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


Kirata -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 7:41:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek

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.

The question isn't whether it's real, the question is whether it's a potential disaster or beneficial, which depends on how much and how fast.

In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ~IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2

Nevertheless, it appears that 89% of Liberal Democrats are willing to tear the world apart over "predictions" that are impossible! Hello? Science anyone? For further information, see here.

[image]http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rv0vahopl0snxopncdjprw.png[/image]

On the age of the Earth, 41% of Democrats believe God created humans in their present from with the last 10,000 years, which is less that Republicans but not much to crow about.

[image]http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/krapogu7vkyiw8jwir3tsg.gif[/image]

And finally, on the subject of homosexuality, 38% of Democrats think homosexuality is a preference or linked to upbringing, including 20% of Liberal Democrats! But still, a clear advantage to the Democrats on that one.

[image]http://www.pewforum.org/files/2012/07/rp-gay-15.png[/image]

Have a nice day.

K.





mnottertail -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 7:55:31 AM)

and 99.9% of rightwing nutsuckers are willing to tear the world apart without a fucking thought. fucking science? anyone?

You wipe your ass when you take a shit, you don't say, well, I will just take a shit tomorrow and it will get dirty again.

You dirty the world, clean as you go.

No other consequence need be considered.









Staleek -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 8:02:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek

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.

The question isn't whether it's real, the question is whether it's a potential disaster or beneficial, which depends on how much and how fast.

In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ~IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2

Nevertheless, it appears that 89% of Liberal Democrats are willing to tear the world apart over "predictions" that are impossible! Hello? Science anyone? For further information, see here.



"Tear the world apart".

[image]http://www.lowbird.com/data/images/2015/11/up6yu.jpg[/image]

Right.




Kirata -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 8:04:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek

"Tear the world apart".

[image]http://www.lowbird.com/data/images/2015/11/up6yu.jpg[/image]

Right.

Cute cartoon, but I was talking about reality.

K.





Staleek -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 8:14:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek

"Tear the world apart".

[image]http://www.lowbird.com/data/images/2015/11/up6yu.jpg[/image]

Right.

Cute cartoon, but I was talking about reality.

K.




And this is why conservatives are considered less intelligent than others.

You've been completely conned into believing that environmental damage caused by humans is of no consequence, and that those who wish to prevent such damage are only doing it for, money, for some reason, when it is beyond obvious who is funding the anti-global warming nonsense and what their motivations are.

And how have they managed this?

"FREEDOM!"

That one word which makes the modern conservative reach for their flag and start griping about tyranny.

Of course this doesn't apply to all conservatives. As that noted intellectual and conservative, Mr Schwarzenegger recently said;

I'm going to give you a choice. There are two rooms in front of you. One has an electric car, the other has a gas powered car. You can pick any room you like, but you are going to sit in the room with the engine running for an entire hour, with the room sealed. Which room do you choose?

That's something that so simple even a conservative would understand it, but apply it to the planet as a whole (with powerplants, trucks, factories etc all standing in for the car) and you can see the logic. Well, some people can.




bounty44 -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 8:17:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek


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.


no, you posted opinions and interpretations from left wing websites that don't have their basis in the data. you'll note (but apparently not) I actually quoted the author of the very study in question more or less agreeing with me, not to mention proving information/asking rhetorical questions that a fair minded person would have recognized as essentially shooting holes in your "science", aka liberal narrative. if you cant see that, I suggest you have more problems than your liberalism.

fascinating you are doing the very same thing you accuse conservatives of.

ive posted before about the age of the earth. you seem to be operating under some delusion that the people who date the earth as being billions of years old is science and the others who date it as younger is what, "hokum?"

if you genuinely want to learn about the difference between the two, read here:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/does-radiometric-dating-prove-the-earth-is-old/

and/or here:

http://www.oldearth.org/dating.htm

in terms of homosexuality, right, find me a gay gene and i'll concede you that point. in the meantime, studies of identical twins separated at birth don't confirm your position.

that enough "science" for you?




Kirata -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 8:22:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

in terms of homosexuality, right, find me a gay gene and i'll concede you that point...

A "gay gene" isn't required...

the researchers discovered sex-specific epi-marks which, unlike most genetic switches, get passed down from father to daughter or mother to son. Most epi-marks don't normally pass between generations and are essentially "erased." Rice and Friberg say this explains why homosexuality appears to run in families, yet has no real genetic underpinning. ~Source

K.




bounty44 -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 8:26:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and 99.9% of rightwing nutsuckers are willing to tear the world apart without a fucking thought. fucking science? anyone?

You wipe your ass when you take a shit, you don't say, well, I will just take a shit tomorrow and it will get dirty again.

You dirty the world, clean as you go.

