RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?

RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MariaB -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 1:22:46 PM)
I do believe, at least here in the UK, that the majority of 'uninterested voters' will vote Right. The problem with that is, most of our voters have little interest or knowledge about who they are voting for and so its the 'uninterested vote' that wins the day. I think its reasonably unfair to categorise 'interested' right wing voters as less intelligent than the left but for those righties who thoroughly understand their political position, I would say, they are less compassionate about the outside world and probably more insular in their own world. Politics for the right winger appear to be on a more personal level; if it doesn't encroach in their world, then why should they worry about the devastating affects it has on others? I firmly believe that those of us who lean to the left are more compassionate, less gullible, more thoughtful and perhaps overly emotional. Sometimes I think it would be nice to be right wing. Imagine living in a world where you didn't need to give a shit about anyone but you and yours.

Phydeaux -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 1:38:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB I do believe, at least here in the UK, that the majority of 'uninterested voters' will vote Right. The problem with that is, most of our voters have little interest or knowledge about who they are voting for and so its the 'uninterested vote' that wins the day. I think its reasonably unfair to categorise 'interested' right wing voters as less intelligent than the left but for those righties who thoroughly understand their political position, I would say, they are less compassionate about the outside world and probably more insular in their own world. Politics for the right winger appear to be on a more personal level; if it doesn't encroach in their world, then why should they worry about the devastating affects it has on others? I firmly believe that those of us who lean to the left are more compassionate, less gullible, more thoughtful and perhaps overly emotional. Sometimes I think it would be nice to be right wing. Imagine living in a world where you didn't need to give a shit about anyone but you and yours. I agree with some of what you say. The part I disagree with is the bit about right wingers being more selfish (paraphrasing). I don't agree - right wingers are more pragmatic. They want things that will work. Take the gun control debate. One of the main lines of right wing opposition to gun control is a simple meme: what proposed gun control meausre would have stopped any of the most recent gun deaths. The answer is none of them. Right wingers are interested in pragmatism. Results are as important as appearing to do something. Head start was proposed with the idea that it would increase test scores. Did it? No. Why do you attack a right winger when the raison d'etre for a bill is proven not to pan out?

mnottertail -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 1:46:14 PM)
Take the gun control debate. One of the main lines of right wing opposition to gun control is a simple meme: what proposed gun control meausre would have stopped any of the most recent gun deaths. ask that about voter id. So, there is a dissonance there with reality. They dont want things that work, they want things to not work. Thats why so many nutsuckers are for big government of nutsuckers. They haven't had results in all their failed attempts to serve as catamites to corporations, nor in their disastrous nutsucker fiscal ineptitude, nor their abysmal military incursions, nor even in their domestic terrorism escapades. Nothing pragmatic about them at all.

Phydeaux -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 1:59:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Take the gun control debate. One of the main lines of right wing opposition to gun control is a simple meme: what proposed gun control meausre would have stopped any of the most recent gun deaths. ask that about voter id. So, there is a dissonance there with reality. They dont want things that work, they want things to not work. Thats why so many nutsuckers are for big government of nutsuckers. They haven't had results in all their failed attempts to serve as catamites to corporations, nor in their disastrous nutsucker fiscal ineptitude, nor their abysmal military incursions, nor even in their domestic terrorism escapades. Nothing pragmatic about them at all. Certainly. Conservatives want reasonable assurances that people won't commit voter fraud. The Supreme Court has reviewed the ID requirements and found them reasonable. If you wish to paraphrase, they found the government had an interest in having fair elections and the methods proposed were not and un due burden and reasonably effective. But I doubt thats the point you were trying to make. As for the rest of your verbal mutterings - try to make a point, support it with a source, and try to tie it back to the original topic of discussion.

mnottertail -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 2:11:31 PM)
Nutsuckers want to increase gun murders. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/02/when-mass-shootings-happen-the-nra-and-conserva/207171 Nutsuckers want to take away your right to vote. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/voting-rights-november-voter-suppression-states If they want reasonable security in voting, why not reasonable security in who has that gun? And the scotus only backs those laws that in the end really dont need an id to vote.

