against animal rights with "these people must be right-wing conservative rednecks" and sees animal rights people associated with "left-wing hippies" one can't help but get the impression that it's CONSIDERED liberal. And THAT is the point I was making.

If liberals and consevatives are very similar why have you gone on to complain about liberal traits with no conservative ones for comparison?

- Dismissal of race-intelligence studies as "racism" instead of calling for further studies and more careful scientific analysis so as to see if they're valid

They've been studied. In depth. They've been debunked. How many studies do we have to do to conclude that the earth is definitively not flat?

- Dismissal of more scientifically valid gender differences as "sexism" regardless of their basis in biology and evolutionary psychology

I don't see a lot of "liberals" saying there are no differences between men and women. That would be rather stupid, since there is a very large chromosomal difference between MOST men and women. I usually see "liberals" saying that men and women shouldn't have special rules made for each of them because of what they've got in their pants.

- Labelling anti-abortionists "woman hating neanderthals" even if in response to anti-abortion women, including those who themselves express views that could be arguably considered reverse sexist

Women can't hate themselves? News to me.

- Supporting reverse-discrimination policies like Affirmative Action while claiming it's anti-discrimination

And the ignorance continues.

I don't have time to respond to the rest of this nonsense. You took a word, defined it yourself, and then said the definition was ridiculous. Nice job.

They've been studied. In depth. They've been debunked. How many studies do we have to do to conclude that the earth is definitively not flat?


Idk...First everyone in the world must see it in its entirety...

Then there's several other Universes, Realities and States of Matter to consider...

This could take awhile...and Get Pricey, lol...

if I recall correctly from second-semester psychology

Wow, freshman psychology. Truly you are the god who walks amongst men.

females tend to be better at things like communication skills (ie. verbally) whereas males tend to be better at things like judging spatial distances (something valuable for males' hunting role during our evolutionary history, though granted, I'm not sure how valuable it is to understanding math);

Ooooooh, I understand now. I was under the impression that when you used phrases like "evolutionary psychology" you were actually aware of HOW our evolution progressed. Since you're spouting the line of bullshit wherein the women hung around the campfire waiting for the menfolk to do the hunting, obviously...I was in error. That explains a lot.

so if it's appropriate to say that if someone is very mature for their age, why is it not appropriate to say that someone is very mathematical for their gender?

Because age is a general factor for maturity (that's kinda what the term means, after all), yet to say "you're very mathematical for your gender" assumes that gender plays a role in ones mathematical abilities. Which is falling into the category of dumb shit you've been saying.

That's not what I meant. I meant that the notion that you'd have to be a "woman hater" or "anti-choice" to oppose abortion is questionable enough,

No. It's not. Do you want women to have the choice to have abortion? No. Then you're against them having that choice. That makes you anti-choice. By very definition. If you don't want women to be able to have an abortion, you're against giving them the choice to have an abortion. I fail to see what's so "questionable" about that, to anyone who has even the most tenuous grasp of the English language.


but it's more obvious how questionable it is when women who are hardly ashamed of being women express anti-abortion beliefs. Rather than playing the gender card, people should focus on the more relevant aspects of the issue.

The only one "playing the gender card" here is you, with your base assumption that, just because a woman does it means suddenly it's not "anti women". A woman who is against giving other women (and herself, but you'd be amazed at all the stories of so called "pro life" women who sneak in the back way to abortion clinics when they think nobody's looking, but, you know, it's always different for THEM) is against giving a choice to women. The fact that she IS ALSO A WOMEN doesn't make her choice any less anti women. One need only look at Clarence Thomas to recognize that people can do things that run counter to their own rights.

There's no race card, except the one you're throwing down. I'm perfectly capable of recognizing a stance that is inherently against women's right, even if some women advocate for it.


There's a difference between trying to stop businesspeople from using racial discrimination in their hiring policies and pushing for preferential treatment of racial minorities... which is also discrimination.