No other consequence need be considered.



nice bit of hyperbole that really doesn't have anything to do with the global warming/climate change debate.

I might just as well ask why you don't advocate wearing a respirator that scrubs the CO2 you exhale before releasing it into the atmosphere. gee that makes sense too doesn't it but its more or less besides that point.

besides that, one would think after the absolutely utter tripe you posted to start this thread, youd be ashamed to show yourself, not to mention apologize and admit to standing corrected.

but by all means, continue to double down and look even more hysterical, desperate and foolish...




mnottertail -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 8:26:40 AM)

epigenetics is cool stuff though. how do it know? how it ain't even there though?




bounty44 -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 8:33:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

in terms of homosexuality, right, find me a gay gene and i'll concede you that point...

A "gay gene" isn't required...

the researchers discovered sex-specific epi-marks which, unlike most genetic switches, get passed down from father to daughter or mother to son. Most epi-marks don't normally pass between generations and are essentially "erased." Rice and Friberg say this explains why homosexuality appears to run in families, yet has no real genetic underpinning. ~Source

K.



be happy then to back off on the gay gene requirement...still somehow what you wrote needs to mingle or be understood in light of the identical twins information as well as other common socialization aspects of homosexuality.

I don't have a dog in the fight really other than to say this, which I think was my point: that its possible for well educated, fair minded, and hard working people to approach complex topics and come to different conclusions based on the information in front of them.

and that especially as our worldviews help to inform how we think/what we believe. I know you know this so im just speaking generally here---that doesn't make one side any more or less "scientific" (as if that were the final word on anything anyways).

one kinda gets tired of hearing nonsense like "conservatives are 'anti-science'"






Kirata -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 8:39:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek

"Tear the world apart".

[image]http://www.lowbird.com/data/images/2015/11/up6yu.jpg[/image]

Right.

Cute cartoon, but I was talking about reality.
You've been completely conned into believing that environmental damage caused by humans is of no consequence, and that those who wish to prevent such damage are only doing it for, money, for some reason, when it is beyond obvious who is funding the anti-global warming nonsense and what their motivations are.

And how have they managed this?

"FREEDOM!"

That one word which makes the modern conservative reach for their flag and start griping about tyranny.

Of course this doesn't apply to all conservatives. As that noted intellectual and conservative, Mr Schwarzenegger recently said;

I'm going to give you a choice. There are two rooms in front of you. One has an electric car, the other has a gas powered car. You can pick any room you like, but you are going to sit in the room with the engine running for an entire hour, with the room sealed. Which room do you choose?

That's something that so simple even a conservative would understand it, but apply it to the planet as a whole (with powerplants, trucks, factories etc all standing in for the car) and you can see the logic. Well, some people can.

And what, precisely, does reducing carbon emissions have to do with preserving rain forests, cleaner water, cleaner air, or healthier children? If you want to talk about cleaning up pollution, I'll be right there with you. But CO2 isn't a pollutant. Increasing CO2 has been a boon for plant life, which includes not just rain forests but food production. Healthy children need food, yanno, and the world's population is growing.

[image]http://images.sciencedaily.com/2013/07/130708103521_1_540x360.jpg[/image]
Image source

Satellite data shows the per cent amount that foliage cover has changed around the world from 1982 to 2010.

A couple of degrees of warming in the bargain would be a bonanza, bringing longer growing seasons at all latitudes. As for sea levels, they've been rising slowly ever since the last Ice Age ended. With the removal of the weight of all that ice, the Northern continental plates started settling back long before the rise in CO2. UFO sightings correlate much better with global ocean temperature anomalies than human CO2 emissions.

[image]http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UFO-and-OHC-time-series.png[/image]
Image source

Keep being insulting. It shows your intelligence.

K.





Kirata -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 8:45:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and 99.9% of rightwing nutsuckers are willing to tear the world apart without a fucking thought.

It goes both ways on almost all counts, but exaggeration just make people look... yanno?

K.






bounty44 -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 8:56:08 AM)

or you can deal with a more sobering view of reality as opposed to liberal talking points (when have those ever really materialized?)

global impact of global warming policy

Global Warming Policies Hurt the Poor - NCPA

Here's How Global Warming Policies Harm The Poor








cloudboy -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 11:03:39 AM)


I would say CMMB posting supports the thesis.




mnottertail -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 11:06:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

or you can deal with a more sobering view of reality as opposed to liberal talking points (when have those ever really materialized?)

global impact of global warming policy

Global Warming Policies Hurt the Poor - NCPA

Here's How Global Warming Policies Harm The Poor






so, the nutsucker slobber blogs are a sobering view of reality? hardly. nothing in there but felch.