MariaB -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 3:28:34 PM)
@Phydeaux The gun control debate is often an interesting and passionate feeding frenzy of thoughts on here, but as someone who was raised in a land without guns and who can’t imagine ever needing or wanting a gun to protect my family or property; the opinion I’ve formed and this is merely from being a spectator of such debates, is, such people are deeply in tune with their own self preservation. There’s some very real fear going on in many of these peoples heads, perhaps even paranoia, anger and insecurity. What brings me to such a conclusion? Well, It seems to be, at least from where I'm sitting, that the same people who fight to keep guns are the same people who believe the Syrian immigrants are going to turn out to be IS terrorists in disguise who will burn down our church and build a minaret atop the Whitehouse. Gun lobbyists are very good at anticipating ‘worst case scenarios’. What we rarely debate on here and I appreciate this is a very narrow spectrum of Americans in the big world of political forums, (or maybe I somehow blink and miss it) are thoughts on austerity, the rise of corporate fascism, ever changing civil liberties and democracy.

bounty44 -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 3:55:38 PM)
got a hold of the original study the BLOGGER was referencing and here's my reaction: (how ironic comrade vile critter parts, that as a “true conservative” you would be interested in posting such information) First point to mention there: With a sample size that large (~16,000), even small differences can be “statistically significant.” (more on that later) The intelligence component of the study was determined when the subjects were 10 and 11. Here’s the short of what the researchers are saying. When you are 10-11 yrs old and not as smart as your peers, that correlates with a higher degree of racism when you are in your 30s and its more or less due (or more likely related) to your social conservatism. There was no mention of drop-out and there should be. Longitudinal studies taking place over two decades could lose thousands of people. If those thousands are alike in some meaningful way, then the authors aren’t really studying the population so much as a subset of it. There was no intelligence assessment to when the subjects were adults. So apart from everything else, it is completely intellectually inappropriate to put forth the idea that conservatives are less intelligent/have lower IQ’s/whatever, than others. “In both the ncds and the bcs [those are the data sets in question], social conservative ideology was assessed in terms of respect for and submission to authority.” They did not use a validated instrument in their measures. Given that, they cannot say in confidence, nor for that matter can their readers confidently accept, that what questions they ask actually measure what they purport to measure. To that point---unfortunately the entire assessment is not included but they gave a couple of sample questions. One is “family life suffers if mum is working full-time.” I assume that anyone who answers “yes” to that is a social conservative, even though a “yes” answer can be given by people all along the continuum. The end result being there, and especially more so if there are other questions like that, is that there’s no actual distinction between conservatives and liberals, but rather, only one that the authors believe to exist. Further---they restricted their study of “conservatism” to social conservatism, which is only one component of a larger overall ideology. Therefore it is also wrong, again apart from everything else, to use the blanket term “conservative” when interpreting the results. Whats more to that point---the subjects are british, if conservatism there is the same as it is here, then by all means make some comparisons. If there are historical and philosophical differences, then you cannot. The reliability of the assessment scales is .63 to .68. This is in the low to high “acceptable” range, but not “good.” This is a measure of the internal consistency of the scale, that is, if I answer this particular question one way, will I answer another question that is purporting to ask the same thing, yet in another fashion, in the same way. These folks already have a huge problem with validity (no standardized instrument), the “acceptable” reliability coefficient, while not deadly, doesn’t help. Presumably these studies used likert scales in their assessment (don’t know what else they could have). Though the scales are numerically coded, they are not numerical in nature; they are rankings, or ordinal. They used a pearson correlation for some of their data, which is appropriate for continuous variables, that is true numbers that we can add, subtract, multiply, etc. Correlations between continuous variables and ordinal variables is somewhat specious because the distance between 1 and 2 numerically is the same as the distance between 6 and 7, but the distances between 1 and 2, and 6 and 7 on a likert scale, are not, and further, they are ordinal variables are not necessarily normally distributed, with is an assumption for parametric statistics. As I mentioned above, due to the large sample size, small differences can be statistically significant and that was the case here. Correlation coefficients between intelligence and prejudice ran from -.19 to -.29 (the two studies broken up by gender). statistically speaking, those are low correlates. That means, the relationship between childhood intelligence, and adult prejudice, is low. The question rather is, does any of this have practical significance. By the way, “prejudice” (aka racism) was determined by a five question assessment. Also there was no allowance at all for a discrepancy over how someone apparently thinks, and what someone might actually do. I might mind if a family of Chinese moved in next door, but if they do and I befriend them, am I still “racist?” and for that matter, the co-mingling of the words racist and prejudice was bad. They are related, but not the same thing. The correlations are a little better for the relationship between conservatism and childhood intelligence, ranging from .39-.65, which is low to moderate, but so what? As I pointed out, this says nothing about what happened to the kids after they were originally studied, and further, it says nothing at all about where the “smarter” kids ended up. I didn’t read the review of literature, or the discussion that followed the analyses, but a quick perusal gave me the impression that the study was done and written from the perspective of “’conservatives---stupid and bad’ and we’re going to prove it.” The last sentence of the article proper uses the phrase “exposing right-wing conservative ideology…” I wouldn't go so far as to say its politics masked by science, but its in that ballpark. That’s only the first half of the study---the rest dealt with homosexuality, but im going to stop, ive already spent enough time and im going to presume the same problems exist further on. Also, I don’t think for a moment the comrades are going to buy anything ive said. If you want to have a conversation about it, feel very invited to send me a private message.