Yes, and thankfully, we don't do that second one. I guess poli called that whole "quota" argument bullshit pretty well.

consider that I was saying that these were views ASSOCIATED WITH liberalism

Except, not really....

And no, it isn't an exclusively liberal position, but when one notices people who respond to some argument against animal rights with "these people must be right-wing conservative rednecks" and sees animal rights people associated with "left-wing hippies" one can't help but get the impression that it's CONSIDERED liberal. And THAT is the point I was making.

So your point is, that people who are ignorant about what the liberal philosophy is, incorrectly associate certain things with that philosophy?

Well...alright, ignorant people do ignorant things I suppose. That's not a terribly shocking or all together earth shattering revelation you're giving us. But thanks for pointing out your own ignorance ahead of time, it's refreshing.

To comment, neither liberalism nor conservatism implies any sort of rationale or reason, honestly they are just classifications which people with potential of being individual give up their rationale to fit into a political stratification.

I am majoring in psychology, those tests on the ethnic minorities are significant to psychology and biosociology. These tests are called racists because latinos, blacks, and natives perform poorly, while Asians and white perform well (Asians having a higher average IQ). This implies that environment effects IQ, and that the IQ can be raised, and is not entirely set in stone.

"Progressive" doesn't mean anything special, they are stupid morons like the conservatives.

So far I find Soheran's response the most appealing in the topic. I don't entirely agree with it, but I find that unlike OTHER responses claiming that I "don't understand what liberal and conservative mean" (and not saying what they WOULD mean) at least Soheran offers alternative meanings.

This is a stupid definition, because it is at odds both with the way the terms are actually used and because "anti-tradition" or "pro-tradition" are just not actual ideologies people have prior to any analysis of what those traditions are.
Agreed completely. To some extent, that was the point I was making about those definitions.

A conservative would oppose socialist traditions. A liberal would support traditions of tolerance and equality.
That makes a bit more sense, and I'd like to think I'm "liberal" by those standards as well. But examples of views I gave for which it was considered conservative to disagree with them (they aren't the only ones I disagree with either, but to me they're just the most obvious examples) aren't necessarily inherent in socialism, nor are they necessarily the result of believing in tolerance and equality.

Probably because you aren't actually a liberal--or not a very strong one.

What does that have to do with the worth of the termss?
I'm just saying that the views associated with being unconventional, or according to your definition, believing in tolerance and equality, aren't necessarily inherent in either. Until recently, I've considered myself liberal-leaning, so the "not a very strong one" part might apply...

No, in that case you'd simply be a reasonable person who has thought for a moment about the meaning of "tradition" and the variety of things that have been "traditional."
Yeah, it seems like both those who claim to be "traditionalists" and those who see tradition where it isn't necessarily there seem not to think very much about the concept of tradition.

This is meaningless in the context of political ideology. Two people can both claim to uphold science and reason and still disagree completely about politics.
No doubt. However, science and politics are connected, since they're aspects of the same human society that science has revealed much about the origins of, and I get the impression that there are many ideas, whether considered "liberal" or "conservative" that don't seem to appreciate what science has proven.

You might think so. Other people do not.
Which people would not, which part would they disagree with, and why would they disagree with it? I don't mean to sound closed-minded, I'm just asking you to be a bit more specific.

I am majoring in psychology, those tests on the ethnic minorities are significant to psychology and biosociology. These tests are called racists because latinos, blacks, and natives perform poorly, while Asians and white perform well (Asians having a higher average IQ). This implies that environment effects IQ, and that the IQ can be raised, and is not entirely set in stone.


Yeah they talked about that in General Psychology...Id say it was the Polar Opposite of Racist, however, cause it implies that all races can have higher IQs and perform equally if raised in the proper environment...

-snip-

Shouldn't you be getting drunk right now? Or are my timezones messed up?

Shouldn't you be getting drunk right now? Or are my timezones messed up?