Lucylastic -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 11:38:42 AM)

Its a lot easier to give cites from nutsucker sites than it is to find the actual studies and do some ACTUAL research INTO the studies.




Kirata -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 11:48:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Its a lot easier to give cites from nutsucker sites than it is to find the actual studies and do some ACTUAL research INTO the studies.

Could be bias, but are the facts incorrect? [:)]

K.






Phydeaux -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 11:50:05 AM)

I'm on a phone, can't cut and paste at the moment.
But crop yields have increased 11% due to increased co2 according to 2 studies.




MariaB -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 11:55:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

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.


No of course I haven't but I will endeavour to try harder [;)]

quote:


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.


Do you really believe you are not lead by force? the government didn't need to remove arms to do that; in fact, the mere existence of such a large stock of arms in private hands inevitably creates more governmental repression.

quote:



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.



Sounds great; the trouble with that is, and this is according to the second amendment, no civilian has a right to form a militia. Forming your own (state) militia in America would be to breach your constitutional rights and therefore, you can not form your own armies to oppose your government; to do so would make you a terrorist. Could you rise up against your government as an individual? I'm meaning with a gun? What would happen if you turned up at the Whitehouse with a semi automatic and demanded to speak to Obama?

quote:


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.


I agree, it will happen because nothing goes on forever and that includes the United States of America. The difference between now and when the second amendment was written is, we now live (and I include Britain in this) under very corrupt governments. America is presently the most heavily armed country on the planet and it would only take 10 percent of its population to stand up and say, “you know what? we refuse to be governed by you any longer” and bingo, you’d have a peoples revolution. The trouble is, how the hell do you get ten percent of America to form a militia when your country already is the biggest surveillance state in the world? Have you ever considered that this push on mass surveillance grew from the fear of a peasants revolt?

quote:


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.


I believe America and Britain will become tyrannical and I don't think we will do a god darn thing because none of us will see it coming or want to believe its happening until its too late. This constant seeding of mistrust is the greatest weapon our governments have because creating fear and suspicion allows old laws to be broken and new laws to be passed and with every new law we, the peasants, are a little bit more repressed. Who needs guns when propaganda and fear can allow our governments to snoop on our privacy, take away more and more of our rights and even our dignity?

Both of us live under a phoney democracy and the right to carry arms is just an illusion of freedom.




MrRodgers -> RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? (1/5/2016 2:03:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

I believe America and Britain will become tyrannical and I don't think we will do a god darn thing because none of us will see it coming or want to believe its happening until its too late. This constant seeding of mistrust is the greatest weapon our governments have because creating fear and suspicion allows old laws to be broken and new laws to be passed and with every new law we, the peasants, are a little bit more repressed. Who needs guns when propaganda and fear can allow our governments to snoop on our privacy, take away more and more of our rights and even our dignity?

Both of us live under a phoney democracy and the right to carry arms is just an illusion of freedom.


America and to a large extent, Britain too, already live under a tyranny otherwise in effect, as a debt-driven, consumption based economy and requiring a competition among consumers to consume and labor, for the jobs to pay for it.

As I've written, changing presidents changes the direction of a country about as much as changing the hood ornament on a car changes its direction. Presidents kiss babies and shakes hands and otherwise do what they are told. (to stay alive)

People are scientifically driven to a very successful partisan wrangling over policies that are out of the control of the govt. OR they are lied to enough with the big lie, to go along complete with calling dissenters...traitors. That last has worked for every assumption of dictatorship throughout history.

Now if the American people really think that with their guns, they could successfully say, ward off, even defeat a US federal declaration of Marshall law, they are sorely mistaken. In fact, as exemplified during the Rodney King riots, the aftermath of Katrina and the Boston Marathon fiasco, govt. would rule the US population in quick order.

For example, almost all presidential candidates on the right are pushing for tax cuts. If accomplished and as usual, without widespread cut in spending, will expand govt. and consumer debt, even more. It is very possible that the world (et al) will stop lending Americans the money to satisfy all of the hands out. It is merely more of that partisan wrangling that will label just who those hands belong to.

As I've written. The US may have, may have about one more generation of this bullshit before [we] are cut off. (the Chinese make me laugh when they claim they will repossess America) Lenders to the US will either collect their debt or sell it. There are no other alternatives. When they sell it, they take a huge loss.

When we see that, it's time to worry. When one looks at starting with the last 35 years when the US was quite deliberately taken into a massive debt-driven expansion of consumerism and military-driven hegemony, it was the slow beginning of the end. This transformation is called the long game and it is going along just fine.

Oh, so the idea that racism, conservatism, and Low I.Q. or anything of the sort, going hand in hand with anything, is just another example of that partisan wrangling and serves as a vast cultural distraction. And it's working.




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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625