Phydeaux -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 4:00:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB @Phydeaux The gun control debate is often an interesting and passionate feeding frenzy of thoughts on here, but as someone who was raised in a land without guns and who can’t imagine ever needing or wanting a gun to protect my family or property; the opinion I’ve formed and this is merely from being a spectator of such debates, is, such people are deeply in tune with their own self preservation. There’s some very real fear going on in many of these peoples heads, perhaps even paranoia, anger and insecurity. What brings me to such a conclusion? Well, It seems to be, at least from where I'm sitting, that the same people who fight to keep guns are the same people who believe the Syrian immigrants are going to turn out to be IS terrorists in disguise who will burn down our church and build a minaret atop the Whitehouse. Gun lobbyists are very good at anticipating ‘worst case scenarios’. What we rarely debate on here and I appreciate this is a very narrow spectrum of Americans in the big world of political forums, (or maybe I somehow blink and miss it) are thoughts on austerity, the rise of corporate fascism, ever changing civil liberties and democracy. Hi Maria. Thanks for the nice post. I don't really think that you have framed the pro gun people's point of view accurately. Our founding fathers had studied a lot of history. They knew that people were often abused by their government. They believed that government flowed from the people, but that government was evil but necessary. To that end they tried to make sure that government was limited. You can see this all over the US constitution. Now, more to the point. They wanted to ensure that the government would never be able to rule by force; they enshrined a right that the government could not remove arms from the people. Some people will say this right was only given to militias. This is not true. Early in the republic, the government passed a law that said every white male of appropriate age MUST own a gun, demonstrating that the right to own a gun was an individual right and not merely a collective right. Google gun law, around 1800. Now to the present day. Lets look at the history of the 20th century. During that time, Mao killed more than 40 million people after taking their guns. Stalin killed 20 mil in ukraine by starving them - after taking their guns. Cambodia killed 8 million. Hitler killed 6 million jews, 3 million catholics and gypsies. Whether it is rwanda, bosnia, armenia - wherever there are powerless people, there is the opportunity for genocide. Over 100 million people died - more than a million people per year. We believe that people owning guns here prevents our government from being too tyrannical. We hate any incident of gun violence -but while we decry the 3,000 or so homicides that occur per year, we think the consequences of letting our government become tyrannical is a far far greater cost. The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. And sometimes, sadly, with innocent people. Because the likely downside risk is unacceptable. This is why those that are pro-gun are not opposed to sensible regulations. You don't want guns in the hands of the mentally ill, for example. But we oppose any attempt to disarm us. (Metaphorically speaking. Probably half of the pro gun group don't own guns). So, while you may not agree with us, please don't mischaracterise the reason we are pro-gun. There are those that would say it is ridiculous to think that it could happen in England, or in the United States. But not only could it happen, it will happen. It is, in fact, only a question of time. England had Oliver Cromwell - and the reign of terror. There is no question that power flows a gun. The founders thought that citizens should be entrusted with that power; that if the citizens trusted the government enough to allow them rule, that the government should trust its citizens enough to be armed. It is only when a government turns tyrannical that it needs to fear an armed citizenry... When it is responsive to the desires of the citizenry, all is well.