Your timezones are messed-up. Well, that, or Neo Art is a total lush who gets drunk in the mid-afternoon. One of those. ;)

But examples of views I gave for which it was considered conservative to disagree with them (they aren't the only ones I disagree with either, but to me they're just the most obvious examples) aren't necessarily inherent in socialism, nor are they necessarily the result of believing in tolerance and equality.

Affirmative action, opposition to sex stereotypes, strong support for abortion rights, and animal rights advocacy all have to do with different kinds of equality (and individual freedom, in the abortion case).

Anti-corporate environmental and energy analysis connects somewhat less obviously to the liberal emphasis on equality, which in respect to the economy manifests itself in a distrust of institutions owned and controlled by a small, rich minority and in an emphasis of public regulation of those institutions.

However, science and politics are connected, since they're aspects of the same human society that science has revealed much about the origins of, and I get the impression that there are many ideas, whether considered "liberal" or "conservative" that don't seem to appreciate what science has proven.

If you mean to point out that both liberals and conservatives can be irrational, I think we're all aware of that, and it proves nothing about either political ideology or about any fundamental similarity between them.

I don't mean to sound closed-minded, I'm just asking you to be a bit more specific.

The point was not to be "specific", the point is that you cannot just state dogmatically that liberal positions are "anti-science" without considering that those very same liberal positions are defended by people who certainly accept science.

This is a stupid definition, because it is at odds both with the way the terms are actually used and because "anti-tradition" or "pro-tradition" are just not actual ideologies people have prior to any analysis of what those traditions are.

A conservative would oppose socialist traditions. A liberal would support traditions of tolerance and equality.

i'm not so sure about this. it's definitely right enough for liberalism, but it looks to me that traditionalism in the abstract is key to at least some forms of conservatism. the idea, as i understand it, is that "because that's how its always been done", by itself, is supposed to count as a really good reason to continue doing it. and therefore the objection to socialist traditions is simply a matter of them not being their traditions.

of course, lots of conservative ideas seem utterly divorced from this principle. but then again, they also often seem utterly divorced from logic itself, so make of that what you will.

the idea, as i understand it, is that "because that's how its always been done", by itself, is supposed to count as a really good reason to continue doing it. and therefore the objection to socialist traditions is simply a matter of them not being their traditions.

Well, there are two separate positions here.

One: "because that's how it's always been done" is actually a good reason for something. This defense of tradition on principle would defend left-wing traditions as well as right-wing ones, and falls into neither political category.

Two: "I believe in conservative positions regardless of any particular culture's traditions, because my culture's traditions have so brought me to believe." This position is just conservatism adopted for a really bad reason, and does not amount to traditionalism on principle or in abstract (because tradition is not considered an independently good reason.)

Affirmative action, opposition to sex stereotypes, strong support for abortion rights, and animal rights advocacy all have to do with different kinds of equality (and individual freedom, in the abortion case).
Ok then, now the connection between the supposed meaning and the views associated with it makes a bit more sense. I still don't necessarily agree about the ties to equality (based on what I remember from high school economics, affirmative action sounds like reverse discrimination to me... granted, though, the teacher for that course made other claims that turned out to be inaccurate, and next semester I'm registered for introductory economics, so learning it at the university level might give me a better understanding of it) but I appreciate the moderate, reasoned approach to this.

Anti-corporate environmental and energy analysis connects somewhat less obviously to the liberal emphasis on equality, which in respect to the economy manifests itself in a distrust of institutions owned and controlled by a small, rich minority and in an emphasis of public regulation of those institutions.
I don't trust powerful organizations owned by a wealthy few either, but that doesn't translate to refusing to see how the public is also at fault.

If you mean to point out that both liberals and conservatives can be irrational, I think we're all aware of that, and it proves nothing about either political ideology or about any fundamental similarity between them.
Why not? As I pointed out earlier, for both liberals and conservatives, the irrationality seems to be a result of the influence of non-science. To me, I find looking at things from a science-centered perspective makes me less susceptible to propaganda.

