Merged Scientific Proof Liberalism is a Birth Defect / Genetically disposed

[DC]

So let me make sure I've got this straight.

The original post posits that liberalism is a birth defect, a notion which is reprehensible in its dehumanizing effect and ironically anti-conservative in its premise that we are not responsible for our choices and beliefs.

And your response to this is not to point out how vile such ideas of genetically-based superiority/inferiority are categorically, but rather to simply co-opt this awful idea to try to make your side the winner in a fight that should never be fought.

Somehow, I don't think that helped.

i didn't take the whole thing serious. cool down, i don't really meant what i said, it was more like a joke, because the whole threads seemed more like a joke to me.
The Article doesn't say anything like Birth defect etc.... so i just had to make fun of the interpretation of the OP.

 

[elbe]

And that's different from saying two wrongs make a right... how?

Because I don't think it's "right" that people say stupid things. Saying both sides can be wrong doesn't somehow imply being wrong is ok. That's an odd conclusion you jumped to.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because I don't think it's "right" that people say stupid things. Saying both sides can be wrong doesn't somehow imply being wrong is ok. That's an odd conclusion you jumped to.

You didn't just say both sides can be wrong, you said it's "only fair". Again, what fine distinction are you trying to draw between "fair" and "right"? Because it sure as hell isn't an obvious one.

 

[Ziggurat]

i didn't take the whole thing serious.

That's a shame. The original post is reprehensible enough that it should be taken seriously.

 

[elbe]

You didn't just say both sides can be wrong, you said it's "only fair". Again, what fine distinction are you trying to draw between "fair" and "right"? Because it sure as hell isn't an obvious one.

I'm sorry I was trying to make a lighthearted, non-partisan observation. I'll try not to do it again.

 

[DC]

That's a shame. The original post is reprehensible enough that it should be taken seriously.

oh it is? How come you are bickering on posters than made fun of the OP rather than addressing the OP?

 

[leftysergeant]

I see somebody still doesn't know what the word "neocon" means, other than being a boogeyman for you.

Here's a hint, lefty: traditional conservatives are more hostile to entitlement programs than neocons are.

Just my point. Liberals have always been more human than Republicans.

 

[leftysergeant]

That's a shame. The original post is reprehensible enough that it should be taken seriously.

BTW, a sense of humor is another thing that sets humans and bonobos apart from the other apes. It's a way of not letting crude or hostile people get us down. Humor drives a large part of all artistic activity. This is why so many artists tend to be liberals. Liberals just have a better sense of humor.

 

[Ziggurat]

oh it is? How come you are bickering on posters than made fun of the OP rather than addressing the OP?

I did address the original post. What part of

The original post posits that liberalism is a birth defect, a notion which is reprehensible in its dehumanizing effect and ironically anti-conservative in its premise that we are not responsible for our choices and beliefs.

did you not understand?

 

[Juniversal]

Oddly enough the most successful nations with the highest standard of living tend to be Liberal. If there is a gene associated with Liberalism it sounds as if it needs to be spread throughout the world population.

 

[Trakar]

Oddly enough the most successful nations with the highest standard of living tend to be Liberal. If there is a gene associated with Liberalism it sounds as if it needs to be spread throughout the world population.

Of course, they are also the nations starting and engaging in the most destructive wars, responsible for the most degradation of our environment and the most exploitive pillages of planet and populations. The tallying is still ongoing, but its not at all clear yet, that this is a long-term advantage.

 

[Mr.D]

That's a shame. The original post is reprehensible enough that it should be taken seriously.

Those reprehensible smilies. Won't somebody think of the children!

 

[Juniversal]

Of course, they are also the nations starting and engaging in the most destructive wars, responsible for the most degradation of our environment and the most exploitive pillages of planet and populations. The tallying is still ongoing, but its not at all clear yet, that this is a long-term advantage.

Norweigans have engaged in destructive wars that have destroyed nations?? News to me. And I can't imagine nations with conservative rule have a lower occurence of Wars and plunder than Liberal ones.


Norway is one of the nations with the highest living standard on earth. From wiki,

Norway maintains a Scandinavian welfare model with universal health-care, subsidized higher education, and a comprehensive social security system. Norway was ranked highest of all countries in human development from 2001 to 2007.

Omg. Socialism!!

 

[Trakar]

Norweigans have engaged in destructive wars that have destroyed nations?? News to me. And I can't imagine nations with conservative rule have a lower occurence of Wars and plunder than Liberal ones.