deathtothepixies -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 4:29:56 PM)
an eloquent post, but you are wrong, and we are not buying it. In most of the historical cases you mentioned, some of them from a long time ago, the citizens had the same sort of weapons that the government had. That is no longer true, if your government really decided to go to town on it's citizens you wouldn't stand a chance. You are also ignoring the global aspect, which is quite modern, of a country like America going to war on it's citizens. The whole world would turn against you, crippling you. So you can make all your excuses, no matter how well argued, but they are wrong. I don't know how to solve your problem but your historical arguments just don't add up any more. They haven't done for decades and it is the people of your democracy who suffer by dying in their tens of thousands every year who will continue to suffer until you try and change. At the moment you don't seem to want to even try, that's what disgusts most of the non americans, and a lot of your fellow countrymen too

bounty44 -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 4:49:57 PM)
from the author of the study in question: (which information almost makes the "no conflict of interest" statement at the end of the article a joke, and adds some credence to the notion of that the study read like a political hit piece) quote: My primary research interests examine intergroup processes related to prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. This overall focus can be broken down into several key areas of investigation. First, how has contemporary prejudice transformed itself from overt and direct bias to more subtle and indicrect forms? How can these subtle biases be detected and combated among otherwise well-meaning individuals? Second, to what extent do personality constructs such as authoritarianism and social dominance predict and shape the expression of prejudice and discrimination? Third, how does the perception of intergroup threat posed by immigrants, refugees, and outgroups generally exacerbate negative intergroup outcomes? What social and personal factors trigger intergroup anxiety, and what are its consequences? http://www.brocku.ca/psychology/people/hodson.htm and some of his other works: Hoffarth, M.R., & Hodson, G. (2016). Green on the outside, red on the inside: Perceived environmentalist threat as a factor explaining political polarization of climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 40-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.002 Onraet, E., Van Hiel, A., Dhont, K., Hodson, G., Schitterkatte, M., & De Pauw, S. (2015). The association of cognitive ability with right-wing ideological attitudes and prejudice: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Personality, 29, 599-621. DOI: 10.1002/per.2027 MacInnis, C.C., & Hodson, G. (2015). Why are heterosexual men (vs. women) particularly prejudiced toward gay men? A social dominance theory explanation. Psychology and Sexuality, 6, 275-294. DOI: 10.1080/19419899.2014.987684 Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2014). Does lower cognitive ability predict greater prejudice? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 454-459 . DOI: 10.1177/0963721414549750 Hodson, G. (2014). Is it impolite to discuss cognitive differences between liberals and conservatives? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 313-314. doi:10.1017/S0140525X13002574. Choma, B.L., Hanoch, Y., Hodson, G., & Gummerum, M. (2014). Risk propensity among liberals and conservatives: The effect of risk perception, expected benefits, and risk domain. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 713-721. DOI: 10.1177/1948550613519682 Hoffarth, M.R., & Hodson, G. (2014). Is subjective ambivalence toward gays a modern form of bias? Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 75-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.014. MacInnis, C.C., MacLean, M.H., & Hodson, G. (2014). Does "humanization" of the preborn explain why conservatives (vs. liberals) oppose abortion? Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 77-82. http://dx.doe.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.009 Choma, B.L., Hanoch, Y., Gummerum, M., & Hodson, G. (2013). Relations between risk perceptions and social-political ideology are domain- and ideology-dependent. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 29-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.028. Choma, B.L., Hodson, G., & Costello, K. (2012). Intergroup disgust sensitivity as a predictor of Islamophobia: The modulating effect of fear. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 499-506 . Hodson, G., & Busseri, M.A. (2012). Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact. Psychological Science, 23, 187-195 . Hodson, G. (2011). Do ideologically intolerant people benefit from intergroup contact? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 154-159. and many more all of the same kind. can the guy research what he wants? sure, can he pretend he's not interested in a particular outcome from his research, hardly. the one being referenced in the OP