The point was not to be "specific", the point is that you cannot just state dogmatically that liberal positions are "anti-science"
Thing is, I wasn't just stating dogmatically that liberal positions are anti-science; that wasn't my point at all. My point was that there are positions both liberal and conservative alike that are anti-science, and I was using this more so as an example of similarity.

The reason why I don't like conservatives is because they thought that "Oh God! Book II" was funny. They will never be forgiven and I abort babies and give jobs to minorities to make them angry.

- Dismissal of race-intelligence studies as "racism" instead of calling for further studies and more careful scientific analysis so as to see if they're valid

How do you measure intelligence?

- Dismissal of more scientifically valid gender differences as "sexism" regardless of their basis in biology and evolutionary psychology

What scientifically valid gender differences? Things like "on average, men are stronger/taller" or "women can't do math"?

- Labelling anti-abortionists "woman hating neanderthals" even if in response to anti-abortion women, including those who themselves express views that could be arguably considered reverse sexist

I have never encountered a woman who is anti-choice and espouses other views that could be considered "reverse sexist" (whatever that means).

- Supporting reverse-discrimination policies like Affirmative Action while claiming it's anti-discrimination

Yes, all liberals support this. Especially in countries where affirmative action doesn't exist (i.e. anywhere that isn't the US).

- Being against experiments on animals even though they create treatments that save human lives, because animals are supposedly "innocent" (epsecially the cute ones) even though those not raised by humans happen to have a bit of a lawless survival-of-the-fittest structure in the wild, which wouldn't seem much more humane than the lab...

a) not true of all liberals
b) there's a difference between testing medications or disease treatments on animals in a humane manner and what is often done (i.e. testing cosmetics on animals in a way that is not humane at all)

- Blaming "big oil" for high gas prices instead of the public for not cutting back on fossil fuel use enough to decrease demand

Lobbying by big oil is what keeps funding for alternative energies down as well as shutting down many products that allow consumers to cut down on their energy consumption without compromising their lifestyles (which many are unwilling to do in general, an attitude which should hopefully be changed, but this won't happen overnight).

- Being against genetically engineered crops, which could save hundreds of millions of third world lives, (and arguably already have) because they're "not natural"; as if they've never used anything artificial, as if artificial things being an indirect result of the natural world doesn't make the distinction questionable, and as if real-life circumstances of "nature" (ie. survival of the fittest) are somehow something ideal

a) not all liberals
b) it's more a problem when corporations own the rights to these plants and will sue farmers when they have corporate seeds in their farm or when they produce plants that cannot produce seeds, making it necessary to continually buy from the company instead of allowing farmers to be self-sufficient. This is putting aside the concerns about plants that naturally produce pesticides might not be good for us.

based on what I remember from high school economics, affirmative action sounds like reverse discrimination to me...

Is it racially stratifying society in the other direction? I don't think so.

I don't trust powerful organizations owned by a wealthy few either, but that doesn't translate to refusing to see how the public is also at fault.

Now you are getting into an area of nuance where broad generalizations about people of a particular political ideology do no good.

To me, I find looking at things from a science-centered perspective makes me less susceptible to propaganda.

So?

My point was that there are positions both liberal and conservative alike that are anti-science

In the liberal case, at least, this stems not from a hostility to science as such but from disagreement with the particular scientific conclusions that you think are justified.

Yes, both liberals and conservatives are human beings. Politically, not alike.

How do you measure intelligence?
o.o Standardized IQ tests. Have you done any university psychology courses?