Norway is one of the nations with the highest living standard on earth. From wiki,



Omg. Socialism!!

You spoke in general encompassing terms, I responded in the same, and now you posit an exception to the general truism with an individual state and only regarding a single aspect of the larger characteristic set? Do you really consider that an appropriate addressment or counter? Seriously?

okay, even on your terms, is or was Norway involved in:

operations in Afghanistan?
the second World War?
the Korean War?
the Persian Gulf War?
the invasion of Iraq?

If the answer to any of these is "yes," then yes, the liberal nation of Norway, well fits within the description I posted previously.

(Addendum - btw, I have no real problem with socialist economic policies, especially as they are and always have been a part of the US mixed economy system. But just as we use socialistic centralized planning and control to tame the excesses of capitalism, we are bound to employ liberal innovative, personal rewards system of capitalism to add value and incentive to the generally stagnating tendancies of conservative socialism.)

 

[lomiller]

Oddly enough the most successful nations with the highest standard of living tend to be Liberal. If there is a gene associated with Liberalism it sounds as if it needs to be spread throughout the world population.

As I indicated above the (or at least a) trait that seems be important is that conservatives have stronger reaction to fear. In another study I saw this plays out as children who were future conservatives being more adverse to taking chances making them socially awkward, more likely to stay near their parents, less likely to explore, etc. Future liberals were more adventurous, more outgoing and generally took more risks.

Modern economies are so dynamic that being more likely to take risks is important to success, so it makes sense that liberals would tend to deal better with this.

 

[Cicero]

BTW, a sense of humor is another thing that sets humans and bonobos apart from the other apes. It's a way of not letting crude or hostile people get us down. Humor drives a large part of all artistic activity. This is why so many artists tend to be liberals. Liberals just have a better sense of humor.

Considering that dopamine receptor gene has stimulated some of the most "crudest and hostile" blather emanating from celeb libs, it is no wonder you guffaw at their attempts at humor.


BTW: Jon Stewart considers Dennis Miller to be the smartest, and one of the funniest, comedians he knows.

 

[Ziggurat]

Those reprehensible smilies.

Because adding a smilie makes it OK to say anything.

Here, let me add one of my own:

 

[Cicero]

As I indicated above the (or at least a) trait that seems be important is that conservatives have stronger reaction to fear. In another study I saw this plays out as children who were future conservatives being more adverse to taking chances making them socially awkward, more likely to stay near their parents, less likely to explore, etc. Future liberals were more adventurous, more outgoing and generally took more risks.

FDR was a moma's boy right up to 1941.

Teddy Roosevelt was a soldier, explorer, and hunter.

 

[Piscivore]

As I indicated above the (or at least a) trait that seems be important is that conservatives have stronger reaction to fear. In another study I saw this plays out as children who were future conservatives being more adverse to taking chances making them socially awkward, more likely to stay near their parents, less likely to explore, etc. Future liberals were more adventurous, more outgoing and generally took more risks.

Modern economies are so dynamic that being more likely to take risks is important to success, so it makes sense that liberals would tend to deal better with this.

Are we saying R. A. Wilson was right?

 

[Juniversal]

You spoke in general encompassing terms, I responded in the same, and now you posit an exception to the general truism with an individual state and only regarding a single aspect of the larger characteristic set? Do you really consider that an appropriate addressment or counter? Seriously?

You're initial post in no way conflicted with my claim. My claim was that Liberal nations tend to have the highest standard of living and success. You're claim that (liberal nations) cause the most wars falls flat once you consider far right nations aren't involved in wars at any lower frequency then far left nations. What's your beef with my assesment? I found the nation with the highest living standards to prove my point. The only thing I attempted to "counter" was your claim of these nations somehow are on the leading edge of the most destructive activities or wars and this being something paticular to liberal nations. If i'm misunderstanding what you were attempting to communicate in your post, let me know.

okay, even on your terms, is or was Norway involved in:

operations in Afghanistan?
the second World War?
the Korean War?
the Persian Gulf War?
the invasion of Iraq?

If the answer to any of these is "yes," then yes, the liberal nation of Norway, well fits within the description I posted previously.

I should have modified my statement with a question of there involvement in the instigation or creation of wars because no doubt they're involved in wars in some degree or another but more then likely are rarely instigators of those wars.