Hillwilliam -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 4:52:08 PM)
To the OP. Racism and low IQ. Absodamnlutely a link. Conservatism and low IQ. It depends on how you define a Conservative. Conservative (pre Reagan) =believes in less hassle and fewer hoops to jump thru for the average guy...........no Conservative (post Reagan) = Willing to believe a guy with a pocket full of cash and a never opened Bible under his arm wanting to run everyone else's life..........yes. dumber than a box of hair

Phydeaux -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 5:10:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies an eloquent post, Thanks. quote: In most of the historical cases you mentioned, some of them from a long time ago, the citizens had the same sort of weapons that the government had. That is no longer true, if your government really decided to go to town on it's citizens you wouldn't stand a chance. Thats often asserted; always without evidence. History is replete with examples that say you are wrong. The man that stopped the tanks at tianamen square was faced with overwhelming odds. He won. There is no question that vietnam was less well armed than the US. And yet the US lost. Or take a look at ISIS. Numbering approximately 2000 at the time they took mosul, they were able to conquer more than 1/3 of Iraq and 1/2 of syria. But more to the point - if there were an armed insurrection revolting against government tyranny, there is a significant chance that US forces would refuse to fire on them. Many marines have already taken that pledge. Google it. quote: You are also ignoring the global aspect, which is quite modern, of a country like America going to war on it's citizens. The whole world would turn against you, crippling you. If a country was turning on its citizens, it is pretty unimportant what the global community would do. The country would be crippled, with or without global intervention, so your point is moot. More to the point - global intervention if it were to occur, would occur after a tyrant warred on its citizens. Part of the point of those on the pro gun side is to prevent a tyrant from thinking its ever something he could get away with. Yamamoto is misttributed a quote that says we did not invade because "behind every blade of grass, a rifle." Or a similar quote to the japanese commander on the constellation "We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.' quote: So you can make all your excuses, no matter how well argued, but they are wrong. I don't know how to solve your problem but your historical arguments just don't add up any more. They haven't done for decades and it is the people of your democracy who suffer by dying in their tens of thousands every year who will continue to suffer until you try and change. At the moment you don't seem to want to even try, that's what disgusts most of the non americans, and a lot of your fellow countrymen too What you consider excuses, I consider well reasoned arguments. You assert I am wrong without evidence, while denigrating the evidence I suggested. While it is true that people die - the overwelming majority are suicides - and I don't really think that people are protesting that. There is no reason to exagerate when I have already provided accurate repreentations to the cost. As for your disgust.... pardon me if I get a bit touchy here. Exactly what part of the g-d forsaken planet are you from that I should give a damn about your disgust? If you're in Europe - you certainly didn't mind us coming over there with our guns and rescuing your ass, did you? If from Japan or the Philipines or South Korea - you certainly don't mind relying on us to safe guard the peace against your larger or crazier neighbors. If you were from Israel, or Switzerland etc you wouldn't be making those statements, as your country already has more lenient gun laws. Penultimately, if you are from hungary, norway, mexico, costa rica where your per capita gun deaths are higher than the US --- I should care, why? If you are from somewhere else - well frankly, when you get to be a world power, then perhaps you can lecture us on how we should live. We have a method by which one can restrict gun rights. Until lefties can pass an ammendment, americans will have gun rights. If you don't like that we have a rule of law here, and a process by which we work out political differences, well, too bad. Although I find it illustrative that you think people should somehow bypass the rule of law to fit your non-american preconceived notions. Sorry bout the rant. But try supporting your opinions with evidence.