What scientifically valid gender differences? Things like "on average, men are stronger/taller" or "women can't do math"?
Somewhere in between. Stuff like "women, having been of the more maternal role in evolution, are more inclined to the nurturing side, and their skills in general tend to be more of the verbal and communication skills whereas men tend to be skilled more at judging spatial distance, but in any case there will always be exceptions to a rule"

I have never encountered a woman who is anti-choice and espouses other views that could be considered "reverse sexist" (whatever that means).
Meaning "sexist against men instead of sexist against women"; the specific example I was talking about was Elizabeth May, (leader of the Canadian Green Party) a woman who when she thought she was going to be kept out of the leaders' debate claimed that it was because the media officials and leaders of the other parties were men, yet when she makes somewhat over-the-top anti-abortion comments, people respond by claiming that it "reeks of the same crap being spewed by right wingers" etc.

a) not true of all liberals
I never said such things were. I was using these things as examples to refute what I thought was the most mainstream/popular distinction between "liberal" and "conservative"; as I said to a couple other people in this thread, if you think I was supporting these ideology labels, you have it backwards at best...

there's a difference between testing medications or disease treatments on animals in a humane manner and what is often done (i.e. testing cosmetics on animals in a way that is not humane at all)
I agree that cosmetics testing is unnecessary, and I just wish they could base such testing on its necessity and meaningfulness... trouble is, one might argue that animals either have rights or they don't and it makes no difference why such rights would be violated...

Lobbying by big oil is what keeps funding for alternative energies down
What do you base this on?

o.o Standardized IQ tests. Have you done any university psychology courses?

Have you? Standardized IQ tests are not only a very limited measure of a certain kind of intelligence, they're also shown to be culturally biased--a huge surprise, to be sure, when most of them were created by English-speaking white men.

Somewhere in between. Stuff like "women, having been of the more maternal role in evolution, are more inclined to the nurturing side, and their skills in general tend to be more of the verbal and communication skills whereas men tend to be skilled more at judging spatial distance, but in any case there will always be exceptions to a rule"

Yet in bonobo societies, males and females share the work of child-rearing and food-gathering equally. So our closest genetic relatives blow that theory out of the water.

If by similar you mean "both more full of horseshit the farther to the extreme you go", then yes. Similar.

Have you? Standardized IQ tests are not only a very limited measure of a certain kind of intelligence, they're also shown to be culturally biased--a huge surprise, to be sure, when most of them were created by English-speaking white men.
I'll admit I've only done a couple of psychology courses at MUN, but from what I recall from them, IQ tests are carefully designed so as to minimize such biases, and usually certain questions will be specified as relevant to certain subjects, so as to distinguish between which specific aspects of intelligence.

As for the Bonobos thing, maybe I'll ask my psych profs about that one next time I'm in St. John's. If I can get into the biology course I'm looking for I might find out more about that one anyway.

Missed Kryozerkia's second response earlier on...

No mention of socio-economic status as an indicator of intelligence? No mention of the type of environment people come from? Natural intelligence only gets so far before there has to be a certain amount of teaching to improve on it.
Agreed somewhat there, though I got the impression from the context in which he pointed that out that such studies would've taken that into account. I'll ask him about it when I get back to MUN.

"Liberals" make it secondary for reasons of equality, not because it's taboo. By setting limits on what one can do, society is effectively limiting the success of another.
Obviously there's a difference between the generalizations themselves and using those generalizations to justify discrimination.

And editorial piece. Cute. It's just one example. Ok... two, but it's the same source. These aren't exactly the most impartial things I've read in a while. It's passionate and the writer is bias to their topic.
We're all biased. The relevant point is that there are people who talk about the abortion debate this way, and since it's from the newspaper of the university I go to, what's in its editorials section tends to be part of the kind of opinions I'm used to.

Your tone implied as much.
Wait... what? What exactly about my "tone" implied that I was expressing opinions that were the exact opposite of those I was really expressing?

Which is impractical in Canada for the most part. I've noticed your location says Newfoundland; not exactly a place known for its hot weather is it?
... unless you're in St. John's in late August. But yeah, I get the point, you can't expect people who live in places without public transit to walk or ride bike all the time. I just wish they would move either to where there is public transit or where the weather permits walking or bicycling. Granted, I'm not exactly practicing what I preach seeing as how I'm typing this from Gander, but that's because that's where my parents live and they wanted me home for the holidays. I'd probably like to move to some place made with a mild climate, good public transit, and better ways for cyclists to avoid car traffic; Vancouver comes to mind, though it would be pretty expensive to live there, and I've heard its summers can be as warm as San Francisco's...

As for electric cars, I've heard their car batteries have poisonous metals that can be harmful for the environment when discarded... or is that hybrids I'm thinking of? In any case, I'd rather hydrogen-fuel cars, so that it can be a form of chemical energy made from electrical energy and aqueous solutions...


But anyway, yeah, the main point was about your comment about my "tone"; what do you mean?

But anyway, yeah, the main point was about your comment about my "tone"; what do you mean?

It was your choice of words and that the organisation of those words implied; the connotation is that set the tone.

... unless you're in St. John's in late August. But yeah, I get the point, you can't expect people who live in places without public transit to walk or ride bike all the time. I just wish they would move either to where there is public transit or where the weather permits walking or bicycling. Granted, I'm not exactly practicing what I preach seeing as how I'm typing this from Gander, but that's because that's where my parents live and they wanted me home for the holidays. I'd probably like to move to some place made with a mild climate, good public transit, and better ways for cyclists to avoid car traffic; Vancouver comes to mind, though it would be pretty expensive to live there, and I've heard its summers can be as warm as San Francisco's...

If you want to avoid traffic, keep Toronto off your list; it's not cyclist-friendly environment. Vancouver also supposedly has mild winters, but it does rain a lot; a whole lot.

As for electric cars, I've heard their car batteries have poisonous metals that can be harmful for the environment when discarded... or is that hybrids I'm thinking of? In any case, I'd rather hydrogen-fuel cars, so that it can be a form of chemical energy made from electrical energy and aqueous solutions...

What was it I heard? Oh right, that those so-called environmentally friendly fluorescent light bulbs that are supposed to replace incandescent ones are actually more toxic for the environment than the incandescent.

Hybrids are actually not that good; the technology is far from refined. Even if the electric car has disposal issues, it would probably be easier to encourage safe disposal of said batteries since the average person would replace the battery at a dealership or auto repair shop.

The only argument I've seen against electric is the stupid stuff that comes out of the province of Ontario... ok, so electric cars are unsafe because they're not fast enough, ironically from the same province that passed an anti-speeding legislation that seeks to take away your car if you're caught going 50Km/h over the posted limit...

I took a double-coiler yesterday. I named the inner coil 'Conservative' and the outer coil 'Liberal'. They looked remarkably similar. I should so totally share my insight with everyone.

b) it's more a problem when corporations own the rights to these plants and will sue farmers when they have corporate seeds in their farm or when they produce plants that cannot produce seeds, making it necessary to continually buy from the company instead of allowing farmers to be self-sufficient. This is putting aside the concerns about plants that naturally produce pesticides might not be good for us.

Not that I disagree with your analysis, but terminator (Ie: sterile seed-producing) genes haven't yet been approved for use under any jurisdiction. Right now seed-saving of GM crops is prevented by contractual agreements between farmers and seed companies.

From the reading that I've done, pest-resistant crops are also actually quite rare. The leading application of genetic modification of crops is for pesticide resistance. Seed giants like Monsanto and Cargill produce plants resistant to their brand pesticides as a way of protecting the (expired) patents on their chemical products.

Frankly, this notion that GM crops are providing a boon to small farmers is pure propaganda. In reality GM agriculture is part of the proliferation of input-intensive, high start-up cost farming that debt leverages farmers, pushing small producers out of business in favor of intensive industrial agriculture. Smallholders are bankrupted and dispossessed by high costs and low crop prices, while the consolidated operations that take their place sacrifice long-term sustainability by depleting soil fertility and water resources to maximize short-term output.