Termyn8or -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 5:12:24 PM)
Kirata : ~ FR ~ Low IQ & Liberal Beliefs Linked To Poor Research? One would have guessed from the title, that th... Generally though, from what I have read, people with more education are more liberal. but then they have been in a liberal indoctrination center for years. Of course now if there is evidence that they are less intelligent that owuld indicate they are slow learners. Sorry libs, you might really be tards. LOL T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 5:14:38 PM)
"Racism and low IQ. Absodamnlutely a link. " Yes, but not prejudice. that is a different thing. Very different. T^T

Hillwilliam -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 5:48:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "Racism and low IQ. Absodamnlutely a link. " Yes, but not prejudice. that is a different thing. Very different. T^T Prejudice and racism are different. I am prejudiced against people who have spent multiple sentences in jail regardless of their race. Kinda sums it up.

Phydeaux -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 6:14:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam To the OP. Racism and low IQ. Absodamnlutely a link. Conservatism and low IQ. It depends on how you define a Conservative. Conservative (pre Reagan) =believes in less hassle and fewer hoops to jump thru for the average guy...........no Conservative (post Reagan) = Willing to believe a guy with a pocket full of cash and a never opened Bible under his arm wanting to run everyone else's life..........yes. dumber than a box of hair So let me get this straight. Are you saying its causation or correlation? If correlation, you are saying that american blacks, who average 1.1 standard deviations - call it 14 points below whites are therefore more likely to be racists? Really?

Greta75 -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 6:17:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Do you understand that personal attacks really don't answer a logical argument? Even if Cons has lower IQ, Libs seem to do more personal attacking in their arguments than Cons here to. Libs has this superiority complex. That's why I've always preferred Cons. And as a minority race, I guess they are suppose to be racist towards me, since they are supposingly racist, but I never felt it.

ifmaz -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/4/2016 7:45:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB @Phydeaux The gun control debate is often an interesting and passionate feeding frenzy of thoughts on here, but as someone who was raised in a land without guns and who can’t imagine ever needing or wanting a gun to protect my family or property; the opinion I’ve formed and this is merely from being a spectator of such debates, is, such people are deeply in tune with their own self preservation. There’s some very real fear going on in many of these peoples heads, perhaps even paranoia, anger and insecurity. ... Could the same not be said of many anti-rights advocates who wish to disarm law-abiding citizens (or, really, everyone besides the police and military) out of fear? There was an article I recently read, and I'll try to find it (Google isn't helping), regarding the desire to ban the AR-15. Most homicides are committed by someone with a handgun yet anti-rights advocates seem to focus specifically on the AR-15, which account for a minute number of firearm related homicides but a majority of media-covered mass shootings. The author posited they were afraid of a mass shooting as those seem to involve suburbanite whites more so than inner city minorities.

Greta75 -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 2:42:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux right wingers are more pragmatic. They want things that will work. Exactly! I will support any pragmatic solution that makes sense and yield results. If welfare for the whole of America won't sink US into further debt and miraculously give them surpluses, year after year. Then let's do that! I know I can't vote in the US, but all the socialist oppositions in my country have all these lofty follow European socialism ideas. Thinking of ways to spend our big surplus on welfare, made possible by pragmatic policies, and most of us are just like...., eehhh? Look at Greece! We don't want to be Greece! Obama has not reduced US debt, and have increased debt instead. And from what I understand, he might have spent more than any other President have in the history of US, and even a combination of a few Presidents. Is 2008 crisis that spiraled really the worst economical crisis to ever hit US in it's history? To justify his spending? One day when I am free, I gonna compare every President spending with the relevant economical crisis that they were dealing with to compare their spendings in reaction to downturns.

Staleek -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 3:17:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 you posted that exact same garbage last time this came up, and I replied to it. apparently you ignored it then but here it is again just in case: Why would I pay it any heed? You posted a feeble attempt to twist scientific findings into supporting the exact opposite conclusion that they actually supported. quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 while im here, I just got my hands on the whole article that the BLOGGER is referencing and will be reading it later, and no doubt finding it rife with disqualifying attributes. the question then comrades will be, do you believe in good science? or just anything that confirms your ill-conceived notions? I suppose global warming isn't real, the world is 6000 years old, and homosexuality is a choice as well. When most (not all, but certainly the majority) of modern conservatives try to use science I tend to become quite ambivalent towards actually getting involved, because they don't seem to understand it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625