In bed.

o.o Standardized IQ tests. Have you done any university psychology courses?
Yes. I have also taken a course on the philosophy of science where we went into the history of IQ testing, covering the fact that they're not particularly reliable as a measure of intelligence and the history of IQ testing (and other means of intelligence testing). IQ testing is not meant to show "who's smarter" it was originally meant to identify children who needed special help in learning.

Somewhere in between. Stuff like "women, having been of the more maternal role in evolution, are more inclined to the nurturing side,

...are more inclined? Which means what? Many women aren't nurturing and many men are. What does a generalization have to do with actual people? Further, how many of these differences are induced by society, not nature?

and their skills in general tend to be more of the verbal and communication skills whereas men tend to be skilled more at judging spatial distance, but in any case there will always be exceptions to a rule"

...so there are always exceptions... so the gender differences mean what exactly?

Meaning "sexist against men instead of sexist against women";

That's not reverse sexist, that's still sexist.

the specific example I was talking about was Elizabeth May, (leader of the Canadian Green Party) a woman who when she thought she was going to be kept out of the leaders' debate claimed that it was because the media officials and leaders of the other parties were men, yet when she makes somewhat over-the-top anti-abortion comments, people respond by claiming that it "reeks of the same crap being spewed by right wingers" etc.

Yes and the green party is socially conservative. This is news?
Look at their platform, this shouldn't be news.

I agree that cosmetics testing is unnecessary, and I just wish they could base such testing on its necessity and meaningfulness... trouble is, one might argue that animals either have rights or they don't and it makes no difference why such rights would be violated...

Well, one can also argue that people have the right to better testing which trumps the rights of animals to some extent, however, we still have a duty to treat them as humanely as possible and not inflict unnecessary harm.

What do you base this on?

... do you happen to read the news? At all? Or pay attention to the things that are going on in the world?

I took a double-coiler yesterday. I named the inner coil 'Conservative' and the outer coil 'Liberal'. They looked remarkably similar. I should so totally share my insight with everyone.

*cleans off monitor*

Why do I read you while drinking tea?

The words, that is. Both words are absurd labels with inconsistent meanings that associate separate opinions on separate subjects with each other on a questionable basis at best.

...

Liberals, conservatives: both are right-wingers. Sometimes the liberals are even on the right side of the main conservative party. At least this side of the Atlantic.

I think the problem lies with you are defining ideologies based on media labels. Many American "liberals" or "progressives" would be termed "social liberals" (as apposed to "classical liberals" who believe in less government intervention). Likely, "moderate social liberals" at best.

It was your choice of words and that the organisation of those words implied; the connotation is that set the tone.
Could you be a bit more specific about how this "implied" that I was saying the opposite of what I meant? Unless I seemed incredibly sarcastic, I would've thought the problem was more with others' interpretation than with my expression of my point.

If you want to avoid traffic, keep Toronto off your list; it's not cyclist-friendly environment. Vancouver also supposedly has mild winters, but it does rain a lot; a whole lot.
I'd like to think I wouldn't mind the rain so much; in terms of the bicycling it would make the roads more slippery, but so long as it has enough bike trails for me to bike most of the way while still avoiding traffic, I still wouldn't be likely to get hit by a car because of that. I'm more concerned about its sulfur dioxide levels exceeding WHO standards (according to my atlas) and I'm not so sure I'd like its hot summers either.

What was it I heard? Oh right, that those so-called environmentally friendly fluorescent light bulbs that are supposed to replace incandescent ones are actually more toxic for the environment than the incandescent.
IIRC, that depends on how they are disposed of...

Hybrids are actually not that good; the technology is far from refined. Even if the electric car has disposal issues, it would probably be easier to encourage safe disposal of said batteries since the average person would replace the battery at a dealership or auto repair shop.
... ah, so the same applies to electric car batteries as to fluorescent bulbs?

The only argument I've seen against electric is the stupid stuff that comes out of the province of Ontario... ok, so electric cars are unsafe because they're not fast enough, ironically from the same province that passed an anti-speeding legislation that seeks to take away your car if you're caught going 50Km/h over the posted limit...
What's even more ironic is that going too fast is arguably one of the leading causes of car accidents.

Yes. I have also taken a course on the philosophy of science where we went into the history of IQ testing
Ok, fair enough. I wasn't inclined to think much of your knowledge, partly because I didn't want to; I percieved those of opinions similar to yours as accusing me of being ignorant. A "you insult me I insult you" mentality, except I applied it collectively, rather than just to the individuals who were insulting me.

...are more inclined? Which means what? Many women aren't nurturing and many men are. What does a generalization have to do with actual people?
It helps explain the general tendencies in behaviour of a certain gender (ie. testosterone causing aggression explains why men are generally more aggressive than women) which helps lead to more understanding within society of why people act the way they act. And of course there will be exceptions to general rules.

Yes and the green party is socially conservative.
If I recall correctly from the debate, the points being made by Elizabeth May seemed rather similar to those being made by Jack Layton. On what issues are they "socially conservative"?

Also, doesn't that further blur the labels of ideology? To see a party whose supposed main focus is environmentalism (something I've noticed is associated with "liberalism") be considered socially conservative?

... do you happen to read the news? At all? Or pay attention to the things that are going on in the world?
I don't watch the news as much as I used to, though I find when I'm browsing forums I tend to get some news, albeit not in as organized a way. That said, I used to watch the CBC show Canada Now almost every weeknight for years, and I don't recall one story about big oil companies actively suppressing the development of alternative fuels. It would make sense that they'd do it if they thought they could get away with it, but I didn't think the latter part would be the case, and I'm waiting for a link of some sort to see if the former is the case.

Of course liberals and conservatives are very similar.

1) On Earth, at least, they are both mammals.
2) Both humans.
3) Both self-interested.
4) Both interested in doing what they think is best for society.
5) Both convinced they are right and the other fellow is wrong.

If liberals and consevatives are very similar why have you gone on to complain about liberal traits with no conservative ones for comparison?
Well, that would spoil the liberals-as-baby-eating-monsters analogy, wouldn't it?

So there are some people that call themselves liberal, but hold positions that don't really fit with the common understanding of what liberal ideology is?

I am shocked and appalled, sir, shocked and appalled.

Well, that would spoil the liberals-as-baby-eating-monsters analogy, wouldn't it?

But if Liberals and Conservatives are in fact the same thing, I present to you...

Would not this make Conservatives Baby eating Monsters?


*robot's head explodes*

But if Liberals and Conservatives are in fact the same thing, I present to you...

Would not this make Conservatives Baby eating Monsters?


*robot's head explodes*

Conservatives only eat babies once they're ripe. Liberals can't wait 9 months to get their dose of delicious baby.

Well, that would spoil the liberals-as-baby-eating-monsters analogy, wouldn't it?

Liberals would rather eat them in the womb. Conservatives need live babies so that they can grow up to be dead soldiers.

Liberals would rather eat them in the womb. Conservatives need live babies so that they can grow up to be dead soldiers.

But too much lead in your diet can lead to insanity

Liberals would rather eat them in the womb. Conservatives need live babies so that they can grow up to be dead soldiers.

Not cool. I feed my babies to Wikipedia.

So there are some people that call themselves liberal, but hold positions that don't really fit with the common understanding of what liberal ideology is?

I am shocked and appalled, sir, shocked and appalled.
:rolleyes:

Seeing as how my very point in this thread was to challenge "the common understanding of what liberal ideology is" it's not like I'm calling that news.

But too much lead in your diet can lead to insanity

Makes me wonder if the Bush family homestead is on top of a huge galena deposit.